This article picks apart a bunch of biases by the researchers of a given paper. The object of study was the differences in behavior between a group of autistic people and a group of non-autistic people when choosing between prioritizing value for oneself or value for the community.
I recommend reading the paper itself too. If that is, understandably, too much for you, I suggest you go for the introduction, the conclusion, and the segments mentioned in the article.
@r3df0x @SuddenDownpour That’s not remotely what this is referring to and it makes me wonder if you read the article at all?
They were comparing public vs private actions of allistics vs autistics and basically determined that autistics are more likely to be charitable/kind without needing recognition or attention to it.
The real findings:
* We’re less likely to differ our choices based on whether or not they’re perceived
* We’re more kind by default
What you’re talking about is a separate, but also common thing, called fawning. A trauma response that many of us also have in which we do whatever we think a person wants to avoid perceived threats and harm, even if that action itself causes us further harm.
This test did not examine fawning and did not examine charity at great personal cost. It was just whether or not someone would act charitably at personal expense or uncharitably at personal gain… an allistics basically were only good when people were watching while autistics were consistent regardless.