4 replies to this topic

[chrisp2]

There are a number of stories out there, this one being pretty compelling:

 

http://nypost.com/20...-into-a-genius/

 

Any speculation as to what drives those physical changes within the brain?  What molecular substance is the brain ramping up in order to fix itself?   NGF?  BDNF?  Something else?

[resveratrol_guy]

It sounds like injury to his right hemisphere caused his left to overcompensate, resulting in greatly improved math skills. The neurotransmitters and growth factors released from ruptured neurons and neural stem cells as a result of the injury may have amplified the effect. But on a practical level, punching ourselves in the right side of the skull is no way to improve intelligence. That's why I find "skull cap" technique presented in the article so compelling: it allows us to mute specific regions of the brain temporarily, allowing other areas to do their work with less interference. They don't mention how the cap works, but it sounds like a TMS device. Interesting find.

[phix]

 

“It’s remarkable that he sees the world this way without any real training”

 

I think it is quite the opposite. Training tends to kill original thinking, although it can turn you into a coffee-fueled theorem-churning machine... I have always hated that term when applied to research or higher education. 

 

 

 

But Padgett is not the next Stephen Hawking. This ability allows him to see the world in a unique way — but it’s highly ­unlikely that his ability will land him a Fields Medal.

 

Well, it is not just unlikely, it is actually impossible under the prize rules, since he is over 40. It is a shame that they discriminate on grounds of age. The official reason for this policy is that the awards should not only recognize past work but also encourage future achievement on part of the recipients. So if you are over 40 they are calling you brain dead, and discouraging you of pursuing any major achievement. This is mean and goes against the goal of promoting research and recognizing contributions based on merit.

 

Even if it is statistically much less likely that you can make a breakthrough at a "late" age, that is not a valid justification in any case for a discriminatory policy. No woman had ever won the medal either until last year, but I cannot imagine anybody suggesting that they should have been excluded based on the statistics. On the contrary, they were encouraged and that medal of last year was widely celebrated, partially eclipsing the male awardees. Why not encourage everybody as well to try their best irrespective of their age?   

 

It is not only mean, it is also absurd. Let's see... They can only award you the medal if you are capable of future achievements. If you are over 40, they assume that you cannot make future achievements. So if you make your breakthrough when you are over 40, they cannot give you the medal, on the grounds that you will not be making future achievements. But, wait a minute! If you are over 40, it is not possible under their assumptions that you are making any breakthrough in the first place! So the rule is useless and should be eliminated for the sake of simplicity. Brilliant, isn't it?   And those guys from IMU could not see the paradox... Talk about math genius! 

 

 

[3AlarmLampscooter]

Look up the work of Dr. Allan Snyder with rTMS if you want to go down that rabbit hole 

[angus]

Look up the work of Dr. Allan Snyder with rTMS if you want to go down that rabbit hole  ;)

 

or more easily w/ this tDCS montage (snyder study):

 

http://tdcsplacement...insightfulness/