• frog 🐸@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah, that definition is antequated and considered ableist, but the secondary definition in the dictionary is a more general term that refers to someone who is highly knowledgeable in one area while lacking understanding of many others, which does not have an ableist connotation and is still in usage in contexts like this article.

    • millie@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I mean, it seems to me that using it derogatorily is at least equally out of touch. It’s a weird term to be using at all, but it’s definitely a weird term to be using to insult someone.

      • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I dunno, it makes sense to me? A savant is someone considered to be highly skilled, which generally comes with the assumption that they’re quite smart overall. Idiot savant (as separate from the “savant syndrome” definition) implies a savant who lacks that general level of intelligence, because they have focused so much on one subject area that they’ve sacrificed all understanding of any other subject area (most genuinely smart people have at least a baseline understanding of areas of study outside of their own). It may not be the most elegant way of describing such a person, but for an article headline, it’s short and to the point, conveying the right meaning in the fewest words possible.