That’s not exclusive to autism. It’s common in all people
That’s not this situation.
Iirc, the point of the paper was that autistic people tend to do it more than non-autistic people, and on a broader scale.
Interestingly, one thing it pointed out was that people with autism tend to focus on the “non-human in online roleplaying and games” which is something I’ve (unsurprisingly) seen a lot.
Got any stories about the non-human online thing?
That’s basically furries. Furries tend to be more likely to be autistic compared to the general population. I think non-autistic people tend to find furry stuff a bit uncanny at times, while autistic people can read them easily.
Yes i can see a overlap
So, it works with autists?
:-)
egg-fkin-zactly! You know how many people I have seen personify things they like? But…I don’t want the paper to be sad, so I guess I will read it =/!
This is going to sound horrible but 10/10 I am not reading this bullshit.
So it doesn’t feel sad; https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/autism/2018-white-2.pdf
I dont even personify people. Headline made me laugh though
it seems like every other week i discover that a trait i have is actually an autistic trait. my mind was blown when i first found out that kids tip-toeing can be a sign of them being on the autism spectrum (i’m diagnosed with Asperger’s and i was a tip-toeing kid)!
thankfully, i’m way too tired to read a potentially long paper. sorry, you would’ve been better without that manipulative title :(
The study is four pages long and is basically a survey with a couple different percentages of answers (autistic vs allistic) shown for the questions.
The neat part I noticed was the difference between men and women was a way bigger effect on the question “do you ever view objects as having gender” than the 'tism did.
I mean, apart from it being based on a subjective questionnaire - I see that they used t test and chi square and some of the results were significant, but when you look at the table, very often the percentages don’t vary or vary very little. Ok, a group had 14% vs 15% of a trait and the difference is significant, but when you take a step back you got to be careful with overinterpretation. To me, the table was all over the place. And to be fair, 80 ND and 250 NT aren’t exactly a huge sample size either. All in all, while an interesting paper, I think there are severe limitations to its significance and definitely needs further (and more profound) analysis.
But my being said, I am not from psychology studies, so maybe such approaches and numbers are more common? I’m from biomedical sciences and thus this reads more like a bachelor’s thesis.
Or
Hatred of manipulation in autism: How to ensure autists will flat out refuse to interact with you or your content
¯\(ツ)/¯
I mean, I thought it was funny.
And I didn’t… ¯\(ツ)/¯
deleted by creator
The title isn’t meant to be manipulative to trick you into reading the paper, it’s meant to be a clever way to make the title relevant to the actual topic of the study.
Grrr! Someone is having fun with their work! So childish, we can’t allow that!
