Live data from Hacker News

Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

1–10 of 116 posts

Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

#2
This sounds fascinating. Too bad the paper is not freely available.

Side note: Be sure to check out Unpaywall[1][2] which allows you to (legally!!!) read research papers for free.

[1]: https://unpaywall.org/products/extension

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31271101

Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

#6
I always had the impression it was the other way around, non autistic 'normal' people personifies non human objects. Anyway I always had a pet theory that the reason some people are fooled into thinking LLM text output is a real human with feelings, and some aren't, comes down to this difference in brains. (Personally I never feel like the LLM is a real human and I'm kind of autistic too.)

Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

#7
post #2

This sounds fascinating. Too bad the paper is not freely available. Side note: Be sure to check out Unpaywall[1][2] which allows you to (legally!!!) read research papers for free. [1]: https://unpaywall.org/products/extension [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31271101

haha thanks, i was just thinking how cruel for the paper to paywall it!!

Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

#8
I don't have access to the full text, but based on the abstract I think it's likely that I relate to this phenomenon (I am autistic).

My experience is not so much the attribution of human characteristics to non-human objects, but I understand why this might be the only accessible language of expression. For me, if a useful object is damaged or otherwise loses its usefulness through neglect or malice, I experience something like an emotional response. A good example would be a dull knife. There's something "sad" about an object whose nature or purpose it is to be sharp to lose or lack that sharpness.

Or perhaps a more subtle example would be a room whose contents are haphazard or in disarray. In that situation I would sense a lack of care or attention and there might be an emotional feeling that these objects had not been respected or appreciated.

It's (usually) easy for most people to care about other people. It's a little less easy, though still pretty common, for people to care about animals. The further away from recognizably human you get, the less people seem to care: e.g. insects, plants, bacteria, viruses, etc. For me there is something that "scales" down all the way to inanimate objects.

Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

#9
I'll stop personifying objects when they stop having personalities!

The abstract seems to suggest that object personification is common with people who don't have autism too, perhaps less common than with people that have autism. This more or less tracks with my intuition that object personification is normal. People do it all the time with ships, cars, guns, computers, or whatever other machines they work with, whatever is important to them and complex enough to have a personality of its own.

Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)

#10
post #6

I always had the impression it was the other way around, non autistic 'normal' people personifies non human objects. Anyway I always had a pet theory that the reason some people are fooled into thinking LLM text output is a real human with feelings, and some aren't, comes down to this difference in brains. (Personally I never feel like the LLM is a real human and I'm kind of autistic too.)

I'm not fooled whatsoever into thinking LLMs are human, but I am polite in how I interact with them because the language that I use impacts my experience. Same goes with how I interact with anything, linguistically or not.
Post reply on HN