From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 5 December 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Counteraction's addition[edit]

I've removed the material added by Counteraction (diff link) while I'm researching it. So far it seems that we have a live antivaccionist, though. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, have fun parsing. Тиранесcomplement disaster, quantify lemon? 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dug up so far: a comment on the 2009 Hertz-Picciotto study by Stephen Novella. --ZooGuard (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC) (Just for the record: it caused one of ScienceBlogs's storms-in-a-teacup between Greg Laden and Orac: [1] [2])--ZooGuard (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Try this paper which specifically mentions the Singh paper with the words
Similarly, the report of elevated levels of antibodies in children with autism (16) has also been negated by more recent work (15).

Jack Hughes (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How about
The auto-immune hypothesis of autism states that autism is a disease caused by a production of abnormal antibodies that cross-react with Myelin Basic Protein. Dr. Vijendra Singh, an immunologist, has done research in autistic children and found an an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera.<ref></ref> Over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies. In another study, Singh et al compared levels of antibodies between normal and autistic children, and found elevated levels of measles antibodies, but not mumps or rubella.<ref></ref> Immunoblotting of measles vaccine virus revealed an antibody that was directed against a protein of approximately 74 kd molecular weight. The antibody to this antigen was found in 83% of autistic children but not in normal children or siblings of autistic children. On the basis of this evidence, Dr. Vijendra Singh believes that autism may be the result of an abnormal immune response against the measles subset of the MMR vaccine, that leads to auto-antibodies. Singh does not believe that the Thimerosal found in some vaccines plays a causative role in the development of autism.<ref></ref> However, as with all the "links" discovered between vaccines and autism this has been refuted by later research. <ref>
Jack Hughes (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If this is a draft text: Weak. It basically re-tells the same story (beloved by the anti-vaccine movement and other cranks - just look at what Google serves on searching for the name of the author.) and adds a single-sentence rebuttal. Given the short length of the article, it also gives it a lot of (undue) prominence. Unless we are going to have a long list of commentary of such studies.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course, to me, a single sentence rebuttal is all that is needed. However, on reflection, I can see your point. Your link to the Wakefield article does the job much better. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On a personal note...[edit]

...I am quite intrigued with those findings regarding the genetical deletion, because both I and my sister aswell as a common cousin paternally have been diagnosed with an Autism-spectrum disorder or schizophrenia, and my nephew exhibits potentially symptomatic behaviour.Sumpfkraut (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Individuals speculated to be on the spectrum[edit]

Is there a reason for this? This sort of armchair psychology is pretty useless and usually wrong. Plus Ayn Rand was a well-known speed addict, which probably explains a lot more of her behavior than being autistic (see what I mean?) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Then fix it! ТyTalk. 21:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Deletion is not fixing, cleaning up is. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Having a speed addiction hardly serves as an explanation for being a genius. Autism on the other hand, does. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice to have footnotes for each of these? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reading a footnote is like having to go downstairs to answer the door while making love. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody here deny that ChrisChan has autism? I thought not.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we have a citation, though? I could call you anything I want, but that wouldn't hold water, would it? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I was only making a silly joke.--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Ideally, we should have citations for every person on the list. If any of these rely on Prof. Michael Fitzgerald's mass armchair-diagnoses, we should think twice about using them, since at least one of them was politically motivated [3]. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have often read that Albert Enistein had autsim. Based on his social life, I agree.

Think this is pure speculation. Reminds me of atheists claiming cool people from the past to have been in their camp. Also consider that autism diagnosis is not reliable. Aspergers was diagnosed at me with only a few very stereotypical yes/no questions about my behaviour that I had to answer. Anyone could get a diagnosis (with perhaps a little acting) if he wanted. Brain scans are (not yet) used, though that would be cool :) (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Autism and scepticism[edit]

Cut from article, pending review and citations.

It is however possible that autism are indeed increasing through Darwinian selection, since the only cognitive difference between normal infants and autistic infants is that the latter are more sceptical than the former (the disability is merely because innate scpticism makes it more difficult to learn dupeness-based interaction), and autism "rides" on selection for genes for scepticism, caused by the fact that society contains motifs for deception today, giving innate scepticism a positive survival value... ... but the genetic causes of "less severe" causes may simply be missed because non-coding DNA is poorly studied.

Einstein and Newton was clearly autistic, while Darwin appears to be a border case. There is a clear overrepresentation of autistic traits in scientific pioneers compared to the population in general. This may be due to the fact that innate scepticism is a protection against indoctrination and thus good for scientific thought.

Thoughts? Interesting idea but I don't buy it entirely. ADK...I'll unify your sceptre! 17:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy it at all. The idea that autistic individuals have better survival & reproduction chances than "normal" people is flawed to say the least, & rests on some very dubious logic about scepticism. & Retrospective diagnosis of people who died a long time ago is equally dubious & best avoided unless it's a well known theory or there is some very compelling evidence. I say leave this stuff out. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, descriptions of Dirac damn well scream autism, but Einstein and Newton are definitely a stretch when it comes to retrospective diagnosis. It's a fun pop-psychology distraction to see who had what disorder in the past, but I would never take such things seriously. ADK...I'll reward your plague! 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
If its cited, include it as "this person says". but otherwise? if it's just someone's "guess", dump it.Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is any increase in the ratio of autists, I rather consider it a consequence of people with disabilities generally having better chances of surviving nowadays. That's due to better health care and a less Darwinian society, rather than Darwinian Selection. After all, the social difficulties are not particularly helpful for reproduction. One should note, thought, that, if i remember correctly, the reasons for autism aren't exclusively genetic (stay with me, I'm not talking about vaccines). I, for example, have Asperger's, and I'm not aware of any other cases within the autism spectrum within my family.
When it comes to Einstein and Newton: I find it quite possible that they had some sort auf weak autism, with Newton sometimes lecturing to an empty lecture hall when no student showed up, and Einstein showing some symptoms of mild autism that are pretty familiar to me [1]. But, given that these men died before Asperger's Syndrom existed as a diagnose, this point must be left open to speculation. -- (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


Neurodiversity is an interesting subject, thoughRandonGeneration (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As in rather sillyRandonGeneration (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Most of it is not woo, though. Blue Talk 00:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
As for the actual woo though?RandonGeneration (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to talk about the actual woo, then. I assume you're referring to the overbroad claims of some neurodiversity advocates with regard to things like Parkinson's and BPD? Blue Talk 00:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Precisely.RandonGeneration (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, there I agree, but I am a rather firm believer in neurodiversity where it can be cleanly demonstrated that atypical neurodevelopment does not represent an intrinsic "something went wrong" label. High-functioning autism is probably one of those areas, and maybe even LGBT if you consider the neurology of homosexuality and transsexualism. Blue Talk 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
"High functioning autism" isn't autism. It's a spectrum disorder using Rainman to sell confusion to parents of Aspies. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
HFA isn't really the same as Asperger, though. It may or may not be classic autism, depending on the individual being described. It's still overly stigmatized and pathologized. Blue Talk 03:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I say that neurodiversity is a completely legitimate concept, even if it does have some proponents that take it too far. Sir Onion Kneel before my vegetable might! 01:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we should start a wiki-project to remove the word "woo" wherever possible. It is over-used. Highly over-used. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
No. I like woo. It sounds funny. As for neurodiversity, exactly as onion and blue said - some people have taken it well outside the realms of reality.RandonGeneration (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Woo" sounds like baby talk. It sounds stupid. It has it's place, but as a constant header in every damn article, it is lame. We need a better word. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas then?RandonGeneration (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
For goodness sake, Human, "woo" is perfectly fine, even in "every damned article". It doesn't sound childish, it sounds like what it is, "woo". --Green mowse.pngGodot 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think "woo" adds to our snarky brand. It's not harmful, really, though I agree seeing "Woo" as a header in so many articles is a little repetitive. Blue Talk 01:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh! i do see your point in Titles and Headers in articles. Autism Woo, Vitiman D woo, Trans fat Woo, Spider woo, Ninga woo, does get repetitive. But using woo within the paragraph like "is one of the many associations with woomeisters" or "having various woo aspects" is more reasonable. Green mowse.pngGodot 02:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting that Asperger's is pseudoscience? If so, that's a statement of gross ignorance as any neurologist will tell you and it's also extremely insensitive to the many people with Asperger's syndrome, such as myself, many of whom, unlike me are not misanthropic jerks but have serious problems dealing with others nevertheless and are perfectly nice people! It's also grossly offensive to the parents of children with Asperger's (such as the fabulous Jacqi Jackson) who are extremely loving and hardworking and will tell you with absolute certainty that their child has a problem. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Autism/Asperger's is NOT a disorder[edit]

I'm Autistic, which is why I can't tolerate religion. It's for Allistics, really. They say Autistics are rigid, but it's always the Allistics who perpetuate these standards for EVERYTHING. I want a more relativistic, subjective, arbitrary view of the world. I want FREEDOM, where everyone can be who they want to be. I want a world for us all -- folks like Lizard Man, with all of the body mods, folks who are Otherkin, folks who are Neurodiverse, folks who are extremely Gothic, and gay, and transgendered, and Androgynous, and those who are so-called "freaks," and blue people, green people, all races, all forms of being and expression. I want a world of freedom and happiness for all. And yet it would appear that most of the Atheists and secularists support Autism being regarded as a disorder as well, even with Neurodiversity and the Autism Rights Movement campaigning against us being regarded as disordered. This is a civil rights movement which isn't given much attention or thought. It's as though the ND movement is considered nonsense or woo or something, but you don't understand -- We really do want to be Autistic, and the real mental issues we experience are from always being regarded as disordered when we're not. If there really were an afterlife, I would want to be Autistic there as well, and I'd want to see all manner of diversity there. Psychiatry is good for sick individuals, but Autistics are not disordered. I get so sick and depressed over all of this "disorder" crap. I have a mental disorder, and it's known as Major Depression. I don't want to feel sick and depressed. I want to stop being labelled as disordered for being myself, which is Autistic. I've always loved being Autistic. Perhaps I can be cured of my depression if Autism is no longer considered a disorder. I don't have a lot of confidence in myself, due to how I've been treated throughout my life. And I'm not asking to be treated with "compassion" for my "disorder" -- I'm asking to NOT be regarded as disordered AT ALL. I'm just different. But every difference is considered to be a disorder. It hurts, a lot. Do there always have to be ridiculous standards all the time? It's like Psychiatry has become the replacement for Religion, and folks like myself are being seriously harmed. If you've gotten the ultimate Absolute, which is God, taken out of the equation, do we have to be oppressed by a replacement system as well? Bumpy Toad (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Autism is very clearly a disorder for some people. There are those who have genuine problems in life because of it, not just because they function poorly in society, but because they can't form lasting romantic or amicable reationships. There's a lot of bad hype surrounding autism, and the one-size-fits-all approach to autism many people take is wrong, but it's understandable that it's labeled as a disorder and it's not a personal attack on you. You may be happy to know the DSM-V defines autism more strictly, requiring consistent problems with functioning in daily life for a diagnosis--which is a reasonable standard for a disorder, really. If psychiatrists stick to this standard, it means that people without major problems won't be treated as autistic. This is perhaps not as good as destigmatizing the autism label, but it's a decent substitute. Kimberly (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But see, I am Autistic, really. I've always been labelled as such, and I receive SSI Disability insurance. There's a lot I can't do for myself, so my Mom assists me. But that's because I have a different set of strengths and the human brain can't multitask at everything. I love living with my Mom and I'm happy with my life and myself and my relationships with others who are also eccentric like me. Could other Autistics' relationship problems be due to not meeting the right folks? I have a fiancee, and he's Autistic as well. He's also from Pakistan, so we have different cultures which means we don't have to feel as though we need to fit in. It's a great life, and I'm just different. I don't want to be considered disordered, and I have a huge complex about being regarded as such, which makes me severely depressed, even in spite of having a great life. And perhaps I shouldn't feel depressed because one's mind can create nonexistent problems and it's just needless drama, but I'm just so sick of hearing about Autism as a disorder, rather than just a difference. If there is racial diversity, biodiversity, sexual diversity, all kinds of diversity, then why not Neurodiversity? Bumpy Toad (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect your autism is not *why* you can't tollerate religion. I have several autistic acquaintances who find comfort in religion. Basically, you are applying your sterotypes to what "we" want for you, when it's not really what we want for you or anyone, cause "we" are not a "we". And as Kimberly said, what is or is not a disorder largely has to do with how that person functions in the world. you are able to work on a computer. At my eye doctor (who specializes in harder to work with children) many of the autistic kids will never have a life outside of the small world they can survive in. That includes computers, or language at all. you are a functioning autistic, so on the spectrum, you are nearly like those you seem to dispise, who would have you denied your freedom! the fact is, you are not speaking for all or many autistics. especiallly those who cannot yet even speak.Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If you partially rely on others in your daily life, isn't it fair to say you have a disorder? In your case, it's a functional impairment. That doesn't mean you're not a good person, or don't have anything to contribute--it's not like you have to be fully able or else you're entirely worthless. There are certainly cases in which autism shouldn't be considered a disorder (haughty as it is, I count myself among them), but I think in your case it's actually a good fit. Kimberly (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is quite simply a load of shit. I have Autism and I have studied it. The idea that it's not a disorder is insane and blatantly ableist. It's no different than saying that people with no legs don't have a disability and that they shouldn't be treated. The idea that Autism is not a disorder that you "want to have Autism" is just denialist. You don't want to have Autism because of the problems it causes, and so you make up a defense mechanism where you convince yourself that you actually want to be Autistic and it's not a disorder. The entire "Autism culture" movement, denialism that Autism is a disorder, smacks of 19th century scientific racism. If people actually viewed Autism as not being a disorder the way you want them to, you would be hated for being racist. Believing that Autistic people are a superior breed of humanity because they're sometimes better at math or because they run the computer networks that the world is based on is no different than the belief that White people are more evolved than Black people. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be taking it to the other extreme. Sure, many people with autism are functionally impaired and benefit from treatment, but for others it's not a problem at all, and they are harmed by the stigma the label bears. Of course it's ridiculous to say that all autistics are the Master Race, but it's just as ridiculous to say that all autistics are inferior. Kimberly (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Denying that Autism is a disorder is openly wanting to condemn everyone who has it to suffer with it by denying them treatment. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This section would have greatly benefited from being ignored...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Autism Rights Movement or neurodiversity movement was actually never about denying that autism is a disorder or disability. In fact, it's a sub-branch of the disability rights movement. Instead, what it's actually about is simply emphasising the social model of disability over the medical model. In other words, it's wanting society to make accommodations and services available for autistic people to make their lives easier (similar to how the make disabled parking bays available for people in wheelchairs) rather than trying to cure or eliminate it. (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To Bumpy Toad, autism is a disorder. I have a brother with autism and he has a fairly severe mental handicap because of it. My brother is almost 24 but has a mental age of 5-6. I have met other people with autism who are mentally challenged and it is a major disorder with them. No I am not promoting hate as I have autism and mental illness myself. I find it annoying that there are people who actually believe autism is made up--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

New info?[edit]

I'm not really wiki-savvy enough to figure out how to include this [[4]] while at work, not sure when I'll have the time to sit down and familiarize myself with it. If it comes to it I can eventually, but it seems like a pretty major bit of info to the topic. Trick (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


There is a line about more severe autism being genetic while less severe autism is a shift is aptitudes. Actually from what I've heard there is a stronger genetic basis to high functioning autism while severe autism is ruled as having more environmental influence. — Unsigned, by: / talk 08:35, 26 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I just added an interesting study on a possible cause of autism.[edit]

It is about facial features and it was published in an issue of molecular autism. (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Included is the actual article. It states that Autism and the facial feature change are related, could be caused by the same genetic action, not that one causes the other. It was thought to be used as another part of the diagnostic package. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(EC) How are facial features a 'cause' of autism? It's interesting if autism is accompanied by certain facial features, but it doesn't in itself explain anything about autistic behaviour. (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
BoN sees causation one way, we see it the other. To test, we obviously need to give people special plastic surgery and see if they develop autism. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, it's a symptom, not a cause. Gotcha. (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did another possible cause.[edit]

It involves the shape and structure of lung paths. -Usigned: (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Same issue, it's an indicator of Autism and not a cause. The abstract paragraph in PubMed was pretty clear. From the abstract: "We propose that the presence of doublets might be an objective, reliable, and valid biologic marker of autism/ASD." Please read the content of your links. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright then, undo as needed. (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if the mistakes were not made in the first place by you reading and understanding the material. Not that everyone is perfect, especially before coffee, but the content of these abstracts are not written as badly as some. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Lung condition does not mean causality for autism.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Is it really necessary to have this category here? Kvltcat (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears misplaced. Thank you for raising this issue; I'll go about fixing the problem now. I doubt that move will be controversial, but - as always - I welcome amicable debate on any topic. Though this, to me, appears to be an open-and-shut case. Autism certainly is no kind of pseudoscience in itself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just making sure. I think it was placed there because the article references pseudoscientific methods of treatment for autism. But the article itself isn't pseudoscience. Kvltcat (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


Hey, I added something but I don't know if the English is very correct or well written since I'm not fluent in English. It's the new "Insult thing."

Remember to sign your post! And, I undid your addition as I didn't see it as very necessary overall. But please, read up on our community guidelines and keep at it! :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually think this isn't a terrible idea to include somewhere as I see its becoming way too common. Zero (talk - contributions) 04:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Thread of the day (nods at DG): RationalWiki. My most favorite site ever at this time.

Mostly positive stuff, possibly b/c our coverage of autism stems from altmed kooks and antivax nutters. 19:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Vaccinations[edit] Health Advice was finally spoken out against the CDC. Natural News but still good. (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

>Natural News
--Ymir (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial edit debunking daniel tammett[edit]

Do not see why my edit was not approved. It contains lots of common sense plus a few sources and is much more credible than the Savant stories the media portray. Would expect a rational wiki to be at least open to the arguments and add a 'controversial' section.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Besides the editorial and grammatical wierdness present in your edit (which is a relatively big problem already on its own), your sources appeared rather cranky. A livejournal page, a self-published e-book, and a page listing number memorization (which tries to be way more "official looking" than it really is) appears rather cranky and cherry-picked compared to - just on the topic of Tammet - his Wikipedia article sections on the scientific studies done on himWikipedia and on his savantismWikipedia.
Further, you seem to argue that "90%" (or some arbitrary number) of all claimed savantism "in the media" (very vague indeed) is woo or somehow fraudulent. This claim of yours is not supported by science eitherWikipedia. I would urge you to consider the quality of the sources used in these TOW articles, and weigh theirs against that of the meager sources provided in your edit.
And all of this besides the fact that you seem to have put your conclusions together on your ownWikipedia (and thus just raked up sources in support of your theory), in contrast to - as in the case with the scientific reports that the TOW articles cite - the sources used being explicitly on the topic of savantism, and on Tammet, respectively.
For example, I can't believe the people behind the number memorizer page have any idea you're using their data to construct a case on savantism in generalWikipedia, nor that they produced their data (however frivolous it also is) with the intention that it be applicable to your theory. But - to mention a single source - the journal Nature NeuroscienceWikipedia was and is overtly aware that their results they are intended to be part of the scientific debate around savantism, and they were able to provide data and reasoning in response to that - and, to no surprise, they don't mirror your view that savantism is a "media hoax" or something of the sort (I don't mean to straw man you, I'm just trying to grasp your position). Neither do any of the other scientific sources. Just saying. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course my sources are not great, though the mathematician's link I gave certainly has something to say. Knowing how most of these tricks work pisses me off about articles like this one: or . Easily masterable skills are attributed to some weird intuition. There is also a desire often expressed in articles to "unlock" these alleged secrets in normal people by brain stimulation (see 10-percent myth).
I do not share your position, yet will clarify mine. What bothers me about the presentation of savants in media (like the documentary "The boy with the incredible brain") is that ordinary achievements are explained with a syndrome attributed to innate brain differences. E.g. the memory world record proves that 3000 digits remembered in an hour are possible with some talent and a training system (phonetic or PAO are common) without requiring autism/savant syndrome. This makes an attempt to recite 30000 digits of Pi far less incredible, considering how few people attempt remembering long phone numbers. I think that "savant syndrome" correlates with weird hobbies like mental arithmetics, but is definitely not its causal explanation. We would not explain a decent performance by a 3rd-rate football player with him talking about his relationship to Jesus when there is a far easier explanation (training, and others without that claim being better than him).
On Daniel Tammett: I think the Wikipedia article is more interesting on its talk page. Apparently it has been subject to edit wars. I maintain that his back story is not credible (see f.ex. where he likely tried to sell memory tricks way before his fame). The scientific investigations on him are 1) inconclusive (memory tests would be obviously fooled by any technique) 2) would make him extremely unusual since synaesthesia and autism seem not to occur together 3) found no significant brain differences (which have indeed been found for Kim Peek, but are required for him to differ from any actor) (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write your reply. I don't share your position either - links to Yahoo Groups discussions, links to blog posts and references to Wikipedia edit wars still hold no water against actual published, peer-reviewed science (example paper) but it's certainly all an interesting topic, and I share your interest in it.
I can certainly imagine that the current testing methods to determine savant abilities will need to be constantly re-evaluated and upgraded and so on... I'm sure this is being done but it's a fair point to be watchful of trickery nonetheless - although you don't need to scrape together old links to point that out. There have been many cases where illusionists and tricksters have been able to convince scientists of near-supernatural powers via messing with the experiments (e.g., as happened in Project AlphaWikipedia.
Now, I'm certainly not arguing along the lines of: "Science isn't always right!" or "Science was wrong before!", therefore fringe theory is valid. Not at all. But what I am saying is; I'm happy you didn't flip your shit when I explained why these particular edits won't make it into the article, but that you instead took the time to adjust to my comments, and explained your position in friendly terms. And I'll gladly return that favor. Remember, the truth is not a contest. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong, and in the meantime, we shouldn't get too snowed in on any particular pet theory we might hold. Thanks for the discussion anyways. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
"[S]ynaesthesia and autism do not seem to go together" Where have you that idea gotten from?! Baron-Cohen et al. have come to a radically different conclusion. (I've got a friend who has recently even asserted the complete opposite – that virtually only autistic people have synaesthesia – although that sounds extreme to me too.)
Something to take into account is that lots of autistic people – especially those with a female-typical expression of autism – and also lots of synaesthetes – especially those whose form(s) of synaesthesia are different from the "classical" types (or who've simply never realised that what they experience is not the norm); again, much more variety than science had long realised – tend to be overlooked. -- (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

On face-blindness, or prosopagnosia[edit]

Not all autistic people have trouble remembering or recognizing faces. The opening section of this article very strongly gives that impression. Oogenesis (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)