I have met one woman like this and had the opportunity to work closely with another. In both of their cases they were in car accidents. I didn't know either of them before their accidents, but I have multiple friends that had known each of them for years or decades prior. In both cases they were described as pretty average before their accidents. Since their accidents they have both become extremely prolific readers [1] , with drastically better memory and cognition [2], and can't sleep more than 4 hours a night if they try.
[1] In the case of my colleague, she read everything she wanted, at which point she read the first Dewey decimal cataloged book in the local library and then started to read each subsequent book in progression. Less than three years after her accident she had almost finished every book in the local library and was already making plans to get a membership at the state's largest library.
[2] Neither have photographic memory, but it is something eerily close; and they make cognitive leaps that never cease to amaze me.
Sounds like something some people would sign up for. If you compared the injuries between multiple people with similar effects, I wonder if it would be possible to find a way to reproduce it?
I absolutely envy my former colleague's gains and would gladly have my noggin knocked if I was guaranteed to have similar results!
Unfortunately, because they both led ordinary lives, there were no scans of their brains prior to the accident (yes, I asked). And, there certainly weren't any brain related devices recording their accidents. So, I'm not aware of any easy way to identify the injuries with enough precision.
Yeah, there's a lot I would give to have those abilities. Especially the one about not needing as much sleep. (Assuming they actually don't need it; waking up after four hours still exhausted would be less fun.)
I can't find the link, but there was an unsuccessful unethical study that tried to reproduce this. I think most of the test subjects died, none became savants.
Article is very cheesy and full of journalism, but whatever, nothing unusual about it. It's something different I really don't like about that story. He's called "genius", "mathematical marvel" and such, but I don't see any reference to what exactly did he do to be called so, aside of self-promotion. Telegraph.co.uk article says "He is now recognised as a leading maths thinker." Hm. Maybe he is, but what about any references on by whom he is "recognised"? His book title is "Struck by Genius: How a Brain Injury Made Me a Mathematical Marvel". Yeah, I know, marketing is dirty stuff, but have you ever heard real mathematician call himself a "genius"?
Anyway, something even worse: searching for "Jason Padgett" shows many results on some journal sites, facebook, amazon, fineartamerica.com, whatever. And guess what? Nothing on arxiv.org! Searching for "site:arxiv.org Jason Padgett" results are filled by works of "Deborah Padgett, Jason A. Surace" and such, and no "Jason Padgett" on the first 2 pages! Weird, huh.
> but I don't see any reference to what exactly did he do to be called so
Agreed. His experience and transformation is interesting, but the article is pretty lacking in details.
> Searching for "site:arxiv.org Jason Padgett" results are filled by works of "Deborah Padgett, Jason A. Surace" and such,
Small world! Jason Surace and I are both members of a collaboration studying galaxies which are forming stars a rates 10s to hundreds higher than "normal" galaxies (like our own Milky Way). Just amused to see his name outside of the normal context in which I see it. :)
Hopefully you see this! I way offline for a while and just saw your reply...
We are both members of the "Great Observatories All-sky LIRG Survey" (GOALS; http://goals.ipac.caltech.edu/). It is a survey of 200 galaxies in the nearby Universe (within ~1 billion light-years) which all have enhanced star formation rates. In this case, enhanced means they are forming 10s to hundreds of solar masses worth of stars per year (compare to our galaxy, which forms ~1 solar mass worth of stars each year). These galaxies are LIRGs (Luminous Infrared Galaxies), which means they were selected by the fact that they have emit a significant amount of their total energy in the infrared. For most of these, that infrared luminosity comes from dust, which has absorbed and re-emitted the optical and ultraviolet light from the young stars which have recently formed (in the past 10-100 Myr).
When you look at LIRGs, say with the Hubble Space Telescope (http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0810/), you see that many of them are galaxies in the process of merging with other galaxies. My focus is on matching computer simulations to individual merger systems. Since these mergers can take up to a billion years to go from start to finish, simulations enable us to "fast forward" and "rewind" each merger. One research interest it to use the simulations to determine how differences in each system's encouter correlates with how much their star formation is enhanced. I'm still working on it so I don't yet have the answer, but hopefully in a couple years!
Sadly, all I can find in reference to his purported mathematical genius is a crackpot post by him on physorg: http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/End-Of-Pi-Found_20813.html. I highly doubt that there have been, or ever will be, any 'mathematical savants'. Being good at arithmetic or drawing fractals does not a mathematical genius make.
Oh God. I wonder if that wonderful theory of his was invented before or after his enlightenment. Well, at least it's funny.
What's about the rest of your post… You see, I don't think it's about 'mathematical savants' or anything. And, once again, this guy doesn't draw fractals. Anyway, for me it isn't important part about that. "Genius" is just a bold word after all, it means very little if anything at all. Somebody achieved something, or he hasn't, that's all. As it seems to this point with information we have this guy isn't anything but somebody who behaves oddly after damaging his head, which isn't big deal as I believe anybody would agree. Yet if he's loud enough, journals are taking interviews with him, and links to these interviews are posted on HN, and people discuss that magical phenomena with excitement, and he writes a book, and somebody probably buys this book, and somebody with degree in neuroscience writes dubious paper about that and people call it scientifically proven, and some other journalist writes long but pointless article about that, and so on, so on, so on… And even if there was actually something interesting about his case, it's pretty hard to see it now, after all that "mathematical marvel" screaming, especially when no real facts given. I find it sad and much more important than if he is actually a "marvel" or he isn't.
I have never told someone about this, but the opposite happened to me. I had been tested because I was different than any other child of my age. And was diagnosed with a very high IQ (you can guess how many friends I had), but after I was attacked and hit heavily at my head by some russians without a reason (for their pleasure), I have lost most of my ability to think as fast as before. I was in coma for 2days at the local hospital and have no memory of what happened, except of what friends told me. I can't explain how life depressing that was for me, but almost 7y later, I started to gain a little in my speed of thought. However I'll probably never be that smart again and it feels like a big loss to me. I'm still quite talented, but nothing comparable to before the attack.
Your experience would probably be generally the normal one for all of us. And remember people get rich by taking normal tasks and making them better for example Uploading files, renting apartments, driving people around, etc.
I speak as a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivor.
I feel that a TBI may have its benefits. The source article is probably a showing of an incredibly lucky case. I know that I only have a handful of positive side effects, and nothing "magical" like this.
But the negatives... oh man, the negatives. I would never choose to experience the negatives again. I endured the side effects for two years and they're incredibly frustrating. You wonder if every moment is a "brain injury moment" and doubt yourself at every decision. It means you're wrong almost all the time and everyone around you tells you so.
There's not much more frustrating than that. One positive that I've found is I'm incredibly open to negative feedback: I understand and accept I am probably wrong. I would have much rather learned this a different way.
I should also note in my last neuropsychology test, I was found to have eidetic memory, specifically the emotional memory: I remember my surroundings when an emotional event happens. I've had this my whole life but, to be honest, I included it.
Ironic that people are joking in this discussion about intentionally causing head injuries while elsewhere on HN it is being discussed how head injuries are very common among homeless individuals (and probably partly causative of their inability to take proper care of themselves).
Padgett's cognitive transformation is real, even if the mathematically-illiterate reporting on it obscures the nature of that transformation. Berit Brogaard, who's a professor of philosophy and neuroscience at the University of Missouri St. Louis, has done a lot of studies with Padgett in the course of her work on synesthesia [1]. I haven't read any of her papers involving Padgett myself, but people looking for a more rigorous treatment of his condition might find something of interest in her writing.
This was covered, along with 5 other interesting cases of people acquiring interesting abilities after injury, in an amusing Cracked.com article [1].
One of the most interesting, and well documented, is Tony Cicoria [2]. He was stuck by lightning, and then shortly afterwards developed an obsession with piano music, and quickly taught himself to play and compose.
> "He said his transformation also brought a second ability: he can now draw the complex triangle-based geometric designs called fractals. That lets him translate high-level mathematical concepts like Pi and the theory of relativity into easy-to-understand illustrative drawings."
It doesn't cancel that "what" at all. First off, this is nothing to do with fractals. Second, these "drawings" are nothing to talk about, as their nature is pretty primitive. That means it sure requires a steady hand (if drawn manually), but the pattern itself is really simple (foremost because they are very much regular). Have you ever head of spirograph? "Drawings" made by it are far more complicated than this one and can be done in a couple of seconds by any kid. Inventing such patterns is really simple and can be done by anyone (me, you, I hope) and doesn't require any talent or even any significant math knowledge.
Here's a slightly longer version from a couple of years ago. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/04/27/real-beautiful... They say that his brain is over-compensating for the damage in some areas, which has side-effects like being really good at drawing fractals.
Do a Google image search of his name and you'll see some of his drawings. In the video he talks about learning the mathematical equations for the drawings, after the fact.
Quick, get a selection of hammers and rent a boutique while the money's still hot. Start with the hollywood elite, then any early failures shouldn't be too obvious.
[1] In the case of my colleague, she read everything she wanted, at which point she read the first Dewey decimal cataloged book in the local library and then started to read each subsequent book in progression. Less than three years after her accident she had almost finished every book in the local library and was already making plans to get a membership at the state's largest library.
[2] Neither have photographic memory, but it is something eerily close; and they make cognitive leaps that never cease to amaze me.