Recognizing others by obsession

Post Reply New Topic

Yoing! I love the primitive yoshi sounds. Then yoshi said his name in later series.
oh, Yoshi's final smash in Brawl is awesome!

I wouldn't want everyone to know me solely by my obsession. People who don't know me well will be freaked to hear me being referred to as "the Dahmer kid."

Ha ha ha. The Sainsbury's man... that's what I was at one time in my life. I no longer have this obsession so now I guess I'm no-one.

I did the same thing when playing with that game!

*laughs at the game-theme obsessed*

See what you did IdahoRose? You created a situation where more than one aspie with the same obsession could meet in a thread that is not about their obsession, to talk about their obsession. We are all doomed! lol, j/k

Yeah, epistemology is indeed the philosophical study of understanding and knowledge, or as I like to call it, "the understanding of understanding", heh. It is actually one of my primary research areas in philosophy.


I am very curious about what this technical term is that you describe. I am not sure I am familiar with it. If you can figure it out, then do tell me. Otherwise, you could try giving me some more details about this technical term (like the definitions, ideas it refers to, uses, context, synonyms, difference from the word "epistemology", etc...), then I could try to find the word on my own. That is sort of what I do anyways, hah.

my husband was talking about this guy and I knew that I knew who he is but I couldn't remember. and we had some people over and he was trying to get me to remember and I couldn't. So he finally said (in front of everyone) "he is the guy with the laugh that makes your skin crawl and he misuses the word auspicious"

that I remembered

Yes, I do identify people using that method.

Have an inlaw who I refer to as Huggy Girl. Can't remember her name even now. Everyone knows who I'm talking about though. There was another bf of an inlaw who I called the guy-with-the-too-firm-handshake.

These things make people laugh.

Eventually, I'll get their names.

Lol, yeah, I kind of had a feeling that this thread would somehow veer off-topic. Not that I mind, of course. Now I can think of those people as "the Yoshi people".

Anyway, I've had a few game character obsessions myself. The first was Donkey Kong, and that was mainly because of his CG-animated TV spin-off. Of course I absolutely adored Pokemon, and I made up personalities for my various favorite Pokemon and acted them out. The biggest video game character obsessions for me were the casts of the Phoenix Wright and Trauma Center games. That was mainly because the characters were fleshed out with a lot of personality, so it was easy to become attached to them. It really helps that they were anime-styled, too.

Last edited by IdahoRose on 07 Dec 2008, 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, I do tend to remember people on here by that method. Like SpongeBobRocksMao, I tend to associate people by their avatar, and if the avatar in question is obviously of a special interest, then I remember the person better. I also remember the person if they have a very unique special interest, regardless of whether or not they have an avatar of it. The reason why I don't change my avatar on forums such as this is because of association with avatars/special interests that many people use.
-OddDuckNash99-

SQUEE. Pokémon... one of my other obsessions I'm currently playing Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Darkness right now on my DS in fact. I used to be completely Poké-obsessed. I have a whole ton of Pokémon merchandise and stuff back home.

I think that what the person is thinking of is a query against fundamental concept of existentialism. "I think therefore I am" as a starting point for defining your existence has a lot of consequences. Does what you think define what you are? Does this mean that there is no predetermination? Here is a quote from Wikipedia on existentialism's core concept, Existence precedes essence:

"It is often claimed in this context that man defines himself, which is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something - anything, a bird, for instance - and then be it. According to most existentialist philosophers, however, this would rather be a kind of bad faith. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts and (2) that he is responsible for his actions. To clarify, it can be said that a man who acts cruelly towards other people is, by that act, defined as a cruel man and in that same instance, he (as opposed to his genes, or "the cruel nature of man", for instance) is defined as being responsible for being this cruel man. As Sartre puts it in his Existentialism is a Humanism: "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." Of course, the more positive therapeutic aspect of this is also implied: You can choose to act in a different way, and to be a good person instead of a cruel person. Here it is also clear that since man can choose to be either cruel or good, he is, in fact, neither of these things essentially."

Am I defined by my obsessions? In the sense that they seep into my psyche, help shape it and alter me, yes, I am. Right now I am training new verbal skills and learning how to protect myself against hyperverbal, sociopathic harassers. In doing so, I am having difficulty avoiding being a hyperverbal b***h.

Whether or not a special interest is shaping my current existential landscape depends on what the subject is. A special interest topic that is social psychological, like learning how to deal with sociopaths or harassers, is more apt to affect my social personality than, say, learning an obscure cuisine. Because I get so immersed in my special interests, my external personality tends to shift dramatically every few months. It is possible to control that by getting more distance between myself and the special interest, but why do I need to do that?

Anyone who really knows me knows that if they don't like my current attitude and social postures, they only have to wait a few months until I'm doing something else. My husband just tunes me out if he doesn't want to hear about what I'm currently interested in, or if I get on his nerves. He tunes back in when I'm back onto his turf. I can say that he's not really enjoying my current b***h phase, tho.

Yes, you are right! But, that is good for you...people always recognize you, and know who you are.

But having said that, like many others, I tend to remember people mostly be their avatars. (Of course, that´s particularly easy when the avatar is the special interest too). I can get really confused if someone changes their avatar! It gets even worse when someone takes on someone else´s old avatar, yikes! I just associate them with the other person. So I´m going to keep my avatar.

Oh, for anyone who´s interested, my current obsession is...(drumroll please)...Asperger´s Syndrome. Hmmmm....

The main obsession of my life, and my job, etc., has been dance/theater. So now you can remember me better.

I don't think it would be difficult for anyone to figure out what my obsession is.. well one of them anyway

not everyone on wp has an obsession so they cannot be recognised by them.

I do not know, it's not something I have heard of being associated with AS before.
Someone started a thread (I think Tails) about channeling self-expression with aid of a (fictional) character's persona. This might perhaps be a form of social echolalia. At least some people posting had a fixation on the character they utilize in their self-expression.
That's not the same as you describe (the posters have a particular character whose social/expressive lexicon they are borrowing from, rather than dramatic shifts in external personality every few months). However, for at least some posters, the character is entailed in a 'special interest' fixation. Conceivably some might have serial characters and perhaps these change with a change in interests (which might still be superficially different to what you describe, yet could plausibly be a different manifestation of the same or substantively similar underlying causal mechanisms). Perhaps you could ask contributers in that thread if they change expression reliant on a character they are fixated on, if and when they change fixations.