
Sudden savant syndrome, in which exceptional abilities emerge after brain injury - clouddrover
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180116-the-mystery-of-why-some-people-become-sudden-geniuses
======
tw1010
The "math genius" Jason Padgett mentioned in the article has drawn a bunch of
pretty pictures, but has authored zero research papers. Unless you define
genius by how capable you are of impressing non-experts outside the field, how
does he in any way apply to the definition?

~~~
Karlozkiller
Spot on. The article focuses a lot on 'artistic genius'. Actually it jumps a
lot between a great deal of things. There's a leap between the photographer
who invented new technology, to Jason Padgett who began seeing the world in a
weird way, to dementia-patients who begin drawing as parts of their brains
decay.

There's not much mentioned of geniuses in the meaning of people who further
scientific theories like Einstein or whatever example one might give. They
only hint that such people might often have autism, and try to explain that
with left/right brain development.

Which if I recall correctly has been highly disputed since the 1960 Nobel
Prize. If nothing else the explanation of autism and savant autism in the
article are gross oversimplifications.

------
tzahola
This is a horrible article.

>When you’re bashed on the head, the effects are similar to a dose of LSD

Again, this is a horrible article.

But I guess the target audience are members of the “i fucking love science”
Facebook page.

~~~
jibreel
in what way could getting bashed in the head have anything to do with LSD?

~~~
tzahola
If you're unprepared, you can end up in ER for both of them.

~~~
jibreel
whats ER ? I did LSD twice, first time was a 100 ug dose, it was pleasant
experience. 10 days later i did a 250 ug dose. first 2 hours was the best
hallucinations of my life :), then there was an electricity shortage for a few
minutes where i live, that darkness scared the hell out of me i panicked and
had a strong shortness of breath. needless to say it was a shocking
experience. had random panic attacks that persisted for 2 month. LSD is very
powerful and surly is no joke.

~~~
astura
ER - emergency room. It's, of course, a misnomer, it's not just one room. ER
is common in the US, outside of the US it's also called emergency department
(ED), accident & emergency department (A&E), emergency ward (EW)

------
magicalist
> _Nobel Prize-winning research from the 1960s shows that the two halves of
> the brain specialise in different tasks; in general, the right side is home
> to creativity and the left is the centre of logic and language._

This is terrible.

~~~
yesenadam
Could you give an improved version of the sentence, if able? Thanks.

edit: Could the downvoter explain why? Thanks.

~~~
Karlozkiller
The left right hypothesis is wrong. The brain specialization is much more fine
grained and much more adaptible to circumstances than described.

Yes there are some specialized loci that happen to (most often) be in the left
or right hemisphere, but the original hypothesis that logic is in the left
hemisphere for example is utterly wrong.

An example would be language, researchers started finding language loci in the
brain (by showing that if a specific area was damaged, language was damaged)
and so on. Based on such evidence the left right hypothesis was formed. What
was not taken into account (in my somewhat accurate example) was that there
are several other areas one could injure to get language-affecting brain
damage.

The thing is, such broad things as language, or logic, or art, are not located
anywhere in particular in the brain, it is the interaction or many different
areas and not necessarily the same areas in every person. There are however
several areas that are specialized but on a much lower level than "language"
search for Wernicke's area for example.

Also note that Wernicke's area is statistically in different hemisphere more
probably depending on which is your predominant hand.

So no, just no.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Isn't the key point that brain functions can rely on specific localised areas,
that when those areas connections to other areas are disrupted then behaviours
can be altered.

It's wrong like Newtonian mechanics, rather than like Flat Earth Theory?

~~~
Karlozkiller
There is degree to the wrongness yes. But yes I am not saying the original
hypothesis was not progress at the time (unlike Freud's non contributions) the
left right hypothesis did contribute at the time as it actually looked at the
brain and tried to map some things.

What I'm against is referencing this idea in a context (the article) where it
makes no sense, and rather lies to the reader by telling a great story based
on old facts that have since been disproven.

Left right brain is wrong, not really in the same way Newtonian physics is
wrong today, at least not in the form it was cited about logic being in one
hemisphere. I would compare it to say, Greek anatomy. They had the idea of
that things in you could be wrong. But they didn't really know what was wrong
in different diseases, they came up with lots of ideas of different bodily
fluids having too much or too little of one , connected to certain organs.

Now we know most of their explanations were bullshit where we can explain
things a lot better. Regarding Newtonian physics my impression is that they
still explain the same phenomena they explained from the beginning, but we
have refined things, and realized it can not explain all things one might have
thought it could explain.

------
kleiba
"He became obsessed with maths and is now renowned for his drawings of
_formulas such as Pi._ "

Ouch, that hurt.

------
mattkevan
Brain injuries are nasty, strange things.

I used to work for a charity that ran a programme helping people back into
work after getting a brain injury. Each person was affected differently, but
as far as I know no-one got a superpower.

In general the injury took away any behavioural filters people usually had. So
the filters that might stop you from smashing up a room when angry, or taking
all your clothes off when stressed, or making everyone you meet sign an NDA in
case they stole your ideas (real examples) were just gone.

This led to some entertaining stories, but without exception the results of a
brain injury were devastating.

Don't get a brain injury if you can possibly help it.

------
thejacenxpress
My favorite example of an 'ordinary' person who gained an extraordinary mental
ability is Daniel Tammet. He learned Icelandic in a week. Spent 2 weeks and
memorized pi to 22,000+ digits.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbASOcqc1Ss](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbASOcqc1Ss)

~~~
hyperion2010
I don't think it is correct to say that he memorized pi, more that he recited
pi because his brain simply produced it for him he did not have to look it up.

~~~
ladberg
Except that he wasn't actively calculating more digits of pi, some part of his
brain had remembered the digits and was playing them back. Maybe some sub-
conscious part memorized it, but it was still memorization.

~~~
hyperion2010
So just to put my neuroscientist hat on for a moment, memorization is almost
always used to mean the use of some mnemonic in order to enable later recall.
I'm saying that he never looked at the 137,493rd digit of pi, and that could
very well be wrong based on what actually happened, but I think of this more
like the other savant in the video who just has the day of the week for a date
pop into his head even for dates that have not occurred yet. In those cases
'memorization' is not the word to use.

~~~
justusthane
Are you a neuroscientist, or do you just have a hat?

~~~
hyperion2010
Yes a neuroscientist, sadly no hat.

------
ainiriand
Might be unrelated but after the doctors extracted a brain tumor from my brain
when I was 14 I experienced a sudden burst in creativity that is still here.
It was like an explosion.

~~~
csallen
Would you say that your creativity was repressed beforehand, and removing the
tumor brought it to normal levels? Or was it normal beforehand, and now it's
even better? If the latter, care to share more details or examples?

~~~
solaxun
How the eff would he know that? If you've spent your entire life in one state,
and it changes, how can you possibly know what was the normal state?

~~~
csallen
Normal isn't defined by yourself alone. Rather, it's the average of other
people. If you are significantly more creative than the average person, it
should be fairly simple to demonstrate that that's the case.

~~~
Doxin
It's still somewhat like asking a bornd-blind person what it's like to be
blind. To them it _is_ normal, they haven't ever experienced anything else.

------
JabavuAdams
Except, none of the abilities mentioned are really extreme. More like, you
have a personality change, and now spend the time to become as good as other
experts.

~~~
JoshMnem
That is the most likely explanation. It doesn't produce as many page views
though.

------
eecc
Now folks please don’t start smashing your head right wise into the wall, ok?!

~~~
spyder
Some folks already doing "it":
[https://www.reddit.com/r/tDCS/](https://www.reddit.com/r/tDCS/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-
current_st...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-
current_stimulation)

This is the same method as one of the research that's linked in the article
has used to "Facilitate Insight by Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation":
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016655)

~~~
JoshMnem
It's probably not a good idea. See "Popular electric brain stimulation method
used to boost brainpower is detrimental to IQ scores".

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150505152140.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150505152140.htm)

------
jlarcombe
Like when Stan Laurel gets hit on the head in "A Chump At Oxford"

------
simulate
The topic of emergent genius was also covered in a short video about a year
ago: [https://youtu.be/7H6doOmS-eM](https://youtu.be/7H6doOmS-eM)

------
bewatson
A great book that touches on the subject is "Musicophilia" by the late Oliver
Sacks. It goes deep into the neurology of conditions like acquired savant
syndrome, though the core of the book is on music-related neurological
anomlaies [https://www.amazon.com/Musicophilia-Tales-Music-Revised-
Expa...](https://www.amazon.com/Musicophilia-Tales-Music-Revised-
Expanded/dp/1400033535)

------
PyComfy
My dad knew someone who had a reinforcing steel bar stuck into the middle of
his head; The bar entered is mouth and exited in the middle of the top of his
skill. After that, the guy was noticeably smarter but also more irascible. My
dad theory was that the healing of the brain raised the number of synapses and
ridges[1] in the damaged part of the brain (which in this case was right
between the two cerebral hemispheres). Albert Einstein's brain had four ridges
instead of three.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrus)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain#Newl...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain#Newly_recovered_photographs)

~~~
majos
Wait, there's a modern-day Phineas Gage, and your dad knew him personally?

~~~
louprado
If Dad has a lot of stories like this, you should check out this link.
[https://al-anon.org/](https://al-anon.org/)

------
nopinsight
The kind of genius associated with autistic syndrome appears to me that it
could be a result of reduced functionality in certain brain regions related to
social functions and boredom control. Most people do not enjoy focusing on a
single activity for most of their waking hours. Someone who consistently
practices a craft for 8 hours a day would accumulate >10,000 hours in just 4
years, sufficient to become an expert in most non-professional activites.
Within 15 years, such focus would yield >40,000 hours which is more than the
actual practice time most professionals have under their belt. (Most normal
professionals do not really get to practice their craft 8 hours a day and they
probably take more vacations than these ‘geniuses’ do.)

A further boost might come from less distraction and inhibition since their
brains might not be influenced as much by the presence and potential
judgements of other people. Genius-level work tends to be out of norm and most
adults are conditioned to avoid standing out too much. If a potential Einstein
were highly sensitive to established scientific worldview at the time, they
probably would be discouraged from persisting for 10 years to solve the
mystery in their imagination, or at least miss the path that veers off too
much from the standard theory.

From the article: “Muybridge was no exception. After the bet, he moved to
Philadelphia and continued with his passion for capturing motion on film,
photographing all kinds of activities such as walking up and down the stairs
and, oddly, himself swinging a pickaxe in the nude. Between 1883 and 1886, he
took more than 100,000 pictures.”

~~~
geezerjay
> Someone who consistently practices a craft for 8 hours a day will accumulate
> >10,000 hours in just 4 years, sufficient to become an expert in most non-
> professional activites.

That assumes that all those hours result in skill impfovemeonts. They do not.
Commuters don't become expert drivers just because they get stuck in traffic
for hours a day.

~~~
laumars
You say that, but my clutch control jumped leaps and bounds (back when I drove
a manual for commuting), to the point that I could keep distance with the car
in front while half a sleep and without needing to tap the break peddle.

Some of the other skills I learned were less admirable. Eg learning to use a
touch screen phone while keeping an eye on the car in front (I'd only do this
if traffic was stationary though). And learning how to accelerate quickly
because I needed to steal a small gap at a busy junction.

~~~
baddox
Indeed, I would imagine that thousands of hours of commuting would make one an
expert at those specific skills. That said, I imagine the skill ceiling is
quite low and likely reached long before 10,000 hours, and the skill set is
certainly different from what most people mean by “expert driver.”

~~~
taxicabjesus
> That said, I imagine the skill ceiling is quite low and likely reached long
> before 10,000 hours, and the skill set is certainly different from what most
> people mean by “expert driver.”

It doesnt take much practice to become a marginally-skilled driver. But that
doesn't mean there's little difference between marginal drivers and people who
spend their entire day behind the steering wheel...

I once guesstimated that I spent maybe 7,500 hours (over 3.5 years) driving
around in taxis. Towards the end of that period I started to notice things
that the other cars on the road would likely do, and point this out to my
passengers. "See that car? it's going to change lanes and that other guy is
going to have to slam on his brakes..."

After I 'retired', I was driving with my mother. Our light turned green, but I
saw that the car in the cross traffic couldn't see that his light had turned
red (on account of the sunset). I waited, and watched as he slammed on his
brakes.

There's something to putting in time on any activity. I think the relevant
saying is not "practice makes perfect", but "perfect practice makes perfect".
If you spend 10,000 hours practicing something wrong it won't be as helpful as
1,000 hours practicing it right.

Bruce Lee said, "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I
fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

~~~
kaybe
I really wonder how all this unspoken communication is going to change with
self-driving cars.

On the German Autobahn, the amount of observing and consideration is very
high, and if people are new it can be very stressful. You basically have to
keep in mind everyone around you, their respective speeds, potential moves and
how a move from you will change their options and responses.

One common situation is when you come up behind a slow car on your lane, but
the lane to the left (where you need to go to keep your current speed and
overtake) has somebody coming up fast from the back. If you move there, you
might force that person to brake. Now, they obviously see your situation and
might slow down a little or speed up, so you can adjust your speed (speed up
and pull into the left lane or lay off the gas and delay switching just long
enough to let them pass). If there is another left lane they might move over
to that too if possible. In this case, the communication is mostly in those
small changes in speed that tell you their intention.

Now how should I read an automatic car? It's going to be very chaotic before
we figure it out.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
I worry about the transition as well.

Hopefully it won't be as bad as you are thinking if all the car AI's make the
same choices in every situation. That way you can get a much better feel for
how those cars operate.

In reality I think your concern, shared by others will result in cars that act
a lot more like buses. Almost always in the slow lane. Going a very safe
speed. Leaving the faster/passing lanes to more dangerous humans.

The autonomous cars may soon be required to have visible markings so that they
are easy to tell apart as well. Perhaps the color yellow could be reserved for
them?

These changes will still be an adjustment, but hopefully one that doesn't
result in a major number of accidents.

------
api
There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that similar things can happen
occasionally and to some people after psychedelic drug exposure. Could the
mechanism be similar?

Maybe certain drugs and traumas can kick the neural network into another state
and maybe that occasionally turns out to be an interesting one.

Of course sometimes the neural network lands somewhere less favorable too.
Traumatic brain injuries rarely result in savant abilities, and some people
"never come back" from too much LSD or other drugs.

------
adam
Reminds me of the Ted Chiang short story "Understand"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understand_(story)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understand_\(story\))

------
danschumann
We all have greatness within us, but most of us have "too good" of brains.
See, the brain is designed to detect risk and avoid it at all costs. It often
makes things up.

You see a folded up rug in an alley-way, you think "Oh no, is that a person,
am I being robbed?"

You never see a person and think, "Is that a folded up rug?"

The brain always jumps to the worst possibility. It calls Math.ceil() on risky
situations.

Perhaps these traumatic injuries have changed their thresholds in terms of
"what is a risky situation?"

Relative to trauma, perhaps things like creativity ( which is risky to your
social status ), doesn't seem risky.

Risking social status is the mark of any success. Being willing to fail
publicly(at least risking it) is required! After trauma, it's probably easier.

~~~
EADGBE
> perhaps things like creativity ( which is risky to your social status )

This is absurd.

------
zitterbewegung
It’s most likely that there was a new impairment in the brain that made them
change their behavior and they didn’t know that they would be better at the
new task.

------
JoshMnem
That isn't a good article. Sudden/acquired savant syndrome isn't a recognized
condition, and it probably doesn't exist. The abilities of sudden savants are
no higher than what can be achieved by "non-savants" and the abilities can
often be explained by other things.

I think that it's possible that accidents can give people interests and/or
repetitive behaviors that allow them to develop skills, but probably don't
give them the skills directly.

I am cautious about Treffert's claims in general. I have one of his books
where he appears to attribute a few cases of savantism to psychic powers and
reincarnation. If you want to see how unscientific some of the claims are,
read the article below, including the sidebar.

[https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/mind-reading-
sharjah-g...](https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/mind-reading-sharjah-girl-
exceedingly-rare-savant)

~~~
lawnchair_larry
I know someone on Treffert’s registry who hit their head in an unfortunate
workplace accident, and subsequently emailed him claiming to be a genius. No
vetting or testing at all. He now proclaims that he is a sudden savant because
he is on Treffert’s list.

~~~
JoshMnem
I'm not surprised.

I recommend being extremely skeptical of all _acquired_ savant claims, and
mostly skeptical about other savant claims in general. At least keep in mind
that there isn't much real evidence for those claims.

Practice and technique can explain just about every case. Even well-known
"experts" have many incorrect ideas. The popular media then amplify the
incorrect ideas.

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its
strangeness."

------
ph4
Reading these comments is a fascinating look into the ontology assumed by
militant scientific materialists.

