Who is Jacob Barnett and What Makes Him So Special?

[lisab]

Thanks for the anecdote - I appreciated it. I agree - we can't really blame the teachers for what they do most of the time - they have way too much to do (and honestly, I have to be grateful to my teachers for having good intentions, even if they did not truly know what was best for me).

All I'm saying is that with the growth of all sorts of free online tutorials, smart kids don't necessarily benefit from going to school. And so it's often counterproductive to force them to go through school, when they could learn much faster through other means that can be very cheap, given all the online tutorials that are now available.

I agree, I think online resources can be a lifesaver for certain kids. The student would need to put effort into having social activities, but that's not an issue for most kids!

 

[rootX]

All the papers are here: http://depts.washington.edu/cscy/research/

Thanks for the link. I would try to go through them as I get time, they look interesting!

 

[lisab]

this is completely unnecessary and probably stems from some idea of mainstreaming or using the smart kids to help tutor the slower ones. when i came thru public ed, by second grade we were divided into six tiers. each tier started off as a color, but soon it was obvious you were in groups 1 thru 6. by at least fourth grade, we were changing classes for subjects throughout the day. and each group only had class with its own group. throughout the day, teachers had groups of students with different abilities, different handicaps, and proceeding at different paces. maybe that is not politically correct now, but it seems to work decently IME.

Hmm, that brings back memories...I think my elementary school had a similar system but they called it "stanine groups". I agree, I think it worked well for the most part.

But such a system wouldn't serve a kid like the one in the OP. He'd be well outside the distribution.

 

[ideasrule]

Most of the stuff he's been interviewed as saying reaches about the average knowledge of a college junior in astrophysics. While impressive at his age, he's said some things about cosmology that are simply incorrect and show he's not at all familiar with current research in the field. So he's very smart, obviously, but also getting ahead of himself in what he actually knows about the field, and being encouraged to by reporters who don't know it at all. I can imagine a few profs at Princeton doing the research he's not familiar with probably being a bit embarrassed about the whole thing right now; if he were 18 or 20 instead, no one would be talking to him. He'd just be another undergrad with a potentially crackpot idea.

What has he said about cosmology that's incorrect? I'm not doubting you; I just haven't been able to find them, despite the numerous news articles claiming he's trying to disprove the Big Bang theory.

Incidentally, judging by the video in the initial link, he doesn't seem to understand basic relativity: "light travels at a constant speed, as in it doesn't accelerate forwards or backwards, but it does accelerate exactly sideways in some cases." Also note that for most of the video, Jake seems to be talking about special relativity, not general. I wonder whether he even understands general relativity mathematically.

 

[Proton Soup]

Hmm, that brings back memories...I think my elementary school had a similar system but they called it "stanine groups". I agree, I think it worked well for the most part.

But such a system wouldn't serve a kid like the one in the OP. He'd be well outside the distribution.

oh, i agree. but i think the OP is truly a rare breed. and once these kids are found, the money seems to find them.

 

[rootX]

I was thrown around all kinds of schools (from a small rural school in old house with only 20-30 students to a big school in a big city by the time I reached high school). My parents raised in rural areas also didn't know anything about these fancy programs however they kept of trying to provide me better opportunities.

I never saw any special (smart) kids program in elementary school or so. By the time I saw programs like IB (smart kids program) it was bit too late and I had plans to become a car mechanic/college than any university education When I finally reached university, only thing I learned that those special programs don't matter as much as personal characters (good work ethics).

 

[ideasrule]

Hes probably thinking of it "accelerating sideways" as curving around massive objects. Not really acceleration. I think he needs to learn GR before people say he's creating a new theory...

That was my impression as well. I don't think he fully understands SR, let alone GR, which makes me wonder how he can try to expand the Big Bang theory.

 

[noted]

Hi guys, Simfish linked me this thread and I thought I'd contribute.

I was raised as a child prodigy. I probably wasn't actually that smart, but my parents thought I was, so they did dumb stuff like put me in the eighth grade when I was eight. I got moved from school to school because my parents had to find one that both let me do the grade-skipping thing and tolerated my godawful behavior. I had no friends until college and life pretty much sucked until a year or two ago.

Anyway, I got a full ride to a top 10 school ... but then I got kicked out for trying to kill myself. Shows you how well that worked.

(Happy ending: they let me back in after kicking me out twice and now I'm okay. But I was damn scared I'd never be able to go back again because the second time they wrote "withdrawn" on my transcript and advised me to transfer.)

 

[ideasrule]

The educational system might be underfunded and poorly designed, but stories like noted's make me wonder whether parents should really be interfering with their children's education. Parents are often clueless about their children's actual capabilities, and instead of listening to their desires, decide to "encourage" them in ways detrimental to intellectual and social development. I know of many parents who make excessive demands of their children, and in the process, hinder their social skills by taking away the rich experiences they would otherwise have in their childhood/teen years.

 

[Willowz]

Get's you wondering. What's the differences between people like William James Sidis and John von Newmann.

 

[HeLiXe]

I had no friends until college and life pretty much sucked until a year or two ago.

I'm happy to hear that things are looking up for you noted, and sorry to hear that you endured so much emotional pain.

 

[HeLiXe]

Get's you wondering. What's the differences between people like William James Sidis and John von Newmann.

like who >_> *googles them*

 

[Pyrrhus]

Get's you wondering. What's the differences between people like William James Sidis and John von Newmann.

My exact thoughts. I wrote a lengthy answer but had PF gave me some gateway error, and thus it was lost =(. In essence, it compared those both cases, and also asked about parental guidance as an important factor. Sometimes parents praise you too much or push you too much , and that can have emotional consequences to the child. The pressure of all these expectations of becoming the next Einstein, next Dirac might become to unbearable like in the case of Sidis.

 

[Calrid]

There is a difference between knowing your stuff and being creative enough to use it to expand the frontiers of human understanding.

Clearly some people are extremely intuitive and creative and clearly some of them will be prodigies. However more often than not truly creative prodigies are rare. Which is why many of these people end up disappearing off the face of the Earth.

It's no use being able to retain vast amounts of information if you can't use it. Hell the so called "real Rain man" can read two pages of a book at the same time with each eye and memorise entire libraries, he can recall anyone's birth day and perform some pretty incredible feats of recall. Intelligence wise though he's nothing remarkable, and cannot function well in social situations. Just to give an example of the difference between knowing your stuff and knowing how and where to use it and in new ways.

How good you are at school is probably not a great indication of your creativity or intuition either or even your tenacity, which is also important. I think often people expect those with high IQs or deemed prodigies to automatically succeed but there's more to intelligence than just raw values. Sometimes people can be stupendously good at all the things school, and still be about as imaginative or creative as an ant.

Usually being fairly intelligent and very creative is far more likely to get you noticed than just having a huge IQ, people often focus too much on certain areas, and too little on those that are important to success.

 

[Leveret]

Let's not forget that once you go on the news, you get judged by a public who, let's face it, would probably be overawed by someone who could write Maxwell's equations. That's not to say this kid isn't smart--I don't think there's any question that he is, and extraordinarily so. But the scientific illiteracy of the general public contributes to the hyping up of kids like these, and perhaps even undercuts their potential by eliminating their scientific humility.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I agree, and that was the case of Sidis. He was always under public eye. It is not easy to handle the pressure of what the public expects of you and your research, and like Calrid argued research takes time. It is a creative endeavor, especially theoretical work.

 

[Borek]

Parents are often clueless about their children's actual capabilities

Sadly, way too often the same can be said about teachers.

Teachers tend to see kids through their grades. If you have good grades, you are smart, if your grades are low, you are an idiot. Fact that your grades are low because you are bored to death in the class and you become troublemaker are often beyond teachers recognition. Later teachers are surprised - what, he won a Chemical Olympiad? Impossible!

System is build for average kids, so if you stick out you are a problem, no matter which way you stick out.

Edit: speaking of anecdotes, what would you say about smart kid that has her books taken away from her so that she doesn't learn too fast?

 

[Ouabache]

Yeah... it seems like there is another prodigy. I don't know how smart he actually is. I would imagine some is just media hype but he obviously knows his stuff.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110329/ts_yblog_thelookout/for-12-year-old-astrophysics-prodigy-the-skys-the-limit

It would be cool for someone to do a study on kids that are labeled as a "prodigy". Then track their lives and see what actually happens to them. I wonder if there would be any correlation between future success and what field the prodigy works in (are physics prodigies more likely to develop than musical ones, or vice versa). Also, what would be the affect of family life: if you do not encourage they may not reach their potential, but over-encouragement leads to burnout.

You probably didn't notice, but you've created a redundant thread. There was already a topic about this boy here titled: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=484331", begun on March 25, 2011. Perhaps yours can be merged with that topic.

 

[JaredJames]

Sometimes people can be stupendously good at all the things school, and still be about as imaginative or creative as an ant.

Yep, rather close to home.

I can sit down and learn, do the work well. But try to get me to apply it creatively or 'merge' two subjects to come up with a solution and it's a no win situation. If I'm not taught (or don't learn it myself) I really struggle to do it.

Tell me A gives you X and B gives you Y and I can get you X and Y. But if you don't tell me A and B together give you Z I'll never work it out for myself (or at least not without a ridiculous amount of work that ends up taking over the main task). It's something that really annoys me.

I did well in school because what you were taught was pretty much exactly what came up on the exams (the whole "taught to pass exams" thing). There's little creativity needed when you're taught exactly what you need and shown exactly how to use it.

I always find it inspiring (with a hint of jealousy) when I see someone able to apply their knowledge creatively.

 

[Calrid]

Yep, rather close to home.

I can sit down and learn, do the work well. But try to get me to apply it creatively or 'merge' two subjects to come up with a solution and it's a no win situation. If I'm not taught (or don't learn it myself) I really struggle to do it.

Tell me A gives you X and B gives you Y and I can get you X and Y. But if you don't tell me A and B together give you Z I'll never work it out for myself (or at least not without a ridiculous amount of work that ends up taking over the main task). It's something that really annoys me.

I did well in school because what you were taught was pretty much exactly what came up on the exams (the whole "taught to pass exams" thing). There's little creativity needed when you're taught exactly what you need and shown exactly how to use it.

I always find it inspiring (with a hint of jealousy) when I see someone able to apply their knowledge creatively.

Sadly when people do that it more often induces fear. Trust me on this. People don't value things that are outside of their comfort zone. You will get closed down faster for making people appreciate that they don't have some ability they lack, than you ever would by making people appreciate it is so worthwhile and so very important to try and appreciate skills you lack. People focus on the wrong things, effort and imagination and maximising what you are good at is what makes you successful. Learning sure helps but hell if you are not willing to imagine or try hard then you might as well just comply to the silly standards that are held as important. Couldn't hurt to appreciate something you cannot do though could it, good for you. Jealousy isn't a bad thing if it inspires you to do better. Trite but true.

It depresses me how stupid people are. I was watching a program last night about "teachers" (ie those who were successful in a field) trying to inspire people to think beyond where they are in school, by introducing adroit people that tried to fire the imagination. Like great actors, great Surgeons, great Chefs or Scientists; woodworkers, specialists in mechanical engineering. It got back to the basics of what we value. It was genuinely inspiring. Pity so many kids will be passed over because they lack merit in such scant areas of ability. It really works much better than irritating people who are bad at stuff- to think that school relies on a very slim amount of skills, and that life therefore does? What's wrong with having a high emotional quotient, with people who have good people skills but lack book smarts? With enjoying the skill and technique that comes with art and considering some jobs valuable because you do? It's a whole mess of depressing values we have.

Kids are so turned off by some of the narrow minded prejudices people have, it's very disappointing to think a gifted artist in any field isn't appreciated because he may not earn big bucks. Some of the most amazing ideas have come from some of the most unappreciated people.

It's a crazy world we live in.

We need people who are good at the basic skills, we need people who are imaginative and creative and aren't: we need all this. I despair quite frankly that a score board is more important than firing the imagination and inspiration of young people. We have gone badly wrong.

Jumping through hoops is fine, but makes sure they are the right hoops you are setting up.

That said the brain isn't cast in stone, it is extremely pliable, you can train yourself to be more creative just as you can train yourself to be better at maths or language. Sure it's not easy but then nothing worth doing is.

We all have a lot to learn about valuing abilities I think. Our parameters though are stupid, no that is an understatement they are moronic.

I'm damned good at learning stuff, my memory is pretty good given time, my creativity is high. I really do appreciate though that I am useless at music or building things with my hands, despite being ambidextrous, and my love of the art that is music. I wish I was better at this stuff. If I wanted to be I could be, but I fear no one would value my efforts because we value things that are all too meagre and we don't appreciate people unless they display exceptional ability right away, all to often. It's not the score you achieve it's the score you achieve despite your limitations that counts.

 

[Willowz]

My exact thoughts. I wrote a lengthy answer but had PF gave me some gateway error, and thus it was lost =(. In essence, it compared those both cases, and also asked about parental guidance as an important factor. Sometimes parents praise you too much or push you too much , and that can have emotional consequences to the child. The pressure of all these expectations of becoming the next Einstein, next Dirac might become to unbearable like in the case of Sidis.

Yes, but Newmann put himself to the task. More than anything else, the curiosity (in a given subject) has to be self-sustained. A hard task for a capricious intellect at a young age, eh?

 

[ideasrule]

Teachers tend to see kids through their grades. If you have good grades, you are smart, if your grades are low, you are an idiot. Fact that your grades are low because you are bored to death in the class and you become troublemaker are often beyond teachers recognition. Later teachers are surprised - what, he won a Chemical Olympiad? Impossible!

I completely agree, and can relate. There have always been students in my classes who are clearly very smart, but get so bored that they don't bother doing the homework, paying attention in class, or studying for tests. Many of them still managed to get >90%, but for the below average students there's no way for a teacher to tell whether a student isn't doing work because it's too easy, or because they don't understand a thing.

I have an anecdote that's only tangentially related, but slightly amusing, so I'll post it here anyways. I was in ESL for three full years during elementary school, many times longer than normal, yet nobody--neither the school nor my parents--recognized a problem or tried to give additional help. In grade 6, I was put into the ordinary English class by mistake and had to ask my mom for help on every English assignment, yet I got C or D every time. In the middle of the year, I decided to try writing one essay on my own, simply to get an honest evaluation of my own abilities. I got an A, and within a year I was the one helping my mom on her college writing assignments. If the school had provided even 20 minutes of one-on-one help, they probably would have realized that I didn't need ESL, and that my language skills were not poor. If the school administrator had not mistakenly taken me out of ESL, or if I hadn't randomly decided to refuse my mom's help, my life would probably be very different.

Edit: speaking of anecdotes, what would you say about smart kid that has her books taken away from her so that she doesn't learn too fast?

Which one? I haven't been on PF for a long time, so I don't know who you're referring to.

 

[Willowz]

You guys are putting unreasonable expectations on teachers. Especially given the present circumstances!

 

[HeLiXe]

Teachers tend to see kids through their grades. If you have good grades, you are smart, if your grades are low, you are an idiot. Fact that your grades are low because you are bored to death in the class and you become troublemaker are often beyond teachers recognition. Later teachers are surprised - what, he won a Chemical Olympiad? Impossible!

SO TRUE! When I was in high school my precalc/trig teacher always tried to brand me some sort of derelict. She said a lot of ignorant things in class and refused to teach. She told us she is an "instructor" not a teacher and we should learn from the book. Well learn from the book I did, but I could not stand her. She used to always ask us to bring our homework to her desk and she would to talk to us when we came to her desk...thus I never did homework. When it was exam time she sat me away from the rest of the class, and told me she is doing it so I will not cheat. Every time I looked up she was looking at me lol. She was really shocked when I got an A on the midterm and final and no one else in the class made above a C on the midterm and B on the final. Of course now I realize the error in my behavior and do all of my work, but what you say is really applicable in my case.

 

[HeLiXe]

There is a difference between knowing your stuff and being creative enough to use it to expand the frontiers of human understanding.

Clearly some people are extremely intuitive and creative and clearly some of them will be prodigies. However more often than not truly creative prodigies are rare. Which is why many of these people end up disappearing off the face of the Earth.

It's no use being able to retain vast amounts of information if you can't use it. Hell the so called "real Rain man" can read two pages of a book at the same time with each eye and memorise entire libraries, he can recall anyone's birth day and perform some pretty incredible feats of recall. Intelligence wise though he's nothing remarkable, and cannot function well in social situations. Just to give an example of the difference between knowing your stuff and knowing how and where to use it and in new ways.

How good you are at school is probably not a great indication of your creativity or intuition either or even your tenacity, which is also important. I think often people expect those with high IQs or deemed prodigies to automatically succeed but there's more to intelligence than just raw values. Sometimes people can be stupendously good at all the things school, and still be about as imaginative or creative as an ant.

Usually being fairly intelligent and very creative is far more likely to get you noticed than just having a huge IQ, people often focus too much on certain areas, and too little on those that are important to success.

Very well stated Calrid.

 

[l-1j-cho]

Of course being a child prodigy in math is a different story.

could you explain why?

 

[rootX]

There is a difference between knowing your stuff and being creative enough to use it to expand the frontiers of human understanding.

Clearly some people are extremely intuitive and creative and clearly some of them will be prodigies. However more often than not truly creative prodigies are rare. Which is why many of these people end up disappearing off the face of the Earth.

It's no use being able to retain vast amounts of information if you can't use it. Hell the so called "real Rain man" can read two pages of a book at the same time with each eye and memorise entire libraries, he can recall anyone's birth day and perform some pretty incredible feats of recall. Intelligence wise though he's nothing remarkable, and cannot function well in social situations. Just to give an example of the difference between knowing your stuff and knowing how and where to use it and in new ways.

How good you are at school is probably not a great indication of your creativity or intuition either or even your tenacity, which is also important. I think often people expect those with high IQs or deemed prodigies to automatically succeed but there's more to intelligence than just raw values. Sometimes people can be stupendously good at all the things school, and still be about as imaginative or creative as an ant.

Usually being fairly intelligent and very creative is far more likely to get you noticed than just having a huge IQ, people often focus too much on certain areas, and too little on those that are important to success.

Yep, I fully agree! I also wanted to say something similar.

Current education system is good enough and rewards people with good character not with good intellectual abilities. In the end, it matters how well you use/execute what you know not how much you can fit in your head.

 

[JaredJames]

The biggest problem with my school was that they would strongly support sports people, they got anything they need. Whereas any other subjects weren't supported very well, if at all.

If you were good at sports there was a good chance you'd be spotted and pushed through, but there was nothing elsewhere.

 

[Calrid]

The biggest problem with my school was that they would strongly support sports people, they got anything they need. Whereas any other subjects weren't supported very well, if at all.

If you were good at sports there was a good chance you'd be spotted and pushed through, but there was nothing elsewhere.

Now that is moronic. It'd probably be illegal in most countries too.

 

[JaredJames]

Now that is moronic. It'd probably be illegal in most countries too.

All other subjects are given the basics, the stuff they must have. But it was when they needed that bit extra problems were noted.

It was sad really because it diseartened a lot of teachers and they just lost interest in trying. You can imagine the knock on effect to the students learning.

Some fought against it but never really got anywhere.

Rugby team need a minibus once a week to get to matches? No problem.

A-Level Geography need it to do the coursework field study? Hmm, we'll do a rain check (which ended up being a no).

It ends up with teachers doing only what is required to get students to pass and that's pretty much it. They just don't care and I really couldn't blame them. Why go the extra mile for your students when the system you work in does everything to prevent it.

Oddly enough, if you were noted as particularly talented in some way (regardless of subject area) and then subsequently rewarded (generally outside of school), the school would jump on the opportunity to 'show their support', well, they'd turn up for photo opportunities with their 'brilliant' student.

 

[Calrid]

All other subjects are given the basics, the stuff they must have. But it was when they needed that bit extra problems were noted.

It was sad really because it diseartened a lot of teachers and they just lost interest in trying. You can imagine the knock on effect to the students learning.

Some fought against it but never really got anywhere.

Rugby team need a minibus once a week to get to matches? No problem.

A-Level Geography need it to do the coursework field study? Hmm, we'll do a rain check (which ended up being a no).

It ends up with teachers doing only what is required to get students to pass and that's pretty much it. They just don't care and I really couldn't blame them. Why go the extra mile for your students when the system you work in does everything to prevent it.

Oddly enough, if you were noted as particularly talented in some way (regardless of subject area) and then subsequently rewarded (generally outside of school), the school would jump on the opportunity to 'show their support', well, they'd turn up for photo opportunities with their 'brilliant' student.

Tragic.

Sports is not god!

What a terrible way to de-inspire students who couldn't kick a ball accurately or fire another one into a circular object or run 100m in 11 seconds dead etc.

 

[christopherV]

I am reluctant to post this however my behaviorist feels that it would be good for me to make a public proclamation. Sooo I am Autistic, in particular I am a high functioning Autistic (asperger's) I have an AQ of 34 according to *Cambridge Autism Research Centre's Autism spectrum quotient.

First stop picking on that little kid! Of course he hasn't fully grasped GR or SR. have you? Of course not or there would be an article in nature published about you and your TOE, Einstein, who in my opinion was autistic, didn't even fully understand the theory and spent the rest of his life trying to clean up the theory.

Let me tell you what is going on, he is obsessed with physics right now because it is new and HFA's (high functions autistic) learn at a staggering rate, much much much faster than anyone else you know. Some examples from my personal history are; I learned Spanish in 3mo; I learned to do anatomical sculpture and all the musculature in under 4mo; I learned calculus in 3 days. I am currently working my way through everything on the MIT open courseware site.

He will eventually reach a state of boredom with the subject and he will move on to a new obsession, that's how it works.

Let me also clear up the eidetic memory thing. Most people think that HFA's have a photographic memory...which is sort of true (some do some don't). In my own experience I have the ability to retain vast amounts of information in my short term memory(somewhere around 30 instead of 7 like most people), but my long term recall is just as flawed as anyone else. The memory of someone as unique as “Rain man” as you so loving called him; has a condition know as hyperthymesia, a hyperthymestic has an autobiographical memory and can recall every day of their life in full detail from the epoch of the hyperthymesia. I am certainly glad that I don't suffer from this.

As for light moving sideways, I think that he is referring to the tangent line of a Compton wave as it moves in space, that is not my formula, and I'm not particularly interested in defending it.

I would be open to any questions anyone has about HFAs.

 

[Calrid]

[]... The memory of someone as unique as “Rain man” as you so loving called him; has a condition know as hyperthymesia, a hyperthymestic...[]

I apologise if the term cause you any concern, that's just what they called him in a series of documentaries, as he was the person that Tom Cruise modeled himself on and spent time with in order to play that part. I don't think it was meant to be derogatory though, more as a hook for the shows. I know he isn't autistic either, he has a different condition.

I don't think anyone is picking on him, but there are a lot of kids who show vastly accelerated learning abilities who never seem to make more of their potential. People are merely pointing out that it takes more than being able to assimilate information quickly, and that everyone has a different level of excellence in areas that tend to be equally as important as brute smarts or learning ability. Such as creativity and focus and tenacity. People are probably right to be skeptical, I wouldn't take it personally. And it certainly isn't a slight against Apergers, or those in the Autism spectrum in general.

 

[christopherV]

I apologise if the term cause you any concern, that's just what they called him in a series of documentaries, as he was the person that Tom Cruise modeled himself on and spent time with in order to play that part. I don't think it was meant to be derogatory though, more as a hook for the shows. I know he isn't autistic either, he has a different condition.

so when you're hanging out with your friends and someone does something amazing, you're like wow, that guy is a real rain man. the paradigm is similar to a minstrel show. think about it.

 

[Calrid]

so when you're hanging out with your friends and someone does something amazing, you're like wow, that guy is a real rain man. the paradigm is similar to a minstrel show. think about it.

Not really. Since Kim and his family were responsible for this title and used it themselves in their shows I don't see the harm? It was intended to denote that a character was based on him. If you want to bring political correctness into it fine, and imagine slights where there are none go for it. But I don't see the point.

Black and white minstrels, I mean come on that's hardly the same thing.

You can watch it if you want. Let me know if there was an intention there to be derogatory or to demean Kim Peek:



I think you are assuming there is something wrong with being called the real Rain Man, I didn't intend it in that way, neither does it have any negative connotation. That is something you seem to have brought to the conversation.

 

[christopherV]

i don't even have words. have a nice day.

 

[JaredJames]

i don't even have words. have a nice day.

What's the negative connotation of being called "Rain Man" in the scenarios above?

I don't see how it's derogatory in any way. It's not used as a insult and as Calrid points out, they use it themselves.

The Black and White Minstrels are a completely different issue and are derogatory.

 

[christopherV]

According to Baron and Richardson (1994), dehumanization occurs when an individual views another person in negative ways, which leads to the belief that they are undeserving of the respect and kindness usually afforded to another person. It is as if that individual is compared to being nonhuman (Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner 2008). In comparing groups under the same situation, Esses, Veenvliet, Hodson, and Mihic (2008) state that, for example, if group B is seen as failing to uphold values belonging to group A, then group B must be immoral and less than human. This results in group B being less deserving of humane treatment. The fate of the members of group B is less relevant to group A, and their interests may be ignored. The implication is then that dehumanization of a target increases aggressive behavior because dehumanized group members have no moral standards applied to them (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006). Bandura (2002) adds that strangers can be more easily depersonalized than acquaintances because of a lack of moral obligation to try and comprehend a stranger.
There are three different ways in which people are dehumanized. Haslam, et al. (2008) points out that people can be compared to animals, in which uniquely human attributes are denied and the person is described as being coarse, uncultured, amoral, irrational, and childlike. Bandura (2002) adds that attributing demonic or bestial qualities to a person also makes them less than human. A second way in which people are dehumanized is by comparing a person to a machine (i.e., "mechanistic dehumanization"), in which human attributes are removed, and the person is perceived to be unfeeling, cold, passive, rigid, and lacking individuality (Haslam, et al., 2008). By doing this, the person is denied of emotionality and desires (Haslam, et al., 2008). Controlling or manipulative interpersonal relationships have been identified as one antecedent of mechanistic dehumanization (Moller & Deci, 2010).
The third way that a person can be dehumanized is by perceiving the other person as being the enemy. Esses, et al. (2008) state that the enemy is constructed to exemplify manipulation and is described as being opportunistic, evil, immoral, and motivated by greed. The enemy is shown to take advantage of the weak, which in turn justifies any action taken against the enemy (Esses, et al., 2008). Esses, et al. (2008) go on to describe the barbarian image, which includes the perceptions of a ruthless, crude, and unsophisticated individual that is willing to cheat to reach glory.
The consequence of constructing these dehumanizing forms is the inequality that is brought on as a result. It can be seen that those who support the existence of social dominance view the world as a competitive place where only the toughest survive and are willing to discriminate against other groups in order to reach or uphold group dominance. What this does is legitimize entitlement and the dehumanization of others (Esses, et al., 2008).

 

[Calrid]

I personally don't see how there is a problem here ethically. I don't even see how the term the real Rain Man is even derogatory, it just says this is the real person the film was based on. The comparison here is to an actor playing a part and the real life person who is the basis for it. Dehumanizing no? It's actually humanising the person by putting him in a real context in the real world.

That you perceive a slight here (which certainly wasn't my intent) is all very well but this is their term they used it, morally if there is a problem you should be talking to them.

I understand you might find the term offensive, and that's fine, I just don't understand why?

The documentary starts with the line extraordinary people. Kim Peek is extraordinary, there is no doubt about it. His skills are amazing and its hard to comprehend how or why he can do these things.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Let’s hope the parents have better judgment in the future, and don’t let this bright boy participate in any more "Freak shows":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBW4S9xcTOk

Jacob receives the book http://www.williamstillman.com/connection.html" next time, to get the "desirable results" faster...?

[PLAIN]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/God_Helmet.jpg

Or maybe he should study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything" before wishing for "miracles"... Beck seems very ignorant...

 

[JaredJames]

dehumanization occurs when an individual views another person in negative ways,

How is describing someone as "Rain Man" - a person people associate with being brilliant at certain things, hence you see someone win a lot at cards and call them Rain Man - "negative"?

How are we describing someone as being "non-human"?

Your whole premise is ridiculous. You are taking a completely benign situation and deliberately trying to inflame it into becoming something it is not, by using examples that don't match with the reality of the situation.

 

[christopherV]

I understand you might find the term offensive, and that's fine, I just don't understand why?

Alright I will answer that, I find the term so offensive because I see it as another representation of "idiot savant" and it is defiantly not a term that I would ever use to represent anything positive about another individual.

and it's not that i might find the term offensive i definitely find the term offensive.

 

[Calrid]

Alright I will answer that, I find the term so offensive because I see it as another representation of "idiot savant" and it is defiantly not a term that I would ever use to represent anything positive about another individual.

and it's not that i might find the term offensive i definitely find the term offensive.

Who used the term idiot savant except you?

Was Kim Peek trying to suggest he was an idiot savant by using that term? Or was he trying to suggest he was the real deal?

Great I still don't understand why but you go with that, it seems we are at an impasse.

If its any consolation I'd find the term idiot savant offensive, and would never use it. It's so clearly something that was invented when we didn't know any better. Probably why few people use it now.

 

[christopherV]

Look I don't at this point think that you are intentionally trying to be offensive. I think you really just don't get it. it was offensive to me and I don't think i can explain it any further or in any manner in which you will understand what it's like to be me.

 

[Calrid]

Look I don't at this point think that you are intentionally trying to be offensive. I think you really just don't get it. it was offensive to me and I don't think i can explain it any further or in any manner in which you will understand what it's like to be me.

Fair enough then I apologise for offending you, it was not my intent.

I don't have to get it to know when someone is upset.

 

[christopherV]

Fair enough then I apologise for offending you, it was not my intent.

I don't have to get it to know when someone is upset.

thank you and I am sure that i made some errors as well and for those i apologize, I might not even see them as I am very bad at interpersonal communication and prone to behaviors which fall outside of the social norm. particularly analogies, i could not however think of an analytical way in which to express my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Calrid]

thank you and I am sure that i made some errors as well and for those i apologize, I might not even see them as I am very bad at interpersonal communication and prone to behaviors which fall outside of the social norm. particularly analogies, i could not however think of an analytical way in which to express my thoughts on the matter.

I think the only error you made is in being human. Something for which it is hard to apologise for. We all have our sensibilities. It's a waste of time getting hung up on them.

Forget about it.

 

[goldust]

Speaking of Jacob Barnett, he now lives in the same small city where I live. Woohoo!