I didn't fully understand what the author meant by "Weird Nerd", and this bit was the key for me:
> Weird Nerds (I called them autistics, but people really hated that)
And I totally get why they're trying to come up with a word that markets better, and yes many people react negatively to "autist" or calling someone "on the spectrum".
At the same time, man prominent people are making public their diagnostics and assert being on the autism spectrum, and I wonder if it becomes a disservice to them to not use the term when appropriate, precisely because of how it's perceived now.
I have good reasons to consider myself neurodivergent (and others do consider me such). There are definite divergences that have caused me problems. I have what people consider "superpowers" and what people consider "difficulties".
Not certain I am autistic. Might have been considered mild or (the then-termed) "high functioning" as a kid in the 80s.
But on the other hand, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to put me in the same broad category as autistic people, because I have the same issues in the context of the article -- with being conventionally "ambitionless", having relatively little grasp of (or instinct for) power games etc., and needing the kind of support that others often do.
That category needs a name. (In the UK we'd traditionally go for "boffin", which is broadly a term of affection, but it's a little harder to spot a boffin these days because of casual clothing at the office)
I react negatively to "autist" because it's not a good description. "ist" is usually used for something people do, or more to the point something they choose to do, see cyclist, artist, etc.
Also, "on the spectrum" is used today much like "depression" was used in the '90s. It's a catch all excuse used at the expense of people actually suffering the disorder. Much like sometimes you are just sad, I would wager many people who claim to be "on the spectrum" are just assholes.
I'd argue assholes would merit the same attention as the people on the spectrum,
but it might be another discussion.
> something they choose to do
Point taken, but then switching that for "weird" doesn't feel like helping, it's still a pejorative and not really focused description.
> people actually suffering the disorder
An issue I'd take with that is the effect to which it's penalizing depends a lot on the environment and what the person is trying to do. Would two people with the same condition, but one suffering and the other not, need to be identified in two different ways ?
I think you're circling some valid points, but realistically I don't think this happens in the current climate. There's a couple of forces at play - a) it's a medical issue that people are really passionate about b) there's an ironic (or not, at times) subculture of calling oneself 'autistic' when it's just exhibiting an interest and c) there's still no 100% accurate test, not everyone will want to out themselves, etc. So the shroud of mystery + confusion persists for the vast majority outside of those that advocate and speak out.
I think it's a good thing to come up with some other term to refer to these extrinsically motivated nerds that don't really care for typical social constructs but bring immense value to a bunch of types of work. That way whether they identify or are diagnosed as autistic isn't necessarily the important piece, more the result of their person.
> Weird Nerds (I called them autistics, but people really hated that)
And I totally get why they're trying to come up with a word that markets better, and yes many people react negatively to "autist" or calling someone "on the spectrum".
At the same time, man prominent people are making public their diagnostics and assert being on the autism spectrum, and I wonder if it becomes a disservice to them to not use the term when appropriate, precisely because of how it's perceived now.