I am sooo eagerly waiting some kind of follow up to all the objections from that blog article. It was truly and eye-opener; there are people in the research com

I am sooo eagerly waiting some kind of follow up to all the objections from that blog article. It was truly and eye-opener; there are people in the research community holding their breath for this guy! That said, the SciAm article says nothing new and does not do anything to defend against infopractical's criticisms. It presumes that Tammet is the man he claims to be; it's still a mystery! Although for a person who is supposedly Kim-Peek-level in terms of memory, he is using the term "antisocial" incorrectly (he means "nonsocial," although this error is as common as the public's misuse of "hack"). The hyperconnectivity stuff is simply an extension of spread activation. Under this framework, everything he says in that article is obvious. Finally, somewhat irrelevant to infopractical (which is still the most curious issue here), Tammet's objection to IQ is valid, but stated exceedingly weakly. "This sounds a lot to me like astrology, which lumps everyone into one of 12 signs of the zodiac.": that's exactly what it does, and what it was designed to do, but that doesn't amount to a reason against it. The problem is the faulty inference that IQ translates directly to a discrete measurement of intelligence.