But as Jos suggests, rather than make assumptions about the author's arguments (or expect Jos to defend them to those of us who don't know what they are <s> ) , I'm going to read the book - or at least enough of it to decide if I want to read it all. Library says they'll have it for me this week. I'll report back.


>Oh, I agree with you entirely, but if someone is going to make the statement that there is no evidence at all of any such thing as innate talent, then idiot savants have to be somehow explained by the theory. Otherwise, it's just an opinion that ignores anything that doesn't comfortably fit into it. The world is full of such lazy theories, and far too many books are being written and bought around them.
>
>Idiot savants are not geniuses. They are simply people who are born with a certain innate talent, of which according to Jos, the author contends there is no evidence. As far as genius is concerned, why was there only one Buddy Bolden; only one Art Tatum; only one Louis Armstrong; only one Charlie Parker. These people weren't merely talented. They changed the way the world listened to music. Is it the contention of this writer that other people during the times of those people just didn't work as hard as they did? It is to laugh... haha.
>
>My guess it that he is completely ignoring the difference between technical ability and real talent. Yes just about anybody could, with enough hard work, become technically proficient. There are unfortunately, a number of such people in music. But they are boring as hell to listen to. A sax player (might have been Bird) was once asked about another sax player and he said that on the plus side, the player had excellent technique. When asked about the negatives, he said the player had excellent technique.
>
>What's the bet that this guy will eventually end up on Oprah's show.
>
>>"idiot savant" and genius are not the same thing. Rainman is an idiot savant. Turing was a genius. I am fascinated by the issue of genius. Talent seems rather mundane in comparison as without hard work, training, and interest in excelling in that area it seldom amounts to much. One of the classic under-achiever patterns is to have "talent" for something you have no interest in doing ( seven feet tall, superb hand-eye coordination and balance, no interest in basketball but wants to be a jockey. Drop dead physical beauty and modest intelligence wants to be physicist rather than a model )
>>
>>But genius - that is to be touched by the gods and to really have no choice but only purpose.
>>
>>>>>><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 ...
>>>
>>>Because that's what some idiot savants do. They play Mozart without all the training. According to your outline of the book, it's not possible because there is no such thing as innate talent.
>>>
>>>Saying that and then dismissing idiot savants as 'special cases' just means that the author is making a statement and then ignoring anything that doesn't fit within his parameters. That's not worth the trouble to bother with afaic. After all, 'no such thing as' is supposed to take into account everything, not just the stuff that fits his opinion. If there are 'special cases' then they, by themselves, disprove his theory.
>>>
>>>Suppose I said that nobody can produce a fruit that is a cross between an orange and an apple, and then you produced just such a crossbreed. Then suppose I said, "Well, that's a special case". What would you think about my theory?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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 :)