makuranososhi wrote:
thetempertrap wrote:
about the savant thing in general. i don't really believe aspies can be savants. i believe people with aspergers who have savant like abilities would have these abilities if they did not have aspergers. the only thing that may be different is that they might become better at these abilities because of the obsessional focus that having aspergers offers.
the term savant is supposed be reserved for those people who have almost a complete inability to function in society but can perform a certain difficult task extremely well. that's why the term used to be idiot-savant. aspergers people with gifts are the same as neurotypical people with gifts. (please don't spout off daniel tammet references to me i have whole other ideas about him and his brain injury which may have caused his ability as brain injuries have been known to do for many years now).
i think alot of people that are aspies would like to believe some of their skills are savant like because it sounds very special and impressive. but if you look at the facts, you can't realistically be an aspie and a savant, it does not compute.
Actually, Webster defines savant as "a person of learning; especially : one with detailed knowledge in some specialized field (as of science or literature)" - no reference to functionality. With the term 'idiot savant' (modifier added), there is the implication that this knowledge is exclusive and in contrast to their general level of intelligence... but again, this makes no reference to level of functionality. You're full of opinions and theories, but keep in mind that they are just that - opinions. Just because you believe something different from others doesn't make them wrong, or you correct for that matter.
M.
yes i'm full of opinions and i'm thinking that you don't agree. here is another. defning things with the dictionary, while it might seem logical, is actually one of the silliest ways of defining something that relates to human beings (or really anything). the only definiition that really matters when speaking is general consensus and idea of what the majority thinks that word or idea means. like with savant,
people don't think "a person of learning with details knowledge.." blah blah whatever dictionary drab you spouted, they think of autistic savants, RAINMAN style.i bet you like the dictionary definition cause you think you have savant abilities don't you??? i bet you consider yourself a savant in some way and the general consensus of how that word is defined probably doesn't fit you. so you go with the dictioinary version....probably from the dictionary which had the definition that suits you best.
this is a small trick that pseudo-intellectuals often use to make build themselves up in their own minds and sometimes in the minds of others.
i hope you don't take any of that as offense, but that's how it seems.
want proof???? do and internet search on the word savant, that will show you what people are thinking about when the word comes up. and your websters definition, while convenient for you, isn't even CLOSE.
oh and before you say i'm full of it, this definition by majority is NOT my theory it is something they teach in lit at uni. of which i studied extensively. i'm not overly eloquent, but i know
about words.
I'm sorry but you are answering for everyone there and you have no authority to do so. You can only say what you think the word means and people you have asked about it. To me it means someone who is brilliant at what they do. Their mental abilities doesn't even come into it.
Savant is just French for learned, so I would imagine that this is the meaning it has all over the French speaking world. And probably other areas where French is taught. Not all people get their education off the tv.
26 Jan 2010, 8:28 pm
