Doctor: "Obsession not weird enough"

[Kalinychta]

The pre-tv and pre-internet does make a difference. With internet you can learn as much as you possibly can about a subject. Before that, you had only what you had access to - which, with music was the album covers and inserts.

Oh yes, I see what you mean. By “Internet,” I was thinking about Facebook and games and such—addictive entertainment that just passes the time. I just got an enormous book about frogs and toads the other day and was questioned about it several times because it’s unusual to be interested in anything other than TV shows and video games and YouTube. Generally speaking.

 

[Nightingale121]

This is the section about special interests in the DSM V:
"Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests)." (Diagnostic Criteria | Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | NCBDDD | CDC)

This is the corresponding section in the ICD-10:
"An encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that are abnormal in content or focus; or one or more interests that are abnormal in their intensity and circumscribed nature though not in their content or focus" (ICD-10 Criteria for "Childhood Autism"* | Interactive Autism Network)
The same criteria apply to Asperger's syndrome as well (ICD-10 Diagnostic Criteria for Research : F84.5 - Asperger’s Syndrome* | Interactive Autism Network).

According to both the content isn't the only aspect to base the assessment of this part of the diagnostic criteria on; the intensity and focus should be considered as well.

It's not the subject, but the obsession that makes it an obsession. Right?

According to the sources I quoted above I would say that you are probably right.

 

[Fino]

This had more to do with fitting his preconceived notions of an autistic person than it had to do with how an obsession is defined. It's impossible to logically look at "obsession" and think the subject is relevant. That's just way out there.

 

[Aspychata]

The thing l don't understand is l will reread a book a 1000 times because l like the writer, the context, the theme. I would do that then read a so so book. So l don't understand how this is considered obsessive. My daughter watched The Wizard of Oz really age 4 like 20 times in one day. She was mesmorized obviously. She ended up doing a lot of writing in 2nd grade. I don't consider it obessive but l am not a clinician.

 

[Judge]

The thing l don't understand is l will reread a book a 1000 times because l like the writer, the context, the theme. I would do that then read a so so book. So l don't understand how this is considered obsessive.

Agreed. But then this is one Neurodiverse person to the other. For every new film I see, I likely see 100 that I have already seen any number of times. I've never seen it as a form of "deviant" behavior in the least. Just my choice of optimizing my time in my own way. If it doesn't meet the expectations of others, they can take a hike.

Consider who is setting the standards and benchmarks for such an otherwise ambiguous term. The "other team" doesn't necessarily follow logic in the same manner that we do. But they still make the rules.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

Are autists the only people that have an interest in bugs? Or dinosaurs? Or rocks?

Clearly not. I actually have insectophobia and arachnophobia. I'm even afraid of butterflies.

In order to answer your question, my obsessions aren't very intense, but they are quite varied, and my interest in something might fluctuate.

 

[Crossbreed]

I never owned a 'pet rock.'

They need to stay free!

Born Free (1966)

(My Joes, Barbies & I can't think of any weird collections that I might have...

)

 

[Aspychata]

I was diagnosed with autism but one thing still irritates me about the doctor that gave me my diagnosis. He was asking about obsessions and actually told me mine were not unusual enough to fit the category of autism obsessions. It's not the subject, but the obsession that makes it an obsession. Right? Seriously if you go by the subject - ok, bugs are acceptable according to him. Why? Are autists the only people that have an interest in bugs? Or dinosaurs? Or rocks?

Actually I had a strong interest in rocks when I was young - BUT, other than the backyard and driveway and a two-book encyclopedia set, I didn't have much access to anything else. So therefore it doesn't count.
I mentioned to him that when I was a teenager I was obsessed with my music. His response was that all teenagers have an interest in music. No - they all enjoyed the music, but I had to know every bit of information accessable on the album cover - who played what instrument, who wrote the lyrics, who wrote the music, any information available I had to know it. I could tell by the sound who was playing - I knew who had what sound. I would lay with earphones on and just hear each sound and pick out who was playing what and who was singing which part. I had to know all these things. Anyone else I knew didn't care, they just either liked a song or not. But because it isn't a subject that's way out there, it wasn't an obsession?

There are no possible subjects that are way out there.

Summer before last I started watching grizzlies at Brooks Falls in Alaska. I knew them by name and they each had their own habits and ways of catching fish and ways of eating fish and their own personalities. My favorite was 'Backpack' - he pounced on the fish and it reminded me of my dog, Honey. But I spent hours every day watching them and studying how each had their own traits and how each reacted to the others - by the way - they all had their own spot at the falls and all respected each others' spot even when that bear was not present.

So do you think it's the subject matter or the amount of time and study that makes something an autistic obsession?

Maybe you should tell him you have a new hobby. You collect paper toilet rolls and group them by roll color and density of the cardboard used? And ask him if he has any contributions to your new obsession. Or dead bug heads, l feel l am on a roll here. The problem is saying this with a absolutely straightface.

 

[Nervous Rex]

The thing l don't understand is l will reread a book a 1000 times because l like the writer, the context, the theme.

I get hooked on writers and read everything by them. I went through phases of Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, Piers Anthony, David Brin, Arthur Conan Doyle, Lewis Carroll, C.S. Lewis. I'm currently reding everything by Brandon Sanderson.

 

[Nervous Rex]

my interest in something might fluctuate.

I wonder about that, too. I get intensely interested in something, and after a few months, I might move onto something else. I was obsessed with Monty Python at one point, and then Doctor Who, but I dropped them both. Once I drop it, I could care less about it - because I found a new thing.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

I wonder about that, too. I get intensely interested in something, and after a few months, I might move onto something else. I was obsessed with Monty Python at one point, and then Doctor Who, but I dropped them both. Once I drop it, I could care less about it - because I found a new thing.

My interest in Monster Hunter has never stopped, though. It has stuck around with me since I bought 4 Ultimate.

 

[Judge]

In general I get the impression that virtually any manifestation of repetition and/or intensity is a kind of "taboo" behavior in the Neurotypical world. As if it implies mental instability of some kind.

For we on the spectrum, not so much. PERIOD!

Luckily I don't see anyone picking me up for binge-watching the entire series of Battlestar Gallactica.

For the sixth time. Ok, maybe the seventh. I lose track.

 

[Crossbreed]

I was obsessed with Monty Python at one point, and then Doctor Who, but I dropped them both. Once I drop it, I could care less about it - because I found a new thing.

I go as far as I can and exhaust my interests as far as my resources can cover. I do not drop them, but set them aside. When I discover a new, related bit of info, I revisit that subject.

 

[Aspychata]

@Nervous Rex Seriously, it's fine to change your interests because we are inspired by different things. Are we more prone to this then NT's? How can we say this is right, this wrong about interests? Are we able to take in huge amounts of information vs our NT brother or sister who could care less about data gathering capabilities. We as a group are still here, so as far as survival instinct, it didn't kill us.

 

[Judge]

I go as far as I can and exhaust my interests as far as my resources can cover. I do not drop them, but set them aside. When I discover a new, related bit of info, I revisit that subject.

I do pretty much the same. Though a "hiatus" of an interest might last decades.

 

[Rectify]

I read that this is one of the reasons that women/girls are less likely to be diagnosed, because our obsessions have a tendency to be less unusual and so go unnoticed. Personally my obsessions are very normal (fiction) until you find out I re-read the same book dozens of times in a row. The team which diagnosed me certainly thought that this counted as autistic special interests.

Yes, it's a problem for girls.
Some of my obsessions were weird, but not all - and they don't have to be.

 

[SolarPoweredNightOwl]

I go as far as I can and exhaust my interests as far as my resources can cover. I do not drop them, but set them aside. When I discover a new, related bit of info, I revisit that subject.

I find I tend to fixate on something, immerse myself in it for a period of time, and then abruptly lose interest. By abruptly I mean I'll fixate for months or even years and then lose all interest literally overnight. Sometimes I come back to it after a period of time--there's a few interests I tend to cycle between--but just as often I never look back.

 

[grommet]

I was diagnosed with autism but one thing still irritates me about the doctor that gave me my diagnosis. He was asking about obsessions and actually told me mine were not unusual enough to fit the category of autism obsessions. It's not the subject, but the obsession that makes it an obsession. Right? Seriously if you go by the subject - ok, bugs are acceptable according to him. Why? Are autists the only people that have an interest in bugs? Or dinosaurs? Or rocks?

Actually I had a strong interest in rocks when I was young - BUT, other than the backyard and driveway and a two-book encyclopedia set, I didn't have much access to anything else. So therefore it doesn't count.
I mentioned to him that when I was a teenager I was obsessed with my music. His response was that all teenagers have an interest in music. No - they all enjoyed the music, but I had to know every bit of information accessable on the album cover - who played what instrument, who wrote the lyrics, who wrote the music, any information available I had to know it. I could tell by the sound who was playing - I knew who had what sound. I would lay with earphones on and just hear each sound and pick out who was playing what and who was singing which part. I had to know all these things. Anyone else I knew didn't care, they just either liked a song or not. But because it isn't a subject that's way out there, it wasn't an obsession?

There are no possible subjects that are way out there.

Summer before last I started watching grizzlies at Brooks Falls in Alaska. I knew them by name and they each had their own habits and ways of catching fish and ways of eating fish and their own personalities. My favorite was 'Backpack' - he pounced on the fish and it reminded me of my dog, Honey. But I spent hours every day watching them and studying how each had their own traits and how each reacted to the others - by the way - they all had their own spot at the falls and all respected each others' spot even when that bear was not present.

So do you think it's the subject matter or the amount of time and study that makes something an autistic obsession?

I think it is the obsession, not the subject. I cannot understand someone seeing it differently. Aspies obsess in just the way you described about your earlier obsession with music. All of my obsession have been the same way. I fit the pattern perfectly. Aspies need to know everything about the subject they are obsessed with. There is no detail too tiny. I think we actually like those details the most.

 

[Judge]

To me an obsession is of little consequence unless it begins to interfere with one's routine obligations of life.

It isn't having an obsession per se, but rather if it is causing someone to neglect their life to a point where it endangers their health and that of others. I think that's the point where it becomes a real medical concern.

 

[grommet]

Yes, I repeatedly watch or listen to the same things over and over, and over the years, these things have not changed. My likes and dislikes have not changed. My fashion style is pretty much what it has been the last 50 years. (clothes, purses, shoes, etc and it's hard to find what I like lol). I guess, other than aging physically and what I've learned by life, I got stuck in the 65-75 decade. lol

I read the same book for 30 years. I watch the same movies and shows over and over and over. It is normal for me though when others make observations about the way I live my life, they seem to not like it. Like it scares them. I do not know why it should bother them at all.

I also eat the same things, in the same amounts and at around the same time. My life is all routines and it doesn't hurt anyone or me and it helps me make sense of things. I wish who I was didn't bother people so much. If something I do is something that wouldn't make them happy, they seem to think it must be making me unhappy. I think they are not seeing that living this way does make me happier.