Sunday, February 12, 2012
Just stumbled upon videos about Jason Padgett, now have questions
I can see how Jason Padgett's drawings might be the display of some previously unknown type of savantism, but how does this make him any type of synaesthete? And how are his drawings "fractals"? And how is the number Pi a fractal? Is there a mathematician out there who can help?
I'm still looking into Mr Padgett and his drawings, but here's a funny thing that I've noticed - try Googling "Paul Laffoley art" for images, and look a the similarity in style between the art of Padgett and Laffoley. What's going on there???? Something strange I'd say. There's also a resemblance to art associated with religion and mystical stuff from Asian cultures. A basic knowledge of the background of Paul Laffoley tells me that this is the realm of unusual thinking. I researched Laffoley because he is included in my list of famous people thought to be autistic (see link above).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I just stumbled across your old posting, as I was researching Jason Padgett.
You ask how his drawings are "Fractals". They aren't, of course. They are just pretty pictures.
He has posted many times on various internet forums (such as fractalforums.com) and been told, many times, politely but firmly that his ideas are unfounded and that his drawings are not fractals.
Fractals are mathematical constructs obeying certain properties. Therefore whether something is or isn't a fractal isn't opinion, it's fact. If his pictures were fractals, it would be possible to demonstrate it mathematically.
People who claim his pictures are fractals cannot possibly have any understanding of mathematics, what a fractal is, and how mathematics works (requiring carefully checked proofs, rather than just looking at a pretty picture and saying "that looks like a fractal"). Certainly, Jason Padgett himself has shown through things that he's written that he has no idea what a fractal is.
As far as I know, no one with any credibility in mathematics has ever taken his ideas seriously. That's not particularly surprising given that his claims have included, variously, that he has a revolutionary theory of space-time to rival Einstein's theory of relativity, or that he is going to invent a "fractal fusion reactor" to give the world unlimited free energy.
Given how cranky his ideas are, surely noone with serious academic credentials would ever endorse them?
Well, as it happens, Jason Padgett has written a book, entitled "Struck by genius - how a brain injury made me a mathematical marvel", due to come out next month. Take a look on Amazon who has endorsed his book. Recognise any names?
This has removed any remaining doubt in my mind that the community of people who research "savant syndrome" should not be taken remotely seriously.
Tomas
There's a definite smell of cheese in that page of recommendations, like the Coles deli counter on a Saturday morning. Phew!
The name of the researcher who has apparently studied Padgett rings a bell for some reason. I'll sleep on it.
The name of the researcher should indeed ring a bell, because you have blogged about things she has written: http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/tammet-given-lie-detector-tests-by.html
Tomas
Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. I was referring to this researcher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berit_Brogaard#Cognitive_neuroscience
Notice how none of the links given at that Wikipedia page to support the discussion about neuroscience research on Padgett actually link to published papers or scholarly reports of any kind? One link goes to a deleted Fox News article, one to a commercial art vendor webpage and the other link appears to be a personal web page. But if you or I tried to make some well-supported claim about Tammet at Wikipedia, all our sources cited would I'm sure be judged by Wikiwankers as insufficient in quality.
Berit Brogaard has written about Daniel Tammet.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201304/i-can-easily-beat-blackjack
Her article is better than most - she is one of the only writers I'm aware of to have even acknowledged that Tammet was a memory competitor and that some people are skeptical about him.
There's a paper due out on "JP" here:
http://philpapers.org/rec/BROSMP-2
Tomas
That paper has actually been published, and I have a copy of the full text. I'm far from convinced that Padgett's unusual thinking is synaesthesia. I think the Tetris effect could be a better explanation for Padgett's thing with drawings that look like string art.
Notice how this paper was published in the same journal that published one of the most contentious papers about Tammet? In my eyes Neurocase has developed a bad reputation.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13554794.2012.701646#preview
Thanks for the link to Brogaard's writing on Tammet. I'll have to take a look at that. Psychology Today is another publication that I now look upon with caution.
Another blog post on Jason Padgett has just been published by the co-author of his forthcoming book:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/tasting-the-universe/201404/struck-genius?quicktabs_5=1
It seems that his claims to have synaesthesia and savantism really were inspired by Daniel Tammet:
"He’d not yet been officially diagnosed but felt it was synesthesia and savantism because he recognized his own experiences in a documentary he saw about Daniel Tammet."
I look forward to the book with interest. I wonder if it will be full of rock-solid objective evidence to disprove skeptics like me. I live in hope.
Padgett recognized his own experiences in a documentary he saw about Daniel Tammet? I think he recognized an opportunity to become a celebrity and sell lots of books.
I've figured out why the name of the researcher who studied Padgett (written a journal paper a report and articles about Padgett, has appeared with Padgett at a conference giving a talk about Padgett and has spoken about Padgett in a YouTube video), Dr Berit Brogaard, has a name that rings a bell. Brogaard wrote a blog piece about an interesting theory linking synaesthesia with the immune system which I read a while ago. She knew about that theory because she was the reviewer of the paper. Turns out that the paper, by a couple of synaesthesia researchers, has been the subject of plagiarism accusations. So that's a big peer-review fail by Dr Brogaard, which isn't surprising considering her credulity regarding Padgett and savants in general, and her prodigious writing output, a lot of it pop psychology stuff rather than academic stuff. She seems to write more than she thinks, which is a problematic trait in an academic.
For what it's worth, I think Jason Padgett is probably honest and genuinely believes the things that he claims. His rambling postings on the internet (which he has been posting for many years) suggest to me that he is really sincere in believing that he has special insights into mathematics (someone who was trying to impersonate a real mathematician wouldn't bother embarrassing themselves with claims like that).
Unfortunately, it looks to me that instead of coming into contact with mathematicians who could correct his stranger beliefs and channel his enthusiasm in a productive direction, he has come into contact with credulous art critics and psychologists like Berit Brogaard who have been feeding his delusions of genius.
Tomas
Post a Comment