This is a quite interesting review. Could it be that what our reviewer 'Mr Smith' is really irritated by (in his last paragraph) is what is actually meant by autism? As an autistic person, I really enjoyed the last few chapters of this book, as, from my perspective, I had found a book that explores some of the same territory that interests me and I recognise it's sentiments.
I have been criticised, in my life, for many of the same criticisms that 'Mr Smith' makes - 'elitist, simplistic and close-minded'. I think that this makes for an interesting list of attributes to assert that someone obtains. Tammet draws our attention to a joint hero of his and mine, namely Orwell, who eshews obscurantism in favour of being plain speaking and direct. Well, in my defence, I would like to suggest that I do indeed look toward the best thinkers that I can find (elitism); I concur with Einstien when he says that when discussing things of importance that we should make things as simple as possible, but not simpler than they are (simplistic). As for close-mindedness, to have, or to demonstrate an opinion (and particularly an unusual one) is, so the suggestion goes, to not have an open mind to those opinions with which you disagree. So be it. All of the stuff about life that people so readily regard as meaningful that I think is nonsense may well come about because their apparatus of experience (their brain) assembles their experiences fundamentally differently from my own - that is why it is called a brain disorder (mine or theirs, it doesn't matter which). 'Mr Smith' might, or might not, like to take a moment to think what it is like to be in the position of having a brain disorder which encourages just the sort of responses that he presents us with.
His 'Mr Smith's' closing sentence expresses exactly the problem and for this, I am in his debt. He says that to usefully understand the world requires (in addition to intelligence) the ability to tolerate ambiguity. This is something that I don't know how to do, nor do I even pretend to understand this sentiment. I cannot think of any circumstance where understanding has been increased by the tolerance of ambiguity. Surely it is the demystifying of ambiguity that allows us to start a real debate on any issue.