Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
1–10 of 116 posts
Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
#2Side note: Be sure to check out Unpaywall[1][2] which allows you to (legally!!!) read research papers for free.
Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
#3Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
#4Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
#5Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
#6Re: Object personification in autism: This paper will be sad if you don't read (2018)
#7This 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)
#8My 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)
#9The 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)
#10I 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.)