coogar:
list of people with eidetic memory


meanwhile, according to a village goat known as kandiikane, eidetic memory cannot go beyond or retain a body of text from few months ago.

you are a disgrace to hertfordshire university

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OO-_gSRhe-EC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=John+von+Neumann,+eidetic+memory&source=bl&ots=imvhla8MHa&sig=b3IiESXIFEf-Bf8eaUT0y1udyQY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i6xLVIr8GaP4yQODjoB4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBA

kandiikane:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-such-a-thing-as/

kandiikane:

Ediot you still confuse eidetic and photographic. This guy you are quoting claimed to have a photographic memory not eidetic yet photographic memory has not being proven even the one exception Elizabeth is still being argued.

Read a book. He had no photographic memory how much more eidetic? bloody ediot!

coogar:


you are just quoting rubbish!
eidetic memory is photographic memory - don't confuse the scientific/medical term to everyday term.

eidetic memory can very well be retained. jon von neumann & elizabeth already debunked that retention theory that eidetic memory cannot be retained.

i still dunno how my use of eidetic memory in a sentence is wrong when many adults(albeit rare) have displayed the use of this memory. next time, read extensively before challenging me in the use of words. unlike you, english is my mother-tongue. i knew the meaning of 90% of the words in a dictionary by the age of 10.

justirich:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29626291

My Opinion:
This world is really turning into something else. I hope women advocacy groups will stand up and fight this insult to womanhood and motherhood. It started in Facebook and Apple. Who knows maybe in the next decade, Nigerian corporations will be promoting same stupid idea.

I guess such women who agree to this obnoxious policy are big-time fools that they will enslave themselves only to work for a "cool" brand. Who says women have to choose between parenting and having a job? How about investing in better (cheaper) childcare support instead?

Do you really want to work for a company that wants 70 hours work a week from you and then also interferes with your private life??

So in other words these companies recognise that young, healthy, energetic women in the prime of their lives will be much more productive for them without the distraction of babies. Once they are over the hill and have already sacrificed their best years to the company then it's fine to get pregnant as they are not worth as much by then.

Just because the eggs are frozen does not reduce the risks involved having a baby later in life. Instead why not offer better benefits to their workers who have children rather than asking them to put having a family on hold. Flexible hours or even help towards childcare would be a better option and would probably be more attractive than this egg freezing idea.

Being a parent is the hardest and most important job we will ever have, you have got to really really want it. If you feel your job for a multinational is more important job that's definitely not a good sign.

Maybe I'm cynical or is this some Orwellian concept aimed at getting higher profits for bloated capitalists? What a sad place we live in now where profits take precedence over procreation and bringing up the future generation.

Modern days of Noah and Lot!!!

coogar:


you are a plonker.....
who's confusing eidetic with photographic - they are the same thing. stop quoting rubbish on the internet from fools like yourself. are you a toad?



von neumann had no photographic memory? if i earn one pesewa for each of your stupid statements, i would be a trillionaire in pounds sterling.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/1811674_image_jpeg9f360c5ab7736510df54c882e9dbf188

this is another NASA scientist referring to eidetic memory as photographic memory. kandiikane, you are the living example of the lack of quality education.

kandiikane:

Ediot, aren't you the one confused the scientific terms? Using photographic memory for both not knowing there are differences between the two. The only person used in science as someone with a photographic memory is Elizabeth yet scientist still do no believe that she has a photographic memory because she married the one who conducted the test and also refused to have another test done for a second opinion.

The Eidetic image is perceived as reality in the mind whilst photographic can tell the difference yet scientists still deny the existence of the latter. Eidetic images can be flawed and not perfect whilst photographic images are said to be precise and perfect. Eidetic imagery cannot visualise a body of text due to the detailed nature of it. Eidetic images cannot be retained for years and then recalled. It can only be recalled for a few minutes. You cannot sleep on it!

How can scientist say eidetic has been seen in certain children whilst denying the existance of photographic memory. How hell does it make sense to say they are the same. Stop arguing like a retard and actually go find out the difference between the two.

kandiikane:

Ediot, read a book. That NASA scientist must be a re.tarded goat from your village. You know the meaning of 90% of words in the dictionary? Which dictionary, the one written by the goat in your village? Get the phuck out of here jor. Retarded goat feeling funky. You are stup!d! And you will continue to be stup!d unless you learn to pick a book and read it.

coogar:


you are the biggest pillock known to man - efforts should be made to have you neutered so you don't produce more idiòts on this planet. there are more people with photographic/eidetic memory in the world - that many of them never came out for any test doesn't mean they don't exist.....

von neumann had the gift, rachmaninov, wiltshire, vivekananda all possessed eidetic memories. how can you be so foolish not to know this after many hours of your scouring the internet thinking you are intelligent?



you are a fool!
brainless gibbon - your mind is so filthy, you cannot process information. some people believe eidetic/photographic memory is a myth altogether cos there are circumstances where people who claim to possess them might fail to reproduce a vivid picture of what they had read......that's the reason you are seeing conflicting links debunking the whole concept. your links never distinguished between the two, they only used different terms to describe the same memory.



you are a consummate rëtard!
some scientists believe it exists, some don't believe it does. different terms were used to describe the same word.....i believe there are eidetikers in this world contrary to what you & your stupid journals are saying - after all said & done, you still cannot prove my usage of the word is flawed & that makes you a simpleton!

you are lucky my mood ain't foul this afternoon, i would have used your blood to spray-paint my name on your house. the next time you attempt to sound intelligent by quoting my post, i shall pee in your nostrils. i have zero tolerance for single-digit IQ females.

kandiikane:

Bloody goat read a book and stop forming intelligence on the Internet because you look stup!d. Only retards will actually refuse to find out the difference between the two. Eidetic memory has been proven. Photography memory hasn't. I won't be surprised if you are still in your village forming obodo oyibo. The time you spent at your Internet cafe should be used in opening a book cow!

kandiikane:

I may not be a British government approved genius but atleast I gain knowledge by finding out information the average person and goat(you) refuse to look into.

I know you will end up finding out the difference anyway and still refuse to agree in my face that you were wrong by saying you have an eidetic memory because you remember text from months ago. No worries though, ediots will continue to deny what they know is true just to hide face. Istead start talking shyt but it's all good as long as I have taught you something new today. Have a good day goat! I have made my point and I am done.

coogar:


you may not be a genius? lololol
you are not even close to being a genius. geniuses don't go to your school. the dullest student in my primary school in nigeria made it into imperial college - how did you end up in a shyte school?



there's nothing to find out.....
i knew about eidetic memory many years ago to start re-studying about it. it's only people like you with a limited pool of vocabulary that consider it a big word......this is why i was admitted into a uni that has produced 25 nobel laureates & you were refused admission into such schools cos they don't consider you intelligent enough to wear their badges.

the difference between me & you is the distance between the earth & pluto!

kandiikane:
Hatfield is your assumption. Since you didn't go to an ivy league university, you cannot talk shyt about anyother university. Stop bigging yourself mehn and stop dropping names of people who know nothing of your wretched existence on this earth. You are a dumbazz ediot who comes online pretending to be intelligent when you and I know it's the opposite in the real world. You are a stup!d person and if what you do on here makes you feel better about your life then carry on just don't cry yourself to sleep tonight, you sad sad man!

When ediots have been caught out they start throwing insults on how intelligent they are blah blah bullshyt instead of focusing on the main argument. You can say all you want still doesn't change the fact that you are stup!d.

coogar:


my uni?
hahahaha - the only reason you would be allowed into the grounds of my university is because they musta considered you a cleaner, not as a student. where's the IQ you would use to convince them that you are even a student.

if at your age, you dunno eidetic means photographic then you better buy superglue to seal your labïa. there's even no need for you to have sėx - cos an error of procreation might occur. it's an insult to the patients of trisomy-21 to say you are rëtarded.

bush babe from gambia feeling funky.....woe betide the useless labour government for giving a nanny-goat like yourself a student visa to mingle with people like me in the same country. fool talking about me being caught & yet she cannot defend the fact that rachmaninov had eidetic/photographic memory.

ewu gambia!!!

kandiikane:

ediot

http://sites.psu.edu/psych256fa13/2013/10/20/does-eidetic-memory-exist/

59-year-old Akira Haraguchi recited from memory the first 83,431 decimal places of pi, earning a spot in the Guinness World Records.

He must have a photographic memory, right? Not so. According to mounting evidence, it's impossible to recall images with near perfect accuracy.

Alan Searleman, a professor of psychology at St. Lawrence University in New York, says eidetic imagery comes closest to being photographic. When shown an unfamiliar image for 30 seconds, so-called "eidetikers" can vividly describe the image—for example, how many petals are on a flower in a garden scene. They report "seeing" the image, and their eyes appear to scan across the image as they describe it. Still, their reports sometimes contain errors, and their accuracy fades after just a few minutes. Says Searleman, "If they were truly 'photographic' in nature, you wouldn't expect any errors at all."

Photographic memory is often confused with another bizarre—but real—perceptual phenomenon called eidetic memory, which occurs in between 2 and 15 percent of children and very rarely in adults. An eidetic image is essentially a vivid afterimage that lingers in the mind's eye for up to a few minutes before fading away. Children with eidetic memory never have anything close to perfect recall, and they typically aren't able to visualize anything as detailed as a body of text.

The intuitive notion of a “photographic” memory is that it is just like a photograph: you can retrieve it from your memory at will and examine it in detail, zooming in on different parts. But a true photographic memory in this sense has never been proved to exist.

Even visual memories that seem to approach the photographic ideal are far from truly photographic. These memories seem to result from a combination of innate abilities, combined with zealous study and familiarity with the material, such as the Bible or fine art.

Sorry to disappoint further, but even an amazing memory in one domain, such as vision, is not a guarantee of great memory across the board. That must be rare, if it occurs at all. A winner of the memory Olympics, for instance, still had to keep sticky notes on the refrigerator to remember what she had to do during the day.

kandiikane:

Now, I know how phucking stup!d you are! You took a snapshot a page in which someone used the word photographic and eidetic interchangeably and yet didn't post the references the person used. For those of us who prefer to look at the source of reference too, each page the person you quoted referenced made a distinction between eidetic and photographic memory.

< this is the link you took the above snapshot from.
here are quotes from the sources the person referenced.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200603/the-truth-about-photographic-memory

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/04/kaavya_syndrome.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-developed-what-appears-to-be-a-ph/

these are quotes from the articles the blogger you posted used as reference. If you had used your brain and checked out the references you would have seen how the references made the distinction between the two, eidetic and photographic memory whilst the blogger didn't differentiate the two.
[img]http://thestrongmove.files./2011/08/thumb-dumbass.jpg[/img]

coogar:


you are the most foolish human being africa has produced - and to think more intelligent people have died of ebola recently & a waste of flesh like you is still competing with me to suck oxygen - what a cruel world!!!

eidetic memory is the same as photographic - any link that tells you differently is just being inherently möronic. if you want to debunk such memory as a myth altogether then it's fine by me.......but to tell me there's a difference must mean you musta been born feet first.

what alan searleman was debunking is the myth of eidetic/photographic altogether not that one is different from the other. you are such a fool, you wouldn't form a big O with the base of a coke bottle. i can now see why you are in hatfield - it's where rëtarded goats of your ilk really belong - babymama university.

kandiikane:

You are forever a dumbazz! This reminds me of a picture I saw recently in which the teacher means one thing but the student thinks the teacher meant something totally different. The whole concept of photographic memory is that the mind can remember every single detail of what they saw with precision and perfection and alan clearly stated that there are those with eidetic memories which come closes to being a photographic memory but isn't. Coming close doesn't mean the same bloody thing, he stated that very clearly. It is very clear on what he wrote, stop talking shyt! What about the first article I posted which your blogger referenced, does that not differentiate the two, the existence of one and the non-existent of the other? Didn't you say eidetic memory lasts, why the phuck is alan saying the accuracy of the images fades within minutes? Even if your pea brain cannot decipher the two, you are still wrong about using eidetic memory to remember text from months ago because clearly, it disappears within minutes and once complete gone it cannot be retrieved. Photographic memory is not meant to fade, it is something that can last for years and can be recalled with accuracy, why the hell would he say that eidetic memory fades if he what he meant to write was that eidetic and photographic memory were one and the same. Why did he say the being eidetic isn't photographic? Your stup!dity is starting to become amusing. That akira guy uses mnemonic methods, eidetic imagery doesn't use mnemonic methods to recall an image.

coogar:


a careful look at your medical history woyld reveal at a point in your childhood, you hit your head on the wall. what the fück are you talking about? the eidetic/photographic memory polarises opinion.....some schools of thought say it doesn't even exist, some say it exists and it's the same........

eidetic memory lasts - just because your professor met someone who claims to have eidetic memory but then failed under examination does not mean eidetic memory doesn't last. how are you so foolish? i have given you examples of people who were able to recall a whole constitution, poetry, mathematical concepts after many years of digesting it in verbatim.

how many people has your professor met in his life to prematurely conclude eidetic memory has an expiry date? you have to be a fool not to understand the difference between an opinion & a fact. opinions are different from facts, you dork!

fück out of my face - you inscrutable minger!

kandiikane:


blah blah phucking bullshyt! why not make me get out of your face? Bloody bush monkey!

Continue talking shyt and the more you do the more I know an A+ should be given for your advancement in the art of stup!dity.

Eidetic memory has clearly been seen in children, the existence is there. photographic memory has not been proven but although similar they are different. One exists the other doesn't.

By saying they are the same, is like saying ebola and the marbug are the exact same thing because they both cause hemorrhagic fevers. Ediots!

P.s. Slate is a very credible online website and if it differentiates the two then it means you are an ediot.

kandiikane:
Great, another snapshot from a website most likely written by another ediot.

coogar:


and when a dictionary quoted eidetic memory is the same as photographic memory, is the dictionary also written by an idïot?

you are running out of excuses.....so it's not only coogar that thinks both are the same. many others belong to my school of thought - so what's the problem?

kandiikane:

Yes, many think it is the same because it has been used interchangeable for many years but it doesn't mean they are the exact same thing. If one searches for both and read both concepts separately one will see that there are differences.

TV01:

This procedure – vitrification - is currently around a min of £5’000 per cycle, but will probably come down with technological efficiencies and more widespread commercialisation.
Even if it is “free” to end-users, there is a cost that has to be bourn somewhere. How will companies feel if they have to provide this kind of healthcare for women? How will it affect companies that simply can’t afford to provide it or remain competitive if they don’t?

What if it’s state funded, how will that impact healthcare provision? Presumably after unfreezing/defrosting, IVF will still be required to bring about conception?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/23/nhs-fertility-treatment-ivf-cuts-nice-ccgs
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/may/10/ivf-nhs-fertility-postcode-lottery-cut-costs

Do you know the failure rate of this procedure is close to 80% for women age 30? And close to 90% for women age 40? Do you have an idea of the number of “live births” we’ve actually had worldwide by this technique? .Did you know that some of the chemicals used are harmful to embryos of which the egg will eventually form a part?

I’ll spare you the horrors of the actual procedure to “harvest” viable eggs, or the unknowns/concerns about the actual health of babies born this way. Anyone interested may care too look into this further.

My point of writing – as ever – is to draw attention to the fact that families (men, women & children), and society as a whole flourish best when we consider and act on biological and social imperatives that ensure there’s a balance between considering them individually and as a whole.

I love my women and I am truly astonished that some actually believe that;

- “Careers” can be as or more important than marriage & children (if marriage & children are indeed a desire), and the natural fertility window should be ignored or manipulated in order to ”have it all”
- That termination of pregnancies for any reason and at any time – when one abortion increases the risk of serious pathology by as much as 50% - is good – both morally and for their health.
- That dosing on chemicals/hormones and wreaking havoc on natural fertility cycles to avoid “unwanted pregnancies” is good for you and an absolute necessity.

More astonished, as all these are sold to you under the guise “reproductive health”, “choice” and “empowerment”, when apart from wreaking havoc on your bodies and often peddling false hope, one of the things it does is allows men to enjoy their lusts without consequence – I’d call that abuse & exploitation.

And most astonished because I doubt that very few men would put themselves through any of that if the positions were reversed – and especially not for women – I certainly wouldn’t.


TV

**I’m hungry **

coogar:


which means i am not wrong then - why then do you feel you could attack me? do you get orgäsms attacking coogar indiscriminately?

red101:


You don't make any sense here. This is a choice that is not forced on anyone. So I don't understand why you are typing long pointless essay and giving yourself unnecessary headache. How did birth control pills impact health care provision? isn't the cost of paid maternity leave also borne somewhere? Please try to think logically. Women are making the choice to post-pone child birth. This is a trend that is not going anywhere as long as life expectancy continues to rise. Age of first marriage is also rising so this suggests that this is a choice men are also making. if men and women are marrying at a later age, isn't it logical that they will also have children at later ages and therefore creating need for fertility treatments?
you making a condescending comment that you "care" about women's bodies more than women themselves makes you look like a fool. Many of the women who are undergoing these procedures have supportive, educated and enlightened husbands. If you don't agree with it, no one is forcing you to marry and post-pone child birth. It's a matter of choice and women are allowed to have choice. they can marry early, marry late, focus on career, become housewives or whatever.men can also do the same. it is a matter of CHOICE.

abeg focus on your own health and stop starving yourself over women's reproductive rights issues. go and eat your food.

kandiikane:

but you are wrong though, you and people who believe they are the same thing. And no, I won't dare waste my orga.sms on you plus I didn't attack you.

coogar:


you won't waste them on me cos there's no evidence you have even experienced it. i like you kandiikane but you are an apple-farmer.

for the umpteenth time, the two terms are the same ish. no need to be irritatingly pedantic to quote my post just because you want to score cheap brownie points.

kandiikane:

Which brownie points? Is that going to add value to my account? You won't even know what the evidence of an orga.sm looks like because you have never seen a woman orga.sm.

They are not the same thing joor! How can they be when they have been defined separately and the ediot liking your post needs to get off your dick. It's funny how after every argument we have you always end up bringing in some form of sex into it. I won't be surprised if you wa.nk over my posts.