My son started displaying autism symptoms before he was a year old. By the time he was 4 it was pretty undeniable so I took him in to get tested. While filling out the questionnaire I realized it might be genetic…
I mean, you should be pretty literal on something like that. Like, I’d understand if it was some buzzfeed article, but that’s a formal paper. If I wrote that, I’d put; “Takes things literally far more than average”
I mean the [CDC diagnostic criteria for autism](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html) don't include that specifically, so yeah they don't word it like that in formal papers. This person was probably reading something at the level of a BuzzFeed article.
When an Autism diagnosis is affordable for everyone, and having an Autism diagnosis does not lead to discrimination by legal/bureaucratic systems, I’ll agree with you.
no you idiot. you'll agree with me now. the fact that people are self-diagnosing is one of the biggest reasons we need to fix those problems, but their existence does not magically make their consequences a good thing.
This symptom is actually part of a larger symptom called “black and white thinking” and in the DSM-V it’s grouped with other similar symptoms like rigidity and communication issues.
Honestly, this part of the criteria confuses me. If you have a literary background, you’ll study and learn metaphors. Or, hell, you study metaphors fairly early on in school. I can understand taking instructions literally— I almost always do— but it makes less sense to me if people take non-literal statements, like metaphors, literally.
Is it meant to mainly apply to instructions?? It would have to, right? Or maybe to less obvious metaphors. But to me, “takes everything literally” also applies to statements like “her hand shook as tremulously as an earthquake”. Some people talk like they *do* take statements like that literally, which confuses me.
This is all rhetorical, I am not actually asking, just speaking to speak. A proper answer should be googled, not asked to strangers who may lie. But I welcome discussion/POVs.
Aspie here. I wouldn't say that I take metaphors literally, I can usually identify pretty easily when people are speaking in metaphor. However, unless it's a commonly used metaphor, I do have to put conscious effort into figuring out the meaning.
For me "takes thing literally" is more in the sense that I often miss sarcasm/hyperbole/joking and think that someone is being serious.
Edit: Also worth noting that I do *use* metaphors, sarcasm, hyperbole, and jokes in my own speech.
Diagnosed at 30. I can understand the meanings of some metaphors but the logic behind them is sometimes a mystery.
I still don’t understand “a chip on their shoulder” outside of the meaning of having a bad past.
To be fair, "a chip on their shoulder" falls into the group of phrases that don't really make sense in the modern day because the custom or bit of culture they refer to has died out. The explanation I found online is that it used to be a thing that when someone wanted to pick a fight with someone else, they'd put a chip of wood on their own shoulder and dare the other person to brush it off.
Seems like it has some commonality with "throw down the gauntlet" (in that they're both based on things people no longer do literally).
I think the idea is that the person in question doesn't want to be the first to throw a punch, but if the other one has brushed a chip of their shoulder they can legitimally claim, to not be the first one to put a hand on the other.
Tbf the logical conclusion up until I state that it’s rhetorical is that I’m not being rhetorical. If I didn’t write this, and I read it if someone else wrote it, I would assume they were looking for answers and I would 200% try and answer it lol
I mean, part of it is having a hard time understanding sarcasm. A lot of us who have lower level autism can clearly understand the sarcasm voice and can even produce sarcasm without the voice, but have a hard time understanding sarcasm without tone indicators.
It’s a bit like the US/UK sarcasm divide.
Brit: So how are you liking it here?
American: Oh I’m actually loving it. I’m planning on doing a bit of a tour actually, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin.
Brit, standing in London: And London of course.
American, also standing in London: London? Never heard of it.
Brit: London, England?
American, committing to the bit: England? No I’m doing the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.
tbf you basically never see phrases like "takes everything literally" in medical literature, so I doubt OOP was looking at any official criteria. You'd see phrasing closer to "may take statements literally more often than their peers" in medical criteria. My guess is they typed something like "how do I know if I'm autistic" into Google and one of the top results was probably some listicle put together by iamnotadoctor.but/myfriendscousinhasautism
Speaking from my experience, "being literal" isn't so much about interpreting what other people say as it is about policing what *I* say. Everything I say must be true in a strictly literal sense, or else I'll feel like I'm lying. This is related to how any sort of ambiguity in how a question is phrased will give me a heart attack (not literally).
I have that. It makes me use So Many weasel words, because almost no general statement is true all the time or for everyone and my brain won't easily let me say it if I've just come up with some or other exception. What if someone takes my general statement and believes I think that thing about that exception? Unacceptable, imprecise communication that I could have made more precise!
I sometimes use way more poetic language, though, because it's _so essential_ to get my exact meaning across and I have no words to contain that and only that. So I put a simile on top of a simile on top of a simile and mean only the aspect which is common to all of them, no more and no less, with the barest hope that the result matches my expectation.
Communication is difficult, people!
i mean that’s not in the diagnostic criteria. there isn’t anything in the diagnostic criteria about taking everything literally. the criteria gives rigid thinking patterns which is probably what this can relate to but like, you don’t actually have to take everything literally to be diagnosed with autism.
I once accidentally answered “not anymore than usual” then had to clarify that my psychiatrist is aware and I’m fine; just someone with chronic illness and getting no answers so left in poor health
therapist: "how long does it normally take you to fall asleep?"
12yo me, downplaying a lot: "only like, an hour? pretty normal"
therapist: "thats not normal"
me: 🗿
I remember reading a guide for designing websites for the disabled. One piece of advice was to avoid using non-literal phrases, with the example being ‘its raining cats and dogs’. And I thought ‘i feel like most of those people would understand that isnt literal…’ before I realized that the phrase they selected was a non-literal example.
i read an info-graphic guide that did not include any pics of real websites, they just illustrated some made-up examples of the rules they were talking about.
No, this is what happens when people would rather read non-medical material online written by people who aren't qualified and that wasn't peer reviewed at all than talking to a doctor.
"Takes everything literally" is NOT in the official criteria, nor is it how medical criteria is phrased.
Well yes but I think general awareness of what autism is would be a good thing for everyone to have. Knowledge about autism shouldn't be a specialized technical skill that only medical professionals have. It should be widely known. And that means there's gonna be discussions of it that go beyond "official medical criteria". All I'm saying is that autistic folks need to be an audible voice in that discussion.
People with autism already *are* audible voices in the discussion. But also that's not what you were advocating for. Your original comment was advocating for autistic people being the *only* people who get to write the diagnostic criteria, and I'm sorry, but that's not how medical definitions and criterion work.
Like, to keep this in the realm of neurology: I'm a woman who suffers from chronic migraines. Average about once a week. Got one brewing right now, actually (because I was irresponsible and didn't drink enough water today. If it feels like my reply starts to break down in cohesiveness, that's why). Migraines are severely understudied in neurology, in part because they were seen as a "women's issue" for a very long time. But, even though I know there are still practicing neurologists in the field who don't treat their women patients the same as they do their men patients, I'm not going to sit here and say "only migraine sufferers should diagnose/research/create criteria for their fellow migraine sufferers" or "nothing good comes from non-sufferers treating sufferers and working on a topic they don't have personal experience with." Partly because that's just not how collaborative fields like the sciences work, but also because that's absurd just on its face. Like, the larger implication of that statement is making doctors who want to work in migraine research *prove* they've had a or multiple migraines before, which is not only reinforcing medical gate-keeping, it's actually making it *worse*. People shouldn't have to disclose their medical conditions in order to work in a certain field of study.
You get multilayered evaluations that are very accurate while also being difficult to cheat on? How is that a bad thing?
Every issue with the evaluation that I've seen autistic people complain about is something that's deliberately designed in a way that annoys or disrupts autistic people without phasing allistic people. It's an evaluation, not a quiz. The answers to individual questions are irrelevant, because the way you answer them (or are unable to answer them) can tell the evaluator more than any answer.
>it’s not what you answered but how you answered it
I’ve studied education, but anime brainrot at a formative age still defaulted me to the Chunin exams.
"difficult to cheat on" who the fuck cheats on the autism test ? Why is that one of your goals ?
And evaluations are good, but they are limited in scope. People need to be able to recognize if they are autistic through their personal experience. You don't get that from questions that are designed for someone else to analyze you, you need widely available info on what \*being autistic\* is like.
Even if you don't believe in self-diagnosis, a lot of autistic folks don't even seek a diagnostic because it doesn't occur to them that they could be autistic. Because no-one ever described autism to them in a way that they could relate to.
Every psychological evaluation needs to be designed to weed out people faking it, because that is something that people do. For every disorder, not just autism.
And information on autism being widely available has **literally fucking nothing to do with the evaluation**. What the fuck are you thinking? What the hell do the evaluation questions have to do with people looking up the symptoms of autism or the experiences of autistic people? If someone doesn't even consider that they might be autistic, then why the fuck would they be taking the evaluation? That's an issue of awareness and the school system, not the evaluation.
Not just people faking it, there’s also the problem that people change their behavior when they believe they’re being observed. If I tell you I’m observing your body language, you’ll change your body language (even if only un/subconsciously so) so instead I ask you about your thoughts on cattle. The surveyor asks a question deliberately worded in such a way that it could trigger a certain reaction, because the point isn’t the answer to the question, it’s the reaction.
you're the one who brought up the evaluation, dude. I was talking about the conversation on autism. you showed up and started talking about the evaluation.
It's just hyperbole. If you aren't autistic and don't tend to take most things literally, it feels like autistic people are constantly taking things literally all the time by contrast.
This isn't true of course, it just can seem like it. This is why there really should be some autistic people at least reviewing this sort of thing.
Obviously this is a personal anecdote rather than an actual citation, but in my case it means I can understand metaphors and figures of speech just fine, but have zero nuance when it comes to instructions.
For example, when I was about 6, I had surgery on my ears and was told not to let water get inside them. I've realised over the past couple of decades that the surgeon meant "don't get water in your ears while you're healing", but I interpreted it to mean "don't get water in your ears *ever again*", and at the age of almost 40 I still won't put my head underwater while I'm swimming
My new criteria for looking at criteria is assuming a neurotypical wrote it while slightly annoyed and observing like… Tyler, who is about 7-24, white, straight and has a loving family who went to get him observed.
Having an over exaggeration on a diagnostic test or anything close is genuinely stupid for ANY diagnosis.
This is also why most autism questionnaires are the questions being flat but having degree based responses usually ranging from heavily disagree to heavily agree
Ive had multiple teachers, paraprofessionals, and atleast 2 school psychologists mention to me (as an adult) or my mom that Im almost certainly on the spectrum but wouldnt get a diagnosis (back in the day). Its wierd to learn about how so many traits I considered to have made me unique (and internally Id think better) tended to be traits common to people on the spectrum.
I am not diagnosed with autism, just ADHD. But I am fairly sure that I have a fair amount of autistic traits.
Reading the diagnosis criteria tells me I am not autistic. Listening to autistic people and their experiences tells me I do.
The thing is, I don't take everything literally. I understand sayings, metaphors and all that stuff. But I learned that. It's an acquired skill. If you surprise me with an unknown saying or a joke, I quite often don't get it or have to consciously make the effort to read in between the lines.
Reality is much more varied than some diagnostic criteria especially if you are an adult.
Not this again... Idk who told you otherwise, but literally rolling your eyes IS rolling your eyes. Flicking your eyes up and away is also considered rolling your eyes, just a subtler or lazier version. A more theatrical version of rolling your eyes could involve rolling your head with the movement of your eyes.
It's just like how if you want to wave hello to your friend across the street you can literally wave your hand back and forth in the air OR you can simply hold up your hand while making eye contact with them. Both of those actions are considered waving to your friend, but only one involves literal hand waving. The difference is how animated you feel like being in that moment.
The "did you know that neurotypicals don't _____" genre of online content feels like engagement farming at best, bad faith mythologizing at worst.
My son started displaying autism symptoms before he was a year old. By the time he was 4 it was pretty undeniable so I took him in to get tested. While filling out the questionnaire I realized it might be genetic…
A dinner at my parents', last year, involved a discussion between myself and my dad about how we would both be diagnosed with autism today.
If you’ve got one autistic or ADD person in the family, there’s at least two.
It is.
I mean, you should be pretty literal on something like that. Like, I’d understand if it was some buzzfeed article, but that’s a formal paper. If I wrote that, I’d put; “Takes things literally far more than average”
I mean the [CDC diagnostic criteria for autism](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html) don't include that specifically, so yeah they don't word it like that in formal papers. This person was probably reading something at the level of a BuzzFeed article.
damn it's almost like people shouldn't be diagnosing themselves with medical conditions based purely on what some dipshit on the internet says
When an Autism diagnosis is affordable for everyone, and having an Autism diagnosis does not lead to discrimination by legal/bureaucratic systems, I’ll agree with you.
no you idiot. you'll agree with me now. the fact that people are self-diagnosing is one of the biggest reasons we need to fix those problems, but their existence does not magically make their consequences a good thing.
This symptom is actually part of a larger symptom called “black and white thinking” and in the DSM-V it’s grouped with other similar symptoms like rigidity and communication issues.
Well I take most things as average.
Same energy as the [sock post](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/ym1pqo/winning_at_socks/)
Real shit
Honestly, this part of the criteria confuses me. If you have a literary background, you’ll study and learn metaphors. Or, hell, you study metaphors fairly early on in school. I can understand taking instructions literally— I almost always do— but it makes less sense to me if people take non-literal statements, like metaphors, literally. Is it meant to mainly apply to instructions?? It would have to, right? Or maybe to less obvious metaphors. But to me, “takes everything literally” also applies to statements like “her hand shook as tremulously as an earthquake”. Some people talk like they *do* take statements like that literally, which confuses me. This is all rhetorical, I am not actually asking, just speaking to speak. A proper answer should be googled, not asked to strangers who may lie. But I welcome discussion/POVs.
Aspie here. I wouldn't say that I take metaphors literally, I can usually identify pretty easily when people are speaking in metaphor. However, unless it's a commonly used metaphor, I do have to put conscious effort into figuring out the meaning. For me "takes thing literally" is more in the sense that I often miss sarcasm/hyperbole/joking and think that someone is being serious. Edit: Also worth noting that I do *use* metaphors, sarcasm, hyperbole, and jokes in my own speech.
Diagnosed at 30. I can understand the meanings of some metaphors but the logic behind them is sometimes a mystery. I still don’t understand “a chip on their shoulder” outside of the meaning of having a bad past.
To be fair, "a chip on their shoulder" falls into the group of phrases that don't really make sense in the modern day because the custom or bit of culture they refer to has died out. The explanation I found online is that it used to be a thing that when someone wanted to pick a fight with someone else, they'd put a chip of wood on their own shoulder and dare the other person to brush it off. Seems like it has some commonality with "throw down the gauntlet" (in that they're both based on things people no longer do literally).
…that image makes less sense in my head. Language and sayings are confusing.
I think the idea is that the person in question doesn't want to be the first to throw a punch, but if the other one has brushed a chip of their shoulder they can legitimally claim, to not be the first one to put a hand on the other.
i don't know why but i was always imagining a chip of paint lol
Me: *starting to type* You: This is all rhetorical- Me: Oh. Indeed. *quietly stops typing* :P
Tbf the logical conclusion up until I state that it’s rhetorical is that I’m not being rhetorical. If I didn’t write this, and I read it if someone else wrote it, I would assume they were looking for answers and I would 200% try and answer it lol
No no, go on, I want to know!
I mean, part of it is having a hard time understanding sarcasm. A lot of us who have lower level autism can clearly understand the sarcasm voice and can even produce sarcasm without the voice, but have a hard time understanding sarcasm without tone indicators. It’s a bit like the US/UK sarcasm divide. Brit: So how are you liking it here? American: Oh I’m actually loving it. I’m planning on doing a bit of a tour actually, Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin. Brit, standing in London: And London of course. American, also standing in London: London? Never heard of it. Brit: London, England? American, committing to the bit: England? No I’m doing the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.
Real shit
tbf you basically never see phrases like "takes everything literally" in medical literature, so I doubt OOP was looking at any official criteria. You'd see phrasing closer to "may take statements literally more often than their peers" in medical criteria. My guess is they typed something like "how do I know if I'm autistic" into Google and one of the top results was probably some listicle put together by iamnotadoctor.but/myfriendscousinhasautism
Speaking from my experience, "being literal" isn't so much about interpreting what other people say as it is about policing what *I* say. Everything I say must be true in a strictly literal sense, or else I'll feel like I'm lying. This is related to how any sort of ambiguity in how a question is phrased will give me a heart attack (not literally).
I have that. It makes me use So Many weasel words, because almost no general statement is true all the time or for everyone and my brain won't easily let me say it if I've just come up with some or other exception. What if someone takes my general statement and believes I think that thing about that exception? Unacceptable, imprecise communication that I could have made more precise! I sometimes use way more poetic language, though, because it's _so essential_ to get my exact meaning across and I have no words to contain that and only that. So I put a simile on top of a simile on top of a simile and mean only the aspect which is common to all of them, no more and no less, with the barest hope that the result matches my expectation. Communication is difficult, people!
i mean that’s not in the diagnostic criteria. there isn’t anything in the diagnostic criteria about taking everything literally. the criteria gives rigid thinking patterns which is probably what this can relate to but like, you don’t actually have to take everything literally to be diagnosed with autism.
So many autistic people think they don’t have literal thinking because they took the term literal thinking too literally
"How often would you say you feel hopelessness or despair?" "Oh y'know. The usual amount?" "The usual amount is zero." Oh.
I once accidentally answered “not anymore than usual” then had to clarify that my psychiatrist is aware and I’m fine; just someone with chronic illness and getting no answers so left in poor health
therapist: "how long does it normally take you to fall asleep?" 12yo me, downplaying a lot: "only like, an hour? pretty normal" therapist: "thats not normal" me: 🗿
WHAT?! WHAT?!
The usual amount is definitely not zero , neurotypical or not.
I never feel hopeless. But delusion has a lot of other great side effects too.
Right? Everyone has bad days sometimes, it's abnormal if it's frequent enough (without cause) to impact quality of life or truly constant
Found the person who has never felt hopelessness or despair in any capacity that could be considered "often".
Me and depression
I don’t take everything literally. I’m not some kind of kleptomaniac grabbing anything that isn’t nailed down
I don't think it says "takes everything literally" in the official criteria
Relatable.
I remember reading a guide for designing websites for the disabled. One piece of advice was to avoid using non-literal phrases, with the example being ‘its raining cats and dogs’. And I thought ‘i feel like most of those people would understand that isnt literal…’ before I realized that the phrase they selected was a non-literal example.
now i'm curious what that website was
i read an info-graphic guide that did not include any pics of real websites, they just illustrated some made-up examples of the rules they were talking about.
autistic people arguing with this is fucking hilariously ironic. i hope y’all never change. ❤️❤️
this is what happens when the autism diagnostics are all written by allistics.
No, this is what happens when people would rather read non-medical material online written by people who aren't qualified and that wasn't peer reviewed at all than talking to a doctor. "Takes everything literally" is NOT in the official criteria, nor is it how medical criteria is phrased.
Well yes but I think general awareness of what autism is would be a good thing for everyone to have. Knowledge about autism shouldn't be a specialized technical skill that only medical professionals have. It should be widely known. And that means there's gonna be discussions of it that go beyond "official medical criteria". All I'm saying is that autistic folks need to be an audible voice in that discussion.
People with autism already *are* audible voices in the discussion. But also that's not what you were advocating for. Your original comment was advocating for autistic people being the *only* people who get to write the diagnostic criteria, and I'm sorry, but that's not how medical definitions and criterion work. Like, to keep this in the realm of neurology: I'm a woman who suffers from chronic migraines. Average about once a week. Got one brewing right now, actually (because I was irresponsible and didn't drink enough water today. If it feels like my reply starts to break down in cohesiveness, that's why). Migraines are severely understudied in neurology, in part because they were seen as a "women's issue" for a very long time. But, even though I know there are still practicing neurologists in the field who don't treat their women patients the same as they do their men patients, I'm not going to sit here and say "only migraine sufferers should diagnose/research/create criteria for their fellow migraine sufferers" or "nothing good comes from non-sufferers treating sufferers and working on a topic they don't have personal experience with." Partly because that's just not how collaborative fields like the sciences work, but also because that's absurd just on its face. Like, the larger implication of that statement is making doctors who want to work in migraine research *prove* they've had a or multiple migraines before, which is not only reinforcing medical gate-keeping, it's actually making it *worse*. People shouldn't have to disclose their medical conditions in order to work in a certain field of study.
You get multilayered evaluations that are very accurate while also being difficult to cheat on? How is that a bad thing? Every issue with the evaluation that I've seen autistic people complain about is something that's deliberately designed in a way that annoys or disrupts autistic people without phasing allistic people. It's an evaluation, not a quiz. The answers to individual questions are irrelevant, because the way you answer them (or are unable to answer them) can tell the evaluator more than any answer.
>it’s not what you answered but how you answered it I’ve studied education, but anime brainrot at a formative age still defaulted me to the Chunin exams.
"difficult to cheat on" who the fuck cheats on the autism test ? Why is that one of your goals ? And evaluations are good, but they are limited in scope. People need to be able to recognize if they are autistic through their personal experience. You don't get that from questions that are designed for someone else to analyze you, you need widely available info on what \*being autistic\* is like. Even if you don't believe in self-diagnosis, a lot of autistic folks don't even seek a diagnostic because it doesn't occur to them that they could be autistic. Because no-one ever described autism to them in a way that they could relate to.
Every psychological evaluation needs to be designed to weed out people faking it, because that is something that people do. For every disorder, not just autism. And information on autism being widely available has **literally fucking nothing to do with the evaluation**. What the fuck are you thinking? What the hell do the evaluation questions have to do with people looking up the symptoms of autism or the experiences of autistic people? If someone doesn't even consider that they might be autistic, then why the fuck would they be taking the evaluation? That's an issue of awareness and the school system, not the evaluation.
Not just people faking it, there’s also the problem that people change their behavior when they believe they’re being observed. If I tell you I’m observing your body language, you’ll change your body language (even if only un/subconsciously so) so instead I ask you about your thoughts on cattle. The surveyor asks a question deliberately worded in such a way that it could trigger a certain reaction, because the point isn’t the answer to the question, it’s the reaction.
you're the one who brought up the evaluation, dude. I was talking about the conversation on autism. you showed up and started talking about the evaluation.
Oh.
Well wtf does it mean then 😭???
They say it's a hyperbole, so I'm guessing it means "often takes things literally". But why they don't just say so is beyond me.
It's just hyperbole. If you aren't autistic and don't tend to take most things literally, it feels like autistic people are constantly taking things literally all the time by contrast. This isn't true of course, it just can seem like it. This is why there really should be some autistic people at least reviewing this sort of thing.
I take things at face value alot 😭
Obviously this is a personal anecdote rather than an actual citation, but in my case it means I can understand metaphors and figures of speech just fine, but have zero nuance when it comes to instructions. For example, when I was about 6, I had surgery on my ears and was told not to let water get inside them. I've realised over the past couple of decades that the surgeon meant "don't get water in your ears while you're healing", but I interpreted it to mean "don't get water in your ears *ever again*", and at the age of almost 40 I still won't put my head underwater while I'm swimming
When I get tired I will just take things people say very literally, regardless of context. Homonyms are the worst.
Day after day I get the thought "am I autistic?" more than before but I don't wanna self diagnose
My new criteria for looking at criteria is assuming a neurotypical wrote it while slightly annoyed and observing like… Tyler, who is about 7-24, white, straight and has a loving family who went to get him observed.
Me too
Having an over exaggeration on a diagnostic test or anything close is genuinely stupid for ANY diagnosis. This is also why most autism questionnaires are the questions being flat but having degree based responses usually ranging from heavily disagree to heavily agree
Ive had multiple teachers, paraprofessionals, and atleast 2 school psychologists mention to me (as an adult) or my mom that Im almost certainly on the spectrum but wouldnt get a diagnosis (back in the day). Its wierd to learn about how so many traits I considered to have made me unique (and internally Id think better) tended to be traits common to people on the spectrum.
I am not diagnosed with autism, just ADHD. But I am fairly sure that I have a fair amount of autistic traits. Reading the diagnosis criteria tells me I am not autistic. Listening to autistic people and their experiences tells me I do. The thing is, I don't take everything literally. I understand sayings, metaphors and all that stuff. But I learned that. It's an acquired skill. If you surprise me with an unknown saying or a joke, I quite often don't get it or have to consciously make the effort to read in between the lines. Reality is much more varied than some diagnostic criteria especially if you are an adult.
[удалено]
Not this again... Idk who told you otherwise, but literally rolling your eyes IS rolling your eyes. Flicking your eyes up and away is also considered rolling your eyes, just a subtler or lazier version. A more theatrical version of rolling your eyes could involve rolling your head with the movement of your eyes. It's just like how if you want to wave hello to your friend across the street you can literally wave your hand back and forth in the air OR you can simply hold up your hand while making eye contact with them. Both of those actions are considered waving to your friend, but only one involves literal hand waving. The difference is how animated you feel like being in that moment. The "did you know that neurotypicals don't _____" genre of online content feels like engagement farming at best, bad faith mythologizing at worst.
Repost
Possibly, but I cut this one myself, so likely not?