The Myth of Autism and Chess

Okay, let's see...

"Young adult" is a subjective term, but I think most people use it to mean from around 18-25, which is about the time most people with schizophrenia develop schizophrenia. You thought I meant "11-16", which is taken to mean "adolescent". 

"Autism is not a disability for everyone"- Of course it is! Just because someone is high-functioning or a savant doesn't mean they don't have a disability. If someone was paralyzed but lived a successful life, would that mean they didn't have a disability and still have problems related to their paralysis? No. For some reason some people seem to think that autism isn't actually a disability, but other disabilities they don't question at all. Autism is categorized under "Neurodevelopmental Disorders" along with intellectual disability and speech disorders in the DSM-V. If you really read the DSM, you should know that. 

Also, how can genius be "verified"? You think Mozart was not a genius but Bobby Fischer was? (I think they both were.) That would be fine if anyone actually had a real definition for "genius", but no one does. IQ test don't define "genius". Accomplishments only define it subjectively. So why are you arguing like this?

I probably would have more evidence of your ignorance, but I have to look through all of your posts first. 

Well, I actually have a degree in psychology (yes, I know anyone could say that on the internet), and while most people have said some true things, almost everyone has shown at some point that they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Most of it seems to stem from people having a confrontational mindset and stubbornly claiming things as factual which haven't been proved at all.  Starting with Freud (ignorance on both sides of the argument) and continuing into the nature of mental disorders.  Good grief, where to begin?

If you're really interested, I could spell out where I disagree with what's been said later.  I've got to do the Halloween thing here soon, so it'll have to wait.

For now though: Freud was very important for the development of psychology, because it was his work which helped move psychology forward from where it was at the time.  Today, nobody really takes most of his ideas seriously, because they're simply not scientific; there's no way to possibly disprove them, just like there's no way to possibly disprove God.

Also, when he recommended cocaine to people and started taking it himself, he truly believed it to be beneficial and he absolutely didn't know that it was addictive.  He really regretted it and he wrote about all this later in life.

Anyway, the main stuff will have to wait until later.

lol

Someone should start a thread "The Myth between high I.Q. and Chess"

And here I thought I was the only one who thoght they were the same person. 

Yes, many people with autism have above-average memory and intelligence, sometimes to extremes, and some do have savant skills- but the boy you talked about had severe autism, as you said. That means he had severe problems with speech, social reasoning, and likely abstract reasoning. He probably had other autism-related problems as well. That's still a disability, even though he had abilities as well. Above-average intelligence and memory are not defining characteristics of autism.

"There are MANY child prodigies (I would say all.. as I have never seen one that isn't) with autism or autistic traits... that's what makes them prodigious.. their narrow subject interests and repetitive behavior.."

Not all savants have autism (take Kim Peek for example, who did not have autism despite popular belief), and having autism doesn't necessarily help you with being a savant. "Repetitive behavior" in autism doesn't usually manifest itself in productive ways. Most repetitive behavior in autism is something under the lines of repeating words or motor actions. As for narrow subject interests, anyone could argue that someone motivated enough could work at a task for long enough and become good at it, not just someone with autism. Success is a mix of nature and nuture. The boy you mentioned was born with a high IQ and memory as well as disabilities, and he had the motivation to work hard to succeed despite his disability. It wasn't autism that helped him succeed, in fact his autism probably hindered his progress in succeeding.

yay finally someone acknowledged my post :D

Do you even know who you are? Yesterday you were imquiteyoung.

So you just called autism a "cognitive deficit", as you said before you had never heard of a person who was a savant who didn't have autism. I rest my case in your hypocrisy.

Both savants and prodigies with autism still have a disability, and that disability doesn't help them with their talents. Saying that any disability "isn't a disability for everyone" is ignorant. A disability is defined as being unable or having significant difficulties in doing something that the general population can do. Every person with autism (or any disability) is going to have difficulties, no matter whether they have ability in other areas.

That's not what I'm talking about. People with autism are born with social difficuties no matter what. Having social difficulties as a result of ability is different than having social difficulties because of a lack of understanding social concepts due to a disability.

I'm not trolling. Trolling is posting random, ignorant material in order to intentionally offend people. I'm trying to combat trolling.

"Eidetic" and "photographic" memory are considered to be synonymous. You're just trying to "disprove" Optimissed's claim while supporting yours. Also I find it strange how everyone is posting that they have photographic memories...

This is the most crassly jaw-dropping expression of ignorance I've ever read here.

A nine-year old hears a nine part (ie nine independent vocal lines, all singing simultaneously) Mass in the Sistine Chapel; one which has never been published, and the sheet music of which is jealously guarded by the Vatican. He goes home and writes the whole thing down from memory, all nine voices, perfectly. This news astounded the whole of musical Europe, and has done so ever since.

I don't know what your horizons are, but try and imagine having the stats of 9 ice hockey seasons all read to you simultaneously on 9 radios: every goal, every scorer, every substitution etc. I'm talking about maybe half an hour of non-stop ninefold information. Then go home and reproduce them. And then please get out of this thread.

Actually, you didn't. You said "photographic memory" didn't exist. Also, why are you arguing over so trivial a topic when a) you contradict yourself so that don't have to admit you are wrong b) there's already been enough arguing and it's almost all off topic.

You know what, that's really funny- I'm starting to believe you're not, either...

Einstein was a genius and that's why he was murdered by the Mafia- he knew too much.

You, on the other hand, have the ignorance and hypocrisy of most politicians. What exactly am I not understanding? You just contradicted yourself several times in your arguments. Go read over your own posts.

You realize that you're saying that there have never been any geniuses in the arts, because they're all a matter of taste?

That doesn't make any sense. It could be argued similarly that there have never been any geniuses in literature, or even in science or mathematics because people argue that science and math "don't prove anything". Many people with many different tastes have argued that Mozart was a genius because he was a child prodigy and published many influential musical works.