Savant vs. Well-rounded

[luigi bros]

Well rounded because if I was great in one area and horrible in another I'd be more useless than well rounded.

[Duff Ostrich]

I am far from being an expert at anything, but in my daily life I choose to nurture what I'm good at rather than try to build up skills where I have none.

Hence, when I draw/write I look at though I have the motor skills of a four year old.

[YokaiKnight]

And this discussion started because some artsy type felt insulted when I said artistic/musical talent alone won't get you through life. Even the best artists need social skills and business sense to be succesful. An only slightly talented artist who knows how to market himself will probably have an easier time paying the bills.

Ah, this is probably where things split. It looks like you're defining success as being able to produce something and support yourself, but some consider themselves perfectly successful to do something they love for very little compensation.

[lolDeath]

What definition? The one you pulled from your ass? The one found in some 300 year old dictionary?

The definition of the word savant, the thing we are talking about. It can be found in a dictionary of pretty much any age, I would imagine. I think it hit a real turning point when you said that savants are generally idiot savants, personally.

[Esau of Isaac]

Idiot savants have extremely low mental capacities. Savants also have developmental disorders, but have higher intelligence. IQ doesn't say that much about how well you can function in society by the way.

Savant refers to being a master at something. Jimi Hendrix was a savant of the guitar.

Yes, but isn't art/music considered a uncertain career for regular talented people? Wouldn't it be even worse for a savant?

Yes and no; it's not insured, but acting as though the talent is useless because of the shaky changing of musical tastes is idiotic at best.

http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/sav...asked_questions

It's like you don't understand what a savant is.

And this discussion started because some artsy type felt insulted when I said artistic/musical talent alone won't get you through life. Even the best artists need social skills and business sense to be succesful. An only slightly talented artist who knows how to market himself will probably have an easier time paying the bills.

I felt insulted when you called artistic and musical talent useless, because it's a fucking braindead offensive statement to any fan of the arts.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Esau of Isaac

[Tamara]

The meaning of words tend to change overtime. The definition I use is, as far as I know the most currect one. Plus, it fits the topic. There is the trade-off mentioned in the first post. The trade-off was never specified, but if everything other than the talent is less than average, the person will function worse than an avarage person.

Ah, this is probably where things split. It looks like you're defining success as being able to produce something and support yourself, but some consider themselves perfectly successful to do something they love for very little compensation.

I do what I like for very little compensation. I know money isn't everything. However, I also don't want to depend on other people forever and I want people to appreciate the things I do. Will you keep loving what you do if your art doesn't sell or people don't want to listen to your music? I kinda doubt Van Gogh was happy, even though he produced over 2000 works.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Tamara

[TheEnd]

The meaning of words tend to change overtime. The definition I use is, as far as I know the most currect one. Plus, it fits the topic. There is the trade-off mentioned in the first post. The trade-off was never specified, but if everything other than the talent is less than average, the person will function worse than an avarage person.

Spoiler:

"less than average" doesn't mean "retarded."

[lolDeath]

The meaning of words tend to change overtime.

Yeah. And mine is still the correct one in this topic.

The definition I use is, as far as I know the most currect one.

Dictionary:

savant

(să-vänt') pronunciation

n.

1. A learned person; a scholar.

2. An idiot savant.

Again with you using the definition not being used in this topic.

Plus, it fits the topic.

No, it doesn't.

There is the trade-off mentioned in the first post.

Do you really think "Average at everything, or average at everything but one thing that you excel at" would make for much conversation? I sure don't.

The trade-off was never specified, but if everything other than the talent is less than average, the person will function worse than an avarage person.

That is assuming the area in which the person functions worse is something that matters, which as you said, was never specified.

I do what I like for very little compensation. I know money isn't everything.

Positive trait, be sure to reproduce.

However, I also don't want to depend on other people forever and I want people to appreciate the things I do.

Being worse at one thing and better at another would not cause a person to need to depend on others.

Will you keep loving what you do if your art doesn't sell or people don't want to listen to your music?

If people only do it for money in the first place, they do not love their art, they love money.

I kinda doubt Van Gogh was happy, even though he produced over 2000 works.

Neat.

Fuck.. I could have just summed that up with what you just said, Arsar.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Death

[Esau of Isaac]

The meaning of words tend to change overtime. The definition I use is, as far as I know the most currect one.

Then you don't know the definition of the word "savant".

Plus, it fits the topic. There is the trade-off mentioned in the first post. The trade-off was never specified, but if everything other than the talent is less than average, the person will function worse than an avarage person.

If the trade-off is everything other than the talent, then there would be no choice other than well-rounded.

Like, if one were rendered retarded in every other way, no one would ever pick savant; but that's not the case. Well-rounded is implying that the individual is relatively experienced in a wide range, and savant is pretty clearly implying that the individual is very experienced in one area, less so in others.

I do what I like for very little compensation. I know money isn't everything. However, I also don't want to depend on other people forever and I want people to appreciate the things I do. Will you keep loving what you do if your art doesn't sell or people don't want to listen to your music? I kinda doubt Van Gogh was happy, even though he produced over 2000 works.

He was probably pretty happy up until he, you know, went absolutely batshit insane.

And yeah, I would keep loving my art if others didn't watch or listen to it. Because I like art and music, and I think that they were and still are completely relevant and useful in our world. So, yeah, I still find your comment to be retarded.

[Tamara]

Since when is below avarage retarded? Did I ever use that word? And the reason why the definition is changing is because of people like Daniel Tammet. He has amazing talents that are typical for idiot savants, he has autism, but he also has a high IQ.

The following ranges, based on Standard Scores of intelligence tests, reflect the categories of the American Association of Mental Retardation, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV-TR, and the International Classification of Diseases-10:

Class IQ

Profound mental retardation Below 20

Severe mental retardation 20–34

Moderate mental retardation 35–49

Mild mental retardation 50–69

Borderline intellectual functioning 70–79

Lets go back to the below avarage part. How low do you think we need to go to make the discussion interesting? I was thinking an IQ in the 80-85 range.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Tamara

[Esau of Isaac]

Since when is below avarage retarded? Did I ever use that word? And the reason why the definition is changing is because of people like Daniel Tammet. He has amazing talents that are typical for idiot savants, he has autism, but he also has a high IQ.

No, it's not. Savant has been synonymous with the idea of a master since its inception.

Like, do I actually have to take a screenshot of a dictionary from decades ago to prove this to you, or what?

[Tamara]

Like I said, definitions change. Dictionaries can become outdated. Did you know "nice" was an insult in the 13th century? That may not be the entire problem here, though. You want to stick to the common definition, I tend to use a more medical one. We could agree to disagree on what definition to use and focus on something we'll both benefit from:

Lets go back to the below avarage part. How low do you think we need to go to make the discussion interesting? I was thinking an IQ in the 80-85 range.

Define a suitable "below avarage" and concentrate on that instead.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Tamara

[TheEnd]

One would presume that there wouldn't be a need of the "idiot savant" term if just "savant" meant it already...!

Define a suitable "below avarage" and concentrate on that instead.

You're a master economist. However, you can't manage to learn more than one or two foreign languages (and even so, not that well - japanizu supiiku ingurishu raiku datta), you can't cook well and always lose in fighting games against your friends because your hand-eye coordination is shabby. Also, you're poor at persuading people.

Instead of

You're a master economist. However, you can't learn other languages, can't cook at all and don't have hands. Also, you speak like a moron and nobody takes ever you seriously.

[Tamara]

One would presume that there wouldn't be a need of the "idiot savant" term if just "savant" meant it already...!

Daniel Tammet.

You're a master economist. However, you can't manage to learn more than one or two foreign languages (and even so, not that well - japanizu supiiku ingurishu raiku datta), you can't cook well and always lose in fighting games against your friends because your hand-eye coordination is shabby. Also, you're poor at persuading people.

Instead of

You're a master economist. However, you can't learn other languages, can't cook at all and don't have hands. Also, you speak like a moron and nobody takes ever you seriously.

Wow, people here have some really weird thought about what is below avarage. Half the world is below avarage, does that mean half the world is retarded?

[TheEnd]

Daniel Tammet.

Never heard of him before. Wikipedia tells me he's 30 years old, and only lists revelant stuff from the last decade.

Wow, people here have some really weird thought about what is below avarage. Half the world is below avarage, does that mean half the world is retarded?

I can't see any semblance of logic in that statement.

Please tell me you're trolling.

[Tamara]

Never heard of him before. Wikipedia tells me he's 30 years old, and only lists revelant stuff from the last decade.

He has typical idiot savant talents and is smart enough to know "idiot" is an insult. You found the page, how about you read the rest of it?

I can't see any semblance of logic in that statement.

The avarage has to come from somewhere. Does normal distribution ring a bell? If not, ask your math teacher.

[TheEnd]

He has typical idiot savant talents and is smart enough to know "idiot" is an insult. You found the page, how about you read the rest of it?

I had better things to do. Either way, skimming through it is enough to tell me that you mentioning that random guy in this thread has two - and only two - possible meanings.

1) You've been trolling all along.

2) You're retarded.

If you aren't case #1, seek professional help. I have faith in mankind, though, so I'm betting a 85% chance on option 1 there.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Anborn Arsar

[Tamara]

Trolling? Retarded? Did you even read what I wrote? I suppose you had "better" things to do. If you can't give me some of your time, you certainly aren't worth mine.

[TheEnd]

Trolling? Retarded? Did you even read what I wrote? I suppose you had "better" things to do. If you can't give me some of your time, you certainly aren't worth mine.

I don't know if you have priorities other than browsing the internet, but I certainly do.

But yes, I read what you wrote.

First, you claim that savants = retards, especially since "below average" is obviously BORDERNLINE RETARDATION OR BEYOND - not to mention that you seem to believe it's something measurable through IQ, when IQ tests are seriously contested and limited in scope.

Now, you try to push the "all below average individuals are retards" tag on everyone else!

Wow, people here have some really weird thought about what is below avarage. Half the world is below avarage, does that mean half the world is retarded?

Also, learn to statistics. Even if you drew an "average line" at 50%, that doesn't mean that the taken average is "barely functional", to the point that anything below it is unable to live in society or something. Perhaps you should ask your history, sociology or geography teachers about the matter, instead of just the math one...?

Oh, and by the way? Someone would only use the term "savant" meaning "idiot savant" as sarcasm, or a veiled insult - which obviously isn't the point of this thread. Random savants with mental disorders don't belong in here.

[Tamara]

I can't believe I'm doing this...

First, you claim that savants = retards, especially since "below average" is obviously BORDERNLINE RETARDATION OR BEYOND - not to mention that you seem to believe it's something measurable through IQ, when IQ tests are seriously contested and limited in scope.

I never said that.

What I did say:

-Autism and other developmental disorders can make life extra difficult even when the IQ is above avarage

-Chaotic IQ profiles make life extra difficult even when the avarage IQ is high

In case you didn't know: IQ tests are used as a diagnostic tool. They aren't perfect (anxiety, depression etc can influence the scores in a negative way), but they do give an indication. Especially when some subscores are significantly lower or higher than the rest, which is very likely to be the case if someone has a special talent.

You seem to think all people with developmental disorders fit the stereotypes shown on television and in movies. That simply isn't true. People with high functioning autism have difficulties going through daily life, but more and more of these people find work (often in the ICT branch) and a lifestyle that suits them.

BTW If you truly had something better to do, you wouldn't try to twist my words in other to win fifteen seconds of internet fame on some obscure forum.

[Bohemund]

IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it measures learning capabilities. Although if one puts their IQ to good use, then they should be able to become highly knowledgeable.

[Seph]

IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it measures learning capabilities. Although if one puts their IQ to good use, then they should be able to become highly knowledgeable.

Yeaaaaaah.. since the best students always have a very high IQ, right?

An example is someone from my class. She used to be the best in the class until I came to that specific school, but she's not very intelligent at all and her IQ is something like 110. IQ tests are failures, but that's for another topic.

An Intelligence Quotient or IQ is a score derived from one of several different standardized tests attempting to measure intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient

I'm sure you know better than Wikipedia.

[TheEnd]

I can't believe I'm doing this...

I never said that.

What I did say:

-Autism and other developmental disorders can make life extra difficult even when the IQ is above avarage

-Chaotic IQ profiles make life extra difficult even when the avarage IQ is high

In case you didn't know: IQ tests are used as a diagnostic tool. They aren't perfect (anxiety, depression etc can influence the scores in a negative way), but they do give an indication. Especially when some subscores are significantly lower or higher than the rest, which is very likely to be the case if someone has a special talent.

You seem to think all people with developmental disorders fit the stereotypes shown on television and in movies. That simply isn't true. People with high functioning autism have difficulties going through daily life, but more and more of these people find work (often in the ICT branch) and a lifestyle that suits them.

BTW If you truly had something better to do, you wouldn't try to twist my words in other to win fifteen seconds of internet fame on some obscure forum.

1. This thread is not about autism. Notice how you're the only one talking about it?

2. This thread is not about IQ. Notice how nobody else is talking about it?

3. 0/10

[Tamara]

I tried to get the topic back on track several times. Attempts you ignored in favor of being an asshole. If anyone here is a troll, you are.

[Agro]

Being well-rounded has some really bad effects for you in Fire Emblem, especially for characters like Lowen.

Oh, we're not talking about that? Um...

Really though, I find it better to be a master of one thing, rather than jack of all trades. I think it's better that you can devote yourself to one thing and be really good at it, rather than just being so-so at everything. Being all-rounded has some rather profound effects one people, as I learned from this one person at school who's an absolute douchebag.