What do you call these people?

Post Reply New Topic

There are quite a few people I know on close terms. We constantly keep in touch through phone, instant messaging, or face to face interaction. We usually have back-and-forth exchanges (conversations) about a certain topic, but the nature of our contact does not go beyond that. It's like a monologue responding to a monologue, and nothing much more except for the occasional question.

In the past, I've never had such connections. I've made attempts to make friends with my peers, but they fell apart, usually in a year or two, and the further the distance, the longer these "friendships" lasted. Because when these people came in contact regularly, they soon realized that I cannot properly emotionally reciprocate and/or became annoyed at the fact that I constantly talk about the same topics. It was emotionally draining to try to reciprocate directly at least to a degree. Now that I spend a lot of time with people way outside of my age group (some are in their 30s, one person is even in their 50s), most of whom are on the spectrum, I feel no such pressure at all. But how should I refer to these people when mentioning them in a conversation?

Because to me, the word "friend" implies a connection that is more based on emotion. I don't feel any emotional connection with these people, but yet I feel enriched after the kind of interaction that I have with them, and have a distinct image of them in my mind that is more bright and pleasant than that of others who I don't have that sort of mutual understanding with.

I've started questioning this after someone, who I've thought to be my closest friend for about 10 months now, once said to me that he is unsure whether he could call me a friend, because, in his words, it's like he could never "get through to me".

Just because someone isn't your close friend doesn't mean they're not your friend at all. If you don't want to think of it like that they would be called "acquaintances."

I think the difference between friend and acquaintance is trust, which is somewhat emotional, but is also quantifiable. Also, social interaction helps to distinguish between friends and non-friends for me.

I have colleages and acquaintances - people with whom I work or exercise, but do not interact socially. These people require a basic politeness and a small extra if they volunteer some personal information. For example, if a colleague tells me that their child is ill and they are leaving, then I enquire the following day as to the child's wellbeing. I don't actually care about the answer except as it may impact my workday, but it seems to put them at ease.

I do have a three friends. A few people with whom the interaction has grown for some reason. I will occasionally engage in some social thing (lunch out). I trust them to be able to tell them what is in my head. This takes considerable work and time, and some people "stick" and others don't.

Your "friend" issue sounds a little like my "love" issue. I have an idea in my head of what "love" is supposed to be and I don't know how to do that, so I assume that I do not love anyone. This is despite being married and having a child. I do things with with my spouse and child, I'm entangled with them economically and legally, I trust them. I don't feel any kind of special magic about them but they are a bit different. We're all OK with this.

Thank you for your input so far. Upon re-reading my post, I've realized that I've left out a very important detail. I started off writing about my past relationships with my peers, but the reason why I wrote about them is because they are the people I felt were somewhat fitting the label of "friends", because at least to others, it would seem like we were friends, being in the same age group and spending time together at school.

I'm pretty sure that I can trust these people, because otherwise, I would be reluctant to spend time with them. So I guess it's appropriate to call them friends, then, even though the age gap is large and the nature of our discussions does not go far beyond the theoretical and the concrete.

I love your line of reasoning. It is so pragmatic and sensible.

People with whom I have frequent, pleasant social contact, but no strong emotional bond, I call them associates (not in their presence though, because it would probably offend them since it's quite an impersonal, formal word).

"Friend" is not necessarily a commutative relationship, someone you consider a friend doesn't always consider you the same.
That doesn't mean that there's a problem with your labeling system. 8 )

I've found that it takes me a lot longer to develop a relationship with someone than is considered normal.
During that time, they often give up on it, thinking that I'm not interested because I'm not reacting in the way they expect when they expect me to.
Of course, those that actually stick around for the amount of time necessary to develop the friendship, the relationship created tends to be quite worthwhile. So I don't really have any complaints about it. 8 D

I imagine that the different brain wiring causes Aspie intellectual development to be faster than average and emotional development to be slower than average. Cause and effect.

So getting back to your question, I call these people "friends". I don't see the need to attach a different word to it.

If you've known them for a fair amount of time, and you do on rare occasion hang out with them, I'd call them (a buddy)/buddies.

I have one person with whom, well, it's not a lack of connecting, but, just not normal connecting. And it doesn't feel right to call him a friend because, to me, it's something different than a friendship.

Yet, there are people who I connect with less well than with him who I call friends.

The point being, I tend to think your friend's comment isn't relevant to what to call those other people.

I say, use the term friend unless the context implies something more than what's there.

Whatever you want to call them. There are no rules.

Different types have different definitions for "friend", "interest", "fun", "poetry", "success" and do forth.

We [me + ingroup] have found that those outside simply are not capable of providing what we look for in "friendship". And we have been told and shown repeatedly that we cannot do whatever it is they expect from a "friend". Witness the person C had promoted to VERY CLOSE FRIEND who on first meeting her neighbour told C, AT LAST I have a real friend.

We cannot do what ain't in us. They cannot do what they have no conception of. Just quote it:

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.