>><snip>
>>>Before I bother to read the book, how does he explain away idiot savants?
>>
>>This is a very special case. Personally I would not call an idiot savant "talented". Extraordinary yes but not talented. The book is not looking at the mentally strange but rather at people like Tiger Woods, Mozart, Kasparov, Yo-Yo Ma, Jack Welch, Ben Franklin, etc, etc. These are people who we normally think are/were great becuase of some God given natural ability and that is what seperates them from us. But is that true?
>
>If the book asserts that there is NO evidence of such a thing as natural talent, then he has to explain idiot savants. Passing them off as 'a special case' is nothing more than a cop out.

I said that I think they are a special case and do not fit in with the idea of talent. I said the book is not discussing the "mentally strange" (please re-read my post above).

Why do idiot savants have to be explained by the idea of natural talent? Is an idiot savant talented? The book does not deny that there are influences of nature, genetics, etc. but the focus is on where does talent come from, can it be learned and developed? I think an idiot savant is a quirk of nature, a genetic mutation that might not even be fully understood (I dont know). Being a savant is not the same as being talented (which is what the book is about) and its not even discussed.

>How can one play Mozart's Requiem without a lot of work and training on the piano?

Agree and the book says exactly that; you need a lot or work and training on the piano to play Mozart. But this is a talent which can be learned. Are you suggesting you need to be an idiot savant to play Mozart? I dont follow the comments about savants with the comments about Mozart ...


>Sorry, if that's the best answer - 'special case', then I'm disinclined to read the book.

Since, unfortunately, I dont earn any royalties on the book this will be no loss to me :)