Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

I highly recommend the short (about 6 minutes) mp3 dialog  that has just been posted on the Integral Naked site in the Integral University at Fielding: Q&A with Ken Wilber.  It turns out that our beloved pandit is a mental freak - who knew?  :p

Here's the description:

For anyone who has ever wondered how Ken does the work he does—work that has been compared with that of the true geniuses of humanity— this is a gem of a conversation. With a degree of humility that some might find surprising, Ken explains that his skill at pattern recognition and information synthesis is akin to that of an “idiot savant”: no one knows how it works, it’s not something one can take personal credit for, and all one can do is their utmost to communicate the truths of this gift as best as he or she can—with humor, and lightness, and freedom. As Ken jokes, “Is he special, or is he just weird? History will tell….” Truly, this is one of the most fascinating and revealing segments on Integral Naked, and we invite you listen in….

~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Yeah, it's a cool dialog.

Ken's gifts are apparently an awesome memory and pattern recognition.
OMG, he's a supercomputer!
Who would've thought.

Here's the link again. Scroll to the very end.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Pelle: “OMG, he's a supercomputer!”

Yep, he's cray-zee, alright.  :p

arthur

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Zenman shared the following in a similar thread on Integral Naked; the short video he links to in the post is fascinating:

~~~~~~~~~~

I thought it was really interesting how Ken described his savant like abilities.  It's rare for someone to have special abilities like his pattern recognition, and still be socially normal.  Check out this link.  There are two clips of a 60 Minutes episode on a guy called “brain man”: http://leenks.com/link66897.htm- zenman

~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Like an Idiot Savant, Ken demonstrates genius in some directions and severe limitations in other directions. We know about the genius side, so lets look at the limited side…

He seems to have an unquestioning belief in Indian spiritualism even to the point of labelling himself with an Indian term, “Pandit”. This limits himself and his followers and it reduces his market because he gets seen as a new ager.

By noticing patterns, which are inevitably from the past, he seems to limit humankind's future potential by modelling it on the past.

My interest is in humankind's shift from the exclusive competitive survival orientation to the inclusive cooperative happiness orientation. But by focussing on the past and projecting the subsequent patterns into the future, Ken misses the possibility of this leap being made.

Although past patterns included attempts at happiness, they were coming from within the methodology of the exclusive survival orientation. So you would get nations that are relatively happy living next door to nations that were unhappy, and so conflict would arise. With this exclusivity, conflict would come either from the unhappy country, or from paranoid elements within the relatively happy country.

For more on this see: http://www.worldwidehappiness.org

Martin Gifford.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Here is a transcript I made of this dialog.  It has been slightly edited for clarity.  (The audio version is available for Integral Naked members here.)

Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot? 

Integral University Student: I have a logistical kind of question: how do you personally keep track of all the information – do you use notebooks, do you work a lot on the computer? Because there's so much information.

Ken Wilber: Yeah, I know. It's all in my head.

IUS: <laughs>

KW: That's all I can tell you. <laughs> I don't take notes, I don't have notebooks.

IUS: Really?

KW: I work on a computer and that's it. And then, I don't know why this is so, but it's almost like idiot savant, you know? I've read at at least a Ph.D. level in 23 disciplines.

IUS: Jesus!

KW: And I don't know. You hope it's something special, but I could just be a nut! <laughter> I'm not stupid, I'm aware that this is extremely weird and rare - and then you can reflect on what all that means. I think I did more of that when I was a young male, and those kinds of things were important, and people were calling you the next Hegel or something like that. And you know, you think that's great. That just has no meaning to me now; it's just what is, it's what's arising and my duty is to use it responsibly and communicate it to the best of my ability. And that part I do believe. I believe it's some sort of deep metaphysical rule that you're allowed to understand an important truth if you agree to communicate it. And I think if you don't you get sick, your soul gets really, really sick. So that's my main concern, how to handle this responsibly. That's what we're trying to do here, that's what we're trying to do at Integral University and Integral Institute in general; and I think what is really terrific about it is that, because a large part of what I'm doing is anchored in second and third tier, it's anchored in real structures of consciousness and in real states of consciousness. And so it's actually like stumbling on a new territory; it's not something I invented, it's something that I discovered. Turquoise territory, use that as an example – that's an actual substance in the universe, it actually exists, there's a place that exists, it has a kosmic address. It's just not lying around out there in a fixed way. It's brought forth and enacted by those who grow and develop to that level or structure of consciousness; and it's something that we're all bringing forth as we move into this territory – and I just stumbled on the place a little bit earlier, and just started [to] take notebooks about what I saw, writing about this extraordinary new territory. And y'all are landing on the same continent, and so we're all discussing this together; and that will start actually fleshing out that continent, incidentally. It's one of those weird wonderful things that it's a mountain that's already there but not quite. It's there as we climb it – it actually comes into being <laughs> but it's not just dependent on us, anybody that stumbles on that mountain will co-create it, because it exists. That's what's amazing about all this. Hopefully there's something special about what I'm doing, that I'm not just a nutcase.

IUS: <laughs>

KW: <laughs> But, you know, history makes that decision.

IUS: Yeah.

KW: Yeah. But usually I just have maybe 4 or 5 books open that I'm having to type quotes from, and that's about it; and I'll sometimes jot down notes about maybe the names of chapters or something but I don't have any notebooks of information or anything like that at all – and the thousands and thousands of books that I've read, for some reason I retain the information. It's not a photographic memory, because that's kinda useless, you have to understand the information. For some reason I retain the understanding of the information and so I can recall it – all of it, right back to when I was 18 and started doing this.

I also have an idiot savant level of pattern recognition. I'll tell you how this works, just very quickly, since you're asking how I logistically [do this]. If I am watching a movie or watching TV and there's a movie star or an actress in it; once I recognize a face, I can spot it from any angle – if you show me a corner of their ear from behind I'll know who it is – and at any age. People see me do this, they don't believe me until they see it, and it's weird. I'll go, “hey that's so-and-so at age 12” or something and they'll go “no no no” and we'll look it up and it is [that person]. Because I have that patten recognition if I'll read Jane Lovinger and two years later read Eric Jantsch and then years later read Robert Kegan or something I would instantly see how they fit. It just pops up in my mind, it's a strange thing; but because of that I would then write down the patterns that connect because that's what I see. I don't think these things through, I'm looking at them like I'm looking at a cup or a rock or a table – I'm just reporting what I see. The reason I write so quickly is I'm not thinking, I'm seeing or hearing or feeling; and so when I sit down to write a book the book is basically already done in my head and it usually only takes a matter of a month or so to write a book – there have been 2 or 3 exceptions but it's usually extremely quick, because it's already done; and the first draft is usually very close to the last draft.

So, is he special, or is he weird? Well, history will tell.

IUS: Well, we're grateful that you're around! <laughs>

KW: <laughs>

Another voice (Rollie?): Well it's obvious you're especially weird, Ken. <laughs>

KW: That sounds right! <laughs> Weirdly special.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

One aspect of a paradox is that it can be resolved if you understand the error or flaw of its initial premise. Ken Wilber is simply “Ken Wilber.” He is neither right nor wrong, he is simply himself communicating HIS OWN perspective. Eastern wisdom has not been translated very well over the years and hence there has been a LOT of argument over its meaning and intent. Cultures other than American have THEIR OWN way of expressing Truth. America has integrated so many ways of communicating Truth that it is literally impossible to discern Truth from any one particular person or source. Truth can ONLY be determined between two people communicating person-to-person and adjusting their communication according to the expression that they are receiving directly from the other person. So, life is an on-going dialogue and we learn more and more as we communicate effectively with different types of people.

Ken Wilber has a LOT of information to offer. Don’t look to him to be the singular source of enlightened or enlightenment-oriented wisdom. He has offered us a GREAT “language” with which to dialogue about our various individual experiences so that we can evolve greater insights into those experiences.

Don’t worry about reaching Turquoise, in fact don’t worry at all. Seek understanding of that which you don’t understand or that which upsets you. With understanding there is no reason to be upset. You don’t need to be intentionally patient, compassionate, or humble as that defeats the purpose. With understanding you simply evolve different priorities where you “choose” to do something different than what you used to do.

.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Even I-I knows that for cool integral material you need to come to II Zaadz.

Check it out

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Seriously cool, Pelle, and seems to be an unfolding of what Ken talked about in our dialog. Perhaps not as he would have imagined it, but functionally, it looks the same to me.

He was talking about having different forums at I-I for different levels of turquoise folks. What has actually happened is that the green-turquoise forum is at Integral Naked and the (yes, I willb e so bold) turquoise-turquoise forum is here. They increasingly accept and encourage a cross-pollination of both sites (and KW's blog).

This seems to be working out as good for everyone. As green as the IN forum seems to be, I think the posters there are happier without us nagging all the time. There seems to be a group of people getting into posting regularly, and even old-timer David with his infinite patience helping to creat a good atmosphere.

Of course, I know what can go wrong, and it will eventually, but this is a crucial developmental step that can't be skipped.

Liz

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Hey, I was mentioned by name on Ken's blog. 

I agree with your assessment, Liz - the Multiplexiverse is turquoise(maybe)-green, and this forum seems to be more turquoise-turquoise.  A slight correction on nomenclature: I've always heard Ken lately referring to the cognitive line FIRST, values line SECOND; so cognitive turquoise, values green would be “turquoise-green.”  You seem to be using the opposite convention; ultimately the order is arbitrary, but since cognitive is considered necessary (but not sufficient) to have a certain altitude in the other lines, it would seem to make sense to list the cognitive altitude first.  Anyway, that's what the BBG seems to be doing, so I think we should too, to avoid confusion.

Man, I feel geeky right now. 

spiral out,
arthur

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

“Man, I feel geeky right now.  “

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

> Anyway, that’s what the BBG seems to be doing,
> so I think we should too, to avoid confusion.

BBG?

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Big Bald Guy.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

That really is very nice, isn't it. :-) See, it's the little things …

As far as that dialog, Ken's reading, etc. abilities are truly fascinating, but it makes a lot of sense. It's more than just being a “book worm” or whatever, it's truly some kind of a gift.

But what really trips me out is that facial recognition thing. That is truly astounding. It's long been recognized that some people have special abilities to re-cognize faces, but that the mind could re-cognize and re-construct such a thing from several physical-spatial perspectives-i.e. in 3 dimensions- and over time - i.e. with some incredible immediate calculation of probabilities or something- is just plain tripped out.


P.S. Did Ken talk about forums for just plain wuh-eirdo's!? Becasue there are definitely a few out there attracted to this stuff …

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Back to the idiot thing…

Would Ken be considered an idiot by certain dimensions of conscious awareness if he continues to display lower level/tier traits (seeming reactivity)? Even if he is doing so simply as a means of offering color (drama) to his expression so that people can taste it better? Then, if people get triggered by it does it really server the desired purpose? Supposed intentional lessons or uncontrolled reactivity?

By the way, I am not impressed with the photographic memory thing as I believe that we ALL have that ability if we pay attention to it. That is simply how the brain works normally, it literally takes pictures of every event, experience, feeling, etc. over the course of our entire lives. The fact that some people can’t focus upon what is actually useful due to the enormity of input may be the reason that many people tune out that ability. Perhaps this is why some of the greater geniuses border (or cross the border) to insanity?

.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Try using Firefox for the Mac. Safari doesn't display the toolbar properly. You can, of course, just write it in code if you want to bother. But I prefer Firefox anyway. Sometimes pictures don't display properly on Firefox (on a Mac-it seems to wokrk perfectly on a PC-Arrr!), which sucks. I toggle back and forth when that happens.

As for photographic memory, I'm unconvinced. I don't believe that everyone's brain works that way, and I'd want to see some sort of supporting references for that. Brain research is a tricky business and the conclusions reached 20, 10 or even 5 years ago may be considered invalid today.

There's no reason that KW couldn't be an absolute moron at, say, playing soccer or interpersonal skills or knitting. But what ,specifically, are you referring to?

Liz

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

> There’s no reason that KW couldn’t be an absolute moron
> at, say, playing soccer or interpersonal skills or knitting.
> But what, specifically, are you referring to?

When he calls people (his critics?) morons or idiots for example. Such name-calling adds zero useful information to the overall turquoise dialogue. That kind of behavior de-motivates the higher levels/tiers from wanting to communicate with him. I gues that indigo/coral would have already transcended him?

Hey, where is the preview feature? I can’t re-edit my post fast enough before Liz responds to it! Is that on the style bar also?

P.S. I notice that repetitive coding can be copied by selecting/highlighting it, holding down the option key, and dragging it to the next location thus making a copy of it. A plus + sign replaces the arrow pointer during this process.

.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

I don't think he was trying to instruct or use skillful means when he called people “idiots.” I think he was just trying to be funny (and succeeded, for me). Nobody can stand to have their every conversation deconstructed and sound turquoise all the time. I don't hold his spoken word to that standard, anyway.

He might be a complete asshole, but it doesn't detract from his map, IMO.

Liz

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

I would like to know where the research is that “turquoise” would simply never do such a thing. Because, the actual evidence, based upon extensive research, says something contrary.

Teal has the ability to unleash anger and use it constructively ( i.e. to change a situation for the better) and turquoise knows very well how to use sarcasm.

Green, however, believes that it can be “above” both of these things.


Green also mistakes “turquoise” for the utopian ideals of green.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Okay, all together now…

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRORTORY

Yes, the “map” is incredible and I commend Ken for promoting it. This puts KW high on my list of integral intellectual facilitators along with Bucky Fuller, Ayn Rand, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, David Bohm, William McDonough, etc.

By the way, why does “integral” have a lower case “i” in “Spiral Dynamics integral (SDi)”?

.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Excellent typo, dude: THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRORTORY

Don't know why about the “i.” This falls under “minutiae” in my poor overworked brain and gets tossed out with the recycling.

Liz

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

I think that's just a branding choice for SD. SD is its own entity, SDi a particular application.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Another reason for the small 'i' in SDi could be so that it's not confused with SDI – or Stategic Defense Initiative – the so-called “Star Wars” U.S. missile-defense plan first concocted during the Reagan administration.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Regardless of one's opinions or the current research on “photographic memory” what Ken actually said in the piece above (emphasis added) was

“the thousands and thousands of books that I've read, for some reason I retain the information. It's not a photographic memory, because that's kinda useless, you have to understand the information. For some reason I retain the understanding of the information and so I can recall it.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

spiral on,
arthur

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

> “the thousands and thousands of books that I’ve read,
> for some reason I retain the information. It’s not a
> photographic memory, because that’s kinda useless,
> you have to understand the information. For some
> reason I retain the understanding of the information
> and so I can recall it.”

Pray tell why YOU think or agree that a photographic memory would be useless? Once something is in the brain then it can be processed for understanding at what ever point the user chooses to process it. This process can be ongoing over the course of an entire lifetime. It sounds like one or both of the two of you is/are being argumentative (non-specific or generalized assumed correctness). How can the individual person be sure that they accurately understood the information in the first place? Is there the assumption of immediate understanding? Therefore to “retain” that potentially misunderstood information in the first place would appear to be useless?

.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

“Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?”

i don't know. die hard fans of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would probably think of KW as an idiot. can't blame 'em. check this for context :)

Ken Wilber and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

You know, finding out that things weren't going so well at I-I was nothing compared to this. Ken gets THHGTTG wrong???I'm shattered. I'm going to give up on this whole thing and start smoking again.

Liz

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

So much for Ken’s supposed retention OR understanding…

Perhaps the whole idea of “the other(s)” in relation to quadrants, levels, lines, states, etc. needs to be looked at as well?

How about we just scrap the map and breathe a little deeper? Doesn’t everything seem to go better with a deep set of lungs anyway? Perhaps the interdimensional complexity of the map has too much room for misinterpretation which seems to be resulting in unnecessary mind masturbation? A new way to keep the smart but emotionally dysfunctional geeks busy so that they don’t blow up the world?

For example, what do you think that Arthur might be doing if he didn’t have this place?

Might this be the reason for I-I being in trouble? Too much thinking and not enough DOING?

Hey, what if they started charging 10 cents per post? You gotta pay to play (or think out loud)?

.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

So gwizazz, could you tell us some of the things you are doing? When you're not participating here what do you do?

Your profile doesn't say much after -“I tend to think a lot about a lot of things”

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Timelody: So gwizazz, could you tell us some of the things you are doing? When you're not participating here what do you do?

Your profile doesn't say much after -“I tend to think a lot about a lot of things”

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

okay

.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

Isn't Turqoise cognition characterized by pattern recognition in the first place?  I'm not sure if I would ascribe Ken's ability to a special typology.  It can easily fall under a line and/or level development as well.

Re: Ken Wilber: Idiot Savant or Just an Idiot?

There are many different types of patterns to be recognized. Turquoise and teal do seem to bring with them an ability-or at least a much greater ability- to recognize developmental stage patterns or level patterns. And vision logic definitely brings with it certain other types of patterns (systems) or potentials to see far reaching or universal patterns.

But there are all kind of patterns, to the point where, for example, Howard Gardner defines nearly all of the various intelligences as different forms of pattern recognition - musical patterns, spatial patterns, mathematical patterns, biological and patterns in nature, linguistic, etc.

Yet, it is true that there are probably many more types of pattern recognition/intelligence that have not yet been defined-and maybe Ken's, which seems very unique, is just one of them. I, for example, am working on a thesis to show that acting, comedic and dramatic talent is based upon an ability to recognize patterns of affective/behavioral expression. Most of these, yes, are some of the various lines (which is why you can have a musical prodigy or autistic savant, etc.)

Facial recognition has long been recognized as a distinct ability that some people have -or have to acute degrees- but to be able to match it from different angles at different ages, etc. is truly a savant like ability. It reminds me of a musical savant I once saw who not only listened to a complicated piece of classical music once and then played it by ear on the piano, but was able to transform it into variations (one of the most complex musical tasks) and then variations based upon different composers various styles (e.g. Beethoven, Mozart-even more complicated, and probably the most complex musical task imaginable. Most musicians just can not do any of those.)

But it is also true that facial recognition, like photographic memory in many cases, is almost just a novelty. There's never been any widespread and culturally valued use of the ability. Photographic memory, many times just offers entertainment -e.g. this guy knows everybody's number in the phone book.

Anyway, I've been wanting to say that the recall ability Ken says he has for the things he's read, I find fascinating, because it does ring similar to abilities associated with the other intelligences. In fact, much evidence points to the fact that each intelligence has its own independent memory system, and we do know that the brain has multiple memory systems (I'm not sure if everyone realizes this -there is no one, single memory.) But it is also true that the understanding is usually part and parcel to the memory, and/or recognition to begin with. You will hear artists, and other individuals for example, say this-I understand x, etc. (Along with, I don't know why, I just do. And this is basically the pattern re-cognition of whatever type.)