Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

sciencedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 386 posts

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#191

Post by Name_Chawps »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #179
nathan_compton wrote: post #116

I have mild autism (not entirely politically correct to describe it that way) without intellectual impairments and I frankly see normal people as disabled.

Frankly that superiority complex may be why neurodivergent people with similar ideas about "normal" people have issues getting along with others, no offense.

Autistic people are often seen as arrogant because they speak honestly about their strengths (and weaknesses), whereas normal people avoid speaking honestly about their strengths unless they are arrogant.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#192

Post by Name_Chawps »

samplatt wrote: post #168
explorigin wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ASD is very dynamic. It is not linear spectrum, think of it more like a polar graph. I would think 67 may be enough people to get an idea for one "hallmark" but certainly not all of them as a comprehension.

Many ASD-related surveys are not confirmed-diagnosed either, but only self-reporting as ASD. I mean I get it, it'd be a colossal pain to verify all that medical data, but it also makes for bad science.

If you self report as autistic, you're probably autistic. Especially because, in practice, an autistic person is defined as someone who self-reports autistic traits to a health care provider.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#193

Post by Name_Chawps »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #145
omginternets wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often remarked (informally) that autistic people seem to operate under the assumption that the explicitly-stated rules are the actual rules. "Help others in need" would be the go-to example of how this confusion(?) can lead to a positive outcome.

How is “help others in need” confusingly explicit? Maybe it’s my neurodivergence talking but that seems pretty straightforward advice.

Sometimes those in need don't want your help.

Sometimes you aren't skilled or knowledgeable enough to help, and you'll just do more harm than good if you try.

Sometimes by helping, you'll cause more harm to yourself than you'll prevent in the other person.

Etc.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#194

Post by swayvil »

akomtu wrote: post #134

"Autists ignore the herd mentality" in other words.

Autists are like a computer without a network connection. They have to write all their software themselves. Which has advantages and disadvantages. Also they don't get spam or facebook.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#195

Post by Name_Chawps »

dukeyukey wrote: post #142
nyanmatt wrote: post #20

“With autism” A large portion of the autistic community is very against this phrasing. Autism is not a disease you carry, or something you “have”. It should be used as an adjective to describe a person: “Autistic people less likely to succumb to bystander effect” Edit: If you follow through to the actual paper referenced you can see they use the correct phrasing.

I've been told to use both "autistic person" and "person with autism", and that the alternate phrase is bad. For any individual I'll use whichever they prefer, but there is no consensus of this whatsoever.

The "with autism" stuff seems to be pushed by relatives of autistic people. I doubt most autistic people would care.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#196

Post by _8j50 »

lusus_naturae wrote: post #189

Standing up for people who can't is important, but any situation calls ensuring your own safety as well—you can't help anyone if you end up a victim yourself. The worse story in recent memory is of someone who got stabbed to death in a subway because they spoke up against someone else being racist.

The only time I got in a serious fight in high school was when I saw a kid get beaten up by bullies. I mean, I was even weaker than him and got really beaten up myself but I lander a few hits and I am still proud of myself for getting beaten up. They left that kid alone after that.

I saw someone getting bullied up at the workplace, eventually got fired. Wanted to do something but I was afraid for my own job. Lo and behold, it didn't matter how good or succesful I was at my job, the circle of shit came back around eventually to where I was on the business end of things. I got what I deserved.

I do my best to avoid people and situations in general that might end up in me witnessing this kind of shit again but I don't think I can not do anything that way again.

I don't think being averse to cowardice makes you autistic though. What's the purpose of these articles and research? Find more ways to label and box people in so they can be more easily dismissed?

"Oh, we're not a bunch of bullies and cowards, that person is just autistic or 'on the spectrum'?" Is that it? Shouldn't everyone resist the bystander effect? Isn't this research doing more harm to that effect than good?

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#197

Post by golergka »

lucubratory wrote: post #187
aeyes wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person on the spectrum "help others in need" is actually a very difficult concept because I don't really care about them. When something happens around me where I'm not directly involved my instinct is to ignore it or to get out of the situation so that I can go on with my life. The only difference is when I see unfairness or injustice, then I feel like I have to do something about it. But it usually isn't about…

I am autistic as well and what you are saying makes no sense to me. When someone is in need around me and requires help, by definition they need help and are not currently receiving it, which is an injustice and unfair. Therefore I have to remedy the injustice, therefore I have to help. That is how I experience the autistic sense of justice. How are you reconciling that contradiction?

Why do you perceive somebody who needs held and requires it as injustice? Helping others is an ethical thing, the right thing to do, but never an obligation that we owe them.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#198

Post by pc86 »

mcronce wrote: post #164
permo-w wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this effect seems to be especially true in airports. they seem to particularly inspire dumb herd behaviour. perhaps there's an increase in perceived danger leading to a stronger desire for safety in numbers? another example: queueing to board the plane. other than to fit in, why on earth would I stand there and compete to spend more time in a sweaty uncomfortable seat packed with 400 other people? plus, if you get on…

My intuition is that, in addition to what you mentioned and at least for longer flights, some people have residual effects from the mild hypoxia at altitude when they're on the ground in their destination airport. I, at least, sure as hell feel dumber for the rest of the day after a six hour flight. Usually that's accompanied by a fairly debilitating headache.

Commercial airline cabins are pressurized to at most 8k feet; there are no hypoxic effects at that altitude, at least not on decision-making. You don't need continuous oxygen on the flight deck until either 14 or 14.5k feet (in the US, EU might be slightly different). The FAA is dogmatic and wrong about a lot of things, but if there was even the slightest bit of evidence showing decreased decision-making or cognition at lower altitudes, they'd be requiring oxygen immediately, economic consequences be damned.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#199

Post by oreally »

wkat4242 wrote: post #140
nathan_compton wrote: post #116

I have mild autism (not entirely politically correct to describe it that way) without intellectual impairments and I frankly see normal people as disabled.

I know what you mean. I remember one time I got off the plane in Italy and I was walking with my girlfriend to customs. At one point we branched off from all the other passengers and she was like "hey we're going the wrong way, everyone is heading there". And I said nope this is the EU passengers exit, look at the sign. She couldn't believe it was right because the plane was full of others from our EU country. All th…

Same here. Got an anti-herd mentality that while beneficial in some ways, is detrimental in other areas associated with the social aspects. It's also given me a bit of a misanthropic outlook as well.

Re: People with autism less likely to succumb to bystander effect, research finds

#200

Post by userbinator »

Gigachad wrote: post #137
nyanmatt wrote: post #20

“With autism” A large portion of the autistic community is very against this phrasing. Autism is not a disease you carry, or something you “have”. It should be used as an adjective to describe a person: “Autistic people less likely to succumb to bystander effect” Edit: If you follow through to the actual paper referenced you can see they use the correct phrasing.

The journalists and corporate communication people seem to be in disagreement with this. There has been a big push to change everything to be "person of" or "person with". "Person with vision impairment" rather than "blind person". To emphasize that they are regular people first.

Those have very different meanings to me. "vision impairment" suggests at least some degree of vision, while "blind" is basically "can't see at all."
Post reply on HN