Near savant skills?

Post Reply New Topic

Assumptions aren't always accurate (I always avoid making assumptions - they get you in trouble), but as far as I can tell, after seeing dates on the page from recent updates, it is up to date as of 2 days ago.

The page is up to date, but it does not take into account the research or knowledge that I've seen described by both of them. So it is not up to date with their particular research it seems, or else does not mention it. (It does refer to prior research by Mottron, but does not directly refer to the stuff Michelle is referring to, so in that sense it is either not up to date or not broad enough in scope to cover it. The research is out there though, and I think it makes more sense than just "you're either savant or you're not", which even the page does not say, the page not only talks about gradations in savant skills but talks about savant skills being possibly present but suppressed in all people.)

There's a name for "almost autistic" -- it's called "cousin" in a lot of autistic circles.

It means that a person has neurological conditions that give them a lot in common with autism but aren't quite what is defined as autism. Neurodiversity is a wide landscape, autism is only a piece of it, and the boundaries are fuzzier than people think they are. (They're not only in one direction, either, so it's not "most autistic" to "least autistic" as much as there's a wide spectrum of brain variations and autism does merge into the others on all sides of the area that is currently mapped out as autism.)

My psychiatrist considers himself a "cousin" because he has a diagnosis of ADD and a lot of traits in common with autism but wouldn't be considered any form of autistic.

The research Michelle Dawson is pointing at is saying that autistic skill patterns are "cousins" to savant syndrome, basically. That they fit the same pattern but to a lesser degree, and that the blend is more seamless than it looks.

The same is true of autism. There are people with conditions such as hydrocephalus, brain injury, Tourette's, and so forth, who are not autistic (any autistic sort of diagnosis) but who have a lot in common with us, so they are considered "cousins" to autism. Just as in families that Tourette's runs in, there are often people with tic disorders (such as solely motor tics or solely vocal tics) that don't meet the criteria for Tourette's, but which are related to it.

Most of these conditions have less extreme parallels, and what this research is saying is that autistic skill patterns are often a less-extreme parallel to savant. Or cousin to savant. Or near-savant. Or whatever you want to call it. Basically, that savant syndrome, like all things within the neurodiverse landscape, is not an isolated island out in the middle of nowhere, but blends into many other things.

There needs to be more research done on high-functioning savants with a normal to above-normal IQ. Since a savant ability is supposed to surpass an ability based on the level of the person's IQ, it's very hard to tell if an Aspie or an HFA has a savant skill unless it is completely obvious like a human calculator or a calendar calculator or photographic memory.

But for those savants skills which are less obvious and not completely unheard of with the IQ level, such as art, poetry, music, and other such things, there is very little research on the high end of the spectrum. But I have read a researcher who believes it's there and suggests more work needs to be done in that area.

I guess in that case, the definition would need to be reworked without the contrast to IQ.

As for myself:

-poetry writing
-art (2-D)

As usual, I have no relevant facts to contribute to the public knowledge base, but I have an interest in the subject. I am very curious as to whether my style of literary composition (especially in the realm of fiction) is caused by anything neurological because the process is similar to the synesthetic, automated manner in which Daniel Tammet works with numbers. However, I was pretty sure there was no such thing as a writing savant, so I remain mystified by the entire subject and all those related to it.

I am also curious about what is "normal" in the way of autistic spectrum memories. My mother used to tell me that my memory was photographic; I used to think that it was a ridiculous accusation until I realized that most people do not think in pictures. Yet, if it is common for a person on the spectrum to think largely in pictures, what determines whether or not the fundamentally visual memory is eidetic?

When I was DX'd with Savant Syndrome it was already obvious in the areas of my ability. The only thing that needed to be done prior to actually being DX'd was have my memory tested and determine how my abilities and memory functions match what are regarded as the common characteristics that are known and proven about Savant Syndrome. Initially 2 doctors - 1 that I saw I was from age 7 to 12 - said I am a genius, as an encounter with my savant abilities can be "stunning." Once my visual, and auditory memory was tested for savant syndrome, as that was suspected for a long time, but uncertain, my doctor proclaimed that I in fact have Savant Syndrome and am not a genius. I have Talented Savant abilities in Music (EXTREMELY OBVIOUS) and splinter skills that include always knowing what direction to go in and always knowing how much time has passed without looking at a clock. It is now being investigated by my doctor to see if my communication skills (not abilities), such as instantly being able to create poetry as I speak, may also be affected by Savant Syndrome as well.

Whether, or not someone is HFA, AS, or LFA does not determine the degree of Savant Syndrome. People who think so are letting themselves be led by stereotypes, as many are with autism. There are many people with Savant Syndrome who are not autistic at all... some blind, some deaf, some ret*d. I suggest anyone interested in having an intelligent conversation about it (at least with me as a participant) read this link:

http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/faq.cfm

You seem to be unaware that people could have kept up with research that is not done by Treffert, have been evaluated as savants ourselves (at least two people on this site besides you have been officially considered savants, me included), or have opinions beyond what a particular "expert" says. (I know both of the other two of us I know of on this site are dubious about Treffert's expertise, and the other person has personal acquaintance with him.)

What you are doing here is the equivalent of an autistic person getting upset because other autistic people are speculating about aspects of autism (and other neurological conditions) that are not touched upon by Simon Baron-Cohen or Lorna Wing, because other autistic people are involved in research that does not involve Simon Baron-Cohen or Lorna Wing, or because other autistic people are talking about aspects of autism that Simon Baron-Cohen and Lorna Wing don't happen to believe in.

Treffert is not the end-all and be-all of information on savant syndrome, neither are you, neither is your support staff, neither am I, neither is my support staff. Any more than Simon Baron-Cohen, Lorna Wing, me, you, anyone else, anyone else's staff, etc, is the end-all and be-all of information on autism.

People have discussions. Some discussions take place outside the realm of what one or more "experts" consider to be the accurate information on a subject. Sometimes people are right, sometimes people are wrong. But the discussion helps explore other possibilities. In trying to get people to believe that only after reading one particular person's work can they possibly be educated on a subject, and that true intelligent discussion is impossible unless they've read that person's work and agree with that person's work, all you're doing is narrowing down the field of discussion people may have.

It used to be thought that autism was this one narrow thing. Showed affection? Talked? Couldn't be autistic. I've seen autistics who still hold by that kind of thing and claim that the vast majority of autistic people online aren't really autistic because they weren't diagnosed in such-and-such a way at such-and-such an age and by such-and-such a procedure by such-and-such a person. There are autistic people who say, "If you were really autistic, it would've been obvious." Or who turn up their noses at anyone diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome as not truly autistic enough.

And you don't read as sounding all that different from them to me. Except instead of doing it with autism, you're doing it with savant skills. All people were trying to do was have a conversation outside the most traditional realm of discussion on the topic (some of us even have kept up to whatever degree with research in that area that's not cited on that page, so considering us ignorant because we're not followers of Treffert doesn't really work), and all you've done is go on to dismiss most people as the "aspies" (as opposed to "auties", who some people think are the "real autistics" and so forth) of savant syndrome, not relevant to the original theory or extreme enough or following-the-right-people enough to be considered capable of intelligent discussion in your book.

(And yes, I know, not all savants are autistic. That doesn't mean Mottron/Dawson's research on patterns of autistic skills doesn't show some evidence towards why more autistics than NTs are savant.)

So no, I'm not going to buy that only after reading that page can people have useful discussion on savant syndrome, any more than I think reading The Essential Difference is necessary to have useful discussion on autism. And given that I've actually read and considered Treffert (who I think has some right ideas and some wrong ones), and you have apparently not found it useful to consider Mottron or Dawson (and I think even Treffert has read Mottron...)... it's sort of like an autistic person who firmly believes in Simon Baron-Cohen's or Uta Frith's theories and therefore won't consider any theory that contradicts them. Doesn't work, and becomes frustrating for everyone involved as the person clings tighter and tighter to one person's theories and demands that all discussion fall into line with them. You're doing the equivalent of flipping out every time someone challenges "weak central coherence" as a cause of autism and then accusing them of not being able to hold intelligent discussion if they haven't read all of Uta Frith's papers on the subject.

It doesn't matter to me anymore. I didn't read all of your post because I am not interested in discussing Savant Syndrome on this site anymore. I posted my reply that was relevant to the initial post in this thread. You replied with assumptions and "what if's," which is totally innapropriate when trying to have a logical discussion based on known facts. I am more interested in putting my savant abilities to use and not interested in exploring every possible theory that may explain it, or even discussing those theories. This is one area where I prefer to do as opposed to talk. Sheesh, I haven't even completely read the report on my case of Savant Syndrome. I know enough to understand why I am able to do the things I do and this is enough for me.

If someone wants to discuss specifics and compare notes, like what certain experiences with savant abilities are like, or internal feelings that can be associated with such experiences, then I may be receptive to that. However, I have searched for that for a long time and have not found it, so I don't anticipate it here. Feel free to play the role of the doctors and theorists in your discussions of the how's and why's. As for me, I will let my music do the talking for me on this matter.

Hm
I have read all the posts here and now I am wondering. There is too much overlap with other patterns of memory and cognitive processing for me to be able to say one person has savant syndrome and another doesn't.
This is why there exists a standard for diagnosis, and yes, it does not reflect the most current research, but for both good and bad reasons. The bad is nobody wants to work that hard to produce a new tome every time the research shows something different. The good is that it gives time for the research to be replicated and tested and reviewed before it becomes a standard.
I'll go on record as saying I don't have savant skills.
But I wonder. In my garden, I saw a plant. I knew it was a flowering plant and I knew the name of it. I thought I had never seen it before but I have looked at plant books so maybe it is in my memory....

Neuroman, I PMed you a reply to your post.

Oh, if you'd said all you wanted to do was discuss experiences, I'd be more than willing to do that without getting into neurological theory. You hadn't said that, though, so I didn't know that was what you were after. (Which may be where the confusion came in. Part of discussing theory is discussing "what ifs," that's how ideas are generated. But if you want to discuss experiences, I'm more than willing to do that, as it's easier than trying to figure out theory. You just didn't say what you did want, just that you didn't like such-and-such a thing which led to people trying to guess what you did want.)

But I don't totally know what the experience is for the particular kind of skill I discussed having. I just seem to do it, create maps in my head without thinking, and they happen to map to everywhere I've ever been (I actually map a whole lot of other things, too, but those are the part that come out as a recognized skill most often). I memorize other locations too, like where all the stars are. (All of this without many of the names of streets/stars/cities/anything else, which becomes the weak point.) And where all the earthquake faults are (includes instant calculation of which area and how intense, which stuns even other Californians, I just spin and point and say a number and I always turn out right). Basically with nearly anything involving "where", I can do instant and permanent mapping without even meaning to (this continues into adulthood, and has existed since I was a very young child).

These aren't things I normally think about, though. So I don't often think about the experience of them, I just do them. This kind of thing is what led my initial doctor to say I was a savant, though. (In my case there was also the extreme discrepancy between what I could do and what I couldn't do to throw it into pretty sharp relief, although I know that's not always the case with savants.) I also don't normally talk about them in this context because I am not sure what there is to talk about and because it's one of those weird touchy subjects that gets misconstrued as bragging. (I don't know how I could or why I would brag about something I put little to no effort into, but that's what it gets seen as.)

At any rate, if there's some aspect of that experience you'd like to discuss with me, I'd be more than happy to do it. I just don't know what aspect you want to discuss, because I haven't really thought much about what the experience of doing these things is like. (Except that I enjoy doing them, and that they seem to happen without effort or foreknowledge or anything like that.)

I was in special ed with an autistic guy who has a very similar skill, except in addition to mapping, he also knew the numbers of every power pole and where they fit on the maps. I don't have numbers like that memorized, but I have other aspects of the environment memorized.