It made me want to read it.

That's not exclusive to autism. It's common in all people

- That's not this situation.
But they're studying autistic people.
- That's like saying "study shows autistic people need to drink water to survive". But all people need to drink water to survive, so it's a meaningless statement to limit it to autistic people. It has no informative point.
Iirc, the point of the paper was that autistic people tend to do it more than non-autistic people, and on a broader scale.

Interestingly, one thing it pointed out was that people with autism tend to focus on the "non-human in online roleplaying and games" which is something I've (unsurprisingly) seen a lot.
- Got any stories about the non-human online thing?
So, it works with autists?

:-)
egg-fkin-zactly! You know how many people I have seen personify things they like? But...I don't want the paper to be sad, so I guess I will read it =/!

This is going to sound horrible but 10/10 I am not reading this bullshit.
- You don't have to read but just because something is present in varying degrees in the population as a whole doesn't mean specific subset can't generally experience it to a higher degree.
  
  Everyone sometimes feels anxious or like they can't focus, but that doesn't mean Anxiety Disorders or ADHD isn't a thing.

So it doesn't feel sad; https://gwern.net/doc/psychiatry/autism/2018-white-2.pdf

I dont even personify people. Headline made me laugh though

it seems like every other week i discover that a trait i have is actually an autistic trait. my mind was blown when i first found out that kids tip-toeing can be a sign of them being on the autism spectrum (i'm diagnosed with Asperger's and i was a tip-toeing kid)!

thankfully, i'm way too tired to read a potentially long paper. sorry, you would've been better without that manipulative title :(

The study is four pages long and is basically a survey with a couple different percentages of answers (autistic vs allistic) shown for the questions.

The neat part I noticed was the difference between men and women was a way bigger effect on the question "do you ever view objects as having gender" than the 'tism did.
- I mean, apart from it being based on a subjective questionnaire - I see that they used t test and chi square and some of the results were significant, but when you look at the table, very often the percentages don't vary or vary very little. Ok, a group had 14% vs 15% of a trait and the difference is significant, but when you take a step back you got to be careful with overinterpretation. To me, the table was all over the place. And to be fair, 80 ND and 250 NT aren't exactly a huge sample size either. All in all, while an interesting paper, I think there are severe limitations to its significance and definitely needs further (and more profound) analysis.
  
  But my being said, I am not from psychology studies, so maybe such approaches and numbers are more common? I'm from biomedical sciences and thus this reads more like a bachelor's thesis.

Or

Hatred of manipulation in autism: How to ensure autists will flat out refuse to interact with you or your content

¯\(ツ)/¯

I mean, I thought it was funny.
- And I didn't... ¯\(ツ)/¯
Seriously, who thought this was a good title for the paper? I'm not a child, don't treat me like one because I have autism. I know the difference between inanimate objects and people.
- The title isn't meant to be manipulative to trick you into reading the paper, it's meant to be a clever way to make the title relevant to the actual topic of the study.
- Grrr! Someone is having fun with their work! So childish, we can't allow that!