Learn to Think Better: Tips from a Savant | Hacker News Reader

Learn to Think Better: Tips from a Savant

sciam.com

24 pointsjwb1199 comments

The way he describes math and language is exactly the way I have described it to friends. My spelling is atrocious because I don't see the word a-t-r-o-c-i-o-u-s I see a gun black metal ball morphing into the head of a mace (slightly covered in slime) and moving towards me in a parabolic trajectory, which would make absolutely no sense to anyone else, but each of those attributes (gun black, ball, spikes, slime, parabolic movement) are like tags, or keys to a database that relate that word to other words. Movement = adjective, parabolic = quick decision, gun black = considered cold if said to others, slime = bad, spikes ~ ugly/pity, ball = others may disagree/personal opinion.

The hardest part for me is remembering people's names. I have to make unique picture for every single first name AND link it to a last name with another key, not as an active effort, but I know when it has happened. Learning to type was hard, until I started associating sequences of letters to their own "shapes" (more like micro movies).

When I'm thinking/working/talking/typing a minimum of 6 videos will play in my head (really fast) per thought. It goes waaaaayyyy up if I have an internal disagreement about something. Say somebody asked me whether I liked Starbucks or Tim Hortons more. Since I love both Starbucks and Tim Hortons my brain kind of does a tree of videos that face off against each other. First node would be

01"Better?" -> "impossible"

02"Branch: Define better?" -> "Speed, Cost, Service, Quality"

03"Speed Better?" -> "tilt Tim Hortons, except rush hour"

I could actually extend that example to about 60 or 70 lines, and for each line AT LEAST 2 videos would play in my minds eye. All 60 lines would take less than a second to calculate. I've developed the habit to look away (at the ground, say) from the person talking to me when this happens so that the conversation flows naturally.

Unlike the guy in the article, I have never really had a problem with reading body language.

FYI: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=412355

I am sooo eagerly waiting some kind of follow up to all the objections from that blog article. It was truly and eye-opener; there are people in the research community holding their breath for this guy!

That said, the SciAm article says nothing new and does not do anything to defend against infopractical's criticisms. It presumes that Tammet is the man he claims to be; it's still a mystery! Although for a person who is supposedly Kim-Peek-level in terms of memory, he is using the term "antisocial" incorrectly (he means "nonsocial," although this error is as common as the public's misuse of "hack").

The hyperconnectivity stuff is simply an extension of spread activation. Under this framework, everything he says in that article is obvious.

Finally, somewhat irrelevant to infopractical (which is still the most curious issue here), Tammet's objection to IQ is valid, but stated exceedingly weakly. "This sounds a lot to me like astrology, which lumps everyone into one of 12 signs of the zodiac.": that's exactly what it does, and what it was designed to do, but that doesn't amount to a reason against it. The problem is the faulty inference that IQ translates directly to a discrete measurement of intelligence.

He might actually mean "antisocial"; neurotypical children are a lot like dangerous animals to an autistic child who can't perceive their emotions, participate in their flock behavior, or predict their reactions, and who experiences a lot of pain from strong stimuli like bright lights or loud noises. Consequently they sometimes strike out at the neurotypicals, just as you might strike out at a pack of wolves.

"I could not do many of the things that most people take for granted, such as ... or deciphering a person’s body language, and only acquired these skills with much effort over time."

I'm in my thirties and I think I'll never learn to decipher a person's body language. Now that got me thinking if that makes me a genius or am I just hopeless?

Not to burst your bubble, but not all autistics are geniuses.

Have you tried? Read any books or even articles on how to do so?

Werid that his article popped up today. I was just watching some videos of David Tammet yesterday.

Here's the documentary about him that came out a few years ago: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Boy-With-the-Incredible-B...

In it, he meets Kim Peek, counts cards, splits the hand twice and gets triple-blackjack, sets his PI record, learns Icelandic in a week, and many other things. Interesting show, not just about him, but other savant's too.

Are there any good tips for thinking better here? I'd like to request a summary of anyone who read it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com