John Nash?

I would hardly call John Nash a savant. He's a genius and he has a mental disorder, but he's not an autistic savant.

I agree with that - he had paranoid scizophrenia but he is not an "idiot" in the old terms. He does not fit the category. - Skysmith 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature=

Shouldn't this article be merged with idiot savant? --Wik 00:55, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

Nope. Ain't the exact Same thing...but a disaumbigation could be made at savant for'em both. And'uh...close the door before ya' go. It's freezin'..err...idiot's are one thing (No useful skills what-so-ever) but Autistics are another (Got practical/technical skills mostly) get it? 'Rat's my DEF, atleast!--OleMurder 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

This is called autistic savant now, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.30.210 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 January 2004 (UTC)

It is, I'm making the necessary redirects. Cecropia 01:47, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've moved and edited this page to reflect modern nomenclature. An idiot savant is not the same as a savant, as evidenced by the oxymoronic pairing of the term "idiot" with "savant". A savant is a person with a (usually) high and specialized intellect in a field or fields without regard to other capabilities.

The term "autistic savant" is now used partly to remove the pejorative sense of "idiot" but more in recognition that the disability is seen most often in diagnosed autism. Cecropia 02:09, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some say only about half the cases are assoc with autism. I'm with Jef Reinten (above). It seems ludicrous to refer to nonautistic people like Kim Peek as autistic savants. Seems to me a choice between "savant syndrome" or "savantism". Maybe "savant" but that does have the broader meaning. Nurg 05:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term autistic savant is misleading as it suggests that all of these people are autistic. In fact less than half of all savants are autistic. Most scientists working in this area now simply refer to these people as savants or as having savant syndrome. Refer to the further reading that I have added for more information, once I have collected more I will change the heading. Jef Reinten 06:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Considering that most people are familiar with the term "idiot savant" (i.e. 5.4 times more prevalant on Google), and more importantly, because the term "autistic savant" is highly misleading and equally offensive (or at least obstructive) to idiot savants who aren't autistic, I suggest we reconsider the title of this article instead of pandering to linguistic revisionism for more "PC" standards. Personally, my vote goes to "savant syndrome", which not only is most often used in medical terminology, but is only about half as prevalant as "autistic savant" on Google and might in fact outstrip it in layman use if it is properly acknowledged. This term is not only up to "modern nomenclature" standards, but is also far more accurate in describing the vast array of people who have the syndrome but aren't necessarily autistic. 66.229.227.145 22:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification for inclusion

I have noticed that some of the individuals listed in the article are either not autistic and/or not savants. I would appreciate it if others could browse the lists and apply their own knowledge and experience of those listed to confirm the validity of their inclusion, particularly in cases where they're on the autistic spectrum, but savantism is not present. The same applies to the film and literature section. It might also pay to include in this section of the talk page any related edits and the reasoning behind making them, to act as a reference point for potential editors that seek to (re)include these individuals in the future. Thanks. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 12:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where you include film and literature entries relating to autistic savantism, can you append details of why the entry is relevant to the main article instead of listing who wrote or starred in the thing? Those details can be gleaned from following the link, and do not actually add any value to this article. Example:

Mozart and the Whale starring Josh Hartnett and Radha Mitchell

is better listed as

Mozart and the Whale, a film about a taxi driver with a superhuman knack for numbers and his budding romance with a fellow Aspie

Thanks. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 15:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albino from The Technopriests

I'm personally unfamiliar with the character/comic and the 'Technopriests' article does not indicate autistic savantism in the character. I shall ask for clarfication on Talk:The Technopriests. I've tagged the entry as dubious, pending verification. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being There

Articles I've read on Being There do not indicate autistic savantism. I shall ask for clarfication on Talk:Being There. I've tagged the entry as dubious, pending verification. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed due to reply on Talk:Being There. Reinstate only if sources claiming savantism can be provided. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Crane

I'm removing Denny Crane from the list of fictional austistic savants. He's a great lawyer, surely, but his oddities no more fit the definition of autism than they do of mad cow disease. I'm likewise removing K-Pax and the sci-fi entries. Being a lightning calculator does not make one autistic; if the Mentats belong on this list, so does Mr. Spock. Also, the pre-cogs from Minority Report have psychic abilities, not special calculation or musical talents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabulous Creature (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Elling

I cannot find reference to autistic savantism in this film's Wikipedia article, nor in imdb's blurb. I shall ask for clarfication on Talk:Elling. I've tagged the entry as dubious, pending verification. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niccolo Paganini

I was surprised when I saw Niccolo Paganini on the list of famous autistic savants. I know that he was brilliant and highly skilled, but had no idea that he was retarded in other areas or autistic. The wiki for Paganini also has no mention of it. If the list is just people with inhuman high levels of skill, why not include the more famous Mozart, Bach, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.93.202.151 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Kim Peek

The Wikipedia article, as well as scanty but reliable sources on the internet, state that Peek is not autistic. I think it's of the utmost importance then, to dispel of this conception, if it is in fact false. After all, isn't veracity one of the things people rely on Wikipedia for? 66.229.227.145 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stroszek

Removed Strosze from References in Movie and literature. Stroszek is by no means an autistic savant, and the film does not touch the subject in any other way. Also, John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" is an extremely gifted schizophrenic. But is he an autistic savant? I dont think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.80.117.224 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Skysmith re-added Stroszek, but I too cannot find anything mentioning savantism in relation to this movie. Consider it removed again until a verifiable source is provided. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Trehin

Gilles Trehin seems to qualify to be on the list and has some fascinating abilities but attempts to add the entry have been speedily deleted. I'm not sure what people think but there is discussion on this over on the proposed entry's talk page if people are interested. (Emperor 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I wold agree but my original version was deleted some time ago. - Skysmith 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical savants

Who were some mathematical savants? I doubt their existence and I suspect that the author of these words was confused, thinking that an ability to calculate constitutes ingenuity in mathematics. Michael Hardy 01:54, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal. AllStarZ 20:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed nonsense to the effect that some of these people work in mathematics. Numerical calculation is not at all the same as mathematics. Lest anyone think I'm talking about sophisticated mathematics understood only by professionals, I hasten to add that I am not. Consider the Pythagorean theorem, a statement known to all 15-year-olds (Except, perhaps, in the USA and among some isolated xenophobic tribes of cannibals). If one discovers a new proof of that theorem, one has done a bit of elementary mathematics. If one relies on the theorem to know which numerical calculations need to be done to solve a problem, then the person to whom one entrusts the details of the calculation need not understand the mathematics. This is not to say that calculating prodigies do not understand any of the mathematics that justifies their calculations; rather, it means that the field in which they are prodigies is numerical calculation; they are not discovering any new mathematics. This error is another instance of the fact that most educated lay persons do not suspect that such a field as mathematics exists. For example, a professor of medicine once asked me whether graduate students in mathematics must discover new things in mathematics in order to earn a PhD. Of course, as in other fields, the answer is "yes", but this professor went on to say, "Isn't all of mathematics already known?" In fact, hundreds of scholarly journals are devoted primarily to the incessant publication of new discoveries in mathematics -- not something that those autistic savants do, contrary to the statement I've just corrected on this page. Notice the strange negative way in which the medical doctor phrased the question: instead of saying "Is everything already known?" she said "Isn't everything already known?" It seems as if people use that negative form only when their talking about an assumption they've made without thinking about it. I question any assertion that those autistic savants to who someone said may be working "in the field of mathematics" have made novel discoveries suitable for publication in the aforementioned journals. And no one replied here on this talk page, for months. That is why, being reminded on my own discussion page that I had written that query, I came back to this page today and altered it. Michael Hardy 22:38, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How well can they calculate?

I'm curious as to the extent at which an autistic savant with calculating skills can calculate -- both for an "average" savant with this skill (insofar as much as there can be such a thing as an average savant ;)) and for somebody who is particularly adept at calculation. For instance, in Rain Man, Raymond is shown calculating the square root of a randomly-chosen number (presumably with an irrational result; I haven't checked) accurately to a good number of decimal places. That seems outrageous to me, as if it were just fictional drama that couldn't really happen, but has it actually been done?--Furrykef 01:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't give you the kind of documentary evidence you're probably seeking (though I'm sure there's literature on the web) but there are stories of actual autistic savants who could calculate quite a few primes, or give a day of the week for any date in the past, correcting for leap years and the switch from the Gregorian calendar. Most of these stories deal with an area of specialization, as opposed to all-around calculating genius. I would not be at all surprised if a Rain Man could calculate square roots with precision. I can even envision how it could be done, though I certainly couldn't do it.

I should remark, though, that autistic savants are a tiny, tiny, fraction of the autistic community, but there are quite a few autistics who are able to impressively excell in various intellectual pursuits, especially when they are able to use visualization to understand the problem. Temple Grandin has become an expert in humane treatment of food animals by being able to visualize the animals' fears. This is qualitatively different from the more typical scientific method, which might make decisions based on strictly human testing and observation.--Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right, I understand all that, I'm just thinking the information would be good to have when somebody who knows or bothers to look it up comes along. Calculating primes or giving the day of the week for a date in the past is pretty darn impressive, but it doesn't seem to be something that the layman would relate to as easily -- primes don't mean much to most people and quickly calculating dates to that precision doesn't sound as impressive as it is. People can relate to a square root, though, because they know what it is and they know that doing one of a randomly-chosen number (with that precision) in your head is pretty impossible for the normal person no matter how smart they are. Of course this is only my opinion, but in any case I think it's good information to have here. :) - Furrykef 15:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well. Firstly as a computer programmer, I don't really see a distinction in required skill set between being able to verify a number is prime and take a square root. They both involve the same type of basic calculation skills. Furthermore, I think that you overestimate the difficulty of taking a square root. Prime factoring is actually a harder problem, quantatatively. If you have a good memory and you can subtract in your head pretty well, you can convert a number into binary or hex pretty quickly and then take its square root pretty fast too. Personally, I can't do it because I suck at mental arithmetic, but I don't at all doubt that someone who had significantly elevated abilities in numerical calculation would be able to. And indeed, its one of the challenges of the Mental calculation world cup. Of course, this article, and all those I've read, come rather short on actual timings for these feats. I wonder, do these people calculate significantly faster than someone would be able to on paper? Obviously, anyone who can factor a six-digit prime in a few minutes can... But taking a square root of a six-digit number would be child's play by comparison. - The Ostrich 23:24, 29 Apr 2006 (GMT)

How many are there?

With their highly noticible talents, I'm assuming someone has conducted research into how many idiot/autistic savants there are in at least one country (giving an average ratio), if there are any theories as to their sudden appearance, and (via scanning methods) how their brains operate so differently. This is all highly-relevant information that needs to be in this entry - I would research it myself but my only source is the internet, and I specialise in computing and internet phenomena. AKismet 02:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reccomend looking into the research of V.S. Ramachandran, and especially Darold Treffert. The latter researcher wrote a book [1] on savantism which is supposed to be excellent.68.166.144.210 07:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article has to be revised at the very least, the following: " Other autistic savant skills include:

   * precisely estimating distances by sight
   * calculating the day of the week for any given date over the span of tens of thousands of years
   * perfect perception of passing time without a clock

"This has to be extended and generalized, with the key point written down. the second is okay at best in an example: e.g. calculating the day....bla bla

regards and good luckSlicky 14:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure I understand how extending and generalising the list, not that it could be much more general, will make it any more NPOV. In fact, I'm not even sure why you think this doesn't conform to the neutral point of view policy. These are some of the abilities associated with some autistic savants. Yes, they can be performed to some degree by trained neurotypicals, but nowhere does the article claim exclusivity for savants. Sorry, I'm really grasping at straws here to understand the addition of {{POV}} tags. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ ► 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger's

People with Asperger's syndrome are recognized in studies to have average or above IQ - the concept of an "idiot" savant, a person with an extraordinary skill with otherwise subpar intellect, doesn't relate to this. Can anyone show me studies where Asperger's people have these abilities? (edit - SZadeh 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Naiv. Super.

I consider the protagonist of Naiv. Super, a book by Erlend Loe, to be autistic, mainly because of his extreme rationality and his high systemising abilities, as well as his interest in science and the way in which he relaxes by certain repetetive behaviour. JUST READ THE BOOK! Gerrit ^CUTEDH 10:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect idiot savant

autistic are not idiots.they are autistic how are idiots,but you can't tell the auther way around.This article should refer to savant syndrom or something.idiot savant are peopol with extraordinary skyls on one area,that contraste charply with ther very low IQ.

It's a historical reference. According to the sources, the *Autistic savants* (not all people w/ Autism are savants) typically have low I.Q.s with extraordinary skills in an area. So it's not exactly incorrect. Also, I changed the "not always associated with autism" because the description is, shock, autistic savant. SZadeh 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Rain Man?

In the page it says...

   * Peter Guthrie, autistic savant with calendar and sports trivia skills, behavioral basis for Dustin Hoffman's character in the film "Rain Man"

BUT in the page about Kim_Peek it says that HE is the basis for the rain man character. Can someone clear this up?