Reply to comment

 that it must be difficult to assert the legitimacy of data you have collected when that data was obtained from a single subject who you then married and who has never been tested a second time even by yourself to replicate that finding.  Admitting that your finding may be unique and that the phenomenon you observed may not exist outside of that single case seems like a lame attempt to preserve your skepticism and empiricism.  But in a field of study like photographic memory hard science is apparently hard to come by and the occasional incredible case study and by depictions in the media that dramatically overstate the capacity to remember.  The appeal of photographic memory, however, is very easy to understand and very close to the fundamental appeal of science as a potential route to the fantastic. 

            The idea that improvements in visual memory or in some other area of brain function may be the result of a neuroplastic adaptation to a deficit is interesting, and almost makes sense logically.  It’s possible that the brain develops an increased focus upon the visual in order to attempt to overcome the lack of more natural interpretations of social situations and of non-verbal communication, providing the individual with a longer period of time to make interpretations. This brings things back full circle to the idea of focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses and viewing mental disorders as a result of an atypical organization of the brain that may result in as many positive changes as it does negative.