In search of the social savant.
Alrah
more later...
Alrah
> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Social_savant
>
> more later...
A social savant. The term appears rarely here and there. I've seen
Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. But a social savant... what
does that really *mean* anyhow?
As funny as the uncyclopedia description is, then I don't see the
average neurotypical as being a 'social savant'. The average
neurotypicals interacting with one another, make too many brief
unsociable errors with one another. And then get all tense about it.
*my ego whispers in my ear... *poor smucks* *
The savants we know about are masters in particular sphere - music,
the arts, writing, mathematics or physics etc. so why should social
behaviour be seen as off limits to a savant? Why shouldn't there be
fundementally wordless components to all human social behaviour that
can be understood in a detailed way leading to the creation of savant
masters of social behaviour, just as there are savant masters of
music?
And if there might be people walking around in our world such as
these ... how would you spot them?
I know, I know - it's all theory and speculation... :-)
Alrah
What really captivated my attenion was how Derek learned a new piece
and improvised. That really illustrates the mechanism fundemental to
the expression of savants perfectly.
If you're interesting in, as Tom put's it: "Magic is the
investigation of how stuff really happens, such that, by
knowing how, you can produce effects that seem miraculous to those
who
don't know how" - then the programme 'The inner world of Music' can be
heard at:
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Alrah wrote:
> On 17 Nov, 13:00, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Social_savant
>>
>>more later...
>
>
> A social savant. The term appears rarely here and there. I've seen
> Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. But a social savant... what
> does that really *mean* anyhow?
Miss Manners, Emily Post, Letitia Baldridge?
Ever read E. F. Benson's "Mapp and Lucia" series?
--
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Domine, dirige nos.
Let the games begin!
http://fredeeky.typepad.com/fredeeky/files/sf_anthem.mp3
Alrah
wrote:
> Alrah wrote:
> > On 17 Nov, 13:00, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Social_savant
>
> >>more later...
>
> > A social savant. The term appears rarely here and there. I've seen
> > Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. But a social savant... what
> > does that really *mean* anyhow?
>
> Miss Manners, Emily Post, Letitia Baldridge?
Who?
> Ever read E. F. Benson's "Mapp and Lucia" series?
*shakes head* I don't think so...
What do you think qualifies these people as social savants?
Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq.
Alrah wrote:
> On 17 Nov, 22:50, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <jpsti...@isp.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Alrah wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Nov, 13:00, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Social_savant
>>>
>>>>more later...
>>>
>>>A social savant. ÔøΩThe term appears rarely here and there. ÔøΩI've seen
>>>Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. ÔøΩBut a social savant... what
>>>does that really *mean* anyhow?
>>
>>Miss Manners, Emily Post, Letitia Baldridge?
>
>
> Who?
>
>
>>Ever read E. F. Benson's "Mapp and Lucia" series?
>
>
> *shakes head* I don't think so...
>
> What do you think qualifies these people as social savants?
>
The 3 women listed are recognized experts os social situations and the
books by Benson or about social situations.
Alrah
wrote:
> Alrah wrote:
> > On 17 Nov, 22:50, "Mr. Joseph Littleshoes Esq." <jpsti...@isp.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Alrah wrote:
>
> >>>On 17 Nov, 13:00, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Social_savant
>
> >>>>more later...
>
> >>>Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. But a social savant... what
> >>>does that really *mean* anyhow?
>
> >>Miss Manners, Emily Post, Letitia Baldridge?
>
> > Who?
>
> >>Ever read E. F. Benson's "Mapp and Lucia" series?
>
> > *shakes head* I don't think so...
>
> > What do you think qualifies these people as social savants?
>
> The 3 women listed are recognized experts os social situations and the
> books by Benson or about social situations.
Hmmm. Perhaps it's time to widen my scope of reading material again.
Thanks Joeseph. I'll look them up. :-)
Tom
> On 17 Nov, 13:00, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Social_savant
>
> > more later...
>
> A social savant. The term appears rarely here and there. I've seen
> Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. But a social savant... what
> does that really *mean* anyhow?
It means someone who has extraordinary social abilities, of course.
> As funny as the uncyclopedia description is, then I don't see the
> average neurotypical as being a 'social savant'.
But nobody said that the "average neurotypical" is a savant. Savants
have some extraordinary ability. Average people have ordinary
abilities.
> The savants we know about are masters in particular sphere - music,
> the arts, writing, mathematics or physics etc. so why should social
> behaviour be seen as off limits to a savant?
Nobody said they were off limits, either.
> Why shouldn't there be
> fundementally wordless components to all human social behaviour that
> can be understood in a detailed way leading to the creation of savant
> masters of social behaviour, just as there are savant masters of
> music?
Something else to add to your reading list.
"Frames of Mind", by Howard Gardner.
In that book , Gardner posits that intelligence is not a single factor
but multiple factors. Along with linguistic and mathematical
intelligences, there is spacial, musical, kinesthetic, and
interpersonal intelligences. Each of these functions is mediated in a
different part of the brain and has been shown to be discretely
affected by particular kinds of brain damage as well as by the
existence of savants in those areas.
Alrah
> On Nov 17, 11:14 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 17 Nov, 13:00, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Social_savant
>
> > > more later...
>
> > A social savant. The term appears rarely here and there. I've seen
> > Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. But a social savant... what
> > does that really *mean* anyhow?
>
> It means someone who has extraordinary social abilities, of course.
And what would make someone have extrodinary social abilities?
> > As funny as the uncyclopedia description is, then I don't see the
> > average neurotypical as being a 'social savant'.
>
> But nobody said that the "average neurotypical" is a savant. Savants
> have some extraordinary ability. Average people have ordinary
> abilities.
It was implied in the joke on uncyclopedia... *sigh* Funny as hell,
but obviously you didn't get it.
> > The savants we know about are masters in particular sphere - music,
> > the arts, writing, mathematics or physics etc. so why should social
> > behaviour be seen as off limits to a savant?
>
> Nobody said they were off limits, either.
In that case - wheel in the person, drop the name - a name of a person
that has learned social behaviour and interaction using the same
mechanisms that savants use for music and the arts. I think they're
invisible to normal people in society, but that doesn't mean they
aren't there.
> > Why shouldn't there be
> > fundementally wordless components to all human social behaviour that
> > can be understood in a detailed way leading to the creation of savant
> > masters of social behaviour, just as there are savant masters of
> > music?
>
> Something else to add to your reading list.
>
> "Frames of Mind", by Howard Gardner.
>
> In that book , Gardner posits that intelligence is not a single factor
> but multiple factors. Along with linguistic and mathematical
> intelligences, there is spacial, musical, kinesthetic, and
> interpersonal intelligences. Each of these functions is mediated in a
> different part of the brain and has been shown to be discretely
> affected by particular kinds of brain damage as well as by the
> existence of savants in those areas.
So you conceed it is possible then? Good.
Alrah
> Along with linguistic and mathematical
> intelligences, there is spacial, musical, kinesthetic, and
> interpersonal intelligences.
Is there a reason why you omited intrapersonal intelligence from the
list btw? *curious*
Tom
> On 18 Nov, 02:31, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 11:14 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A social savant. The term appears rarely here and there. I've seen
> > > Bill Clinton decribed as a social savant. But a social savant... what
> > > does that really *mean* anyhow?
>
> > It means someone who has extraordinary social abilities, of course.
>
> And what would make someone have extrodinary social abilities?
A superior ability to perceive and interpret behaviors that are strong
indicators of certain kinds of social interactions.
> > > As funny as the uncyclopedia description is, then I don't see the
> > > average neurotypical as being a 'social savant'.
>
> > But nobody said that the "average neurotypical" is a savant. Savants
> > have some extraordinary ability. Average people have ordinary
> > abilities.
>
> It was implied in the joke on uncyclopedia... *sigh* Funny as hell,
> but obviously you didn't get it.
I see. So you were attempting to make a joke. Perhaps you should
have included more smileys.
> > > The savants we know about are masters in particular sphere - music,
> > > the arts, writing, mathematics or physics etc. so why should social
> > > behaviour be seen as off limits to a savant?
>
> > Nobody said they were off limits, either.
>
> In that case - wheel in the person, drop the name - a name of a person
> that has learned social behaviour and interaction using the same
> mechanisms that savants use for music and the arts.
But they don't use the same mechanisms. They use different
mechanisms.
> I think they're
> invisible to normal people in society, but that doesn't mean they
> aren't there.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're really *not*
out to get you.
> > > Why shouldn't there be
> > > fundementally wordless components to all human social behaviour that
> > > can be understood in a detailed way leading to the creation of savant
> > > masters of social behaviour, just as there are savant masters of
> > > music?
>
> > Something else to add to your reading list.
>
> > "Frames of Mind", by Howard Gardner.
>
> > In that book , Gardner posits that intelligence is not a single factor
> > but multiple factors. Along with linguistic and mathematical
> > intelligences, there is spacial, musical, kinesthetic, and
> > interpersonal intelligences. Each of these functions is mediated in a
> > different part of the brain and has been shown to be discretely
> > affected by particular kinds of brain damage as well as by the
> > existence of savants in those areas.
>
> So you conceed it is possible then? Good.
Not only possible, but demonstrable. Garnder uses the example of Anne
Sullivan, the teacher who established communication with the blind and
deaf child, Helen Keller.
Gardner writes: "Interpersonal intelligence builds on a core capacity
to notice distinctions among others - in particular, contrasts in
their moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. In more
advanced forms, this intelligence permits adults to read the
intentions and desires of others, even when they have been hidden.
This skill appears in highly sophisticated form in religious or
political leaders, salespersons, marketers, teachers, therapists, and
parents. The Helen Keller-Anne Sullivan story suggests that this
interpersonal intelligence does not depend on language."
Tom
I left it off because I'd gotten to the one I wanted to talk about.
Lao Tzu says it's better to stop short than to fill one's glass to the
brim.
Gardner has considered other possible intelligences as well. For
example, he feels there is strong evidence for a naturalist
intelligence, a capacity to perceive and understand biological
systems. He's a little less sure of a spiritual intelligence. This
is because spiritual experiences are essentially phenomenological, and
thus are not easily amenable ("amen"able?)to examination by
independent observation.
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you Tom. You've managed to clairfy was I was thinking about
perfectly. :-)
Great description.
Alrah
> On Nov 18, 2:06 am, Alrah <alrah-pub...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 18 Nov, 02:31, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Along with linguistic and mathematical
> > > intelligences, there is spacial, musical, kinesthetic, and
> > > interpersonal intelligences.
>
> > Is there a reason why you omited intrapersonal intelligence from the
> > list btw? *curious*
>
> I left it off because I'd gotten to the one I wanted to talk about.
> Lao Tzu says it's better to stop short than to fill one's glass to the
> brim.
>
> Gardner has considered other possible intelligences as well. For
> example, he feels there is strong evidence for a naturalist
> intelligence, a capacity to perceive and understand biological
> systems.
A sort of kinetic empathy?
Well, we don't describe people as insensitive for nothing. Many
people we think of as 'insensitive' have insensitive body language -
more frozen - and they seem far less in touch with thier body. They
can be quite clumsy too. Whereas you find the ballet dancer type of
person who has a more free and musical expression of thier body
language is often seen as a 'sensitive person'. And there's the fact
that some people are gifted with animals, or have green fingers.
Would that be a good descrpition of naturalist intelligence?
> He's a little less sure of a spiritual intelligence.
That was intelligent of him. :D
> This
> is because spiritual experiences are essentially phenomenological, and
> thus are not easily amenable ("amen"able?)to examination by
> independent observation.
Lol.
Tom
> On 18 Nov, 17:48, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Gardner has considered other possible intelligences as well. For
> > example, he feels there is strong evidence for a naturalist
> > intelligence, a capacity to perceive and understand biological
> > systems.
>
> A sort of kinetic empathy?
>
> Well, we don't describe people as insensitive for nothing. Many
> people we think of as 'insensitive' have insensitive body language -
> more frozen - and they seem far less in touch with thier body. They
> can be quite clumsy too. Whereas you find the ballet dancer type of
> person who has a more free and musical expression of thier body
> language is often seen as a 'sensitive person'. And there's the fact
> that some people are gifted with animals, or have green fingers.
>
> Would that be a good descrpition of naturalist intelligence?
In "Multiple Intelligences", Gardner has this to say about it.
"The evidence for the existence of a naturalist intelligence is
surprisingly persuasive. Biologists like Charles Darwin and E.O.
Wilson and ornithologists like John James Audubon and Roger Tory
Peterson excel at identifying and distinguishing one species from
another. Persons with a high degree of naturalist intelligence are
keenly aware of how to distinguish the diverse plants, animals,
mountains, or cloud configurations in their ecological niche. These
capacities are not exclusively visual; the recognition of birdsong or
whale calls entails auditory perception. The Dutch naturalist Geermat
Vermij, who is blind, depends on his sense of touch.
On the eight criteria for an intelligence, the naturalist intelligence
scores well. In this type of intelligence, there is a core capacity
to recognize instances as members of a species. There is also the
evolutionary history of survival often depending on recognizing
conspecifics and on avoiding predators. Young children easily make
distinctions in the naturalist world - indeed some five-year-olds are
better than their parents at distinguishing between dinosaur species.
Examining the naturalist intelligence through the cultural or brain
lenses brings some interesting phenomena into focus. Today few people
in the developed world are directly dependent on naturalist
intelligence. We simply go to the grocery store or order groceries on
the phone or the internet. And yet, I suggest, our entire consumer
culture is based on the naturalist intelligence. It includes
capacities we deploy when we are drawn to one car rather than another,
or when we select one pair of sneakers or gloves rather than another.
The study of brain damage provides intriguing evidence of individuals
who are able to recognize and name inanimate objects but who lose the
capacity to identify living things; less often one encounters the
opposite pattern, where individuals are able to recognize and name
animate entities but fail with artificial (man-made) objects. These
capacities probably entail different perceptual mechanisms (Euclidean
geometry operates in the world of artifacts but not in the world of
nature) and different experiential bases (we interact with inanimate
objects and tools much differently than with living beings)."
Alrah
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think this is an artificial grouping.
Tom
"Man-made"? All categories are.