Persistent preoccupation with parts of objects?

Post Reply New Topic

There's also some evidence that allowing us to play with objects in this way is the proper manner for us to learn about them, and hindering it hinders our ability to learn things (even if it seems counterintuitive to people who learn differently).

But you're not, with Asperger's, describing the preoccupation with parts of objects criterion. Having intense academic interests is not "preoccupation with parts of objects". It is "encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus".

Those are two separate criteria. They also allow for the fact that a person will often do both of them, not just one or the other.

The four criteria in that section (for AS or autism a person only needs at least one of them) are:



Which is exactly what you described when you said "In Asperger's, instead of being obsessed over academia as a whole, one is only interested in one subject (palaeontology for example)."



(Not being described here.)



(Not being described here.)



Which is what you described (or at least most of what you described) when you said "In autism, it's in relation to liking and being obsessed over parts of things that really "shouldn't" be put to parts; as a child, liking how the door on a toy car opens and closes rather than playing with the toy in a proper manner. As an adult, liking the same several seconds of a movie, and watching that same several seconds over and over again for example."

So you're actually describing #1 when you are talking about Asperger's, and #4 when you are talking about autism. But of course both can occur in both.

(Sort of off the topic, my user icon is also an aspect of this, I've always liked tiny pieces of tree bark and that's what my icon is.)

The parts themselves are of greater interest than the whole...topic

If I could synthesize all the parts, I would be employed, co-ordinated, coherent, holistic and unfragmented. But I am not. I have that Autistic co-existing perseverance that affects every part of my being and makes it hard for me to earn a living in this predominantly NT world.

I would always take alarm clocks apart as a child, I liked the gears, they also had the added bonus of spinning like a top.
Once when I was 5 years old I took a TV apart, I disassembled it while it was plugged in and was watching a show, I had the picture tube circuit board, and tuner all separated from the chassis, all without shorting anything out or killing myself in the process. I still like to see how stuff works to this day, and have boxes of parts that I dip into when something needs to be fixed, still a Gear Head

I just played with strings, parts of paper, marbles, tyres, switches (yeah!) and roundabouts. I figured that's occupation with part objects? I was fascinated with how these things could be moved and the noise they could make.

I never took anything apart to see how it worked, it didn't interest me to see what's inside a TV or radio.

When I was about 5, I was suddenly more busy with reading/spelling words. And when I got into school, I started with special interests. I rarely played like above any more as time was short.

I still do love to make (part) objects do something. I manage to always find something such as earrings, buckle of my watch, screw caps.

How long does a preoccupation with a part of an object have to be for it to be 'persistent'? It's a matter of interpretation.

But that criterion does not mean being unable to relate to the whole of an object, when necessary. Such as an architect designing a building, or an engineer constructing a bridge. Otherwise there would be no autistic architects or engineers.

I love looking at the bark of trees and the pattern of the wood in wooden objects, but I don't know if it is a persistent preoccupation.

I loved the wheels on my toys cars; I was fascinated by the sound they made and the way the light reflected from them while I spun them. I also had a habit of destroying electronic things by taking them apart to see what their insides looked like. (My Tamagotchi was one example; and all the little circuits and so forth were much better than that incessantly beeping little thing...)

Now, and in the past, I find myself fascinated with small sections of musical pieces, anything from 2 seconds to a minute, and I will play these fragments of pieces over and over again and laugh with the same delight each time.

anbuend, yes, but if you read the expanded information, it states that B1 is the norm for Asperger's (it only mentions B1 in the clinical features/how it manifests in individuals), one can deduce that the other three parts are there in relation to how the repetitive behaviors manifest in Asperger's, i.e., a single branch of mathematics (a part), compared to mathematics as a whole. There's really no reason why B2, 3 and 4 are there otherwise (Gillberg's, Attwood's, and the other name I cannot spell all lack the parts of objects and motor mannerisms in relation to the interests). The criteria and the clinical features section need to be read together.

I did the whole lining up toys and opening and closing the tray of my truck; I even have a photo of such. Now, I listen to the same several seconds of a song, or watch the same several seconds of a movie; my psychiatrist said this is the adult form of such.

I have this trait as well, though probably not to the same extent that you have. It has actually had a very profound effect on my philosophical beliefs in that I don't see things as objects with a Platonic "essential" nature, I see things and processes and clusters of traits.

This trait is probably the cause of my interest in paleontology and comparative anatomy. I can focus on a particular part, say a skull bone, and will look to so how it differs in different animal groups.

I looked those two words up and they didn't say anything about taking something apart. I guess everyone has their own interputations about what each part means in the criteria.

As an addendum (I don't like how I worded the last post):

B1 equates to [in AS]: obsessive interest
B4: parts of "objects" in relation to interest; one science fiction show compared to filmed science fiction as a whole for example

This is how I had it explained to me when it's applied to AS.

It is not only autistics who have this trait. Artists, poets and musicians also have it, and not only them.

I'm reminded of the opening lines of Auguries of Inocence by William Blake:

Zero possibility that it's the same for AS as it is for classical? Or is it to be understood as usually/norm vs. few exceptions?

Professionals do seem to consider narrow interests of importance when diagnosing AS. Mine was suprised, I never had a 'narrow' fascination either. And that in all my school reports it says 'very strong average general knowledge compared to peers'. The professional just ignored that and actually stated I had weak general knowledge 'as typical of AS'.

Now this makes me doubt my diagnosis very much haha.

Can't be zero possibility.

Lots of non-AS-diagnosed autistic people have narrow intellectual interests as well as the usual interests in parts of objects, some instead of those interests (and the DSM actually describes narrow interests as a possibility, IIRC).

And a fair number of AS-diagnosed autistic people I've known have interests in parts of objects as well as the usual narrow intellectual interests.

(Which, again, is why both allow for that possibility.)

I do, and they both happen to do with the same thing. The front of a blushing Routemaster and its pole.

Thanks for sharing that quote...I love it.

As to your point....


1)I believe there are many people who express some of the traits of AS but the DX is based on a cluster of traits and it is a "spectrum".

2)I believe there are a lot of people who are AS who are not and never will be DXed with AS because they were born before such a DX existed (many have already been DXed with mental illness) or are excepted/expected to be "quirky" because society makes allowances for those groups to be "odd".



I think the latter catagory are an important area of scientific examination. If researchers would spend more time examining examples of such people, they might expand their current gestalt of autism as a disease to be cured and understand it as traits that have something to offer society.

No, just "usually". People with AS "usually" have a narrow interest as their repetitive behavior, "...primarily observed in the all-encompassing pursuit of a circumscribed interest involving a topic to which the individual devotes inordinate amounts of time amassing information and facts.". Whereas, people with autistic disorder "usually" have "...motor mannerisms, preoccupation with parts of objects, rituals, and marked distress in change.".

It states that in some cases the two disorders are hard to differentiate in certain individuals; which I'm assuming is why it's left open rather than having AS and AD strict and narrow.

Me for example, I fit both stereotypes above; I do both, and it'd kinda be silly to say I have Asperger's and autism (though, it does say that if one meets autism that diagnosis is the one one is given).