Talk:Echolalia

What if it's semivoluntary? What's the cause? lysdexia 21:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about echoing one's own words? What is that called? I used to do that as a child: I would quietly repeat a sentence I myself had just uttered, about 1 second later. I never knew why I did it, it was simply compelling. I stopped about when I was 13 or 14. Kasreyn

You might be thinking of palilalia. Matt Fitzpatrick 03:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People say that, if they listen carefully, they will hear me whisper, to myself, what I have spoken immediately earlier. One opinion regarding this singular subject stated that it was done for better memory, and had to do with my somewhat pronounced ability to discuss things logically. Ñ

Knowing your lines == genius intellect?

"Because it can involve the recitation of entire scripts, delayed echolalia is often thought to denote evidence of near-genius intellect."

Huh? Recitation of major portions of a feature film script isn't any harder than recitation of one's part when performing on stage. Heck, I used to be able to recite Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Memorizing your lines doesn't take a genius; it just takes dedication. Or is dedication itself considered a pathology? --Damian Yerrick 03:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the line itself is a bit superfluous, but being able to recite an entire script without conscious effort, after hearing it only once is quite a bit more difficult than memorizing a script through repeated viewings or rehearsals.

It is only difficult for people with regular brain function, because memorising things in this detail quitely rightly doesn't warrant permanent adaptation/specialisation, as it's benefits are outweighed by what is lost in the diversion of resources. For people with 'photographic' memory, it's no more a feat than urination. I would also suggest it doesn't fall under the category of genius. Genius implies a great breadth and depth of intellectual prowess in the general, or in the specific incredible manipulation of input and/or extraordinary creativity in output. Mere reproduction, no matter how flawless, does not express this. Newsmare 11:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duhh... what he said!! :P Well put. -Kasreyn

The researchers have determined...

"The researchers have determined..." Uhm, which researchers exactly? I suspect this may have been copied (and edited) from elsewhere where it referred to people mentioned earlier. Maybe it should just say "Researchers", but then the reader still doesn't know which researchers the article is referring too. This should be fixed. (See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) Retodon8 14:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mimicry or appropriation?

Does echolalia manifest itself as a parrot's mimic of the actual SOUND of the words in question or merely a recitation of the words themselves, in the speaker's own voice? Or both?24.165.210.213 07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tunes getting stuck in one's head

What's the difference between say, repeating a song that is stuck in one's head? For example, several times I've heard a song only once only to have to suddenly realise halfway in the day it was still playing, with a real urge to express it. Is the difference perhaps, is that I have the social control not to express the sentiment in public? John Riemann Soong 11:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it's not the same thing, but

The first thing I thought of when I read this article was the advice men often give to other men on how to pretend to be interested in a woman (so as to take advantage of her, y'know, men are dicks)... that being.. to just wait for her to stop talking and repeat the last thing she said.