5 ms·

Inside the Savant Mind: Tips for Thinking from an Extraordinary Thinker

13 points by makimaki 18y ago

jwesley 18y ago
The whole concept of learning to be a savant by reading some interview is ridiculous. You would have better results with Tim Ferriss' Brain Quicken product. Some interesting bits though. I hate how knowledge gets degraded into self help pseudo-science to sell books.
byrneseyeview 18y ago
The bell curve distribution for IQ scores tells us that two thirds of the world’s population have an IQ somewhere between 85 and 115. This means that some four and a half billion people around the globe share just 31 numerical values (“He’s a 94,” “You’re a 110,” ”I’m a 103”), equivalent to 150 million people worldwide sharing the same IQ score. This sounds a lot to me like astrology, which lumps everyone into one of twelve signs of the zodiac. Does he also object to numerical values for height?
- dhimes 18y ago
  The debate is whether or not intelligence is one-dimensional. Height is clearly one-dimensional. Intelligence may not be.
  - axiom 18y ago
    Every multi-dimensional measure can be projected onto one dimension. The question is whether it still retains useful discriminating power at that point. The whole argument in favor of a g factor in intelligence is that when you measure different kinds of intelligence (verbal, analytical etc.) the numbers you get seem to be a function of a single dominant factor. (That's the argument, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with it.)
    - dhimes 18y ago
      Agreed. It is noteworthy that we have an analogous situation here on HN. Karma is really a one-dimensional projection of a two-dimensional (at least) characteristic. People upmod because they agree, or because they think the post is interesting. This blends two quite different characteristics into one number. We could still argue that the value of a person's karma has a rough correlation with total value or contribution to the community, albeit two people may have the same karma values but have arrived at them through different means (say, one being agreeable, and the other being interesting).
      - axiom 18y ago
        That's a cool idea! do you think a news site with two types of upvotes would work? A user could sort their view of the front page based on either props (agree votes) or recommendations (interest votes) or some weighted combination. Maybe too complicated?
        dhimes 18y ago
        Boy, I don't know. Probably the most important factor for a news site is interesting people commenting. I would be curious about a ranking method based somehow on how long of a thread a comment spawns. Kind of like pagerank or citations ranking in journals. If someone's comment spawns a lot of discussion (minus the spam), it is rated as valuable. But I've concluded that I really don't understand people that well, so I don't have a good intuition as to what would actually work.
        jmah 18y ago
        That's what Slashdot has had for comments for as long as I remember (+funny, insightful, etc.). You can tweak your settings for how those traits are projected to a one-dimensional number (e.g. making "funny" more or less valuable).
      - dgordon 18y ago
        Good point. On most other sites like this (such as Digg and Reddit) there's a third factor that's much more influential than the others there, but much less so here -- whether the post is funny.
jmah 18y ago
See also "Debunking Daniel Tammet" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=412355 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=412355
- opticksversi 18y ago
  test

13 points by makimaki 18y ago

The whole concept of learning to be a savant by reading some interview is ridiculous. You would have better results with Tim Ferriss' Brain Quicken product. Some interesting bits though. I hate how knowledge gets degraded into self help pseudo-science to sell books.

byrneseyeview 18y ago

The bell curve distribution for IQ scores tells us that two thirds of the world’s population have an IQ somewhere between 85 and 115. This means that some four and a half billion people around the globe share just 31 numerical values (“He’s a 94,” “You’re a 110,” ”I’m a 103”), equivalent to 150 million people worldwide sharing the same IQ score. This sounds a lot to me like astrology, which lumps everyone into one of twelve signs of the zodiac. Does he also object to numerical values for height?

dhimes 18y ago
The debate is whether or not intelligence is one-dimensional. Height is clearly one-dimensional. Intelligence may not be.
- axiom 18y ago
  Every multi-dimensional measure can be projected onto one dimension. The question is whether it still retains useful discriminating power at that point. The whole argument in favor of a g factor in intelligence is that when you measure different kinds of intelligence (verbal, analytical etc.) the numbers you get seem to be a function of a single dominant factor. (That's the argument, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with it.)
  - dhimes 18y ago
    Agreed. It is noteworthy that we have an analogous situation here on HN. Karma is really a one-dimensional projection of a two-dimensional (at least) characteristic. People upmod because they agree, or because they think the post is interesting. This blends two quite different characteristics into one number. We could still argue that the value of a person's karma has a rough correlation with total value or contribution to the community, albeit two people may have the same karma values but have arrived at them through different means (say, one being agreeable, and the other being interesting).
    - axiom 18y ago
      That's a cool idea! do you think a news site with two types of upvotes would work? A user could sort their view of the front page based on either props (agree votes) or recommendations (interest votes) or some weighted combination. Maybe too complicated?
      - dhimes 18y ago
        Boy, I don't know. Probably the most important factor for a news site is interesting people commenting. I would be curious about a ranking method based somehow on how long of a thread a comment spawns. Kind of like pagerank or citations ranking in journals. If someone's comment spawns a lot of discussion (minus the spam), it is rated as valuable. But I've concluded that I really don't understand people that well, so I don't have a good intuition as to what would actually work.
      - jmah 18y ago
        That's what Slashdot has had for comments for as long as I remember (+funny, insightful, etc.). You can tweak your settings for how those traits are projected to a one-dimensional number (e.g. making "funny" more or less valuable).
    - dgordon 18y ago
      Good point. On most other sites like this (such as Digg and Reddit) there's a third factor that's much more influential than the others there, but much less so here -- whether the post is funny.

jmah 18y ago

See also "Debunking Daniel Tammet" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=412355 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=412355

opticksversi 18y ago
test