Thoughts on "The Other" and Synaptic Connectivity

The institution of categorization is an integral part of how we see and try to understand our world.  A concrete example of this occurs in how we try to make sense of humans, as a whole, and understand ourselves within this larger framework- namely, lumping humans into the categories of "healthy" and "unhealthy."  Although we are fascinated, and perhaps jealous at times, by Luria's depiction of S. in The mind of a Mnemonist, we label him as a flawed individual.  We put him into the "other" category where we feel safe to pick apart the inner workings of his brain and, ultimately, make judgements about him.

However, what is ironic about this situation is that S. (as well as Borges' Funes), in a way, is the mind that lies dormant in all of us.  In The Quick Guide to Synaesthesia, it becomes clear how similar all human minds are- how the potential for synaptic pruning to occur in a way that would afford us similar mental capabilities as S. are not as far removed as we'd perhaps, like to think.

I am curious what we will do with the ever-growing influx of information about synaptic development, memory retention, and syaesthesia.  Will we try to find a way to prenatally alter the course of synaptic connectivity- perhaps induce a certain amount of reduced apoptosis to aid in "creative thinking," as the Quick Guide claims is common among people with synaesthesia.  Similarly, I am curious what the Quick Guide means by "intelligence" and why people with synaesthesia typically possess more of this quality than others- and if so, why does it seem that evolution has favored synaptic pruning to aid in the differentiation of sensory areas in the brain?