Is self-diagnosis reliable?

Post Reply New Topic

This is creepy and kind of awesome at the same time. I've always kind of wished that the Neanderthals had survived so that we wouldn't be "alone". But, then I remember that our species probably would have killed them off or have them enslaved, so perhaps they're lucky they didn't make it.

Why do you say Asperger's isn't scientific?

This is what I'm trying to figure out: Whether something is scientific or not has nothing to do with whether it sounds scientific or if it's been proved, but rather if it follows the scientific method. Science changes with new evidence, no matter how much it seemed proven, which means that can't tell us whether it's scientific. History is also a graveyard of ideas that sounded scientific at first, but then didn't hold up to the scientific method once they were tested. Albert Einstein said, "These are some ways to test my theory," while pseudoscientists say that their viewpoints are correct no matter how the experiments turn out. Models that are scientific use the scientific method.

So why do they publish studies dealing with Asperger's in scientific method peer-review journals if Asperger's has no aspects to it that are scientific? Twin studies comparing Asperger's to Autism. Other studies, etc. Yes it can change with new evidence and there may be some debate, but having to be proven or probably true doesn't mean the same thing as scientific. The theory of gravitation changes over time (Newton to Einstein), geology changes over time (from continental drift theory to plate tectonics and possibly something else later on). I'm not understanding?

What I don't like is when people say that they're going to make up their own layman ideas about psychological disorders rather than look at peer-review findings then come up with ideas, because these people want to be "creative and not from a book". Then others come along seeing what the laymen are doing and then assume there can't be anything scientific in the professional field.

See, the problem is that self diagnosis can be extremely inaccurate and SO CAN professional diagnosis.

There are people who have done enough research and looked at their childhoods and present self and genuinely self diagnosed having done a lot of research. Then there are the people who just like to label themselves.

There are people who have gone to Dr's and be accurately diagnosed by skilled and educated Drs. Then there are people who have gone to Dr's and been either completely brushed off and diagnosed with something that is not accurate because Dr's are human and make a lot of mistakes and don't always care enough to give the patient the time of day.

Honestly, if i believe i have aspergers and it helps me to find ways to cope with life in general and explain things that hard plagued me my entire life but i've learned through sheer crash course life experience to mostly cope with the issues or at the very least live with them, then i have every right to a self diagnosis and no reason to pay the money, take the time and risk being inaccurately diagnosed and chewed up and spat out of a broken system that often doesn't know how to deal with adult cases.

It's not for you people on the internet to decide whether a diagnosis is accurate whether it's self or Dr administered. It's not for you people to lump us all into a group of idiots who take an online quiz and read a wikipedia article and start calling themselves Aspies and using it ans an excuse for everything.

So because doctors make mistakes, that means self-diagnosis is equally accurate? What would you say about some types of "being diagnosed" as being more reliable? Others mentioned earlier that they interview family members and perform various tests, more than just self-diagnostic questionnaires. I've also heard that rather than going to a doctor or therapist, who are probably not trained in it, it's better to go to a specialist who's been trained in knowing how to diagnose Asperger's specifically.

I would think self-diagnosis would be useful if you want to research what works in helping Asperger people adapt (socially/career wise, etc) and possible interventions, but not so much in claiming to others that you have it. If you don't get diagnosed, why not just say, "I think I have Asperger's"?

Right, which is probably why the majority of us "self-diagnosed" are here.


And the point of claiming that you have it (past point one that you mentioned) would be...?

As far as I can tell, it's a crock of horse manure with no basis in anything resembling scientific analysis.

Two things come to mind that may be affected by going with/without diagnosis:

1) Insurance costs

2) Benefits

??? No insurance company is going to accept a self-dx for paying for anything.

And a person sure isn't going to get government benefits on their own say-so. There's a myth the govt. benefits are just easily handed out, but even with hard proof it can be very difficult (easily to the point of being nonsensical).

I'm just simply answering the thread's question, "Is self-diagnosis reliable?" Since most have symptoms for some of the disorders out there, if you want to be able to claim you have something rather than just say you're making an educated guess, then a professional diagnosis with interviews with parents, neurological tests, etc, whatever they do, would be appropriate. If not, it's just that, an educated guess. They also had another thread in this forum where one said he obviously couldn't claim he had it from a legal/medical standpoint, but asked if he could from a social view point. There were mixed responses.

If you want to be able to claim that you have something, rather than just say to others, "I think I have this," then I'm not understanding why self-diagnosis is reliable enough, no matter how much you think you have the symptoms? In any college abnormal psychology course, you learn that everyone has symptoms, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's to the point of it being clinical, or needing professional help. Medical students also get into the habit of thinking they have everything, but without a diagnosis they can't just say they do to others. They can only say they think they have it.

I think there was a misunderstanding there. We were talking about getting a professional diagnosis rather than self-diagnosis.

I should have clarified. I totally agree that I think the premise is totally unscientific and crazy.

I just took the idea as science fiction and was looking at it from an imaginary perspective. I've probably read too many books about mitochondrial dna and the like, so I think it's fun to think about stuff like that.

Hey guys, thanks for all the replies. I didn't think it'd get to two pages in the space of a single night.

Yeah, thats the same quiz I took. The questions really surprised me, because ones like, "Have you ever taken the initiative only to find out it wasn't wanted?", ring SO true that I was wondering if they were watching me while making it.

I suppose the real question here would have to be, "What would a psychologist do in an actual testing procedure that I can't do in self-diagnosis?". I'm under the impression that all they do is ask questions about one's childhood and observe you. If that's it, I'm more than 95% sure I'm right. Taking into account my present state and what I know about my childhood (from personal experience, and as related to me by mom and dad), I'd say my diagnosis is pretty much on the ball.

I took the Adult Asperger Assessment at http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/aaa_test.asp. This assessment uses broader criteria than the DSM. It consists of a spreadsheet to which the AQ and EQ are inputs. After you enter the test results, you run a macro (Excel is required) and it lists the symptoms you have. You have to do further work to identify symptoms not included in these tests. Ideally, you get someone who's known you most of your life to go over it to spot things you may have missed. You should also read the article that goes with it, at least the end, to see how "Max Asperger" scored. Many of the areas are empty boxes which you have to fill in, if you have symptoms in those areas. You may have to make a few judgment calls here and there. In the end, you put a '1' in the "YES" boxes corresponding to your symptoms. The spreadsheet determines whether you meet the stricter CLASS criteria of Baron-Cohen et al. Even if you don't you may meet the DSM criteria. If you don't meet the latter, a diagnosis of Pervasive Develop Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified may be in order.

Note: Just having some traits of ASD does not mean you have an ASD. Your AQ and EQ scores, along with the SQ and FQ can help. If you have any questions, just post here and our world-famous experts can help you.

I wouldn't trust the online tests. Sometimes they are somewhat accurate, sometimes not. The main problem with them is that most of them diagnose anyone who is effectively an introvert with AS (with some exceptions).

If you have to self-diagnose, then you should do it from reliable sources such as peer reviewed journals, or published books. The very definition of Aspergers is changing on the web, becoming more vague and more solely socially and interest orientated than what the disorder truly is. Just having social problems does not mean you have Aspergers - there are other equally important components such as the stimming, repetitive and obsessive rituals and routines.

It's alot easier to diagnose a child than it is an adult..

A child doesn't understand the behaviors he is experiencing, he just knows that they are, for an adult is alot different, and since you know all the traits you will explain to the psychiatrist these traits which you posess, which can easily lead to misdiagnosis.

Just my opinion I suppose, I'm highly undereducated.

The scientific method is Logic. If you were told that one specific method was "the scientific one" it is because you were taking a basic sciences course so they just used the Hypothetico-deductive model. It wasn't especially important that you know exactly how one methodically derives and process datums when you just wanted a glimpse of why dinosaurs are no longer around. If you were to take a real interest in pushing the boundaries of knowledge in that field you were expected to pursue a more complex understanding. When you got into your later chem labs and stuff they were exploring what it means to do science in more depth. You start hearing about Dichotomous thought, induction versus deduction, the strengths and weaknesses of each mode of processing and the way in which humans interact with environment because of physiological realities.

Training in these skills means you have them available to use, it doesn't automatically make everything you do from now on blessed with accuracy. You still make mistakes and get things wrong, but you have a framework to test it within and others can test the same thing independantly to see if they get the same results, and if they don't somebody now has to figure out why. Something can be true, and it can seem reasonable that you would act on that truth in a certain way, and then you find additional variables that leave that thing true but change your understanding of how to act for an optimum outcome.

Human beings have Human failings. The point of science is that the human should not matter. You address the logic and reason of the known data, or experiment and provide new data. Sound rhetoric does not become unsound or unreasonable by virtue of anything other than its own merit. Who is applying the skills is irrelevant, the relevant factor is the skill being applied correctly.