Talk:Daniel Tammet/Archive 1

Archive 1

comment

Removed "and enjoys nothing more than driving a good tee shot or sinking a long putt." That seemed less encylopedic and more colloquial than necessary. Istvan 02:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

             I agree --ThisDude415

I have a stupid question (I don't even know where the right place is to make this question!). I want to translate this article into Vietnamese. What is the easiest and/or convenient way to do that? I want to keep the format of the article as in the English page and don't want to go to vi.wikipedia.org to do it from scratch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieppu (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone verify quote from book about Tammet's memory ability?

Quote from the article: "In this book Tammet claims to remember everything from the point of conception in the womb to present 'as lucidly as yesterday'."

Does anyone know upon which page of the book "Born on a blue day" this claim is written? This is an extraordinary claim to make, and I'm sure many scientists would claim it is highly unlikely that anyone has a memory like this, even a savant. I've read some of the book but have not come across such a claim. If Tammet does have an extraordinary autobiographical memory he could be a case of "Hyperthymestic syndrome", a condition which appears to be linked with autism and savantism (or may be just a variant of savantism).

I emailed Daniel Tammet and he replied "No, it is completely untrue - nowhere have I ever stated this." Until we get a more specific reference, I will remove the statement. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gay?

Most of the comments in this section are absolutely absurd and offensive. Hasn't anyone bothered to read his autobiography before posting comments about Mr Tammet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.39.207 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed he's on a list of gay/bisexual people, but his sexual orientation was not mentioned in the article. I plan to remove him unless someone can verify this. --jp3z 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, according to the first external link which says:

"He met the great love of his life, a software engineer called Neil, online. It began, as these things do, with emailed pictures, but ended up with a face-to-face meeting. "Because I can't drive, Neil offered to pick me up at my parents' house, and drive me back to his house in Kent. He was silent all the way back."

Apparently he is homosexual. Should we add that? 67.84.82.127 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very intriguing that he is also gay! 75.24.193.39 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Since people who are autistic savants are almost always asexual is it not odd that Tammet is a homosexual. --NikolaiLobachevsky 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

unless you are a doctor or otherwise an expert on the subject of asbergers, i'd characterize that statement as a load of crap....--emerson7 | Talk 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If they are almost always asexual, it is odd that he is not asexual, namely homosexual.--Urod 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a load of crap. Studies have shown that autistic usually do not respond very much to emotion and usually are asexual. --NikolaiLobachevsky 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Crap. Both studies, and anecdotal evidence within the LGBT and Science Fiction Fandom communities, reveal a wide, Kinseyian range of intimate behavior amongst persons with AS. There have been recent articles in magazines discussing Tammet's relationship with his partner, as well as persons who are thought to have AS. I'll get some more cites in the next few days. Bearian 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the cite (The Advocate) and minor edits now. BYW, yes, some autistic persons may be asexual, but so are some "normal" people. Bearian 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all "autisitic" "savants" describe themselves as Homosexual and have male sexual partners. To say that they are generally unresponsive to emotion is a fallacy because unproven.

Wickers Poet (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you prove that? I've heard that most of them are heterosexuals because there's no relation between sexuality and autism. e.g. savants Jerry Newport, known for his calculating skills, is married (his wife Mary is also autistic), Gilles Tréhin french artist ditto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomazooma (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tammet remained completely heterosexual until 1997 when he chanced upon the idea of epileptic seizures, savant syndrome, homosexuality - ditto! SEMTEX85 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Source? He was like 14yo at the time, do you think that a epileptic autistic would have much sexual experiences at that age?

Human mind likes to make associations, this is good, because it allows to develope logic connections, this also the basis for racism and prejudice in general, if you see a person with a particular trait making something, you might associate "trait makes person do something", even if the trait has nothing to do.--189.89.238.194 (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Surname

The article states that he chose Tammet as his surname. If you know the original, please include it. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 13:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe his original surname is "Paul", but I could be mistaken. ~ Oni Lukos _ct 14:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

paul what? i'll be the first to voice an interest in the training/upbringing & family line of this savant.

His original name is Daniel Corney. In 2000 he competed in the World Memory Championships in London and finished in 4th place: http://www.msoworld.com/brain/mental/_mso4memorypopup.html Curiously he won the names and faces event, yet in the 60 minutes documentary he tells the interviewer that he will not remember their face after the interview.

The article doesn't mention anymore, that he "chose" his new surname, why is that? It's pretty confusing that the article mentions his "real" name but doesn't say anything where the "new" name comes from. 95.222.140.174 (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The msoworld link does not count as a published source according to Wikipedia's rules. Unless someone can come up with a published source from Tammet's writings or media interviews we need to stick with the verified information available to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"He was born on January 31 1979. He smiles as he points out that 31, 19, 79 and 1979 are all prime numbers - it's a kind of sign. He was actually born with another surname, which he prefers to keep private, but decided to change it by deed poll. It didn't fit with the way he saw himself. "I first saw 'Tammet' online. It means oak tree in Estonian, and I liked that association. Besides, I've always had a love of Estonian. Such a vowel rich language."

Richard Johnson The Guardian Saturday February 12, 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.16.235 (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article does not mention his birth name. You still haven't provided a published source for the birth name you claim. Please remember that speculation and original research are not allowed according to Wikipedia's rules. I have now included the name change information in the 'early years' section of the article. 86.193.84.62 (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In 2000 he competed in the World Memory Championships in London. He is listed as Daniel Corney, and finished in 4th place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.180.155 (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia's rules. Please do not repost speculation without published sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons Page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] As of January 2010, a push to source all material about living persons is under way. A discussion of how to accomplish this is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to information about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that it complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."

The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In 2000 he competed in the World Memory Championships in London. He is listed as Daniel Corney, and finished in 4th place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.180.155 (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.180.155 (talk)

This is confirmed in the book Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foer. The official scores are here: http://web.aanet.com.au/memorysports/competitor.php?id=84 Let99 (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

His passport shown in the TV Documentary also has his name as Daniel Corney. SEMTEX85 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Autistic?

It says he is but that it doesn't affect social interaction, yet the article on autism says that part of the definition of autism is that it affects social interaction Mernst 01:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, he got lucky. Autism doesn't exactly hit the same way in everyone, and he was lucky enough not to be affected socially. ~ Oni Lukos _ct 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Has he been clinically diagnosed with autism? Obviously he is brilliant, but where is the evidence he is autistic. Is this merely speculative because he has abilities attributed to people who are otherwise handicapped? I can't find anywhere outside of wikipedia that claims he is autistic.

Autistic people don't like to interact, they can't live alone, they ussually can't compute if lets say some item, candy, a meal is expensive or not. They can 't ussualy estimate if they buy something, there will be change left over. They go berserk when things are not the way they are or changed a little. Is he like that?--Jondel 00:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

JOndel, that is very narrow minded and simply quite wrong... it sounds like you got most of your information from rain man... these behaviours you have mentioned can be true in some autistics, but it is important to keep a very open definition when speaking of autistics in general... there is a HUGE diversity.

Not at all. According to the Science Channel special, he exhibited autistic behaviour as a small child but eventually outgrew it. He still gets a little uneasy in certain situations, such as strolls through big cities (the skyscrapers cause his mind to project a lot of 9's, which he says "can be intimidating"). Prior to learning about this remarkable man, I didn't know that autism could be outgrown.

People with handicaps learn how to MANAGE their problems, which may look like they have outgrown them, but they are still there. Deaf people learn to lip read. If they become good at it, it still does not mean they can hear! There's no luck in it - just real hard work. I should know, I have my own handicap and it is hard work every day, but it will never stop me trying to do what I want to!! Geoff2DoThat 10:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

..and they always seem to be rather self-absorbed.209.131.62.113 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well then, by definition, he now has Asperger Syndrome, not Autism, right? --Farry 19:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's is definitely on the Autism spectrum... ~ Oni Lukos _ct 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's isn't considered to be a form of high-functioning autism anymore. Asperger's affects the left brain, while autism affects the right (or vice versa, I don't remember). Autism also affects the amygdala, while Asperger's doesn't. Compare Rainman and Forrest Gump: Forrest Gump's IQ was 75, yet he was able to attend mainstream school, graduate University of Alabama, join the US Army, interact with people, start and run his own business, get married, and have a child. That's high-functioning. Now with Rainman, he had to be institutionalized because he couldn't take care of himself. He couldn't even go out in the rain. That's low-functioning. High-functioning has to do with one's functioning ability, not one's intellectual ability. ForestAngel (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

uh, I apologize if anyone was slighted or offended. Well, how would autism be defined? Concerning Daniel Tammet himself , the truth is I have great admiration for him and his language and other mental skills.--Jondel 20:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• On 60 Minutes they said it was it Asperger's Syndrome. -LtNOWIS 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

How could we be asking whether or not he is autistic, of course he is. All idiot savants are autistic, although not all autistic people are idiot savants. It is not possible to have as great brain power as he has and not have some serious disabilities. NikolaiLobachevsky 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim Peek, the inspiration for Rainman, doesn't have autism.

He taught himself how to interact. He said in the 60 minutes interview that as a child he was very autistic but learned how function "normally" because he had a big family and felt forced to "learn" how to interact and socialize and so on. He still displays certain elements of autisms such as compulsivity, slight agoraphobia or social disorder and certain brain deficiencies. As he mentioned he can only remember details but cannot remember the whole. This is truly a astonishing individual not only for talents but because he can describe basically "how autism works". Instead of running tests he can straight out tell us what his cognitive deficits and abilities are.24.203.165.168 21:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to say his mental condition. Obviously, he has a great deal of mathematical skill, but from interviews and such, it is clear that he does not show autistic symptoms, or at least he shows very little. Wikipedians who edit this article need to make sure that he is diagnosed autistic, not just assume that he is. I realize that the 60 minutes interview provides a great deal of information, however, we need more than just that source. We need to be sure of our facts when writing any article, especially one about a living person. Thunderlord 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See People speculated to have been autistic. Bearian 22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning whether or not Daniel Tammett is autistic (or more strictly, on the autistic spectrum) none other than Simon Baron-Cohen one of the world leaders on austism spectrum disorders (ASD) has interviewed and tested Daniel, and agrees that he shows the major features of the ASD. Daniel discusses this in his autobiography, which, please note is subtitled "Inside the Extraordinary Mind of an Autistic Savant". That is, Daniel self-identifies as someone with ASD. Finally, when I was doing my PhD with V.S. Ramachandran I met Daniel, and noted that he showed many of the features of high functioning ASD. Although my own anecdotal evidence is not citable, the "Brainman" (a slightly edited version of which appears as "The Boy with the Incredible Brain in" the U.S.) documentary, and the follow-up with Morley Safer are. I don't think there's any doubt that Daniel is "on the spectrum" but he is clearly high-functioning. Edhubbard 08:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the whole idea of Asperger's Syndrome and Savant Syndrome. Almost all good creative artists worth their salt, poets and musicians have lives as socially abnormal outsiders, often leading unreal childhoods doing unusual things and playing unconventional games.

Artists/"geniuses" both externally and internally actively 'alienate themselves from the collective' in order to a have a Hawk's Eye perspective of the world.

Wickers Poet (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In Tammet's autobiography he says he was diagnosed with AS at the ARC in Cambridge. A documentary shows Tammet being given a clinical interview by Prof. S. Baron-Cohen of the ARC, a world authority on autism. I'm sure Tammet's mother was also shown at that interview, which strongly suggests that she was asked about what Tammet was like as a young child for the diagnosis. Baron-Cohen wrote a foreword to Tammet's autobiography, so if the claim about being diagnosed with AS was false, presumably the professor wouldn't have written this piece. Another foreword by international expert on savantism, Dr Darold Treffert, confirms Tammet's diagnosis of AS/HFA. How much more evidence could anyone want to show that this person is autistic? It's a fact, accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.39.207 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was not to deny that Tammet has autism at all but that it makes him unique in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEMTEX85 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• laugh* Try looking at it from the opposite direction. If his diagnosers had known first how he perceived numbers for as long as he can remember (and it does not match conventional synaesthesia either), for example how he perceived the skyscrapers of NYC as looming "9's" -- and then took into account the incapacitating schizophrenia suffered by his father: tell me which diagnosis they would come up with? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.209 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate

Regarding WP:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays .. Tammet is a public and famous person, he has had film documentaries and has published his personal memoirs... His birthday is even included in the Guardian article which has already been linked as a source in the article. He is using fame and notoriety for personal gain and benefit, he has purposefully disclosed personal information to the public in his memoirs. -- Stbalbach 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

i'm in partial agreement with your position. somewhere i saw an image of his passporte in an article also. i'm not all that convinced about his privacy being violated. --emerson7 | Talk 17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, i found it. it's in the five-tv piece at 1 min 22 seconds into to video, showing his passporte and date of birth. whatever privacy he once may have had was surrendered with that shot. --emerson7 | Talk 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic language

The two citations to support Icelandic's status as one of the world's most difficult languages to learn are to a survey without any data and a typo-riddled forum page. Surely this is unacceptable? Goodnewsfortheinsane 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jirojuki Goto

Does anyone know anything about Jirojuki Goto, the man described in the article on the University of Oxford website as the world record holder for reciting Pi to 42,195?

There is nothing on Wikipedia and a quick Google search doesn't reveal much. Anotheruserhere (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No wonder since his name is Hiroyuki Goto. --ざくら木 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Mänti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The content of Mänti has now been merged into Daniel Tammet.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  15:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I propose a merge of Mänti with the Daniel Tammet article for the following reasons. (1) There is not enough information available on the language for it to ever be more than a stub. (2) Persumably no one but Tammet knows or uses the language. (3) The Tammet article is not so long that this information needs to be broken out to a separate article. Please state your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with me below.  LinguistAtLarge  16:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom Λύκος 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support since neither topic is remotely notable enough on each's own merits.--KJRehberg (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Boy With The Incredible Brain -- Critiqued

Should the claims by the author of this blog be somehow included in this article? http://infopractical.livejournal.com/77298.html Namely, that Tammet is largely a showman who is not gifted more than other memory and calculation "hobbyists". The blog entry seems to present an extensive critique of Tammet's abilities as presented in The Boy With The Incredible Brain. Askedradio8 (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like it would fall under Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). Haukur (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If I find a reference that looks appropriate, I'll post it. Askedradio8 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Major Article Clean-Up/Edits

This article needed major clean-up and editing of all poorly-sourced claims. There was almost no information on Tammet's two published works (there really ought to be a separate article for 'Blue Day'). I don't know how to add links to the article so will post a couple important ones here:

http://www.booklistonline.com/default.aspx?page=show_product&pid=1850180

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3341454/A-life-that-is-beginning-to-add-up.html

The Kirkus and Publisher Weekly reviews are easily found online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.253.214 (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sections can be tagged asking for better/more sources, rather than removing information and the sources themselves.Utopial (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Languages (Estonian)

Tammet states in 'Born On a Blue Day' that he speaks 10 languages. Some websites have claimed more, but I haven't seen any published sources to back that up.

Estonian (added on several occasions to this article) does not figure in the list of 10 in 'Blue Day'. In a 2005 Guardian article Tammet states his admiration for Estonian but doesn't claim to speak it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit please...

{{editprotected}} could I get the article revert to the other version as this version includes the uncited claim, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC) User:Freshacconci 's recent version is the correct one. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the source, I agree that this claim is not supported so I have removed it. When we have a reliable source for this, it can go back in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Subject changed his name, an IP has been entering a name from this list but there is nothing to support that this name is actually the subject. So the name is still in the article stating that it was his birth name but there is no citation currently in the article that supports this claim, its synth and OR and should be removed until it is cited correctly, if is is even corrct as I have no idea. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pi section

I removed the recent edits giving additional information on the European Pi memory record held by Tammet. Such details belong instead to Wikipedia's in-depth article on memorizing Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piphilology) A link to that page from the Pi section is a good idea and sufficient.

This article already bloats with unnecessary and unencyclopedic info (ie, the 'careers' section) and lacks meat on far more relevant themes such as neuroscientists' research with Tammet, Tammet's own theories on the mind (which he discusses at length in his second book and which are discussed in numerous press articles including: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/a-savvy-savant-finds-his-voice/story-e6frg6to-1111118714550) and his two books.

86.193.83.15 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more or less ok, remember we are not writing for intelectuals but for the general public, I for example quite like the career section and find it informative and interesting. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

France's bestselling authors of 2009

Tammet's second book 'Embracing the Wide Sky' (Embrasser le Ciel Immense) was just named one of the country's bestselling books of 2009 by the Express magazine. Here is the link, plus photo: http://www.lexpress.fr/culture/livre/les-best-sellers-de-l-annee-2009-reunis-au-fouquet-s_857556.html

86.193.209.232 (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What does he see in Pi?

So I read that he finds the number pi beautiful. In the documentary ("The boy with the incredible brain"), it seemed as though he does not only find this irrational number beautiful but rather its decimal digits. I'm curious: Is this because he "senses" from the digits that this number has all those mathematical properties that define pi? So if those are not arbitrary digits to him, did he actually learn the digits one by one or did he rather derive them as he was reciting them?

I am not sure whether this information belongs in the article, but anyway I'm curious. Maybe someone knows the answer. However I bet you read your own Wikipedia article so maybe you can answer yourself ;) --Betterworld (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed claims

After reading Joshua Foer's interviews with this guy he sounds like a fraud. "a British writer with high-functioning autism and savant syndrome"? To me it seems more as if he:

• Learned mnemonic skills and calculation skills (he's not even close to being best at that?)
• Tried to apply his skills in the World Memory Championships in London and ranked only 4th (no fame in that)
• Starts making claims about synesthesia and seeing colors instead of numbers

I [Joshua] read back to him [Tammet] the descriptions he'd given me of 9,412 the last two times I'd seen him. They could hardly have been more different. I told him my theory, which I realized would be very difficult to prove: that he was using the same basic techniques as other mental athletes, and that he invented these far-out synesthetic descriptions of numbers to mask the fact that he had memorized a simple image to associate with each of the two-digit combinations from 00 to 99--one of the most basic techniques in the mnemonist's tool kit.

Lied about being bad with remembering faces (in the interview with 60 Minutes he claims to not even recognize his close friends)

• Instant fame, profit!
• Other recognized and world champion mental athletes, such as Dominic O'Brien, suspects he's a fraud

This is from his own website from 2001:

• "My own interest in memory and conversely Memory sport was sparked by my casual acquaintance with a children’s book on broad memory concepts for better exam performance at the age of 15. The following year I passed my GCSEs with some of the year’s best results and subsequently performed well at A-level, mastering French and German along the way with the help of these tried-and-tested techniques."
• "Thereafter, my obsession with the sport grew, and following months of strenuous training and hard work I climbed into the World’s Top-5 rated Memory sportsmen."

Andreas Brekken (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andreas,

I have not read Joshua Foer's book, but in an otherwise very positive review of it for the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/books/review/book-review-moonwalking-with-einstein-by-joshua-foer.html) the author Alexandra Horowitz (a professor of psychology) calls Foer's critique of Tammet a "misstep," stating:

"Foer inexplicably devotes space to attempting to convince the reader that Daniel Tammet, a renowned savant who memorized 22,514 digits of pi, may not actually be doing it naturally, but only by using the same kind of mnemonic aids used by Foer and his fellow competitors (would it matter?)."

As I stated in the view history page, a discussion of Tammet's techniques for his Pi recitation isn't really germane and falls outside the scope of a Wikipedia article. Oughtprice99 (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't fall outside the scope of the article. You keep deleting well-referenced material.

Tammet had spent years training himself in tried-and-tested techniques for memorizing numbers, at one time ranking fourth best memorizer in the world:[1][2]

My own interest in memory and conversely Memory sport was sparked by my casual acquaintance with a children’s book on broad memory concepts for better exam performance at the age of 15. The following year I passed my GCSEs with some of the year’s best results and subsequently performed well at A-level, mastering French and German along the way with the help of these tried-and-tested techniques. Following teaching stints in Scandinavia and as a volunteer lecturer of English in Eastern Europe, I competed for the first time at the World Memory Championships in London in 1999, managing 12th place overall. Thereafter, my obsession with the sport grew, and following months of strenuous training and hard work I climbed into the World’s Top-5 rated Memory sportsmen. My performance at the 2000 World Memory Championships earned me a discipline gold medal and two more event medals, the highlight of one performance being where I bested the World Champion’s time by a fraction of a second, with the successful memorisation and subsequent perfect recall of an entire shuffled deck of cards in a time of 1 minute 11.69 seconds. In another round, I achieved a new personal best memorising 1,460 digits backwards and forwards in 1 hour, one of the largest amounts of digits ever memorised within that time frame in the Championship’s history.

Bill121212 (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill121212,

I've removed once again your insert which you put back in without discussion. Off2riorob has already warned you of the need to discuss potentially contentious edits on the talk page.

Please refer to the Wikipedia verifiability page here: Verifiability as my comments draw from it.

According to the 'No Original Research' Rule, edits should be based on "reliable secondary sources". The rules regarding biographies of living persons ([[Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources)|]] clarify further that edits should be made using primary-source material only where it has been: "discussed by a reliable secondary source". This is not the case for your claim.

The edit you have repeatedly added is contentious and poorly sourced. I have removed the edit so that the article complies with Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia's verifiability page further states that 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources'. See also: Fringe_theories It is important to note that your claim is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" - the vast majority of scientists (including all who have studied Tammet themselves) and journalists reporting their findings confirm his synesthesia and its role in his savant abilities.

The only third-party source that cites the claim you make has itself been criticised by a Professor of Psychology in a review published by the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/books/review/book-review-moonwalking-with-einstein-by-joshua-foer.html

In short, the overwhelming scientific consensus (as reflected in all published and peer-reviewed scientific papers, and the hundreds of third-party published media articles on him) is that Tammet's savant abilities are the result of his synesthetic perception of numbers and language. Any further discussion regarding the precise nature of his talent, its historical background, and the role of any 'training' (what kind, how much, comparable to what), is - as I stated previously - not germane and outside the scope of the article.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the required secondary source. You said you haven't read Joshua Foer's book, so you should read that before editing the article again. It provides answers to your comments above. The book confirms that danieltammet.com was Daniel's. If you want to dispute it, let's pull up the WHOIS history and put the question to rest. Your opinion about the edits is in the minority. Bill121212 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill121212,

You have once again added a contentious and poorly-sourced claim without discussion, in spite of the warning from Off2riorob to contribute instead to the talk page.

You have not added any further source beside the one I have already highlighted as having been critiqued by an expert in the field of psychology in a review appearing in the New York Times The book's author advances what amounts to a tiny minority viewpoint on Tammet. Wikipedia articles are not appropriate places for the promotion of viewpoints when they do not represent a significant contribution to the understanding of the article's subject.

Please refer to: Fringe_theories It is important to note that your claim is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" - the vast majority of scientists (including all who have studied Tammet themselves) and journalists reporting their findings confirm his synesthesia and its role in his savant abilities.

As to your other comments, please be aware of the Wikipedia 'No Original Research' rule. Also, it is reasonable to doubt a text's authorship when the supposed author's name itself appears misspelled. The 'a' with two dots above it is *not* a style choice as you claim because - as the article already states - the name derives from the Finnish/Estonian word for 'oak tree' (Tamm). It would thus be equivalent to the difference between Mr. Oaks and Mr Oaeks. Note finally that Tammet's name has never appeared with dots in any of the hundreds of articles about him.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I did continue on the Talk page. I added the reference to Moonwalking with Einstein which you said you didn't read. Read the book, then come back to the talk page. It could have been a mistake by a non-native speaker or a style choice to make the name look exotic. Who else would register danieltammet.com as Tammet's official website with an accurate biography? There is more proof here[3] which is confirmed in the book. One possible explanation is that you are Daniel and don't want that information to appear on your Wikipedia page. I'm going to stop editing the page though. Bill121212 (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to support the opinion to at least add a paragraph on the claims. Joshua Foers book is ranked in the Top10 of the New York Times bestseller list and his proofs of the fact that Tammet is not a savant seem solid. Especially competitiors of the World Memory Championships, where Tammet competed under his surname Corney back in 2001, suppot Foer unimously. Sources for that are non scientific but substaintial. For example see the blog of the multiple times World Memory Champion Ben Pridmore at zoomy.blogspot.com. Also 8th World Memory Champion and memory author Dominic O Brien gave his supporting opinion. From the world of science there is the comment of the leading savant researcher Prof. Niels Birbaumer who also stated Tammet does not fullfil the criteria of being a savant, eventhough Birbaumer does not go on to claim he is a fraud. 145.253.118.83 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I came here after reading Foer's book on the Memory Championships. It is surprising that there is no mention of the controversy surrounding his memory skills -- specifically whether or not they are the result of intensive training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.60.219 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Foer - Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Tammet's Savant Abilities

The article is being regularly revised toward a tiny minority 'conspiracy theory' view of Tammet's abilities as it appears on a handful of blogs. Needless to say, a Wikipedia living biography page is not the appropriate place for such speculation.

Bill121212 has repeatedly attempted to insert information from a book by Joshua Foer, contrary to the warnings of Off2riorob. Not a single major published source besides Foer's own work supports his speculation. In the same book (I've finally read it), Tammet repeatedly denies the claims put to him by Foer. Finally, in the only major published source to pick up on Foer's claims - a review appearing in the New York Times - Foer's speculation is described as a 'misstep' by the psychologist-reviewer.

Bill121212 has also now decided to insert specific event results for Tammet's performance in the 'World Memory Championship'. Of the 18 results over 2 years, he only includes one of the 'names and faces' results. Why? Because the conspiracy theorists argue that Tammet lies when he says in interviews and his books that he has difficulty remembering the faces of people he meets. Such claims, or bad faith attempts to insinuate them, are - again, needless to say - totally inappropriate to a Wikipedia living biography page.

In the brand new 'scientific study' section, Enchanter quotes from a group study. I've revised his text with reservations. A group study does not have the same value as an individual study. The text does not make specific evaluations of subjects. Enchanter twice refers to the 'method of loci' which seems to be a further attempt at insinuating the 'conspiracy theory' view. In fact the paper is vague about the exact strategies used by the memorisers (I have quoted their exact words in my revision). They also state: "Nine out of the ten SMs (superior memorisers) used the mnemonic known as the 'method of loci' for some or all of the tasks". Impossible from this to say whether Tammet is the exception to the other memorisers, or not. http://www.uni.edu/gabriele/page4/files/maguire002820020029brains-behind-superior-memorizers.pdf

I also removed the contradicting sentence stating that Tammet was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome in 2006. The article already has a sourced sentence for diagnosis in 2004. Any other revisions were grammatical.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy view, and it isn't even necessarily true. It is a well-referenced source that should be included. You are the only one objecting to its inclusion. You have repeatedly deleted the cited sources that Foer mentions as evidence in his book. Tammet performed at the level of a "6-8 year old child" when recognizing faces in scientific tests, yet outperformed the world's best memorizers at recognizing faces in competition a few years earlier. The only conspiracy is that you keep deleting relevant facts from the page. Bill121212 (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why Foer's speculations are not sufficient for inclusion in the article, unless such claims are supported by other major published sources.

Bear in mind the seriousness of what is being alleged: That Tammet knowingly misled researchers on tests. In Foer's book, Tammet repeatedly denies any such behavior. It's an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence, which is perhaps why the only major published source that has picked up on Foer's claims has called them a 'misstep'.

It can be pointed out that the 'names and faces' competition is about linking photos of faces with corresponding names underneath'' with points awarded for the correctly recalled forename and surname. http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/memory.html#faces Whereas, Baron-Cohen's surprise recall task involved photos of faces alone. That's a big difference.

I'm now sending this dispute back to resolution.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Several people have already posted hard evidence from Tammet's own website and you have repeatedly deleted it. It isn't an extraordinary claim to mention that there is a public controversy. There is a lot of evidence that Tammet is a genuinely brilliant human being who mastered mnemonics to the highest levels and then claimed that his abilities were natural. Bill121212 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no public controversy - that's the whole point. Just a single book with speculations that no other major published source has chosen to reference, except one and then only to critique it as a 'misstep'. As such it is a tiny minority viewpoint according to Wikipedia's rules.

Wikipedia has strict rules regarding biographies of living persons. No original research or syntheses are permitted. A claim which is controversial, contentious, and which goes against all settled opinion on a subject would require extraordinary evidence in the form of multiple reliable major published sources.

No one is denying that Tammet is 'a genuinely brilliant human being'. The dispute arises from claims (implied or otherwise) that Tammet is a liar who has misled researchers and journalists. That is a very serious allegation, with potentially serious legal consequences.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To add my thoughts, there is an important balance to be struck here between two important issues:

• This is a biography of a living person, and as such, it needs to be written conservatively, and without contentious material about the subject unless it is very relevant, very well sourced, and very well attributed to those sources; and
• This is an article which deals with extraordinary scientific claims; that is, Tammet's abilities as described by him make him a unique, one of a kind case, with important scientific implications. It is important that Wikipedia does not endorse such claims without those viewpoints being very well sourced and very well attributed.

So we have a delicate balance to strike. We should not claim or insinuate that Tammet's claims are untrue and that he is a liar (unless such claims are extremely well sourced and attributed). Similarly, we should not claim or insinuate that his claims are all true, along with all their scientific implications (again, unless this is extremely well sourced and attributed to those sources). This is a difficult balance to get right.

A good place to look is the scientific studies, for example that by Baron-Cohen and others in 2006; this paper treads the fine line well and neither insinuates that he is a liar, nor insinuates that that he is telling the whole truth; instead, it reports neutrally on his claims and the scientific observations. We should strive for the same kind of balanced approach in the article.

Here are my thoughts on the specific points of contention at the point of the article being blocked:

• Original research from blogs and similar sources is clearly out of place here. I think it's borderline whether the claims in Joshua Foer's book deserve a mention; it is a reasonably well known book, and the claims appear to be backed up by primary sources (eg the internet archive), but there are no other good quality secondary sources making similar claims that I'm aware of. If these claims do get a mention, in my view they should have a low profile in the article, and be treated in a sensitive way.
• There's been some debate about whether or not the fact that he won the "names and faces" event at the world memory championships deserves a mention. I think there is a case for mentioning it; he won that event, and didn't win any of the others, so it's the obvious one to mention. However, it shouldn't be mentioned together with his poor performance in tests of memory for faces to insinuate that he is lying about his ability to remember faces. As OughtPrice observes, the conditions of the tests were very different and there are other possible explanations for the discrepancy; it's not our place to speculate.

Enchanter (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Enchanter,

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

You state that Tammet's claims are extraordinary and one-of-a-kind. You should be aware that Tammet himself makes a distinction between his own and the scientific reporting of his savant abilities, and the reported claims which have appeared in the press and on TV and the Net. Tammet's second book 'Embracing the Wide Sky' devotes many pages to refuting the idea that his case is as unique as sometimes portrayed. While his synesthesia is clearly highly elaborated, it is not as rare a phenomenon as many people think. The same goes for Asperger's syndrome. I suspect that if some of the conspiracy theorists actually read Tammet's own words, rather than relying on media reports concerning him, they might be surprised.

I do not see any reason to specifically include Tammet's scores from past competition performances (his overall standings should suffice). The same for the various results from all the scientific studies on his abilities. The article would not benefit, in my view, from that kind of detail.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That there's even a controversy over including this material shows what a colossal joke Wikipedia will always be as long as it's ruled by petty martinets who just love the power of the delete button. The article makes claims (eg, "unusually vivid and complex synesthesia") that, at best, would raise an eyebrow in all but the most slavish of believers. Someone - a respected journalist and writer - has first-hand evidence to cast doubt (not necessarily dispute) the claims. And yet, not even a "Doubt of claims" section at the end? Nothing? We all must read only the Tammet-approved bio, with nothing about his various aliases or facts that detail his use of mnemonic aids (throwing new light, surely, on his outlandish synesthsia claims)? So, truth doesn't matter, as long as a Wiki editor gets to wield a little bit of power. That's what Wikipedia has always been about. I don't see it changing soon. A real joke. 99.7.244.51 (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You should focus on content and reliable externals to support it. Your opinions about one of the massive internet projects seem of little no value here on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This dispute is an example of Wikipedia at it's worst. Enchanter, you are correct, and that is how the article was until Oughtprice99 edited it.

It isn't libelous to add sources that question incredible claims about a living person. No one has made original libelous claims that Tammet is a "liar." Citing evidence that contradicts research that a few scientists did on a well-known public figure has absolutely no legal consequences at all.

It isn't a conspiracy to quote Tammet's old website. You can't get any more well-sourced than that. If you claim that Tammet didn't write the content on danieltammet.com (who would elaborately impersonate Tammet in 2001?), we could easily find out definitively for a small fee.

The question isn't whether Tammet has synesthesia or Aspergers, but only whether he has training in memory techniques, as he himself has stated in the past.

The problem is that IF Tammet was trained in mnemonic techniques as he claimed on his old website, it could mean that neuroscience itself is being corrupted. People have called Tammet a "Rosetta Stone," which may not be entirely accurate if the feats have been performed through training and not synesthesia. All that people are doing is adding additional sources to the article.

Here are Tammet's own words in 2001:

My own interest in memory and conversely Memory sport was sparked by my casual acquaintance with a children’s book on broad memory concepts for better exam performance at the age of 15. The following year I passed my GCSEs with some of the year’s best results and subsequently performed well at A-level, mastering French and German along the way with the help of these tried-and-tested techniques. Following teaching stints in Scandinavia and as a volunteer lecturer of English in Eastern Europe, I competed for the first time at the World Memory Championships in London in 1999, managing 12th place overall. Thereafter, my obsession with the sport grew, and following months of strenuous training and hard work I climbed into the World’s Top-5 rated Memory sportsmen. My performance at the 2000 World Memory Championships earned me a discipline gold medal and two more event medals, the highlight of one performance being where I bested the World Champion’s time by a fraction of a second, with the successful memorisation and subsequent perfect recall of an entire shuffled deck of cards in a time of 1 minute 11.69 seconds. In another round, I achieved a new personal best memorising 1,460 digits backwards and forwards in 1 hour, one of the largest amounts of digits ever memorised within that time frame in the Championship’s history.

The only conspiracy here is that Oughtprice99 and Off2riorob are deleting well-referenced information and threating people who try to add it back. Bill121212 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue as I see it is the weight and the personal assessment and assumptions you are claiming to these these comments. All you can say is the subject said - When the subject was five he was interested in memory... whatever - your position is that these comments assert something and then you are summarizing his comments via original opinion to reflect your opinions - you can t do that - and you can't quote reams of text self spoken by him anyways, large quotes from his website creates copyright issues - you also should stop pointing accusatory fingers claiming this and that user is stopping me adding what I want - wikipedia does not work like that - your addition is disputed - you should attempt to find an agreeable compromise. Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent): I think there are two main issues here: The first is a classic either/or fallacy. Both sides seem to be arguing that either Tammet has synesthesia, or he is using strategies ("neuroscience itself is being corrupted"!). It is possible that both are true, and indeed, Solomon Shereshevsky whose synesthesia and extraordinary memory were documented over the course of 30 years of studies and interviews by the Russian neuropsychologist, Alexander Luria is a well-known case in point. Luria carefully documents how Shereshevsky (whom he referred to as "S." in accord with traditions of protecting the anonymity of research subjects in neuropsychology and neurology) experienced five-fold synesthesia, and how he uses classic mnemonic strategies like the method of loci. More recent studies have demonstrated that enhanced memory for stimuli that elicit synesthetic associations is a common feature of both grapheme-color synesthesia [4] [5] [6], but see [7], and time-space synesthesia [8] [9] [10], and that synesthetes tend to explicitly use their synesthetic experiences to help their memory [11], so the link between synesthesia and memory in Tammet's case is hardly unique or ground-breaking in and of itself. What is unique is the extreme degree of both his synesthesia and his memory, matched only by S. in the scientific record.

The second is the attitude (suggested above by the quote "a few scientists") that the scientists here are a bunch of rubes or dupes who had the wool pulled over their eyes, and it took someone without any training in experimental psychology or neuroscience (yes, I mean Joshua Foer) to show us the error of our ways. As a scientist who studied Tammet's abilities when he visited our lab at U.C. San Diego as part of the filming for BrainMan, I might be too close to the issue to be entirely objective, but I also have detailed knowledge of what we did to assess his synesthesia, and his memory, and I can tell you that we generally approached this with a skeptical attitude (Shai Azoulai, who was a beginning PhD student at the time, was the least skeptical, and was therefore included prominently in the video, since it makes for better copy while I was nearly completely edited out). Anyway, on to what we did, and the caution we took in coming to our conclusions (as best we could in the limited time frame with the cameras rolling; science normally doesn't work like that!).

First, one of the classic metrics to verify synesthesia is test-retest consistency. As shown in the BrainMan video, and as subsequently verified by Simon Baron-Cohen's group (as included in our current wikipedia article), Tammet passes that metric of synesthesia. Now, of course, as someone with enhanced memory (remaining agnostic about how, for now), this probably sets a pretty low bar for his synesthesia, but nonetheless he did pass this standard metric of synesthesia (see [12]).

Second, the rarity of this form of synesthesia is attested both by my own extensive research into synesthesia (see my peer-reviewed publications here: [13]), and by the absence of this type of synesthesia in the reported forms cataloged by Sean Day [14], a synesthete and synesthesia researcher. As can be seen, "grapheme-color", in which letters and numbers elicit colors, is quite common, but having numbers elicit 3-D objects with size, shape, and texture has not been reported by any other synesthetes. Hence, it must be rare. Tammet is probably not entirely unique, but there are no other reported cases of this type of synesthesia. We can explain how such a form of synesthesia might arise by looking at the functional subdivisions in the parietal lobe, in particular the intraparietal sulcus (IPS). It is well-established that the mid-portion of the IPS is involved in numerical processing (see numerical cognition and the bio pages of two important researchers in this area Stanislas Dehaene and Brian Butterworth), and injuries to this region lead to deficits in calculation (see acalculia and dyscalculia). We also know that regions in posterior portion of the IPS are involved in complex 3-D shape and texture analysis, both in macaque monkeys [15] and in humans [16], in the service of being able to make the appropriate hand shapes to grasp objects (see Two Streams hypothesis#Dorsal_stream). If there were increased cross-talk between numerical regions in the mid-IPS and these 3-D shape and texture regions in the posterior-IPS (perhaps as a consequence of his childhood epilepsy), then Tammet would automatically, involuntarily experience 3-D shapes and textures every time he thinks about numbers, just as he reports. We suggested this mechanism when Tammet visited our lab, and it is illustrated in cartoon form in the BrainMan video. Although it is conceivable that Tammet himself has a detailed enough knowledge of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology to confabulate a unique form of synesthesia that is also consistent with the known neurofunctional properties of the brain, it seems highly unlikely, and thus suggests that these are accurate reports.

Turning then to testing his mathematical abilities, as shown in the video, we did test his arithmetic, and his ability to say if a number was prime or not. One of the tricks we used was to include among the numbers some non-primes that have only very large factors, in order to rule out simple algorithmic processes. This cannot rule out that he actually memorized just the numbers that we tested him on, knowing that these are tricky cases, but again we did not simply present him with a bunch of easy primes and a bunch of non-primes. We tried to catch him out, and he passed those tests with flying colors.

Finally, we tested whether presenting stimuli that elicit his synesthetic experiences in either a format that matches his synesthetic experiences ("congruent"), or in a format that does not match his experiences ("incongruent") affects his memory performance. This strategy had been used by a number of previous studies of memory in grapheme-color synesthesia [17] [18], and we adapted it to his reports that the different digits had different sizes. As can be seen here [19], we found that his memory for digits presented either all in the same font size ("neutral") or in congruent font sizes were better remembered than digits that were incongruent with his synesthesia. This was true not only for immediate re-test, but also for surprise 24 hour and 72 hour re-tests. Strikingly, for the 24 and 72 hour retests, Tammet showed zero forgetting, except for in the incongruent condition. Control subjects, of course, performed far worse than Tammet, but importantly, they did not show this same modulation of performance by congruence, and their forgetting was equivalent across the three conditions. We also used letters to examine the specificity of his synesthesia, and while he performed better than controls, it is clear that his performance for stimuli that do not elicit his synesthesia is substantially worse than for stimuli that do elicit his synesthesia, again consistent with the findings from a number of other labs showing the specificity of the synesthetic improvement.

Taken as a whole, the specificity that we see in tests of Tammet's abilities, the fact that it coheres with known neuroscientific findings, and that multiple labs, have independently verified Tammet's synesthesia (our lab and the Baron-Cohen lab) all argues against the idea that his synesthesia is a fake. It is also possible (indeed probable) that he is using strategies. Note, for example, that our poster was titled "Does synesthesia contribute to mathematical savant skills?" (emphasis added) as it is unlikely that any one thing will explain all savant skills. Edhubbard (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You left out part of my sentence when you quoted me. I said, "it could mean that neuroscience itself is being corrupted." People are only suggesting to mention all the possibilities in the article and to have an open discussion about it. Also, I wrote, "The question isn't whether Tammet has synesthesia or Aspergers..." but only whether things like pi were memorized purely by synesthesia or whether years of intensive training in "memory sports" was involved. The synesthesia part is irrelevant to the discussion. Instant recognition of all the prime numbers can be explained by these same memory techniques, unless you went well above the first hundreds (or thousands) of primes, in which case there is a strong case that it wasn't done with memory techniques. Consider that people memorize up to 67,000 digits of pi with these techniques. I didn't mean to imply that the scientists are just a bunch of dupes. Foer may not have any background in neuroscience, but he does have a background in these techniques, which I'm assuming the scientists don't have. Bill121212 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not the correct place to opine all this hair splitting position. Its also uncitable in reference to this person - have your though about adding this stuff to asspergers or savant - this is a wikipedioas BLB not a soapbox for such opinions and POV positions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says, "Baron-Cohen, Bor and Billington...state that the memory training used by other memory experts does not explain his abilities, as he had not had explicit training," which apparently isn't true, by Tammet's own writings on his website. Another of the scientists that studied him writes above on this talk page, "It is also possible (indeed probable) that he is using strategies." This isn't hair splitting or my personal opinion. If the researcher above gives examples of the largest prime numbers that he tested Tammet with and they are beyond the explanation of memory techniques, then that fact should be added to the main article to counter the criticism and the issue will be put to rest permanently. Bill121212 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I and wikipedia care less about research. What we/you need are reliable secondary reports. Post what you want to add here on the talkpage and lets have a look at it, please. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill, you'd be completely wrong in your assumption that experimental psychologists don't know about memory strategies. The method of loci is standard introductory undergraduate cognitive psychology stuff. See for example, this undergraduate textbook here [20]. And, as I mentioned above, Luria clearly describes this technique in S. in a book published over 40 years ago (actually earlier than that, but the first English translation was 1968). Finally, see our own mnemonist article, and the scientific studies of memory strategies carried out by psychologists and neuroscientists that are cited there. As for your point about "beyond the explanation of memory techniques", there's no such thing. Any particular number could be memorized. Our research was aimed at showing that memorization alone could not explain Tammet's performance. Edhubbard (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill, to reinforce Ed Hubbard's comments above, the scientific papers quoted in the article all make it clear that the scientists involved knew about the existence of memory strategies (for example, two of them mentioned the method of loci specifically).

I would encourage you to look at these scientific sources; they tend to give a measured and balanced view, reporting neutrally on the known facts, in contrast to journalist's writings which tend to be sensationalist (ie media sources may often take an exaggerated "Tammet is an amazing genius!" or, in Foer's case, a "Tammet is a fake!" view rather than a more balanced and measured position). Enchanter (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading a book on neuroscience is not the same thing as being a neuroscientist, just as reading about the method of loci is not the same thing as being a trained memorizer. IF Tammet used techniques to recognize the prime numbers, he might not have used the method of loci. You should try the same tests on another competitive memorizer, giving advance notice that you will test recognition of all the prime numbers up to 9999 and run tests for synesthesia. Without that, your research is missing one piece. No one is trying to say Tammet is a fake in the article, but there are unanswered questions about why there is no mention of his self-described memory training. All that editors are asking for is Enchanter's "balanced and measured position" and not the complete omission of any mention that Tammet has years of training in "memory sports." The article is locked though, so there's nothing more to say about it. Bill121212 (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really - the disruption surrounding this desired addition has gone on long enough. This is it - please present your desired addition with the supporting citations for discussion and evaluation - waiting until the article is unlocked and inserting it yet again without consensus is not an option. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"I and wikipedia care less about research." Great. Not only a petty martinet, an ignorant one. 99.7.244.51 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This is worth clarifying. Wikipedia cares a lot about research. Researching and organising verifiable material is absolutely fundamental to our mission of writing a reliable encyclopedia. What Wikipedia is not is a place for discussing or publishing original research - i.e. material that cannot be attributed to reliable published sources. Enchanter (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is adding original research. In the case of this article, even reliable published sources are deleted. Foer is an expert on memory techniques with a well-referenced, bestselling book. Here is another book author who not only questions Tammet's explanation, but the researchers' too:[21] Another reliable source that contradicts this Wikipedia article is Tammet's own website. These things should be not be omitted from the article. Bill121212 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Live journal is not a reliable external for any content in a wikipedia article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. LiveJournal.com is even cited on the NY Times page.[[The New York Times]|The publishing medium is irrelevant. Only the content matters. The author of that content is a published expert on the subject. Bill121212] (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was first produced here Talk:Daniel Tammet/Archive 1#The Boy With The Incredible Brain -- Critiqued in Dec 2009 by User:Askedradio8 and has not been accepted yet - see here for the amount of articles this external site is used on wikipedia english - none. If you want to use this source to add content to this BLP I suggest you ask at the WP:RSN the reliable source noticeboard and I will be happy to accept whatever consensus arises there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think you are to say that you will accept it? The consensus on this talk page is 5 to 1 against you to include a balance of points instead of omitting all sources that question the full accuracy of the official claims. I'm not counting Oughtprice99 or the researcher whose work is criticized by one of the sources. The fact that you are trying to make people jump through hoops to add citations from experts in their fields, and that Oughtprice99 is militantly blocking additions, suggests a possible editing conspiracy. Bill121212 (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Your losing focus, the focus is the desired addition and the supporting citations. Claims of a conspiracy are completely groundless. I just said, I will be happy to accept whatever consensus arises at the relevant noticeboard, that seems quite a correct reasonable position to me. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't up to you to approve it. Your objections are keeping the article unbalanced, and you are outnumbered 5 to 1 on the talk page. That a memory expert questions the official story in a bestselling book belongs in the article. Evidence on this talk page shows that the Wikipedia page in its current form cannot be correct. If you want, we can add some of the original sources that Foer used too. Have you even read the book? Bill121212 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about this five one, there is only me and you here. Anyway, an unreliable source is unreliable even if ten people want to add content from it. Have you asked at the WP:RSN yet? Would you please provide your desired addition here for evaluation and discussion - post it complete below this comment with the citations that you want to use to support it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are 5 people on this talk page who have said the article should be balanced, or have expressed surprise that the article has absolutely no mention of the controversy:

1. User:Andreas Brekken
2. User:145.253.118.83
3. User:24.99.60.219
4. User:Enchanter
5. Bill121212

In addition, Edhubbard, one of the researchers cited, wrote, "It is also possible (indeed probable) that he is using strategies." This contradicts the current Wikipedia page. Bill121212 (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Strategies is mentioned and memory techniques are alluded to in this section already - Daniel Tammet#Scientific_study - Is this the section you want to add some detail to? Off2riorob (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of the other original researchers who worked with Ed Hubbard ... the "least skeptical one" as he mentioned above ... though to be fair I think all of us were quite skeptical and I don't blame the editors for making things exciting since that is one of the best ways to bring new minds into science. Ed's expertise in this area both then and now is far greater than my own and it is a shame that he was not included more in the program.

In any case there was one other memory test we conducted with Daniel, I won't go into extreme detail, but basically it was a memorization task in which he was given 60 seconds to memorize as many numbers (and in one case letters) as possible. Then there was a three minute discussion to prevent him from using a verbal loop to help encode ... and finally he was given 60 seconds to recall as many as he could. He performed extremely well but to be fair his answers were written down as number pairs ... which means he was almost definitely using some memory tricks. However that does not take away from his performance ... nor the fact that he still performed amazingly well a month later when given a surprise recall test of those same numbers. I think it is almost impossible to determine whether or not any person in such a situation is being completely honest. As scientists all we can do is try to conduct unbiased experiments and let the data speak for itself. However I completely agree with Ed that "It is also possible (indeed probable) that he is using strategies." But using such strategies does not mean that he does not have a genuine talent unrelated to the additional advantage one gets from such strategies. Ed's account above is detailed, clear, and should be carefully considered in the context of other RS and the article balance as a whole. 98.155.76.35 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Desired addition

This is not my text, only one of the statements that I have objected to the removal of:

Joshua Foer suggests that study of conventional mnemonic approaches has played an important role in the reported feats of memory.<ref name="Moonwalking" />

The claims are well documented in the book. It was written by a respected journalist who is an expert on memory techniques. Bill121212 (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• - What is the specific text in the book that talks about Tammet? Is it accessible anywhere on line? What is the page number where he discusses Tammet? I found this book review - Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything by Joshua Foer – review - Joshua Foer's account of his quest to become US memory champion is a dreary and pointless celebration of trivia http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/17/moonwalking-einstein-joshua-foer-review - however it doesn't mention Tammet. Off2riorob (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your careful obstruction of well-referenced, respected sources is highly suspicious. You haven't read the book, while the people asking for inclusion have read the book. Read the book and then come back and make your objections. If you don't know about the subject, stop writing as if your "approval" is needed. Like I said, this is Wikipedia at it's worst. Bill121212 (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia at its worst imo is single purpose opinionated accounts attempting to add weakly referenced negative content about living people. You are losing focus again - if you want to add something reference it correctly - stop your attacking accusatory focus on me. Off2riorob (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia at it's worst is inaccurate information on articles (added or omitted), blocked by one or two editors who either have agendas or who don't know about the subject. Certain editors obstruct adding balance to an article by endlessly citing Wikipedia rules and aggressively threatening other editors. Foer's book is credible in every way, as is Tammet's old website, which directly contradicts the Wikipedia page. You are the only person out of five or more Wikipedia editors on this talk page who objects to making the article balanced, and you haven't read the book. Bill121212 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is endless...please if you want to add anything regarding claims in regard to these claims, just be a bit clearer, explain what you want to add, cite the reference and the page and the content that you are referencing and any location it is accessible so it can be assessed. That is not much to ask is it, all I see here is complaining without specifying what exactly the problem is. I also find it extremely strange that we have a bunch of claimed researchers turning up here - just keep it simple present your desired addition for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't getting anywhere. The proposed sentence has already been given. It's cited from a book, and like other books this is not available online; it's widely available at bookstores and libraries and in ebook form. The part of the book discussing Tammet is in chapter 10 (most of that chapter is about him). In the book, Joshua Foer does suggest that Tammet may be using conventional mnemonic techniques. This has not been disputed by anyone (including Oughtprice who removed the sentence in question), so the above discussion isn't helping at all. To allay your suspicions about a "bunch of claimed researchers turning up", note that Ed Hubbard has been a contributor to this and many other Wikipedia articles for years.

The question at hand isn't what Foer's book says; it's whether what Foer says is notable enough and appropriate to be included in the encyclopedia, particularly in a biography of a living person; OughtPrice presented some possible reasons why it may not be. My own view, already given above, is that while it's borderline, I think it may be appropriate to mention Foer's suggestions provided that they are given an accordingly low profile in the article, and it's done in a sensitive way. This is on the grounds that it is a well known book by a professional writer, which does discuss Tammet at length and give it's own sources. I emphasise I do think it's borderline, and does need to be treated with sensitivity, so further suggestions, for example on amending the sentence, are welcome. Enchanter (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Speculation, even from a professional writer, should not be inserted into a living person biography page - even more so when it is denied by the individual concerned and represents a tiny minority viewpoint of him (as witnessed in part by the total absence - bar a notably critical comment in the New York Times - of a single major published secondary source concerning the comments in question).

It's important to remember that living persons in the public eye will always be subjects of a certain number of theories and speculation from both professional and non-professional writers. Blogs, books, and other forms of media commentary, give these views an airing from time to time. The encyclopedia's role differs: to summarise the person's life and career according to multiple major published secondary sources. Potential edits need not be treated with 'sensitivity' but only by these rules that hold for all encyclopedic articles.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob continues his meticulous obstruction of information. I agree with Enchanter that the sentence has already been given. I don't think that Foer's book is borderline. The information in the book is referenced, and Tammet's old website confirms that the statement is true. Bill121212 (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are mistaken about my position, my main interest here has been to stabilize the article which has been a revert to and fro situation for quite a while and it is tiresome to be constantly personally focused on by you Bill as if I am the problem. I am only interested in a correct addition without assertions and two plus two type original research - I have boldly added this which seems a reasonable addition although primary cited, better if you have a secondary report but for such a simple addition it seems fine. - In his book Moonwalking with Einstein,Joshua Foer suggests that study of conventional mnemonic approaches has played an role in Tammet's feats of memory.Off2riorob (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is now more balanced. The reason I was focusing on you is because you were creating obstacles to a simple, credible citation that doesn't even say anything about Tammet that he hasn't said himself. Bill121212 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would leave it at that, but now Oughtprice99 is editing the page to downplay the link. His addition is really stretching what a single book reviewer wrote. If we are going to have another edit war, I'm going to propose that a link to Tammet's old website also be added, because his own words contradict the Wikipedia page. Bill121212 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the rebuttal added by Outright. I like to add both sides of a story and that looks like a decent rebuttal imo. Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Each objection to published facts that you make looks more suspicious. But it's fine to keep it as long as it's accurate. Bill121212 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. No one is downplaying anything. Compromise goes both ways. If a contentious poorly-sourced claim is added to a living person biography page, the very least is to provide balance: in this case from the speculating writer's own book (during the conclusion of the chapter in question) and the sole review - a major published secondary source from an important figure in psychology - that treats Foer's speculation at all, and then negatively (which should tell us all we need to know about its actual notability). Oughtprice99 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said: this is Wikipedia at its worst. You are removing a citation of Tammet's old website that proves that the Wikipedia page in its current form is wrong. The NY Times review was written by an expert on dog psychology. Bill121212 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the link to the old website back, but I changed it back to Rob's less-biased wording and clarified why she called it inexplicable. Bill121212 (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Alexandra Horowitz teaches psychology at Barnard College, Columbia University. She earned her PhD in Cognitive Science at the University of California at San Diego, and has studied the cognition of humans, rhinoceros, bonobos, and dogs." http://insideofadog.com/author.php It's relevant that Horowitz is a psychologist and not simply a reviewer.

Horowitz does call Foer's speculation a "misstep" - one of several in the book, but the one that is relevant to this article. It's noteworthy coming from such an authority, especially when it's the only comment on the book that has appeared in a major published secondary source.

Finally, Foer's chapter attempts balance by agreeing that Tammet meets the medical criteria for savant syndrome. It's important that any comment drawn from the book reflects this balance.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You are exaggerating the meaning of her words. Bill121212 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in as another Moonwalking.. reader who wondered how Tammet would be covered in wikipedia, I find the laser-beam focus on single comment in a book review to be really bizarre. Rickterp (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's Horowitz's paragraph in full (note that this is the only comment she - or any other major published secondary source writer - makes on the speculation):

"Irregular images aside, Foer's missteps are few. Discussing the neurological underpinnings of memory, he repeats some commonly held myths about it, for instance, that obscure facts -- where I celebrated my seventh birthday -- are lurking somewhere in my brain, waiting for the right cue to pop back into consciousness. In fact, not only are many such memories lost for good, even the memories we do have are often quasi-fictionalized reconstructions. Foer inexplicably devotes space to attempting to convince the reader that Daniel Tammet, a renowned savant who memorized 22,514 digits of pi, may not actually be doing it naturally, but only by using the same kind of mnemonic aids used by Foer and his fellow competitors (would it matter?). And at times he seems to have lost some perspective on his endeavor, as when he states, without apparent irony, that the Memory Championship, begun as a one-day contest 20 years ago, has now expanded to fill an entire weekend.

Note that the line comes right at the start of the paragraph - meaning that it applies to all that follows. This is confirmed by the use of plural 'missteps' with an 's'.

Horowitz chooses to preface her comments on the book's speculation with 'missteps', so it's important to add it to any summary of them.

Finally, when Horowitz says 'would it matter?' she refers to Tammet's savantism: 'a renowned savant'. As Foer himself concedes in his book, Tammet meets the medical criteria for savant syndrome. It does rather make all his speculation "inexplicable" as Horowitz points out. Oughtprice99 (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for the passage where Foer says, "Tammet meets the medical criteria for savant syndrome?" Bill121212 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the passage, from page 194:

“In his book Extraordinary People, Treffert defines savant syndrome as “an exceedingly rare condition in which persons with serious mental handicaps…have spectacular islands of ability or brilliance which stand in stark, markedly incongruous contrast to the handicap.” According to that definition, the question of whether Daniel uses memory techniques would be irrelevant to whether he is a savant. All that matters is that he has a history of a developmental disability and can perform phenomenal mental feats. According to Treffert’s definition, Daniel would indeed be a prodigious savant, albeit one whose disability is less pronounced."

Dr. Darold Treffert, it should be noted, is "the leading researcher in the study of savant syndrome" (according to Wikipedia's article of the condition). His definition is the standard for diagnosis.

I will edit the article's text to quote Foer's words directly. Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS to support addition

<ref name="Moonwalking">Joshua Foer: Moonwalking with Einstein, Penguin Press 2011,</ref>