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.
You need to take care of yourself first. Don’t set yourself on fire trying to help other people. It’s ok to say no if people are always asking you for stuff.
I often feel like the titular character from Ella Enchanted because I just can’t say no to someone who appears to need help, despite constantly being burned for doing so.
I’ve noticed this among people with autism or ADHD. A lot of them don’t like to say no, but it’s an important skill to develop. It can feel rude or uncompassionate, but you aren’t obligated to help anyone. Obviously if someone you know is in need and you don’t have another obligation, it’s good to go help them, but you shouldn’t feel obligated to go spend your afternoon at the mall if you don’t want to go because someone wants a ride.
That’s where it becomes pathological. Telling someone like me to “just say no” is like the same as saying “just don’t be depressed” or “just don’t be autistic.” I literally cannot. That’s why it’s a problem I seek medical help with.
@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.