there has to be a better word

Post Reply New Topic

...than "autdar" (on the model of "gaydar"), which is ingenious but hardly suggests what it means, at first glance: the innate ability of autistic people to spot other autistic people...

it's also terrible-sounding (to me, anyway). any ideas?

m.

Aut-dar, just like aspie-dar, is a myth, so call it whatever you will.

But if you disagree, then put it to the test. The next time a stranger shows up on your aut-dar, walk straight up to that person, make eye-contact, and ask that person, “Are you autistic?”

I have read too many accounts wherein people claim to be able to know when another person is on the spectrum when they have never verified their alleged “knowledge”.

Mere belief proves nothing.

autisticdar

autiedar

Most NTs can pretty quickly spot that there is something "off" about us.

A person with a high degree of familiarity with his own unique traits may be a little more sensitive to identifying those traits in others. However, I would be reluctant to consider this a "super power". Rather one might see in five minutes what it might take others to notice in seven minutes.

It would also fail to consider those traits with which a person is not as familiar (whether he has them himself or not).

There may not be a definitive word for something so elusive as not being able to tell if a new arrival at a social function suddenly left because of social anxiety or because he left his keys in the car.

I can't see how it's different from saying you have 'copdar' because you can identify members of the police force with a high level of accuracy.

It's just grouping typical attributes isn't it? I don't feel like there's much mysterious going on when someone who spends a lot of time thinking about autism (because they have it or their job is identifying it) is able to identify people who have it.

Sometimes, you can tell right off, with a decent degree of accuracy, that someone is autistic.

Other times, it takes an extended period of observing that person.

"Autiedar" is certainly not infallible.

Not even "gaydar" is infallible.

Lots of claims, no evidence.

I can think of varying alternative terms.

If it's a pattern recognition through familiar experience, usually hypothesized and confirmed with empirical evidence... It is simply called familiarity.

If it's just a hypothesis, and the basis is coming from the subjective first hand experience or theory of mind and conclude from there... It's basically a form of self projection or sympathy.

If it's just gut feeling, not sourced from either experience but the lack of; it's either a form of intuition or a form of guest.

And if it's derived from what NOT being an allistic act and look like, and may reference from stereotypes... It's a form of deduction.


One can lead to another. Or switch. Or overlap.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.