Who hates being a savant?

Post Reply New Topic

Probably could memorise it to 100, but to be honest ive always thoughts its pretty pointless knowing it to 11 places seeing as how im never going to use that bit of information.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that you must be at that level to be savant because that's putting too strict a guideline or something which is far more diverse, some people have more gift in art and music than in mathematics for instance. According to wiki there's three types of savant:

Splinter skills savant: This is the most common category of savant syndrome. People in this category of have talents that usually include things like memorizing license plate numbers or sports trivia.

Talented savant: This category of savant is much more rare than splinter skills. People in this category usually have talents and facets of knowledge that are much more honed and extensive than the splinter skills savant.

Prodigious savant: This is by far the rarest category of savants. There are only around 100 people estimated to be in this category worldwide. Some famous prodigious savants include Kim Peek, Daniel Tammet, and Leslie Lemke.

I think saying that only prodigious savants are savant and the rest arent is like saying that only people with severe AS or autism have the condition, like all there are varying degrees.

It's pretty obnoxious of you to say that there is "no challenge" for you in science.

Consider this:
-Humanity does not know everything about the universe. In fact, we've barely scratched the surface.
-You do not know more than humanity as a whole.
-To find the answers to these unsolved questions is a challenge.
-Therefore, it is wrong to say that there is "no challenge."

I'm sure you probably meant things like solving equations, but come on... if you're that bored, you aren't working hard enough or challenging yourself at all. Even the smartest people on earth have plenty of intellectual challenges to face. In fact, I would say that the smarter you are, the greater the challenges you do face, because only the intellectual elite can even grasp the most challenging problems facing humanity and its knowledge.

That's why I consider the popular label "photographic" for eidetic memory a misnomer

I've just started reading Daniel Tammett's book Born on a Blue Day, quite an amazing guy!

So am I wrong in assuming that eidetic memory referred more to memorising things that youve seen? Its not always been things ive seen that ive memorised, and some things i see i dont memorise, for instance i cant read a book and then recite it back again word for word which is why i've never considered myself to have an eidetic memory, just a good one.

I'm most definitely not a savant, though I have to agree with ButchCoolidge with regards to those who are

I don't consider myself a savant. However, I do remarkably well in some areas of my life, but make ridiculous mistakes in things typical people consider "easy." I tend to be rather clumsy, another source of embarrassment.

IIRC eidetic memory is more about remembering lots of events and facts in an "encyclopedic" and/or "vivid" fashion to at least some extent. The remembering of whole books word for word is an example of a very extreme eidetic memory ability.

I thought of a good analogy. Think about a musical savant who has perfect pitch and can play any chord and any rhythm he wants very easily... it would be so silly for him to say that there is no challenge for him in music. In fact, all of the real challenge still lies ahead - creating wonderful art. Being a savant basically means you get to skip all of the boring stuff... a musical savant doesn't have to spend hours figuring out how to play a certain song, for he/she can play it immediately after hearing it, but he/she still has to learn how to play it well, and that still says nothing for composition. Likewise, a savant in math or science can easily solve equations, etc. but that says nothing for making a meaningful contribution to the field.

I am definitely not a savant, although both my memory and my musical skills are probably only one or two steps below the savant level. I do remember crazy things without trying, but these days, after just coming out of two years of drug/alcohol abuse, I generally need to note things if I am going to remember them. A lot of that is just apathy - memory is tied very much to level of interest (hence certain people of average intelligence have incredible memory for sports statistics when they are really into the sport). Musically, I can pretty much figure out music by ear, as long as it's not too complicated, in a matter of a few minutes. But, I know I have a ways to go before I reach the Mozart/Beethoven level. That's ok, I'm more than satisfied with my abilities.

EXACTLY!! !

I find just this sort of situation in the art department now. I am not an art major and do it for my own enjoyment and I don't know if I would technically be considered a savant since, for savantism, this ability would've arisen a little later than most savants. However, every student in the department usually ignores me UNTIL they find out how well I can draw, etc., and suddenly, oh, I'm one of their favorite people.

People aren't often drawn to my personality-- at least not immediately-- but they are often drawn immediately by the things I can do: art, writing, intelligence, etc. I actually find myself getting jealous of myself! Of getting jealous of my own abilities for the attention they get...

to be truthful, until people here spoke about memorizing PI, and I heard about AS, I never bothered with PI past 3.14159! I was just saying that if it only takes you a minute or less to remember 50, why not? So I certainly wasn't trying to insult, etc...

As for being a savant, people that know me are often amazed by what I know. My mother and father call to ask me for information ALL THE TIME. If it wasn't for that, I might not have talked to my father for YEARS!

I don't know if I would call myself a savant, but I DO know a lot of stuff the average person doesn't, and a lot of it is actually useful. My "savant" skills, if you want to call them that, are based on long term memory and logic.

I just wish mine was consistent. My "power" is-- or rather was-- memory.

There was a time when I was working at a videostore and the computer system went down. That was when we discovered that I actually had the inventory in my head, complete with tracking numbers and locations. That was 12 years ago, and only recently have those numbers started to fade. Similarly, I can no longer go on for quite as long about comic history.

I still have a head for useless trivia-- but frankly, I'd rather have the ability to know when to keep my mouth shut about it.

Hmm interesting, I've always just thought of it as the kind of "study an image for 30 seconds and be able to picture it when not looking at it" which I can't really do, I seem to have somewhat of a "passive memory" i.e. i tend to remember things that I apply in a situation at least once (like remembering a credit card number because ive typed it in during an online purchase for instance) or remembering details of situations i'm placed in, like remembering dialog of conversation, although generally in those circumstances i remember more than just what was said i can usually pretty accurately remember where people were in the room who was sitting or standing where and any other things that may be specific to the situation, for instance someones lamp being on a different table than normal during, thats about as best i can explain it.


Dont get me wrong i didn't take anything as an insult, i literally meant i only ever bothered working it out to 11 places because i had spare time in a maths class once when i was in school and was insanely bored and simply havent bothered since as it was relatively pointless the first time around.

I'm not bored with the science so much as the ease at which it, when begun, is finished - how simply the complex problems are solved. It's frustrating because I want to be able to do so by my own accord.



Well, the same as above. It's not that I do know everything - I'm concerned that eventually I may, and what thereafter?

My request stands. . . I'm damn curious.

Quantum gravity by who's definition? Eager much for the Theory of Everything, eh? Or perhaps you refer to electron interaction between subatomic entities, inferring magnetic phenomena known as gravity?
Always found the quantum term misleading. Useful generality, not much else. Hardly specific.
Still, I agree - I am curious. I hope this sort of thing will present a challenge. I think I might work on this, see where I get.