The difficulty of telling the difference between the Savants* and the Normal Person*
I am the first to admit that separating the two thinker types is not exactly easy or clear-cut. It is more like a degree of how the Normal Person* or the Cat Thinking you are. The level seems to change somewhat based on the group of people you’re currently with. All people turn somewhat the Normal Person* in the company they want to be a part of, while everyone is all rigid in the company they do not wish to belong in. There are also learned behaviors that may not be typical for a person but that make them behave in an uncharacteristic way. Typically, this would mean adopting flirting habits from “a foreign” thinker type because they work on that type.
The Main Difference
There are several ways that one could categorize the Normal Person* and the Savants*. Since times immemorial, philosophers have tried to draw this line, calling the two groups with a variety of names and terms. Conservatives and liberals, extroverts and introverts, women and men, the conformists and the individualists, you name it. The most important character trait of a Savants* is the tendency to always consider the freedom of each individual AND the well-being of the entire humanity at the same time. They always start their thinking process with how to preserve the freedom of an individual without opening too many doors to societal upset and danger.
The Normal Person* will always consider their children’s well-being, their own wellbeing, then, their blood family’s well-being, and their spouse’s well-being. They want to force the community members they live with to live in a manner that suits THEIR family, starting from their immediate family members, their extended family, and neighbors and extending this need to control other people to the entire world. Their need to make everyone the same is the most typical trait of the Normal Person* from the Savants* perspective. It is incredibly difficult, however, to make THEM see what they are doing differently to the Savants*.
the Savants*: EVERY HUMAN IS EQUAL and IMPORTANT and should have the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE for themselves. The Normal Person*: EVERY FAMILY MEMBER IS IMPORTANT but not necessarily equal, and friends and family should put their own needs aside for the common good. (Strangers cannot be trusted.) Obviously, the Savants* have families they care for, but they NEVER FORGET the rest of society while they do this. The Normal Person* will betray strangers if protecting their family demands it. This is why they should never be hired/elected for public office.
The many potential cut lines
As I said, it’s difficult to draw the line between the two thinker types, particularly in a way that would make the Normal Person* confidently choose their own, actual group. That seems to be near impossible, as their ability to self-assess is somewhat limited. They tend to answer what they think is “the correct” answer, not how they actually feel. “Tell me what is the right way to be, and I’ll make my best imitation of it.” They fake a lot, I’m sorry to say. When they make a friend with another the Normal Person*, their joy is shared: “Oh, you fake it, too! Oh so sweet!” Then, they don’t have to fake it anymore, but to be openly… Hmmm… Obnoxious. To be fair, this is also true for lonely the Savants*, but they fake different stuff.
Here are the ones I’m typically using to try and sort it out:
Commitment or romance: Is this the cut line? If a person needs to get a commitment first in a relationship before they feel comfortable falling in love with them, or do they need to fall in love before they make a commitment? The difficulty here is that a sometimes a person is already so deeply in love with someone all they can think about is the commitment – but they’re already in love! Theoretically, the Normal Person* should answer they want a commitment before they can fall in love with a person, and the Savants* should answer the opposite. The Normal Person* are much more pragmatic about their relationships, they are a survival tool rather than a pleasure.
Conformity or individualism? The Normal Person* are conformists from the Savants* thinking perspective. They follow the flock in everything. The Savants* are individualists who know what they want and what they like and hold onto their opinions that are based on their most proven idea of how reality is. The Normal Person* change their mind through a popular vote: whatever is in fashion, that’s how I am/feel. The trouble is, that when a Savants* CHOOSES their “tribe” they will “conform” to the subculture they wish to be a part in, and there is a period where they go through a metamorphosis to become who they wish to be. They are always slightly embarrassed about this because whenever they feel the need to conform, they feel like a fraud – like the Normal Person*. The difference is, though, that the Savants* CHOOSES the group they wish to be a part of independently, whereas the Normal Person* “falls into the wrong crowd” and changes through external pressure to change; they want to avoid being “the weird one” in a group.
Boundaries or Freedom? This difference measures how this person feels loved. The Normal Person* should answer boundaries, while the Savants* choose freedom. This means that the Normal Person* feel love is to show others how to be, how to behave, how to think etc, while the Savants* feels true love is giving you the freedom to be who you are without limitations. This is important particularly in parenting, as the Normal Person* and the Savants* children rebel for opposite reasons and the Savants* and the Normal Person* parents react in opposite ways: If the Normal Person* child rebels, they are seeking attention, the Savants* child seeks for more freedom. A Normal Person* parent reacts to a rebelling child by implementing more rules and regulations, curfews and grounding, a Savants* parent reacts to a rebel by “taking their hands off the kid”: “Sorry mate, sorry, didn’t mean to cramp your style, run, be free!” The Savants* parent will step in ONLY afer they figure the child is actually harming themselves, the Normal Person* wants to restrict the child the first time the child sneezes in a funny way.
Similarly, in politics and philosophy, the Savants* is always trying to establish more personal freedom for people, with the limitation of causing harm to others, while the Normal Person* will try and establish more control and boundaries, and even ridiculously rigid external control systems… Which is what happens to every the Savants* thinking philosophy if not guarded against the Normal Person* influence.
Training or figuring things out. One of the strongest identifiers, enough for me to consider making this the official cutting point was the Normal Person* tendency to train other people similarly as one trains a dog. They make the right move or decision, and you cheer at them enthusiastically. The Savants* deem this an utter display of disrespect, and would never do that in any other attempt to point out how FUCKING LONG can it take for a person to get it?! An Savant* prefers to figure things out for themselves, and want 0 acknowledgement for LEARNING to do something someone else already knows unless they have NOTHING BUT THE GREATEST respect for their teacher, and that is rare for a Savants* to find. This creates the problem point: Once the teacher and what the Savants* is trying to learn is SUPER DIFFICULT they get the same level of excitement as the Normal Person* does when they learn something, but they would NEVER cheer at a person for learning something simple, as they’d deem it as if they’d say: “OMG, well done, FOR A FUCKING MONKEY!!”
Bonding styles or the Normal Person* and the Savants* thinking? One of the most confusing aspects of the Savants* and the Normal Person* differentiation is the way they make new friends and lovers. The Savants* seem to approach each other with respect: “am I allowed near you?” while the Normal Person* approach with DISrespect: “I intend to be intimate with you, I’ll show you I am not afraid of you!” There are many ways this can create confusion, it seems to be linked to the Normal Person* and the Savants* thinking, but the lines have gotten blurry with eons worth of dating advice.
Specialists and All-rounders. While the Savants* specialize in whatever they are doing, showing extraordinary skill and aptitude in their chosen area(s) of life, the Normal Person* are more jacks of all trades, masters of none. This shouldn’t be confused with the fact the Savants* can be multitalented, extraordinarily talented in many areas of life. They also learn quickly and can master skills on a professional level simply for a hobby. This simply means that the Normal Person* adapt more willingly to different tasks and roles, but have a hard time to innovate, break new ground, and performing in roles that require creative thinking.
The worst thing you could do to a person. The Normal Person* think that the worst thing you could do to a person is “to give up on them”. This means that they’ll give up on the attempt to make them fit into the society or the culture. The reason why this is so awful to them is that if someone gives up on the attempt to make you a good person, it means you think they are thoroughly stupid.
The worst thing you can do to a person by the Savants*’s standards is to force them to stay in a relationship they do not wish to be in and force them to conform to your expectations to boot. Which is exactly what the Normal Person* do in order to show love to a person. The Savants* feels that if you want to maintain a relationship, you have to let people be who they are naturally.
The idea of fitting in. The Savants* focus on a group’s values and ideology when they choose which group they’ll associate with. They are philosophers by nature, and they reflect their values in the way they dress and take part in the society. The Normal Person* try to avoid attention to themselves, even positive attention makes them feel uncomfortable. So, to the Normal Person*, fitting in means they will not draw attention to themselves by being too different. To a Savants*, fitting in means they have found a group of people who appreciate them for the qualities they possess, for who they are as people. (Note that the Savants* and the Normal Person* define “who they are” differently, too.)
Artistry, talent, creativity, and philosophies. The Savants* are often very artistic, but always idealist. This could almost be used as a point of differentiation. The problem is, that the Savants* inspire the Normal Person* to copy them in their ideals. This happens particularly in their own offspring, and through movements, so this is not a good point to make a difference on.
Intelligence and changing one’s opinion. The two types change their opinion on things in different ways, and this seems to have something to do with the intelligence of these two groups. The Normal Person* seem to have difficulty picking up on facts, concepts, nuances, philosophies, different value systems and the like. They change their minds through “a popular vote” rather than a logical argument, or through a process of who shouts the loudest and for longest.
They seem not to be able to hold many ideas in mind at the same time, and they seem to combine two similar ideas into one where it is not applicable. They also seem to have a clear preference for very worn out sentences and phrases even when trying to learn a new idea.
They assess their opponent’s emotions rather than their opponent’s facts. They try to argue and irritate in order to get a reading on how certain the opponent is about their own views, rather than try to weigh the arguments based on their logical validity. The Savants* will easily change their minds if the facts support the argument, but to the Normal Person*, all arguments are a matter of negotiation and agreeing to support a new idea or a belief system.
The Normal Person* are also always irritated by new ideas. They feel their entire world shakes and sifts when they have to readjust their beliefs to a new fact or a way of doing things. They are slow and reluctant to adapt to change and are always trying to hold the status quo in place.
So the question is, is the defining factor simply a question of a person’s IQ?
Other problems
One of the major difficulties in making a clear cut between the Normal Person* and the Savants* is the fact the Savants* DO turn toward the Normal Person* Thinking when they “fall in love”, platonic love included. Men can typically display very the Normal Person* Thinking if they believe that’s what “women” want of them.
the Savants* want to fit in with another person just as much the Normal Person* does, but their STANDARDS are a lot higher than those of the Normal Person*. They don’t turn Dog-like for just anybody, they need to find a very special group of people to do so.
This also reveals another problem. The Normal Person* are just as reluctant to change their ways for someone they do not admire or respect, but they might change their views out of simple fear. They wouldn’t, for instance, become a bogan even if they were pressured to for some reason. If they would be the only ‘non-bogan’ in a group, they’d very quickly turn bogan to avoid confrontation with one. (What the fuck’s a bogan?!)
The self-confidence and self-esteem factor
So, the question is, is the Normal Person* and the Savants* thinking simply a matter of how self-aware or self-confident a person is? The Normal Person* buckle under the fear of being disliked. The Savants* have no issues being disliked as long as they like themselves.
On the other hand, if the Normal Person* dislike themselves, they are likely to find the most hated group of people (like the bogans) and align themselves with that group of people. Or are they the Savants*, suddenly, I can’t tell. A person who doesn’t like themselves or is insecure about themselves tends to make fun of themselves. Sometimes people take this to the extreme by making a joke out of their entire life. The way they dress, think, or behave is as if to say to others “I know I’m not worth respect or love, look, I’m putting on no airs, here.”
Where do the terms come from
I have chosen to use dogs and cats as a term base because both are lovely, right? They both do their own thing, but very differently. Cats are independent and choosy about who they show their love to, and if they don’t like a specific family member, nothing in this world can convince them to change their minds. They are curious and exploring, and can survive on their own a lot easier than a dog will.
Dogs are hierarchical, and hunt in packs. Family is everything to them and unquestioned loyalty is what they are famous for. You can beat them up and they’ll come back wagging their tail, and the same is true for their human namesake. Dogs are suspicious of strangers, but will bond with anybody who seems to be sticking around long enough. They’re indiscriminate of who they’ll love, and will love anybody just for being there… Still.
Eternal conflicts
Because the Normal Person* find it so easy and nice to fit into any group, they have no real understanding or tolerance to the Savants*’s need to be free to do as they wish.
The Savants*, thus, have an endless tolerance for people’s differences, and they try their hardest to stay out of people’s way as they respect their individuality. The Normal Person* tend to consider the Savants* difficult to deal with because they simply refuse to get with the program. The Savants* consider the Normal Person* impossible because they are so willing to suffer tight rules and regulations, that a Savants* cannot stand.
The Savants* want to keep the rules flexible and forgiving. In the meanwhile, the Normal Person* want to keep people flexible and forgiving. This creates another point of misunderstanding of this theory.
Both types “like everyone”
The Normal Person* have a very lose idea of what people’s personality is about. They don’t really understand the idea of “a personality” or “individuality”. They feel personality psychology is about pointing out what is wrong with people. The Normal Person* want to use psychology to make different types of people conform to the norm. The norm, to them, is holy. They “like everyone”, but they expect everyone to be the same way to the best of their ability. This makes the very able the Savants*, who have no intention to follow the norm that they consider an insult to their intelligence, despair around them.
Similarly, the Savants* “like everyone” but they don’t form tight bonds with people who are different to them. They appreciate people’s right to think differently to themselves, but they don’t want to spend time with people who think very differently to them. The Normal Person* feel being excluded from the tribe is the worst form of disapproval there is. Because the Savants* like to exclude people they don’t agree with, the Normal Person* feel they are being judged unfairly. Usually, he the Normal Person* feel if they are being excluded, it’s “due to retaliation”, or “jealousy”.
In conclusion
While making the differences clear to the Normal Person*, whose social duty as a nice person is to prove to you that we are all the same, the Savants* understand this easily. It is the Savants* that find this difference so painful on a daily basis, so it is for the benefit of the Savants* that I’ve done this work. The need to understand this dynamic has been my own personal pain in the hands of A VERY the Normal Person* mother, me being VERY the Savants* thinking.
While studying these differences does bring up anger, I have now learned a few tricks on how to handle the Normal Person* once you learn to recognize one on the spot. This should reduce the anxiety levels near them, but… It does take some time to fully understand this dynamic.
Subscribe to get a Daily Message
*) Term changed after this post was originally written. Fractions of old terms may exist elsewhere in the post. Read about term updates.
**) Narcissists are Young Souls left alone to survive and they're doing their best. Their emotional age ranges from 3 to 17 -year old. The younger, the more severe the narcissism.
© 2001-2024 Copyright Sebastyne - CRC-32 ecd1f512. - All rights reserved.