By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mazty on 20 December 2012
Edit Thread
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:
Not referenced.

LOL

Also:
"It suggests that as many as 30% of autistic people have some sort of savant-like capability in areas such as calculation or music"

So basically at least 70% of all people with autism are just handicapped...Being mistaken for being autistic is hardly calling someone a genuis as you implied. 

The authors can't alter the peer-reviewed papers they are linking to therefore your point is completely flawed as you are acting as if every article is incorrectly referenced. Why not take it on a case-by-case basis?

30% is incredible in comparison to non-autistic individuals. Astonishing that you fail to realize that. And in direct rebuttal to your statement that there is no correlation. Best just to put your foot back in your mouth on this.

I'm not suggesting that the linked papers are flawed, that's my point. Cite that paper, not wiki. If wiki has a short quip and claims it is from a particular source, it may not be.

"Bats can shoot lazer beams." (Source Title)  <--- this may not say "Bats can shoot lazer beams." 

I can't make it any simpler than that. If you can't understand, perhaps you're mentally defunct.

Up to 30%. Comparing it to non-autistic individuals is an arbitrary comparison as that had nothing to do with the original statement I made. Also you should know that correlation doesn't imply causation, again making your comment completely redundant.

I cannot make this simpler for you. You are just being pedantic & lazy. If you want to check the statement that "bats shoot lazer beams (source)" then go read that source. The issue was that your education was so grossly lacking on the topic that the easiest way for you to learn the necessary information would have been to read the correctly referenced wiki page. It would have taken you months to read through all the papers from cover to cover if you insist on just papers.