That’s not exclusive to autism. It’s common in all people
That’s not this situation.
Why not? What’s the difference in your eyes?
Because it’s a tiny study (underpowered), with major methodological problems. The study shows essentially nothing, and yet many people in this comments page are acting like it’s now a proven fact that this is a trait of autism. And even the paper itself says this trait isn’t necessarily any more common in autistic people than in the general population.
But they’re studying autistic people.
That’s like saying “study shows autistic people need to drink water to survive”. But all people need to drink water to survive, so it’s a meaningless statement to limit it to autistic people. It has no informative point.
This is a very poor take, and it is clear you didn’t even read the abstract before deciding the study is pointless. There is an obvious value in determing not just what traits are shared between autistic individuals and neurotypical individuals, but also determining the degree and intensity.
To use your example, what if the study on drinking water showed they needed less water than an average person? Could that not be valuable, and lead to further research?
This study identified an anomaly. Autistic people have trouble identifying with emotions in other people, but for some reason seem to have no problems doing so for objects. Isn’t that strange? Doesn’t that beg the further question of why? Great revelations in research are built on tiny stones like this.
But this is why we study things?
Here, read for yourself (PDF link)
Glancing at their results there
isappears to be a trend and that’s fine.To conclude, we have provided the first slice of empirical evidence to suggest that autistic individuals may demonstrate a propensity toward object personification and anthropomorphism. It must be noted that our clinical sample was based on self-report (rather than objectively verified diagnoses) and respondents were recruited via convenience sampling – both of which may reduce the generalisability of the findings. However the results appear to echo the anecdotal comments made by autistic individuals. Furthermore, in our review of online forums, we were struck by the distressing tone of many posts (WrongPlanet.net, 2017). Autistic individuals reported sadness and despair when faced with an object that might be hurt or lonely, and several asked whether they might receive “help for their problem”. It will be important for future work to establish the frequency with which object personification causes distress, and if necessary, to identify possible structures for providing support.
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.
You don’t have to read but just because something is present in varying degrees in the population as a whole doesn’t mean specific subset can’t generally experience it to a higher degree.
Everyone sometimes feels anxious or like they can’t focus, but that doesn’t mean Anxiety Disorders or ADHD isn’t a thing.
Yes, it feels like psuedo-science and I am open to reading a lot but going two seconds into this I wanted to monkey scream in the individual Rebekah, etc. all’s face for being such dips.
I wish I could produce bullshit for a living and get paid for it too.
I’m sorry this is causing you such distress. Is it the tongue-in-cheek title or the entire concept of the study that bothers you?
Super tired, and I don’t really have the energy to dedicate to having to uphold my idealism right now. But I’ll give you a sloppy sandwich smattering of my thoughts.
a) Autism is super “on-trend” nowadays and people act like it’s not a gamut of experiences, mindsets, qualities, etc. Brain hurts, but what I mean is we’re all literal freakin’ snowflakes - and we really are all different.
b) But also it’s not like - an explicitly autistic trait. Nor is it so frequent that it’s worth pointing out as something explicitly autistic. Because humans like to find humanistic qualities in all thing and while logic might reign supreme nowadays (in theory) we have always worshiped trees, and ships, and land and thought of them to some extent as human. And we see faces in things on the regular, because it’s literally how our brains (I’d have to guess all of them - not just neurotypicals who are the main focus of 90% of studies) are wired to work. One way or the other.
c) And people do need to study minorities of all types in general more often. And people of all walks and existences are completely valid and worth the time and money. But that’s also why when we go online, and post a survey, and then supposit it as the “truth” especially in a scientific form such as a journal or a study - it’s absolute bullshit because your data isn’t clean. But also, what are you challenging your data with? It’s a fun social “science” kinda thing, but it’s really bold to push a theory that isn’t substantially backed up. That’s why we can’t say aluminum causes breast cancer, but we can say - that in a study breast cancer survivors showed to have higher concentrations of aluminum in their breast tissue to those of a similar age who had never suffered from the disease.
d) But also there’s a large swath of individuals out there who get a cookie for existing in the right space, time and place as compared to others. And by this I mean people get grants, or can use research, or even altered projects to pocket themselves into wealth and it’s absolutely utilizing privilege to sustain comfort levels. There’s a ton of autistic individuals who could probably tell you something similar to what this study did (which I just believe is aggregated data) just based off a hunch. But they aren’t riding on a wave of grant money. Or if that’s not the case here - leading to a space where they can ride a wave of grant money in the future. And this isn’t something that just affects neurodivergent people. In general, if you have something “wrong” with you - you’re more prone to being underemployed or unemployable (to society’s eyes) and most times these things are compound “issues” which include gender, race, mental health, mental disorders, physical disabilities, class, education, sociability (such as attractiveness and general acceptance rate), location - etc. I once dated a gal who said she dated a guy before me - who got paid to go to college from his parents. Got everything in life handed to him. Got a job straight out of college. Never really had to work, even when he was “working” just sat at a desk and got paid three figures. I know he’s not alone in this. I know he’s also not the majority. But as I have moved around this country, I have seen how heavily inequality hits. Some people just live it large, and others are constantly sinking. And neither side really seems to know about one another, but it’s a blessing to not have to live in wanting. And people who get to exist by peddling bullshit and not even realizing it are scum-suckers to me.
e) But I also don’t do well with people who say sorry like a handshake. Say it if you mean it, and not to be a passive-aggressive tunt on the internet. You can do better. We can all do better.
f) Also last one - being that we as a group of individuals don’t have to put our fingers over our faces like mustaches and think “look at how creative and different we are! We’re so special, and this paper proves it. RDRR!” Because we’re not some homogeneous blob. Superficial forms of validation can be nice, but at the end of the day - they’re the same as drinking sugar water. Real validation comes from inside. Just being aware of the fact that you are a human being, a complex creature, and filled with your own set of wants and needs. And they have ever right to be met, because you’re you. And this is more of an ableist-y kinda argument but what I mean is - I have read a handful of beautiful things since arriving here (PieFed). And I put the effort in, because I think that science is important, and these pieces help us grow not only as a person but as a people all together. But I need it to have substance. And when something is so iffy, and so flawed - but everyone is clapping at it - then are we really putting in the effort to read it? Or are we looking at the summary - thinking “YEAH, THAT’S RIGHT! WE’RE SO COOL!” and celebrating it. Which - by all means celebrate who you are. But don’t get caught up in this snake oil crap. Because like - these are the people who later become “consultants” and “specialist” and go on Youtube and have special programs to reach out to other “autists” (and idk who these people are so this is just an assumption based off of serial killer logic in which you kill who you’re sexually attracted to - so you’re more than likely to study who you’re attached to) and create micro-cults of brain-drained heads that form that dreaded sounding board or hive-mindedness or whatever they call that thing that happens when all the opinions are the same and you make everything a “safe-space” by removing anyone who doesn’t walk or talk like you.
But also apologies if I hurt your feelings right back at you - because I am an intense person with intense emotions and opinions and I can only speak my mind on this stuff. But also I am in an advancedly crummy mood because the mental thresholds of my pain and currently being pressed to their limits. So here’s a grumpy, scummy shit mess of a series of posts. It’s just how I feel. At the end of the day - my opinions mean nothing and I absolutely will not think of this in any means other than “this is how not to do a study” in the future. Because it’s just my opinion on the matter.
Now this makes me look into it … 🤔 I appreciate you expressing your current state of being and full-of-thought-ness. No worries, not monstrous but human with some gravity. May your needs be fulfilled, wherever you are.
e) But I also don’t do well with people who say sorry like a handshake. Say it if you mean it, and not to be a passive-aggressive tunt on the internet. You can do better. We can all do better.
While I may be Canadian I want you to know I was being sincere.
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!
