"Passions" vs "special interests"

Post Reply New Topic

Words are powerful tools in the neurotypical world. Tools of control.

For example, the words "obsessed" and "devoted" are basically describing the same thing, though "obsessed" has a deeply flawed connotation while "devoted" has a deeply positive connotation. When the nazis came to power in Germany, they worked to change the conception of reality of the German people by revaluing words (for example "blind fanaticism" became a positive term).

The term "special interests" is also a loaded term. For a NT, it is describing interests which are somewhat marginal and fringe. For example, when a NT is interested in trains and railways of the 19th century, it is seen as a harmless hobby. If an undiagnosed aspie or a NT who at the same time has an intense interest in something while being in an important or respected social position is having an intense interest, he or she is "eccentric" (Michael Jackson, Rod Stewart).

When an aspie is having an intense interest in something, its defined as a "special interest". That means that it is "unnatural", "on the fringe", "special", for the NT mind meaning that the interest isn't normal but abnormal, due to the fact that the individual due to a different brain structure is abnormal and thus not a full individual with a full emotional life.

Most neurotypicals don't define their interests as the centre of their life. Instead it is just one piece of the puzzle which is defining their social position in society and their relationship with their surroundings. Thus, to call what is rightfully our passions - what is making us tick - "special interests", is to denigrate us as human beings.

We cannot change that and shouldn't complain about anything so petty, but we should really use a more positively loaded word, like "passions" or "devotions" about our cherished projects. Then, we would not only raise ourselves, but also help NT's to understand us better.

NT's don't have the term special interest in their vocabulary unless they're acquainted and knowledgeable with Asperger's Syndrome. For this reason an autistic special interest would present as an obsession or eccentric to them.

My special interests seem clinical to me anyway. I have no idea why I latch on to something and obsess over it to no end. I don't even know why I like the things I like sometimes. My interests have been as odd as being obsessed with a certain website that sold products and having to check it multiple times a day and make various complex lists of their new products, to something more "normal" like a language or religion. Spending hours and hours on these and constantly thinking about them is clinical, it's a special interest.

I disagree. I often feel "obsessed" and it's like some subject has taken over my mind and my thoughts and my whole life. And occasionally they are bizarre subjects that I would rather not be interested in at all. Sure, it can be a very positive thing too, but it's definitely obsessive for me.

This is not about how things are, but how to present things to the world. Those two are two wholly different issues, and labelling is essential in the world today.

When I hear the term "special interests", I think about corporations, religious denominations and civil organisations pestering politicians with demands, and occasionally smoothing them with bribes. Not positive connotations.

I dislike the term "special interest" because to me it sounds like it implies that the hobbies of people on the autistic spectrum are more "special" than those of NTs, which I think is unfair because everybody's interests mean something to them whether they are autistic or not. On the other hand, another way the term "special interest" could be interpreted is that the "special" is a shortened form of the word "specialized", which makes more sense since that implies knowing a lot of facts about the interest, which autistic people are prone to doing.

For awhile on this website, the word "obsession" was generally used to describe interests. When I started using the word "obsession" in real life, I became aware of the negative connotations of it, such as how it is used in reference to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

I think that the word "passions" is the best word to use. Nowadays I try to say "I'm really passionate about ____" instead of "I'm obsessed with ____" or "____ is my special interest". It just sounds so much nicer in my opinion. As a Christian, the word "devotion" carries some religious connotations, and I never want to compare enjoying a hobby to religious worship, since idolatry is expressly forbidden. So I'm sticking with "passions".

Words and phrases are always being re-evaluated in terms of political correctness, n****r.

I don't understand why there is stigma associated with OCD anyway. I don't have these negative associations with words or conditions that other people apparently have. I remember learning the hard way as a teenager that you weren't supposed to tell other people that you went to a psychiatrist and I'm still finding it hard to get through my head that telling people you have depression or another mood disorder makes them see you as unstable or untrustworthy or something - I forget this because it makes no sense whatsoever. But I guess it's because people in our society are so judgmental and everything different has to be stigmatized.

I feel that if I allowed other people's perceptions of what is "negative" to shape the way that used language, I would never say anything. Maybe being able to change the way that people speak by attaching negativity to everything they say is the real power.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH BEING OBSESSIVE ABOUT SOMETHING??? And what on earth is wrong with being different?

If someone I've known for a while tells me that they have depression or schizophrenia or bipolar or whatever, it doesn't bother me. But I get "itchy to get away" if someone tells me something like that within the first ten minutes or so of meeting them. The reason, at least in my case, is that I have had almost universally bad experiences with people who disclose important personal information -- intimate sexual revelations, stories of being institutionalized, diagnoses of mental illnesses, etc. -- before we have had a chance to get to know one another.

While I don't enjoy pointless small talk, I also get nervous about people who are trying to make me their "instantly intimate friend" and that's what revealing a mental illness almost immediately upon meeting me feels like: like they're trying to go from stranger to best friend in 60 seconds or less. I just don't trust people who instantly act like I'm they're best friend, whether through disclosing intimate details about their life or whether trying to manipulate me into buying something or converting to their religion or whatever.

So, for me, it has nothing to do with the neurodiversity of the individual. I'm cool with that. It has to do with having developed a social rubric concerning who is more safe or less safe to trust. Since I don't "read" people very well, I have had to develop these sorts of heuristics -- even realizing that it might make me bigoted. It's just a matter of self-preservation.

(And, of course, the heuristic goes out the window in specialized circumstances. For instance, at a meeting for college students with mental illnesses, if someone introduces themselves to me and then tells me that they have depression or schizophrenia or whatever, it's "appropriate disclosure" and doesn't fall into the same category as someone introducing themselves to me as a person with a mental illness when we meet at a meeting with nothing to do with mental illness.)

Uh, I have OCD too. It's just that I don't want people getting mixed up, thinking that my passions are the same thing as OCD urges. I guess I should have made myself clearer in the original post. Sorry about that. Please forgive me.

In my opinion, Dr_Horrible has a point. Subtle differences in nomenclature can have a significant impact on how a statement is perceived. However, I feel this is not limited to NT people but applies to AS as well. An example of this would be: "Last night my husband was on the couch sawing logs" to many with AS such a statement could be mistaken for the literal cutting up wood on the furniture. Whereas to most NT people the statement would obviously mean that the husband was asleep and snoring on the couch. I am guilty of being inarticulate at times with dire results. I will certainly give more thought to my word choices in the future.

In my opinion, the difference for people with AS is that, whatever the interest is, it becomes more like research than a hobby. If I like something I see it as a study opportunity instead of just something fun.

Ah no, it's ok, my irritation was not directed at you - I had a bad experience recently relating to this, that's all. It was more anger about that. Sorry!

I can understand that. I don't think I've ever said anything personal about myself to someone that I'd only met after ten minutes ... what you are describing sounds ominous to me, as well. I guess when I was growing up, and to some degree also now, I just didn't have a good sense of what was "personal" and what wasn't. I wasn't trying to manipulate people or make them my instant friends by sharing personal information, I had no concept whatsoever of doing such a thing - it was more that I didn't automatically learn what sorts of thing you were supposed to keep to yourself or for how long or with which people. I guess you are helping me see that my naivete could be mistaken for something worse.

But I do think that not everyone is as tolerant as you are.

I do the same thing. Sometimes I open my mouth and stuff comes out that I didn't expect and isn't appropriate. It's like I have no filter and have to exert conscious control all the time when I'm speaking to people to make up for not having automatic filters.



I'm pretty sure I'm more tolerant than most people, just going by the casual comments that people make about stuff. I'm pretty open-minded and I'm not afraid of the "boogeyman" of mental illness. I grew up with a schizophrenic aunt and that's usually considered the "scariest" of the mental illnesses but it doesn't bother me because it's so familiar. I even dated a schizophrenic guy for a couple of months. It ended fairly well and he tried to get me to go out with him again a year later and all I said was, "dude, remember how that turned out last time?" and he said, "oh. yeah." and we kept hanging out (with some other people as well) the rest of the evening, no hard feelings.

But I also think that a lot of people are more open-minded about someone they've known for a while and gotten to know fairly well in other aspects than they are about strangers or even about ideas in general. People will accept an awful lot of stuff that's otherwise outside their normal comfort zone from people they know and trust and respect. But they'll also usually keep it a secret from their other friends that they know someone "strange." Possibly fear of "guilt by association"? Who knows.

I have never really have that particular problem, and has always been able to understand similes. One of my problems have been my constant use of strange, uncommon similes to affirm my points, which actually have left neurotypicals confused on whether or not they should interpret me literally or not. I am also using irony a lot. When I was evaluated by a child psychiatrist in 1993-1994, they did not want to put an Asperger's diagnosis on me since I literally balanced on the edge of the spectrum.

This pretty much sums it up for myself. As far as my ODS, his 'interest' in vacuum cleaners from 1-4 years old WAS an obsession. It dominated his every being. Every conversation included something about the vacuum cleaner. He searched for everyone's vacuum cleaners. He pretended to vacuum all day long. That IS an obsession. I'm sure glad it eventually passed. Those three years were looooooooooooooong. The only plus is, while it is no longer an 'obsession,' he still finds joy in vacuuming at only five-years-old!