Talk:Savant syndrome

message: This is not a paper encyclopedia.  Unlike them, you do not have to redirect (especially when the terms aren't identical).--24.22.227.53 01:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: Aetoss, since you've deleted this text, can you please provide a source that explains the official diagnosis of Savant syndrome, for example, in ICD10 or DSM-IV ?  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognized diagnosis 

message: About.com is not a reliable source (anyone can write for them), and the source added here merely cites Treffert, so he should be cited directly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About.com 

message: This article is based on one source.  There are sections that have no sources.  We have an nameless editor who keeps deleting these tags.  I wish that s/he would explain why.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sprotected until issue resolved. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: The articles Autistic savant and Savant syndrome are on essentially the same subject. Formally, autistic savants are a subset but in practice the material on the latter is essentially the same as the material on the former. Let's merge the two articles. The more-general name Savant syndrome is the better one; Autistic savant can be a redirect to it. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Autistic savant into Savant syndrome 

message: A quick review. The subject is real (albeit not well studied) but the article clearly needs a lot of work. Savant syndrome #Further reading gives some sources, but others should be used as well. The latest version of Treffert's work is the Wisconsin Medical Society article, as far as I know; I don't see any reason to cite earlier stuff. There is a real need to cite non-Treffert stuff. All of the "Treffert said"s in the text should be removed; this should be an article about savantism, not about Treffert. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick review 

message: This is important because without it, everyone will think that all savants have the same level of skill.  The categories are:  Splinter, Talented, and Prodigious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.76.163 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There needs to be a mention of the different savant categories 

message: Who is Kim Peek?
Could this article benefit from a 'Uses in popular culture' section? There are a few savants in movies and books, for example, in Cube (film), Kazan is a savant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.134.188 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim Peek and use in popular culture? 

message: Treffert says the condition can be genetic, but can also be acquired, and coexists with other developmental disabilities "such as mental retardation or brain injury or disease that occurs before (pre-natal) during (peri-natal) or after birth (post-natal), or even later in childhood or adult life."
That just means savant syndrome can happen to everyone and any time ! else there is no meaning.
--Eurobas (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Acquired savant syndrome" (and even "savant syndrome") are not recognized psychological conditions. Much of the evidence comes from very unreliable, anecdotal stories which are then warped further by the media. Let99 (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  A syndrome is not a disorder. It is a specific group of symptoms. It is not a diagnosable condition. The term is used in the research literature. Savants are real, and there is quite a bit of biomedical research on them. The question is no longer whether they're a real phenomenon; it's figuring out how they do what they do. They're a tough group to study because there are so few of them. But yeah, the media does like to sell boxes of cereal and male enhancement products by sensationalizing them. But sometimes nutwads like Treffert decide to endorse the fringe stuff. MD's are not inherently scientists (not in the US anyway), and Treffert's comments on paranormal savants demonstrates that. Dcs002 (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treffert has the savant syndrome 

message: I watched a show today on a set of twins with this disorder called Flo & Kay: Twin Savants. I can't find any "official" article about it and I don't know enough about wikipedia to know if I can use a video as a reference.  Sean118 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly something worth adding 

message: I added them to the list of prodigious savants with a link to an article outlining the documentary TLC produced about them. Maybe someone can find a better secondary source? The documentary could be cited, I'm just having a hard time finding information on the documentary.
User:NotRegistered  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.220.161 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree about Flo & Kay 

message: I am removing him until sourced. Rich Farmbrough, 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Fowler 

message: Is there any difference between Asperger syndrome and Savant syndrome?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.165.113 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely. See the link Asperger syndrome . 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asperger Vs. Savant 

message: The article lists the characteristics of prodigious savants as having no irregular qualities other than their exceptional memories/brilliance in certain subjects, but then lists a whole bunch of people with clear and often severe disabilities. These people don't fit with the description of prodigious savants and are just savants. As such, they should be removed from the list.
Keepssouth (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodigious savants 

message: It says that "almost all" savants have IQ's above 40. While technically true, this does seem like a bit of an understatement. Don't most savants actually have IQ's in the 140 range, if not higher? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IQ's above 40? 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of   Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing 

message: What is a megasavant?  I think this needs better citation.  As far as I know this is not any sort of legitimate terminology.  What is it?  I have kept tabs on this article and as of 3 weeks ago according to this article, Kim Peek was not a megasavant.
3dec3 (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the word "megasavant" is not logic. It's a bad habit to use "mega" as a prefix for everything that is superb. Same with "kilo" and "giga". Wouldn't kilosavant, gigasavant or terrasavant sound stupid? Supersavant is a much more logic word. This is Wikipedia, use proper terms. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your feelings on the word, megasavant is the word used in the sources, so it is the one used in the article. Beach drifter (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megasavant? 

message: "This, however, varies between individuals, and an ASD savant who at a young age were to identify attributing peoples faces to their name as a very important skill to possess would[dubious – discuss] have exceptional[weasel words] skills in this area exceeding that of the ‘normal’ population."
There wouldn't happen to be any evidence for this would there...? Or is this article meant to be more an exercise in creative writing? Make it up as you go along? Anonywiki (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The following quote from the article seems like an exaggeration and it lacks any supporting references.
=== Prodigious Savants all share the same characteristics: ===
* Lack of short term memory.
* The presence of organic brain disease, brain trauma, or inherited genetic abnormalities.
* Extraordinary, 100% recall of anything they have ever seen, heard, smelled, felt or touched in extreme detail.
* The ability to reproduce anything they have ever heard, especially music with lyrics.
* A near total inability to learn symbolic language. For instance, another language, higher math or science. They don't lack interest, but the capacity for rote memorization and already know the answers to the bigger questions in science intuitively.
* The ability to identify, and, in most cases, fix, virtually any problem they encounter.
* Unusual empathy. Since savants see the world from a different perspective, they have extreme empathy towards all living things.
The above section was written by Nathan Solo (Solomianski), prodigious savant.  --Studio 126 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Smacks of personal anecdotal evidence to me, no offense. Do you have any attributable sources saying those are indeed universal attributes of prodigious savants, whatever the term means? Also, I'd like to add that in a wider context, i.e. in savantism as a whole, these characteristics are often not the case. Again, this hinges on the precise definition of prodigious savantism. Do you happen to have some source that might help define the term more concretely? 216.114.242.26 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, I just realized you said you were not the author. I apologize, but my questions still stand with regards to the author of said statement. Seeing as you're not him, I'll probably try finding him myself or something. Sorry again. 216.114.242.26 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: * Lack of short term memory.
* The presence of organic brain disease, brain trauma, or inherited genetic abnormalities.
* Extraordinary, 100% recall of anything they have ever seen, heard, smelled, felt or touched in extreme detail.
* The ability to reproduce anything they have ever heard, especially music with lyrics.
* A near total inability to learn symbolic language. For instance, another language, higher math or science. They don't lack interest, but the capacity for rote memorization and already know the answers to the bigger questions in science intuitively.
* The ability to identify, and, in most cases, fix, virtually any problem they encounter.
* Unusual empathy. Since savants see the world from a different perspective, they have extreme empathy towards all living things.
The above section was written by Nathan Solo (Solomianski), prodigious savant.  --Studio 126 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Smacks of personal anecdotal evidence to me, no offense. Do you have any attributable sources saying those are indeed universal attributes of prodigious savants, whatever the term means? Also, I'd like to add that in a wider context, i.e. in savantism as a whole, these characteristics are often not the case. Again, this hinges on the precise definition of prodigious savantism. Do you happen to have some source that might help define the term more concretely? 216.114.242.26 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, I just realized you said you were not the author. I apologize, but my questions still stand with regards to the author of said statement. Seeing as you're not him, I'll probably try finding him myself or something. Sorry again. 216.114.242.26 (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodigious Savants all share the same characteristics: 

message: Can we have that whole section completely removed? It sounds completely ludicrous. 62.56.53.148 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: There's no argument from me that he is regarded as an expert in his field, but there seems to be no indication of 'savantism' per se. This was added by an IP contributor on November 23rd. Should anyone with further experience in the field remove this, all the more power to you, but I don't want to overstep my bounds by potentially provoking an edit war, considering this article's tumultuous past. Thanks, 216.114.242.26 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckethead a savant? 

message: "According to Treffert, about half of all Hi Segun does ur chain hang low people with savant syndrome have autistic disorder"
Sorry, don't know how to fix it, just thought I'd let someone know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.125.136 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The text of the lead section strongly implies that all "developmental disorders" are due to "brain dysfunction", which is an unsupported physical/chemical explanation of all brain dysfunction, discounting all environmental factors.  It also says that "some savants have no apparent abnormalities" yet asserts that "This does not mean that these abilities weren't triggered by a brain dysfunction of some sort", which would be an apparent abnormality by definition.
I would suggest that the obvious fixes are replacing the phrase "developmental disorders" with "brain dysfunctions (often resulting in developmental disorders)" in the first paragraph, and changing "apparent abnormalities" with "apparent dysfunctions" and "brain dysfunction" with "brain abnormality" in the second. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead text has serious problems 

message: This page never mentions anything about who "Treffert" is or why we should take him as an expert. It just says "According to Treffert" several times. 67.177.156.44 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Darold A. Treffert, MD, of the Wisconsin Medical Society, an expert on Autism Spectrum Disorders.--Studio 126 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important question. His ideas have entered popular culture, but it's easy to see where some of his claims are clearly wrong. I've added an example quote to the Characteristics section as is, without comment. Let99 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I added that section back. The whole article is based on Treffert's claims, so all of his claims about what savantism is should be included. Edit: It's listed under controversies. If the world's two leading savant researchers make these claims about savantism, a term which they have defined, then we should include all of their opinions on the subject. Let99 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Treffert? 

message: The new definition of Savant syndrom says: "Savant syndrome is a condition in which a person with mental retardation exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field."
Now this is sourced, so I won't do anything with it right now, but I wonder if all savants really suffer from mental retardation. Does anybody have any other sources that either confirm or deny the mental retardation part? Lova Falk talk 09:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I now changed the definition. Treffert is a real expert source, whereas the previous source  that was used for the definition, "Psychology in Action" is not. When I was looking around for this savant syndrome - mental retardation connection, as I understand it, previously savant syndrome was called idiot savant, but since then there have been reports of individuals with autism who are considered savants despite average, or above average, intellectual functioning, for instance in Young, R., & Nettelbeck, T. (1995). The abilities of a musical savant and his family. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 229–245 and in Heavey, L., Pring, L., & Hermelin, B. (1999). A date to remember: The nature of memory in savant calendrical calculators. Psychological Medicine, 29, 145–160. So now the "mental retardation" part is out and "serious mental disabilities, including autistic disorder" is in. Lova Falk talk 09:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mental retardation shouldn't be removed from the definition. Individuals with autism can have savant skills and not be mentally retarded.  But someone with savant syndrome always has mental retardation. Including people with savant skills but aren't mentally retarded destroys the integrity of this article. Why should they be given the special title of having savant syndrome when they aren't? They can be described as gifted instead. Why are we following the media's misconceptions towards people with savant syndrome? In Rain Man, there was no confirmation that the character had mental retardation. It isn't fair to those who truly have savant syndrome. Mellywelly15 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not following media, I have no opinion on Rain man, I am following Treffert's article: "The savant syndrome: an extraordinary condition. A synopsis: past, present, future." On this site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528017 you can see the first line in this article: "persons with serious mental disabilities, including autistic disorder." If you have access to this article, you can read a section about people with savant syndrome previously diagnosed (by Down) with ‘developmental retardation’, but Treffert writes: "Today, that condition is known as autistic disorder". So, some people with savant syndrome suffer of autistic disorder, not mental retardation. Lova Falk talk 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  People with mental retardation can have autism.  I'm not denying that.  The definition that Treffert provided includes people with autism that may not necessarily have mental retardation and that's simply wrong. Mellywelly15 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that Treffert is wrong and you are right? Lova Falk talk 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not what I think.  It's about the source "Psychology in Action" that includes mental retardation. Mellywelly15 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Treffert source is much better than this general book in psychology. Lova Falk talk 07:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only people with mental retardation can exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field.  To say that people with "serious mental disabilities" or autistic disorder exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field is wrong since the source "Psychology in Action" doesn't say that. Clearly the two sources are talking about different things.  We can't use both of them if both say different things. I have removed people with autism who aren't mentally retarded from the list of notable savants. The source, Psychology in Action has to be used since it describes an accurate definition of savant syndrome.  If we used the Treffert source, we would have to include people who are gifted with autism spectrum disorders as savant syndrome. Couldn't we just talk about these people in the autism spectrum article? Why does it have to be cluttered with this article? Mellywelly15 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Maybe someone could discuss certain contributions that are attributed to savants.  Meaning, what impacts have savants had on society?  Has there ever been ground breaking discoveries due to a savant's skill?  References to well known savant's are mentioned, but I think if readers could see the impacts of this gift on this page with specific examples, they would be intrigued to learn more. Lmaas5 (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of the subset on: Society and Culture 

message: I hope someone will add the full articles into research into the calendar calculating twins and married couple, and Jason Padgett?Iamnofool6 (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: First, provide scientific evidence that Padgett is a savant. Let99 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody add new full articles regarding both of the calendar calculator twins, the other calendar calculators and Jason Padgett? 

message: Would anyone object to the addition of Jacob Barnett to the list of notable cases? (see his talk page.) Viewfinder (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacob Barnett 

message: Hi,
I removed the lists as it was becoming a magnet for original research.  When can have lists of concrete things (like "Cities in the Republic of Ireland", "Fellows of the National Academy of Sciences", "chemical elements".  Open-ended lists, especially those having a strong element of subjectivity, such as "the most important Fellows of the National Academy of Sciences", "cities with the best pubs in Ireland", "my favourite chemical elements" or "most prominent autistic savants" are never a good idea.  So it's been removed.
Thanks for your understanding. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary lists are NEVER a good idea 

message: Darold Treffert's claims that "10% of autistic savants may have ESP" among other obtuse statements should be removed from the "Characteristics" section. They essentially introduce the likelihood of psychic powers developing within each savant early in the article, and are not an appropriate subject while establishing the meaning of the term to readers and expanding upon its connotations. I would suggest moving these claims to a "Mysticism" or similar section, if not just deleting them, as they degrade the legitimacy of the article as a whole.ImpliedFibre (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESP and mysticism 

message: I wonder are any of the admins going to add the Jason Padgett article about his life and abilities, including documentaries about his life 
 and abilities? Just wondering when that will be?--Iamnofool6 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Padgett Article possible full life up to and after the incident. Worth adding? 

message: I think that this article would benefit from one or two examples of people with savant syndrome.  -KaJunl (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: There are two separate claims for the condition's occurrence, from two separate sources. Hyltenstam (2016) just claims that it is "one in a million of the total population" (unfortunately without a citation that I could see), which would suggest a figure in the thousands (7,500–8,000ish in theory, but certainly less than 50,000) for the world. The Treffert source, on the other hand, provides a figure of 0.5–10% of autistic people with the condition, with the first figure coming from Hermelin (2001) and the second from conventional understanding based on the Rimland (1978) survey; these numbers would provide a total population (using the Epidemiology of autism) of savants between 250,000 and 5 million. 
These figures do not seem to agree at all, so it might be necessary to either remove one of the citations or make clear that they are different estimates, and do not agree with each other. As it stands there is nothing which suggests to the reader that 'one in ten-to–two hundred of those with autism' is not equivalent to 'one in a million across the general population', though—unless I've made a terrible error somewhere—they are very clearly not. In contrast to this would be the Treffert claim of there being less than 100 living savants with extraordinary skills; this claim makes it clear that it refers to only a small subsection of those with the condition, so it does not contradict the other figures. --Generic Rice (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a contradiction. There is no exact cut offs or perfect diagnostic criteria for Savant syndrome. The cut offs for autism also vary widely and we have see a significant change in the frequency of diagnosis of autism over the last 20 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions? 

message: How can 1/million people have the Syndrom  and 1/10 to 1/200 autistic people have it as well, when autism is estimated to affect 1/100 people globally? Best case we would have 1/20000 cases globally. How do we reach the 1/million? Also we are 7 billion people, how can it be that we estimate 100 savants currently existing? DimitraK90 (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: Dr Temple Grandin.  Why is she included on the list? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:AD20:B600:FF9E:4E34 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Dr Grandin a savant? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Lopezm8 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Media Culture -BN

message: I know people have talked about this earlier but are we sure the "1 in a million" section of this page is accurate? Even if it was accurate it still conflicts with the "1 in 10 autistic people have savant abilities" part of the page. It's this and the fact that the definitions for "savant syndrome" and autism is constantly changing so neither of these might be good estimations Chipsahoy95 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency