Don't just love the savant?

[GaryS]

Amazing autistic intelligence - the awesome Jacob Barnett

 

 

When Jacob Barnett first learned about the Schrödinger equation for quantum mechanics , he could hardly contain himself.

 

Just a few weeks shy of his 13th birthday, Jake, as he's often called, is starting to move beyond the level of what his professors can teach.

 

In fact, his work is so strong and his ideas so original that he's being courted by a top-notch East Coast research center. IUPUI is interested in him moving from the classroom into a funded researcher's position.

 

The Barnetts decided it was time to follow Jake's lead, adopting a method that some parents of children with autism use -- floor-time therapy -- to help foster developmental growth. They let their children focus intently on subjects they like, rather than trying to conform them to "normal" things.

[dm2010]

Amazing autistic intelligence - the awesome Jacob Barnett

 

<growl>

 

AS people certainly have unique abilities, but geniuses we are generally not. I have to admit that by the time University mathematics got to Laplace transforms and 3 dimensional partial differential equations my brain was well and truly frazzled.

 

Then again, no one else understood it either. Much like the TaniyamaShimura conjecture and the proof of Fermat's last theorem !

 

Incidentally the solution to the wave equation is based on an infinite Fourier series . . .

Edited March 23, 2011 by dm2010

[baddad]

Genius? GENIUS??

Dopey little beggar can't even work out which way round his baseball cap should go!

 

DM2010 - appreciate the point you are making, but even claims like 'AS people certainly have unique abilities' is a generalisation too far. 'AS' is a diagnoisis usually associated with 'average or above average intelligence', but 'average or above average intelligence' is not unique to people with AS.

 

It is important to emphasise, as Temple Grandin put it, 'different, but not less', but you have to be really careful not to go into territories like 'different, and more'...

Can I suggest: AS people certainly can have unique abilities but...

 

L&P

 

BD

[GaryS]

Genius? GENIUS??

Dopey little beggar can't even work out which way round his baseball cap should go!

 

 

 

Maybe he had just taken a photo <'>

[GaryS]

<growl>

 

AS people certainly have unique abilities, but geniuses we are generally not.

 

 

Just to take an intentionally adversarial role here (for that sake of discussion); I'd say that geniuses we CAN be. In fact I'd go as far to say that being HFA (in whichever flavour) is a REQUIREMENT to the usual bestowal of the term genius. Not in an "IQ" sense but in the sense of being truly and uniquely intellectually gifted in one (occasionally more than one) narrowly defined areas of endeavor; true and pure "NT's" just don't have the passion - there's that term again!!

[Mumble]

'average or above average intelligence' is not unique to people with AS.

No, and this is a major flaw in people's understanding, because this is based purely on statistics. We are simply talking about anyone who is above two standard devisions below the mean, i.e. approximately 97.5% of the population. Not so extraordinary, after all...

 

In fact I'd go as far to say that being HFA (in whichever flavour) is a REQUIREMENT to the usual bestowal of the term genius. Not in an "IQ" sense but in the sense of being truly and uniquely intellectually gifted in one (occasionally more than one) narrowly defined areas of endeavour; true and pure "NT's" just don't have the passion - there's that term again!!

I'd disagree completely here. I don't think AS or HFA comes into it. Anyone can have the determination to succeed, and whilst this devotion to one thing to the almost exclusion of all else is part of the diagnostic criteria for ASD, it certainly isn't everything. There are many examples of individuals who have succeed in specific areas (sport, music, etc. etc.) who are not autistic, but aspects of their upbringing and persistence/determination have allowed them to continue to practise and improve when many others will have given up and put their lack of sporting/music prowess down to 'innate lack of ability'. Me, I can't be Mozart, 'cause I'm tone deaf, my fingers are too short to reach an octave and I don't have 'innate musicality' Oh yeah, and my parents didn't give me an interesting name that would work very well as a famous composer... Well that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. :lol:

 

I actually think it does a disservice to those with AS/HFA (in Dipdab's 'GDA' category) because it takes away the real everyday difficulties and brings in the bit different and very clever way of thinking.

[baddad]

No, and this is a major flaw in people's understanding, because this is based purely on statistics. We are simply talking about anyone who is above two standard devisions below the mean, i.e. approximately 97.5% of the population. Not so extraordinary, after all...

 

 

I'd disagree completely here. I don't think AS or HFA comes into it. Anyone can have the determination to succeed, and whilst this devotion to one thing to the almost exclusion of all else is part of the diagnostic criteria for ASD, it certainly isn't everything. There are many examples of individuals who have succeed in specific areas (sport, music, etc. etc.) who are not autistic, but aspects of their upbringing and persistence/determination have allowed them to continue to practise and improve when many others will have given up and put their lack of sporting/music prowess down to 'innate lack of ability'. Me, I can't be Mozart, 'cause I'm tone deaf, my fingers are too short to reach an octave and I don't have 'innate musicality' Oh yeah, and my parents didn't give me an interesting name that would work very well as a famous composer... Well that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. :lol:

 

I actually think it does a disservice to those with AS/HFA (in Dipdab's 'GDA' category) because it takes away the real everyday difficulties and brings in the bit different and very clever way of thinking.

 

I'm all confused now! Were you agreeing with the point I made that you quoted at the top or disagreeing? The point I intended was that autism/AS/whatever doesn't have anything even close to approaching a monopoly on 'genius'... And while I'm not one to avoid using examples like Mozart or Van Halen Gogh or Einstein to promote the potential positives to society of autism/aspergers I am also well aware that retrospective labelling like that is inherently subjective, and also that there could be other explanations for why geniuses seem to share certain behavioural 'traits' that aren't necessarily medical, or if they are, not necessarily medical in a way that can only be explained by autism.

 

And just in case I've added more mud rather than gently topping up the water, that is i agree with mumble (I think)

Confused? Welcome to my world!

 

L&P

 

BD

[GaryS]

No, and this is a major flaw in people's understanding, because this is based purely on statistics. We are simply talking about anyone who is above two standard devisions below the mean, i.e. approximately 97.5% of the population. Not so extraordinary, after all...

 

Er sorry - lost the route of that: the statistics calculated from what exactly? [ BTW 2sd's covers about 95% but who's counting ]

 

I'd disagree completely here. I don't think AS or HFA comes into it. Anyone can have the determination to succeed, and whilst this devotion to one thing to the almost exclusion of all else is part of the diagnostic criteria for ASD, it certainly isn't everything. There are many examples of individuals who have succeed in specific areas (sport, music, etc. etc.) who are not autistic, but aspects of their upbringing and persistence/determination have allowed them to continue to practise and improve when many others will have given up and put their lack of sporting/music prowess down to 'innate lack of ability'. Me, I can't be Mozart, 'cause I'm tone deaf, my fingers are too short to reach an octave and I don't have 'innate musicality' Oh yeah, and my parents didn't give me an interesting name that would work very well as a famous composer... Well that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. :lol:

 

I actually think it does a disservice to those with AS/HFA (in Dipdab's 'GDA' category) because it takes away the real everyday difficulties and brings in the bit different and very clever way of thinking.

 

My model here is, as touched on in another thread, based on a premise that the "autistic gene" (or group, blend, multi-loci suppression/expression or whatever) is exactly what creates genius, and/or as you say provides the "determination to succeed" in a more balanced gene mix. Unfortunately, it can also bestow on the individual a great deal of other things too, many of them detrimental to the individual. So a "light dash" of the creative/obsessive/insular/etc. etc. is beneficial when allowed to blossom in the correct environment and upbringing and can yield very positive species advancing results. Too much and the individual is locked inside a multi-sensory prison they are unable to make sense of and interact with; this, by it's very nature is dead-end in an evolutionary sense.

 

[Mumble]

Confused? Welcome to my world!

Had too much magic sherbet too?

 

I'm agreeing that 'genius' (but don't get me started on definitions - we'll take the social definition referred to here) is not the preserve of those with ASD.

 

Er sorry - lost the route of that: the statistics calculated from what exactly? [ BTW 2sd's covers about 95% but who's counting ]

Individuals are said to have a learning disability in statistical terms if their IQ is more than 2sd below the mean. Just looking purely at this statistically and not going into what is IQ, can we test it, blah blah blah (and those 'blah's' BTW are not indifference, but that's not a discussion I'm getting into now as I really should be writing other things) that would mean those individuals with an IQ below 70 as IQ has a standard deviation of 15, so 2sd below the mean (standardised to 100) would be 70.

 

My statistics of 97.5% having average or above average intelligence are correct.

 

2sd (either side of the mean) encompass IQs in the range of 70 - 130 and, as you rightly say, include approximately 95% of the population.

 

However, we are talking about those of average or above, so that means anyone with an IQ of over 70. That would be those of 70 - 130, but also those of 130+

 

Statistically that is 95% + half of what's left, i.e. 2.5% (based on a normal distribution).

 

Therefore, as I originally stated (and have now restated quite pedantically - as is my special skill ) those of average or above average IQ would be 95% + 2.5% = 97.5%

[Mumble]

My model here is, as touched on in another thread, based on a premise that the "autistic gene" (or group, blend, multi-loci suppression/expression or whatever) is exactly what creates genius, and/or as you say provides the "determination to succeed" in a more balanced gene mix. Unfortunately, it can also bestow on the individual a great deal of other things too, many of them detrimental to the individual. So a "light dash" of the creative/obsessive/insular/etc. etc. is beneficial when allowed to blossom in the correct environment and upbringing and can yield very positive species advancing results. Too much and the individual is locked inside a multi-sensory prison they are unable to make sense of and interact with; this, by it's very nature is dead-end in an evolutionary sense.

My understanding of genetics isn't great (I'm working on it ), but as far as I'm aware, you either have genes or you don't. Genes don't come in 'amounts' - unlike wearable jeans, you don't get some people with a size 6 of a particular gene and some people with a size 22 of the same gene - please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm still learning and really interested in this.

 

If I am correct (or nearly correct) then the question is about the expression of those genes in your model - why are some people creative flairs (or should that be flares as we're talking about jeans... ) with them and others locked into an internal prison?

[baddad]

 

Therefore, as I originally stated (and have now restated quite pedantically - as is my special skill ) those of average or above average IQ would be 95% + 2.5% = 97.5%

 

Now I'm ###### at maths but even I know that's not right! For most people 95% + 2.5% would be so close to 97.5% that only a real pedant would argue over the loose change... BUT... (don't shoot the messenger!)

 

I think, I know that, anyway, but then if I knew half as much as I think I know I'd probably actually be cleverer than I am(?)

 

Not sherbet, BTW, but I did decide to give Ben's Concerta a trial this morning.... I jest, of course. Probably.

[Mumble]

Now I'm ###### at maths but even I know that's not right! For most people 95% + 2.5% would be so close to 97.5% that only a real pedant would argue over the loose change... BUT... (don't shoot the messenger!)

Do you mean so close to 100%? Think you've def. been at the wrong sherbet?

 

Oooh, and I could start - "well if you're discounting that other 2.5% because 97.5% is so close to 100% you're effectively eradicating all those with IQs below 70" - EUGENICS!!!!! :lol:

[baddad]

Do you mean so close to 100%? Think you've def. been at the wrong sherbet?

 

Oooh, and I could start - "well if you're discounting that other 2.5% because 97.5% is so close to 100% you're effectively eradicating all those with IQs below 70" - EUGENICS!!!!! :lol:

 

 

No... it's not 97.5% Unless the 95% doesn't include any from the 2.5%? But if the original 95% figure does include those from the 2.5% then you're counting a percentage of the 2.5% twice, in both the 95% calculation and the 2.5% calculation... It's only a fraction, but to a real pedant it could mean a nights lost sleep at the very least!

 

95% of 100 = 95

2.5% of 100 = 2.5

 

95 + 2.5 = 97.5

 

BUT:

95% of 100 = 95

2.5% of 95 = 2.375

 

95 + 2.375 = 97.375

That's not exactly right either, because you have another percentage that's something like the difference of the difference, but like I said, I'm ###### at maths so don't know how to work it out. Can I tell my neigbours they can put their shoes and socks back on now, or have I got to take a photo to show my 'working out'?

 

[bid]

Sums is stoopid!!

 

Bod

[GaryS]

Had too much magic sherbet too?

 

I'm agreeing that 'genius' (but don't get me started on definitions - we'll take the social definition referred to here) is not the preserve of those with ASD.

 

 

Individuals are said to have a learning disability in statistical terms if their IQ is more than 2sd below the mean. Just looking purely at this statistically and not going into what is IQ, can we test it, blah blah blah (and those 'blah's' BTW are not indifference, but that's not a discussion I'm getting into now as I really should be writing other things) that would mean those individuals with an IQ below 70 as IQ has a standard deviation of 15, so 2sd below the mean (standardised to 100) would be 70.

 

My statistics of 97.5% having average or above average intelligence are correct.

 

2sd (either side of the mean) encompass IQs in the range of 70 - 130 and, as you rightly say, include approximately 95% of the population.

 

However, we are talking about those of average or above, so that means anyone with an IQ of over 70. That would be those of 70 - 130, but also those of 130+

 

Statistically that is 95% + half of what's left, i.e. 2.5% (based on a normal distribution).

 

Therefore, as I originally stated (and have now restated quite pedantically - as is my special skill ) those of average or above average IQ would be 95% + 2.5% = 97.5%

 

 

Ah! now I'm with you. I didn't read that enough. Yep, anything over mean-2sd is indeed 97.5% of the total population as by definition 2.5% are outside the range below and 2.5% above.

(Well to be pedantic back 2.25% ) The interesting thing of course by that very statistic, about 1:44 people will be classed as "learning disabled" purely as a consequence of the maths.

[GaryS]

My understanding of genetics isn't great (I'm working on it ), but as far as I'm aware, you either have genes or you don't. Genes don't come in 'amounts' - unlike wearable jeans, you don't get some people with a size 6 of a particular gene and some people with a size 22 of the same gene - please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm still learning and really interested in this.

 

If I am correct (or nearly correct) then the question is about the expression of those genes in your model - why are some people creative flairs (or should that be flares as we're talking about jeans... ) with them and others locked into an internal prison?

 

I'm fairly well conversant with genetics, hereditary and genome creation, expression, regulation and investigation although I'd never get a job in the field . I could expand on this model if you wish, explaining where I'm using these wacky ideas as an explain of things that are simply not understood. It's pure conjecture based on sound but not specific or provable science, far from defensible in anything other that an idle but perhaps interesting discussion.

[Mumble]

No... it's not 97.5% Unless the 95% doesn't include any from the 2.5%?

It doesn't - all that maths for nothing, huh?

 

See this image for a fairly simple (although we could debate percentages) explanation of the normal distribution.

 

(Well to be pedantic back 2.25% )

True. Nothing wrong with being pedantic. :lol:

 

The interesting thing of course by that very statistic, about 1:44 people will be classed as "learning disabled" purely as a consequence of the maths.

Yup.

 

Sums is stoopid!!

:o Give back that dx now!!! You know you can't have AS if you don't like maths!!

[bid]

:o Give back that dx now!!! You know you can't have AS if you don't like maths!!

 

Teehee! My only relationship with numbers has been a purely synaesthetic one!!

 

You know me...Lipstick Aspie all the way!!

 

Biddlefluff

Edited March 23, 2011 by bid

[Mumble]

Can I tell my neighbours they can put their shoes and socks back on now, or have I got to take a photo to show my 'working out'?

Awesome, you have 100 toes each split into 3 decimal places?! How useful. But yes, you can put your shoes back on, wouldn't want to scare the neighbours.

 

BTW, just as a completely point (who, me? surely not ) your percentages of percentages argument is one you regularly hear in sales where peeps think that something reduced by 10% and then reduced by another 10% should be reduced by 20%. Of course the actually reduction is 19%, but the confusion on the shoppers' and shop assistants' (and then supervisors' and managers') faces when the calculators come out is hilarious!! :lol:

 

(BTW, just so everyone's clear, I'm not saying shop workers are uneducated and can't do maths and making any derisory comments, just noting something I've seen multiple times as an example. )

[Mumble]

Teehee! My only relationship with numbers has been a purely synaesthetic one!!

Been painting by numbers again?

[bid]

Been painting by numbers again?

 

Tsk!! You know I'd never do that...can't bear to be told what to do creatively!

 

Oh no...now I've got ODD...or is it PDA too??

 

Biddy Baxter

Edited March 23, 2011 by bid

[Mumble]

Oh no...now I've got ODD...or is it PDA too??

Don't worry - by the time they're all subsumed in the new DSM, you'll just have bog-standard ASD like the rest of us.

[baddad]

just as a completely point (who, me? surely not ) your percentages of percentages argument is one you regularly hear in sales where peeps think that something reduced by 10% and then reduced by another 10% should be reduced by 20%.

 

 

That's where I learnt my 'bit o' maths' (I can do easy percentages and 'adding up' and that's me out of there)... That odd one percent 'divi' used to be my bread and butter... 15% + 5% was the gravy

 

Truth be told I was the worst sales rep on the planet, but I got ever so good at spotting when it was time to jump ship (usually before the 3rd year annual review/sales meeting, or when some lazy headhunting Recruitment Specialist (falls into the category of an oxymoron, that one, but not quite as blindingly obvious as say 'Friendly Fire' or 'Woman's Intuition') got your number by phoning the sales desk receptionist and pretending you'de been 'recommended' to him...

 

Now I work for rentokil exterminating rats. I do it by hand. It's much more rewarding. Sometimes we get cockroaches too. Think 'Bubblwrap', and you'll start to see the attraction

 

 

PS: That's pretty much my whole day wasted. I've got 1500 words due in tomorrow on 'Top Girls' and I haven't even looked at the bl00dy cover yet!

[Mumble]

PS: That's pretty much my whole day wasted. I've got 1500 words due in tomorrow on 'Top Girls' and I haven't even looked at the bl00dy cover yet!

Topless girls? this is a family-forum BD, don't go lowering the tone now. Now??? Hmm.

 

Anyway, dittoish (apart from the topless girls bit). I'm hoping to wake up tomorrow and find the tooth-fairy has got confused and left 30,000 words under my pillow.

[baddad]

If it had been Topless Girls I'm sure I would have got around to looking at the cover by now.

 

However, I do remember having a copy of the tome you mention under my bed when I was about fourteen. My mum said 'don't look at that, you'll go blind'. I said 'can I stop when I need glasses?'

 

 

 

And before you ask, only for reading

[dm2010]

Divide by the number you first thought of.

 

Or to put it another way

 

Probability density function = [1/(2*pi*sigma)^-0.5]*exp[(X-avg)/(2*sigma^2)]

 

[GaryS]

Divide by the number you first thought of.

 

Or to put it another way

 

Probability density function = [1/(2*pi*sigma)^-0.5]*exp[(X-avg)/(2*sigma^2)]

 

 

Wooo - Of course the problem with using all these cool analytical techniques is there is an underlying assumption of a defined propagation of error. With the assessment of the IQ, one can't assume this - consider the individual that exhibits ODD......

[baddad]

The other day I was walking down the road and I saw a guy letting his dog poo on the path.

I asked, 'are you going to clean that up?'

He told me to eff off and shook his pitbull lookilikee at me.

 

Consider the person who exhibits ODD?

Edited March 24, 2011 by baddad

[GaryS]

Ooo do I detect a glove waving in front of me??? you don't like the term then.

[baddad]

Ooo do I detect a glove waving in front of me??? you don't like the term then.

 

No glove waving, but no, I'm not keen on the term. I've gone into greater detail elsewhere, but from what I've seen (and I admit that's a very limited 'seen') the term usually refers to a group of behaviours that could arise for many reasons but where only one explanation is considered.

 

L&P

 

BD

[GaryS]

No glove waving, but no, I'm not keen on the term. I've gone into greater detail elsewhere, but from what I've seen (and I admit that's a very limited 'seen') the term usually refers to a group of behaviours that could arise for many reasons but where only one explanation is considered.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

On this forum?

 

I'd agree with that so I wouldn't have pick the glove up anyway <'>

[baddad]

On this forum?

 

I'd agree with that so I wouldn't have pick the glove up anyway <'>

 

No, not on this forum. I don't know anyone personally on this forum who has a child with PDA or ODD, so I wouldn't be in a position where i knew what other explanations might apply. So a general observation based on very little evidence, but acknowledging that the evidence of the individual applying or seeking to apply the term is unlikely to be unbiased.