Deconstructing Savantism

Savantism as a phenomenon in human cognition has been remarkably sparsely studied and that is highly peculiar indeed considering that understanding Savantism has the potential to shed much light on the workings of human brains generally.

kitty-2948404_1280

What then is Savantism (a.k.a. Savant syndrome) and specifically how does it operate? Do savants have brains that are fundamentally different as compared to the brains of other human beings? The answer is no and in order to answer the first and second questions need we address the issue as to what it means to non-neurotypical.

Serious psychological/psychiatric conditions are at least in part due to particular functionings of the two human brains, yet that certainly usually does not imply their brains being fundamentally or categorically different but rather there being different relationships between different parts of the brain.

Serious psychological/psychiatric conditions are primarily about there being a qualitatively different relationship between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of the two human brains. This is in no way to imply that the brains of non-neurotypical human beings are “defect” or “inferior” as implicitly assumed by the very character of neurotypical medical taxonomy but rather that we all need help in improving our respective relationships between our respective two consciouses and two subconsciouses in our respective two brains.

Savantism is not classified as a medical condition and is rather considered a set of symptoms as sometimes present in various other formal diagnoses and primarily so in ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorders) in half of all savants and otherwise various other neuropsychiatric conditions.

The fundamental social problem with the neurotypical approach is that of normalization, namely needlessly and destructively so performatively stigmatizing non-neurotypical persons as  intrinsically, fundamentally and inherently inferior, meaning that they are also structurally subjected to structurally oppressive and abusive epistemological privileges of walking patriarchal-ethnocratic human physionomistic panopticons.

The problem is not only that this perpetuates structural oppression/discrimination/abuse against non-neurotypicals but also that this prevents progress in understanding how the two human brains work and function indeed. Once we commence respecting non-neurotypicals as they are and commence innovatively assisting them as they are in a highly individualized applied manner rather than unfavorably physionomistically judging them by patriarchal-ethnocratic socionormativity can we also substantially progress in understanding the workings of the two human brains more generally.

Why is it that non-human persons are considered scientifically valuable models for understanding neurotypical human Animals while non-neurotypical persons are only considered liabilities, problems and burdens from whom ostensibly nothing can be learned about neurotypical persons?

This is obviously not in any way intended to condone torture, enslavement, confinement, abuse and deliberate genetic deformation against non-human persons for purposes of medical research or in any way suggest that non-neurotypical human beings ought be similarly abused, mistreated and exploited this way but rather that respecting non-neurotypicals ought also involve humanizing non-neurotypicals by humanizing their difference as part of the human spectrum of cognitive differentiation rather than as them being physionomistically stigmatized as intrinsically inferior sub-persons.

It is sometimes claimed that more parts of the brains are active in savants as compared to non-savants when savants as other non-neurotypical persons have simply different and often unique relationships between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of their two brains. This means in effect that a savant has conscious access to functions of the two brains that are subconscious in the brains of most other human Animals.

We need cease thinking of neurotypical persons as models for ostensibly “inferior” non-neurotypical persons and instead start thinking of how humans generally can highly ethically learn from non-neurotypicals and non-human persons alike in constructively transforming and developing the respective individual relationships between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of our respective two brains.

Many psychological/psychiatric conditions emerge rather than being pre-existing from birth which means that the multilaterial relationships between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of our two respective brains are dynamic and evolving as opposed to static and unchanging as assumed by physionomistic pseudo-medical ideology. Neurotypicals and non-neurotypicals alike ought therefore not be conceived of as ostensibly opposing physionomistic categories but rather as as part of the same psychometric spectrums of cognitive differentiation indeed.

Different personality types represent different and distinctive relationships between the two subconsciouses and the two subconsciouses of the two brains and that is why personality can change such as through brain damage or severe trauma.

Most of Sigmund Freud’s insights of psychoanalysis were derived from rabbinically Jewish literature although due to pervasive structural prejudice in Europe of his time was it socially impossible for him to refer to rabbinic works as scientific sources since this would effectively have discredited the entire enterprise of psychoanalysis as ostensibly religious “mumbo jumbo”.

What is now needed however is a strict natural science as focused on understanding the neuropsychiatric relationship between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses in the two human brains. We need become cognizant that as this is performed by the two consciouses is there an inbuilt psychological bias which we precisely need to overcome indeed.

We need therefore devise and implement a certain degree of epistemological humility in deleting the notion of the existence of the socially constructed performatively “naturalized” neurotypical as ostensibly so called “normal” which is a social construction of ethnocracy and patriarchy. Neurotypicals are in evolutionary terms a certain zoological aberration in being representative of neither non-neurotypical humans, nor of non-human persons. The relationship between the two consciouses and the two subsciouses in the two human brains in neurotypical persons is neither psychologically healthy nor what in any way could be described as “normal” in a salutogenic sense as humans are poor suffering creatures due to the usually fundamentally dysfunctional relationships between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of the two human brains.

Once we commence conceiving of neurotypicals as poor suffering creatures with dysfunctional relationships between the two consciouses and two subconsciouses of the their two respective brains can we also commence help substantially alieviate their suffering by learning from human non-neurotypicals and non-human persons alike in helping salutogenically transform and develop the respective relationships between the consciouses and subconsciouses of the two human brains.

Once we cease paradigmatically thinking of neurotypicals as ostensibly “normal” and “healthy” but rather profoundly understanding that human Animals generally to varying degrees have dysfunctional relationships between the respective two consciouses and subconsciouses or the two human brains can we also commence addressing psychological problems as widely existing in human persons from a salutogenic perspective of helping human Animals developing and transforming the respective relationships between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of the two human brains.

While human savants are characterized by their ability to access parts of the brain that are inaccessible to other humans are savants highly diverse, different and very much distinctive from each other. Savantism is not specifically located in any particular part of the human brains and a savant skill in one area of skill/knowledge can generally later be applied by the same savant person in another area of skill/knowledge. This means that while specific expressions of savantism are typically specific to specific areas of knowledge/skills can savant skills generally be applied and extended to an unlimited number areas of knowledge/skills.

The phenomenon of so called “religion” (it should be noted that this is a Para-Christian, i.e. Eurocentric term) is indeed highly expressive of general human dysfunction between the two consciouses and the two subconscious of the two human brains.

Virtually all human problems as relating to social relations between persons whether between humans or between human Animals and non-human persons ultimately originate in the generally dysfunctional relationship between the two consciouses and the two subsconsciouses of the two human brains in the anything but cognitively homogenous living homo genus.

What is hence needed is a psychoanalysis as grounded in natural science, meaning devising an exact natural science at the intersection of psychology, neuropsychology, psychoanalys, brain research and gender science.

Unless we learn to transform and develop the relationship between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of the two human brains will we remain ignorant of individual cognitive potential of what it potentially could mean to be human in salutogenically developing dynamic, constructive and healthy relationships between the two consciouses and the two subconsciouses of the two human brains.