Kim Peek • Hacker News Board

Re: Kim Peek

#11

Post by jcora » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 11:18 AM UTC

l5870uoo9y wrote: post #10

> In psychological testing, Peek scored low average (87) on general IQ tests. I would have presumed that would have been much higher.

This could be a case where cognitive functions were highly uncorrelated. For example he could've had enormous working memory but extremely low spacial intelligence. In most people these are highly correlated and so IQ can be an informative number but in his case, it might carry less information.

Re: Kim Peek

#12

Post by ggm » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 11:31 AM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #7

>> Peek read by scanning the left page with his left eye, then the right page with his right eye. According to an article in The Times newspaper, he could accurately recall the contents of at least 12,000 books.[6] These are pretty extraordinary claims and I'm curious to know whether they were ever tested in controlled conditions. For example, how does one verify the recollection of the contents of "at least" 12,000…

I grew up in a house of books and have lived with a bookseller for most of my life. Having therefore owned and lived with 10,000 to 15,000 books, periodicals and related ephemera (catalogues, concordance &c) I can assure you I cannot recall even fractional amounts of most of these although I can recall significant amounts of many and quite inaccurately quote some small amount. So I too think the question demands testing: it's the kind of thing people say but actually don't mean. "What is written on page 150 of the third book on the tenth shelf" is quite different to what comes after 'it was the best of times it was the worst of times' and many Shakespearean fans could quite easily quote significant amounts of most plays, Wagnerians could sing the ring cycle, my mum who certainly didn't have eidetic memory could whistle a lot of Mozart or Bach: getting from pedestrian memory to this specific recall Peek is said to have had is pretty strange, and I think should be verified. Day of the year or train timetables are tricks. Flow text with meaning? That's hard.

Re: Kim Peek

#13

Post by 300bps » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 11:58 AM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #7

>> Peek read by scanning the left page with his left eye, then the right page with his right eye. According to an article in The Times newspaper, he could accurately recall the contents of at least 12,000 books.[6] These are pretty extraordinary claims and I'm curious to know whether they were ever tested in controlled conditions. For example, how does one verify the recollection of the contents of "at least" 12,000…

I found it odd he turned books upside down to remember he read them.

Re: Kim Peek

#14

Post by Kenji » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 12:10 PM UTC

jonbaer wrote: post #2

This was pretty remarkable to watch, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpCfHH1OVU The fact that he lacked conceptual encoding really says something.

But Kim Peek does seem to get some metaphors. He said "My dad and I share the same shadow." towards the end of the video. Maybe he just picked it up from someone else, though.

Re: Kim Peek

#15

Post by Uhuhreally » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 12:24 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #7

>> Peek read by scanning the left page with his left eye, then the right page with his right eye. According to an article in The Times newspaper, he could accurately recall the contents of at least 12,000 books.[6] These are pretty extraordinary claims and I'm curious to know whether they were ever tested in controlled conditions. For example, how does one verify the recollection of the contents of "at least" 12,000…

given that the left visual field of both eyes is connected to the right hemisphere and the right visual field of both eyes is connected to the left hemisphere, I wonder about the claim that each eye scans a separate page. It doesn't make sense. Actually both eyes would see each page and so the left half of both pages would go to the right brain and the right half of both pages would go to the left brain.

Re: Kim Peek

#16

Post by citruspi » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 12:31 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #13

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #7

>> Peek read by scanning the left page with his left eye, then the right page with his right eye. According to an article in The Times newspaper, he could accurately recall the contents of at least 12,000 books.[6] These are pretty extraordinary claims and I'm curious to know whether they were ever tested in controlled conditions. For example, how does one verify the recollection of the contents of "at least" 12,000…

I found it odd he turned books upside down to remember he read them.

> I found it odd he turned books upside down to remember he read them.

Unless you have another source, I think you've misread the article.

From the article:

> ...Kim was able to memorize things from the age of 16–20 months. He read books, memorized them, and then placed them upside down on the shelf to show that he had finished reading them, a practice he maintained all his life.

It sounds like he turned them upside down from an early age to signal that he'd read the book (perhaps to his parents?), not to remember that he'd read it. And then, for some reason, he maintained the practice for the rest of his life.

But either way, the article doesn't say he turned books upside down to remember he'd read them.

Re: Kim Peek

#17

Post by nabla9 » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 1:02 PM UTC

l5870uoo9y wrote: post #10

> In psychological testing, Peek scored low average (87) on general IQ tests. I would have presumed that would have been much higher.

Average IQ of unskilled worker is 87 and it's considered normal level (assuming SD 15 points normally used in IQ tests).

Re: Kim Peek

#18

Post by torben-friis » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #13

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #7

>> Peek read by scanning the left page with his left eye, then the right page with his right eye. According to an article in The Times newspaper, he could accurately recall the contents of at least 12,000 books.[6] These are pretty extraordinary claims and I'm curious to know whether they were ever tested in controlled conditions. For example, how does one verify the recollection of the contents of "at least" 12,000…

I found it odd he turned books upside down to remember he read them.

Well, if you open a book you're currently reading you can pretty easily tell which parts you've already read and which you haven't - but you still probably use some sort of bookmark to avoid going through the hassle.

This sounds similar, a matter of convenience rather than a need. Glance at a bookshelf and you can know visually what's still unread without checking the books one by one.

Re: Kim Peek

#19

Post by ianai » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 1:05 PM UTC

I’m deeply offended by the commenters questioning the authenticity of this guy’s bio. The poor man lived and died essentially an outcast and alone.

Re: Kim Peek

#20

Post by Carpetsmoker » Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #19

I’m deeply offended by the commenters questioning the authenticity of this guy’s bio. The poor man lived and died essentially an outcast and alone.

Why is it offensive to ask if specific and extraordinary claims have ever been verified in controlled conditions? I also don't see how this has any relation on Kim living as a lonely outcast.