Autistic folks often see symbols as signs.

Signs are less ambiguous. If the value of a sign can’t be seen as an abstraction, then situations arise such a parent saying, “my child can’t understand money.” (But what good is a piece of paper, anyway?)

Maybe signs are more like barter, while symbols involve some intermediate social currency where other factors come into play?

My initial comment (above) may be the one-sentence condensation of this entire project. The employment of symbols requires a multilevel structure of interpretation: recognizing the symbol as a symbol, then seeing its situational meaning... but for some of us, this “multilevel structure” consists of a house of cards built on top of another house of cards.

A visual example: a speed-vs.-time graph may appear a meaningless squiggle to most, an indication of speed to some, an indication of acceleration (in calculus, the “first derivative” of the velocity curve [or, to match the Wikipedia example, the second derivative of a position-vs-time graph]) to a few, an illustration of driving technique (was the engine held in a lower gear for too long? how quick was the shifting?) to still fewer. What was directly represented on the graph, and what was inferred? Which of these aspects are symbols, which are signs, and which are apparently meaningless?

Now if, say, an autistic kid’s special interest is vehicular performance, s/he may infer copious information from such a graph and its accompanying data (as commonly presented in magazine road tests) - was the test track wet that day? Were the tires too wide or too narrow for optimal power transfer? But absent such intensely focused knowledge/research, there may not be much, if any, understanding at all. Thus anything that can serve as a “sidebar” to accompany the symbols would really help, be it a one-to-one school aide, an auxiliary method of concept presentation, or something else entirely.

Last revised: June 22, 2007
(c)2007 Dave Spicer
(back to project main page)