Well I’m just gonna have to pirate it EVEN HARDER.

Heh, thanks! No but my girlfriend hates that I don’t. I grew up reading books that my other (not crappy) older brother did and his influence greatly impacted my interest in science and language.

One brother is a psychopath, the other is literally the type of scientist that is changing the world. I’ve considered trying at writing some once I finish cleaning up my life from the people I’ve had to excise.

For what it’s worth, I just have spent my life having to constantly revise how I communicate and sometimes it helps. Usually it just annoys people if they aren’t really interested.

That’s a bit different, and as it should be, but then it’s likely clearer to just directly state the intent to protect the future generation.

“Family first” in my experience has always referred to the lateral or upstream bloodline. Deadbeat parents or lazy piece of crap siblings trying to justify grift or outright abuse.

I’m an ideal world, the phrase wouldn’t exist and people would just be decent; parents would prioritize their children and siblings etc would just help each other. I wish this were the case, but as with many others I’ve instead come to trust and rely on found family instead of bloodline.

And I’m forever in debt to my daughter. I will never expect her to put my life or needs before hers. My disgust at my own parents’ egotistical failings only magnified after personally experiencing becoming a parent.

Family is a sorting category word though, so while there’s truth to kids first, the phrase regarding family first is very very often abused to try forcing the hand of broken ties between the aging parent wanting the child to instead provide regardless of whether it’s deserved or not. It’s frequently an excuse for abusive siblings who’ve continually taken advantage of their kin.

Bluntly, relation is pure chance and does not immediately imply a debt with exception from “parents must care for their child” by social and biological need. I don’t owe my physically and mentally abusive parents or brother a damned thing except my disgust.

People in general, not just kin, need to earn respect and community with each other. The bond of parent caring for child doesn’t immediately imply the child owes the parent for “bringing them into this world”, and instead implies a larger scope debt toward that child then being indebted to any children they subsequently bring into this life.

“Family first” is such a contemptible load of crap. Primarily this idea only seems to be brought out by the same exact people that then abuse the notion.

Ok, but what type of autistic?

My brother and I are different types. He’s super genius, and it’s not Savantism. Crazy good physicist, but awkward.

My daughter is yet another. Smart, not like my brother but not an idiot. Absolutely all of hers is wrapped up in communicative and emotional disorders, with some associated tics and traits. She has to learn social interactions the hard way and still lives my mimic frequently.

I’m the one that was able to read body language absurdly accurately, to the point of fault and often pissing other folks of as I had no idea why they said something when it was absolutely false… This combined with a nearly faultless audio sense of memory (not eidetic) got my into frequent trouble with people getting mad at me not got arguing, but for always being right.

So I ask… Who exactly did they stick under the microscope here? I’m not bitching; I really want there to be more and better research here, but I’m skeptical of most that wraps up things in so neat a headline or category. What variations of spectrum? Did they compensate for more societal assumptions and myths than has been the history here?

The paper itself lists a highly limiting scope, with effectively a bias that would have eliminated all 3 of us from consideration for various reasons. Instead, they are polling data from effectively a group that in glance looks like a socially acceptable grouping, leaving out a huge block that have any metal illness diagnosis based on 2013 DSM… A joke in itself here.

I appreciate that they are trying to look at an early development baseline to see what forms differently at crucial 1-4 year ages and then watching confirmed formation changes in later life. My concern is that ruling out what at a glance is a huge sampling purely on assumption that “mental illness” and a few of the other limits they imposed have boxed them into the old single flavor diagnosis again.