Talk:List of people with synesthesia/Archive 1

Hendrix and McCartney? Just the LSD?

Here are two quotes from the book "A left-handed history of the world" by Ed Wright (Pier 9/Murdoch books, 2007, published in Australia?) from page 216 in chapter about Paul McCartney: "Also one of his classical pieces was ordered around the "colours" of the orchestra's instruments, suggesting a degree of synesthesia (perhaps a side-benefit of LSD)."

from page 208 in the chapter about Jimi Hendrix: "Hendrix claimed that he played 'colours' rather than notes, and that he saw the music in his head while he played." No source given for this info unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.36.176 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Solomon Shereshevskii

Where is he? Arguably the world's most famous and written-about case of synaesthesia, and he isn't on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.110.18 (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

Is Jimi Hendrix a synesthete ?? This is stated in the article "hendrix chord" but I haven't found anything elsewhere about this statement. -Eric

Ed,

Good idea of boxing a quote from Morgenstern. Over the next few days, I'll format other quotes on this page in a similar manner.--Sean A. Day 14:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did it for the Amy Beach quotes, too, and left you a note in the edit line. Glad you like the look. I think it makes the page easier to read. Edhubbard 15:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Aylett

Hey Sean, what do you know about the writer Steve Aylett? I was just cleaning up synesthesia links and found a page about him where the author of the page states: "Aylett is synaesthetic. He claims to have books appear in his brain in one visual "glob" which looks like a piece of gum (but denies it's "channelled").[1]" and cites this link. In the interview, Aylett says that he is synesthetic, but I have no more information than that. Edhubbard 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of him before. But I did some web-hunting, and there are other interviews in which he also talks about his synesthesia knowledgeably. From how he talks about it, he does appear to be a synesthete and not just doing pseudo-syn artsy stuff. I'll keep searching, but it looks like I might be able to put together a couple of worthy(?)/useable(?) references on him.--Sean A. Day 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hélène Grimaud

Similarly, what do you know about Hélène Grimaud? On her page, it says that she is some form of music-color synesthete. The version I just edited said that it was rare, which I changed, but other than that, there seems to be no good documentation. Her name, however, does sound familiar. Do you have references? Edhubbard 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Grimaud is a synesthete. I have corresponded with her. However, as you note, documentation is a problem, and may continue to be. But I'll see what I can find. I could add her to the page(s) in the next couple of days, but I'll hold off until I find something workable as documentation.--Sean A. Day 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Famous synesthetes

I deleted the following list from Synesthesia article.

• Amy Beach (September 5, 1867 – December 27, 1944), American pianist and composer. Musical keys → color.
• Duke Ellington (April 29, 1899 – May 24, 1974), composer and pianist. Timbre → color.
• Richard Feynman (May 11, 1918 – February 15, 1988), physicist. Graphemes → color.
• David Hockney (born July 9, 1937), artist. Music → color.
• György Ligeti (May 28, 1923 – June 12, 2006), composer. Grapheme → color.
• Franz Liszt (October 22, 1811 – July 31, 1886), composer. Music → color.
• Olivier Messiaen (December 10, 1908 – April 27, 1992), composer and organist. Chordal structure → color.
• Vladimir Nabokov (April 22, 1899 – July 2, 1977), author. Grapheme → color.
• Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (March 6, 1844 – June 8, 1908), composer. Musical keys → color.
• Jean Sibelius (December 8, 1865 – September 20, 1957), composer. Sound → color.
• Michael Torke (born September 22, 1961), composer. Multiple synesthesiae.
• Sean A. Day, a synesthete, and the President of the American Synesthesia Association, also maintains a list of famous synesthetes, "pseudosynesthetes" and individuals who are most likely not synesthetic, but who used synesthesia in their art or music.

Keeping a similar list in two places is a bad idea. Problems with content forking are well-known. Please merge this list into Famous synesthetes. mikka (t) 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(note: minor format edit to comments by mikka by Edhubbard 09:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

I have, for the moment, restored the Famous synesthetes list on the main synesthesia page, as the article is intended to be in summary style, and should therefore reflect or summarize the content on the fork pages. However, I have been looking at other pages, and thinking about our lack of references on the main page. What I think might be best is to use this list to create a block of text, which discusses some of the famous synesthetes, some of the pseudo-synesthetes, etc, in normal prose, as opposed to list format. Then we can put some background, and some references, and some synesthetes, on the main page, but make it part of the larger goal of explaining what synesthesia is more completely than we have done so far with it in just list format. Sean, what do you think about this? I am inspiried here by the Tourette Syndrome page and the additional comments from User:SandyGeorgia on my talk page. Edhubbard 09:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And I have deleted it again. If you create a summary text, you are welcome. A list is a list is a list and must be in a single place. It is a common sense. Duplication will lead to divergence and confusion. `'mikka (t) 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The list that is on the main page is shorter, and substantially less detailed than the one on the list page, and although I can see your point that it might be a bad idea, I don't see anywhere that states clearly that such duplication is not allowed, as you claim in your edit summary. Please show me where it says that any duplication of content is not allowed, or as you say "FORKS are not allowed." I cannot find any such statement either on the Wikipedia:List_guideline page or the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style page. I do find a prohibition against POV forms here Wikipedia:Summary_style#Avoidance_of_POV_forks but nothing that argues against detail forks. My understanding of Wikipedia:Summary_style is that a certain degree of redundancy was inevitable, and even desirable. The main entry should give an overview, and "(a Main article or similar link would be below the section title—see {{Main}}, {{Details}},...)" just as we have done here following Wikipedia:Summary_style#Basic_technique. Aside from your personal opinion, can you show me where what we have done has not conformed with standard Wikipedia practice? Edhubbard 15:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Another list is a POV fork, nice and clear. Any differing lists are differing POVs (about inclusion in the list). Any identical lists are plain redundant. It is one thing to have an article about a narrower topic and its summary in an article on a broader topic. But I fail to understand how a diffrent list is a summary of another list. In a list, every item is unique in itself, and its omission in another list may be contested, an you will have a POV war. `'mikka (t) 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that simply having a subset of the information that is in one place in a second place is in some way inherently POV. Clearly there is a great deal more information, including quotes, more details of their synesthetic experiences, and references on the Famous synesthetes page than on the main synesthesia page, so the lists are not redundant. The shorter list therefore only names some famous people that experience synesthesia. As for a POV war, until you came along, my involvement with this page has involved no edit wars... there have been some reverts, with reasonable comments in the edit summary, but no edit wars. In the past two monts (starting July 25) myself, Sean A. Day and User:Phidauex have spent a great deal of time to get this page from one that was a complete mess; tagged with expert, clean-up and unreferenced tags into one that is a good, factually accurate, well-referenced, summary style article (compare here [[2]]). Having put in this much effort, it irritates me that someone would come along like this and start a number of arguments. Edhubbard 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your irritation. Please don't forget that you will not live forever and forver will be vigil day and night over this page. If you look into the hsitory of Synesthesia, you will notice that I spotted the issue af ter I deleted two rather strange inclusions in the list. Please don't get me wrong: I am not trying to pull some formality here: I am genuinely concerned with the issue of maintainability here. On multiple occasions during my 3 wikiyears I witnessed problems with any kind of duplication that go beyond usual summary. `'mikka (t) 18:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is another issue with list in Synesthesia: the criterion. If a person is a famous synesthete, thei this must be written in his wikipedia bio, since it is an important fact. And he must be included into any list basing on his wikipedia article. And vice versa. If his article says he is a synesthete, he deserves to be included into it. His article is the best place where the fact about him can be thoroughly verified and references collected. `'mikka (t) 17:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, we have been working to make sure that people who appear on our list of famous synesthetes 1) have their own entry, or would have a reasonable expectation of having one as per wikipedia policies on notability and 2) that their entry reflects the fact that they experience synesthesia. I am not sure that a full exposition of their synesthesia to the extent that you are suggesting here is necessary, but I agree that it is silly to have someone listed here and to have that fact completely ignored in their bio. If there are people whose bios state that they are synesthetes that we have overlooked, we would be happy to include them for consideration, but there is a difficult issue of distinguishing metaphorical language and other such things from true synesthetic experiences. Edhubbard 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this difficulty makes difference in different places. If a person is described as synesthete, he is listed here under "true" or "non-true". If being synsthete is important in person's bio, the discussion goes into his article (and the corresponding section is referred to), otherweise the discussion may be here (and referred to in person's bio). But again, not in two places with the same level of detail at the same time. `'mikka (t) 18:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Last but not least, the criterion in Synesthesia article is arbitrary and I disagree. Why two historical references? Why one is not enough? What if the "two references" are duplcated in a sense that they rely on the same source? How can you know a person is a synesthete without any historical references? (hinting that "references" is a default criterion to include anything into wikipedia, so the requitement is redundant). And oh, by the way, where are these ""two references"? `'mikka (t) 17:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a somewhat arbitrary criterion, and one that we have wilfully ignored in recent cases, such as Pharrell Williams where there was only one source, but it was quite clear. Perhaps desideratum is a better term than criterion. However, in the cases that we had included on the main page, each had, as a point of fact, been verified through two different sources. We obviously could go round and round about how we can verify that each source is independent, especially in the case of more historical documents, but the essential idea is to quite simply meet WP:V. Edhubbard 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to go round and round. The article about the person is the place where information about him is verified by multiple editors (many of whom are supposed to be his fans/experts). `'mikka (t) 18:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And finally, please look into articles composer, writer, photographer, etc., and we have totally separate List of photographers, etc., which is but a common sense. `'mikka (t) 17:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is one important difference here. Most people know what a composer, writer or photographer is. Many people have no idea what a synesthete is. That's why it's relevant in an article on synesthesia Edhubbard 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The article explains what synesthete is. You also promised (did you?) to write a summary section about famous synesthetes. A list is of little if any help in this respect. `'mikka (t) 18:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) The fact that the article explains what a synesthete is is exactly the reason that it is relevant to have a list of famous synesthetes on this page. Yes, changing the list on the main page to a more traditional block of text has been on my list of things to do for about a week now (see my conversation with User:SandyGeorgia on my talk page here where she suggested changing the list out). I've been busy this week, having just come back from vacation, and probably wouldn't have dealt with this until the weekend, except that you came along and started deleting things from the page (now, I've probably spent as much time debating with you as I would have spent to just change the section). The list helps in that all of the wikilinks, correct spellings, dates, etc, are there, and can be more easily edited to help create the block of text that was, honestly, on my list to do even before you came along. In the meantime, however, I still feel that the abbreviated list does belong on the main page, with the link to the more complete list. Edhubbard 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like User:Daysa has reverted the list back, but has reformatted some. I am not entirely clear on whether the WP:3RR means that neither of us can touch the page now, or if I could go and edit other things, so long as I don't revert anything... Edhubbard 20:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rollo Armstrong

While I am here:

Rollo Armstrong: I find his inclusion absolutely ungrounded: Sister Bliss simply babbled this $20 word without any minimal hint why. She also said studio relationship is "telepathic, symbiotic". In this context I would say it was just a promotional hype. I would hardly call her an indsependent, unbiased, trusted observer. Are you going to include Rollo into "List of famous telepaths" as well? `'mikka (t) 18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways... You can't argue that you think that one source is enough, and then simultaneously argue that we shouldn't include someone who has a verifiable source reporting synesthesia. That said, we struggled with both Rollo Armstrong and Pharrell Williams for exactly the reasons you are mentioning here. See the main synesthesia talk page here. In the end, we decided to go with both Pharrell Williams and Rollo Armstrong on the basis of those reports, of course hoping to get more and better coorborating evidence. However, as a full-time synesthesia researcher (my PhD is in synesthesia research) the description matches well with other descriptions I have heard hundreds of times from other verified synesthetes who just aren't famous. As for Rollo being telepathic, since I don't believe there is any good scientific evidence that anyone is telepathic, I wouldn't include him or anyone else on that list! Edhubbard 20:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can have it both ways. I am saying that it is not valid reference, ie., you have ZERO references here. If your PhD is based on such evidence, woes to your science. Best wishes in collecting bullshit it this page. I will not lose my sleep over it. I wanted to help to make the page more decent, but whatever. Over and out. `'mikka (t) 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't know that you'll be back, for the record my science is based on the functional neuroimaging and behavioral studies that I have done on a small group of synesthetes. However, in order to test that group, I have also interviewed, and read reports of many other confirmed synesthetes. The thing in the interview that is quite similar to what lots of synesthetes say is "He gets on with the broad strokes, textures and colors". This is quite consistent with the types of phenomenological reports given by other synesthetes. This would be where I would begin my scientific investigations, not end them. From here, there are numerous behavioral tests (see the synesthesia page, objective evidence) and brain imaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging which allow us to show that synesthetes behave in reliably different ways, and also that their brains respond differently than those of non-synesthetes (see in particular my research into the Neural basis of synesthesia). This is my science. The citing of an interview, that's just what we end up doing when someone comes along who claims to be a synesthete and we're not allowed to actually do OR. Edhubbard 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

other ppl

I found these ppl on http://www.todomundo.com/dos/synaesthesia/index.html havn't verified them, but... Jerry Garcia, Jimi Hendrix, Bill Laswell, Roger Waters, John Lennon, Andy Summers, Roger McGuinn, Steve Hillage - filmmakers; Wim Wenders, Stanley Kubrick, and Terry Gilliam. --skijon

Many of these people may have experienced what is referred to as adventitious synesthesia, for example due to LSD ingestion (Garcia, Hendrix, Waters, Lennon) but we have no evidence that they are synesthetes. Naming someone as a synesthete suggests that they are congenital synesthetes, i.e., this is a constant, stable part of who they are, present from birth. LSD elicited synesthesia would therefore not be appropriate to include someone as a synesthete. Others, like Kubrick, I have no knowledge of, but I would not simply accept the word of the author of the todomundo site. Edhubbard 09:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Robyn Hitchcock

I've added musician Robyn Hitchcock to the "under discussion" list. He has repeatedly stated that specific chords appear to him as colours - that, for example, some songs cannot be played in G because it is "yellow and the song is green" or that D is a "bright red chord". He has also made it clear that this isn't just a descriptive coloration of the chords, but that they actually appar as colours to him. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Move page?

Paralleling the discussion of changing the category name from "synesthetes" to "people with synesthesia" [3] (which I support) perhaps we should move this page from "Famous synesthetes" to "Famous people with synesthesia"? It's more cumbersome, but fits with for example List of people with epilepsy and other such pages. Comments, thoughts? Edhubbard 17:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Actually, per WP:PEACOCK, we try to avoid article names with the word "famous" in them. If it's okay with you, let's move it to List of people with synesthesia. Anyone with an article on Wikipedia is notable already, so "famous" is redundant. — coelacan — 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds reasonable... let's leave it for a few days to see what other people think (this is a low traffic page) but I also like changing it to List of..., that way it's clear that it's a list. Edhubbard 21:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty non-controversial. I don't think there's any reason not to go ahead and do it now. If (unlikely) someone raises an objection later, it can be moved again. — coelacan — 21:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok... this will be my third page move. I think I can handle it.  :-) Edhubbard 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you didn't break it. =) And I raced you to change the other "what links here" pages within articlespace, to bypass the redirect. We can leave the ones on talk pages, etcetera. — coelacan — 21:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a couple of 'em, and then I got an edit conflict, and went on to reverting some linkspam on the schizophrenia and psychedelic pages. Thanks for your help! Edhubbard 21:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kilford

I have, for the moment, removed this information from the main article, because there seems to be a conflict of interest (WP:COI), since the person who added it is the User:Ckilford himself. I will look it over and if it passes WP:N I will put in an edited version, which will not include some of the information here that turns it almost from useful to linkspam...

* Kilford (born December 3, 1975), british artist. Live Music → color.

Kilford paints alongside musicians on-stage during their live performances. He paints the colours he sees when in this particular situation. He says, "There isn’t any deep artistic foundation to this - its simple, I paint what the music makes me see, and that’s it.” Known as ‘the’ rock n roll artist, Kilford has painted alongside some of todays most popular musicians including Robert Plant, Paul Weller, The Charlatans and Black Eyed Peas to name a few. Whilst music and colour are the primary focus, he suggests it is a total emotional experience and as such, he credits the energy of the audience, the atmosphere and the very soul of the musician as a key contributing factor in the production of the painting. I am nothing but a channel, the music, musician and audience are absolutely critical to my work, without them a painting cannot be born. More information on Kilford can be seen here [4].

Edhubbard 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just updated the wikipedia page on this artist and will add relevant edited info here.

User:JamesBrowney08 03:22, 22 Dec 2008

MariaJose de Cordoba

I have removed the following material in order to edit it to a more standard format. Sean, perhaps you can help, since I am swamped. Edhubbard 19:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Director "II International Congress Synesthesia, science and art 2007, Granada. Spain".

Dpto research International Fundation Artecittà, Spain.

"Interdisciplinary research on synesthesia: development and 0bjective."Regarding the general project of the interdisciplinary investigation proposal(1) on synesthesia, outlined by Mª José de Córdoba in the year 2000, after making contact with other groups of investigators during the development of the 1st International Congress on Art and Synesthesia (July of 2005 – Cuevas del Almanzora, Almería. Spain), and through collaboration established in these last years with various groups of investigators, several experimental groups are now currently formed to investigate possible synesthetes amongst the student body of the Department of Educational Sciences of Grenada University. We intend: 1º. - to introduce and to inform future scholars of the characteristics and new knowledge of synesthesia, as well as the importance of the existence of this condition in regard to educational methodologies; primarily as relates to didactics of plastic and musical expression. 2º. - to generate sufficient data to permit us to conduct statistical studies (estadísticamente) regarding the percentage of possible synesthetes amongst the populace; these data would also be used for diagnostics and analyses of peculiarities amongst synesthetes in comparative studies; 3º in the last phase of the investigation, to hold the ability to produce an outline of a neuro-psychological and mathematical model of the synesthetic processes.

(1) This project includes the acquisition of new knowledge that could be useful to create new products and new procedures in representation technologies; interfaces based on the utilization of the different senses. Education and training; services and computer programs that permit the design of new methods that employ multimedia and simulation systems, with possibilities of specific applications (such as, for persons with disabilities). Development: To be an interdisciplinary researcher (knowledge areas: experimental psychology; didactics of plastic, corporal and musical expression; optics; industrial physics; data processing), converted this into an integrated project. An investigation in which each knowledge area must transfer results for the solution (objective/ scientific/ technological) or search for solutions to the outlined common problem. Ref. “technical relationships and synesthesics between painting and sound - Summary of the investigation: 1996/97/98”) pp,45.-RPI nº: 00/2001/16797, secc:1; class: scientific." http://www.artecitta.es (http://www.sinestesia2007.info/modules/news/article.php?storyid=26&lang=english)

Eric Willems

User:Stars of Sydney added the following information. Although this sounds like a report of true synesthesia, I have moved it to "proposed and under review" pending some sort of independent verification. I have also left more detailed comments on Stars of Sydney's talk page. Edhubbard 20:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This claim has been verified by Eric himself and the Stars of Sydney.

"The recommendation was made by Nick that we do a punk ending on 'Beer Garden.'Immediately I pictured a synth transition between the parts, only accompanying the sounds I was visualizing was a bright swirl of colors and feelings. It had been happening for years, but only then did I realize it consciously."

— E Willems, June 9th, 2007

Since there is no way for anyone to verify that Eric said it, it would still not pass WP:RS. However, now that his entry has been deleted, and thus no assertion of notability, the point is moot.

Dee Adams

I have removed the following text, although it seem to be a true report of synesthesia, unless this quote is backed up with a reliable, citable source, it cannot be included here. If a source for this can be found, please add it back in. Edhubbard 08:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Dee Adams (born September 14, 1974), abstract American artist. Grapheme → color/shape/number.

"My particular case is one in which my brain maps certain colours to certain numbers and letters. As a kid I had an incredibly difficult time being made to learn using those magnetic plastic letters and numbers. The colour of the plastic never properly corresponded to the right letter or number so I gave up using them as early learning devices. This phenomena though has led to my development of a system whereby certain colours can or cannot be seen next to each other. My paintings read like numerical maps or strings of words related to the colours. Even the shape of the canvas can often times determine the composition of the piece independent of whatever plans I think I may have had for it. Certain shapes call for certain patterns or colours. I don't control them."

Miles Davis?

I watched a TV programme and read books that said Miles Davis had synesthesia. Could someone look into this with me? Twitterpated. (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)