0_equals_true wrote:
julie_b wrote:
I quote.......The researchers were looking for any outstanding skills and talents that were present "at a level that would be unusual even for normal people
I don't know why you find it offensive as such, but it
is bad science. The researchers were looking for the result the set out for. this doesn't surprise me one bit. Researcher are obsessed with savants, and also accolades. To paraphrase one researcher who was working with a guy who could remember what he did on every day since the 50s, "I hope you win me the Nobel Prize".
Hm. I suddenly feel a lot less special. I have a therapist now who keeps fawning over me and I thought it was because I was genuinely talented. Maybe he's just after a prize.
Then again, prizes go to REAL doctors.
Anyway, I find the term "normal" to be slightly offensive. Maybe because it implies that we're abnormal. We are, I guess, since we deviate from the average, but anytime someone says "abnormal", I get kind of a frankenstein's monster vibe. They could have just said "neurotypical" instead of "normal". If someone reading the article didn't know what it meant, online dictionaries are plentiful.
Also, perfect pitch isn't a savant skill. A lot of people have it. Most of the music majors I knew in college have it. I read in "Music and the Mind" by Oliver Sacks that it's actually caused by a difference in brain structure. I'm curious what else they consider to be savant skills. I'm going to have to agree that this is bad science. Arg.