Is self-diagnosis okay/valid/a good thing?

Post Reply New Topic

That is because it doesn't define autism....the word definition does not apply to 'symptoms of a disorder' that is more just a technicality. the definition of autism is more like 'a neurological condition that effects communication' it wouldn't include a the symptoms but that's just a technical bit.

Also, or I misunderstood your wording, but no I must just be delusional because misunderstandings don't happen, guess I will go dig up the part I misunderstood...I did not just make something based on nothing up.

That is because it doesn't define autism....the word definition does not apply to 'symptoms of a disorder' that is more just a technicality. the definition of autism is more like 'a neurological condition that effects communication' it wouldn't include a the symptoms those would be the symptoms not the definition.

Also, or I misunderstood your wording, but no I must just be delusional because misunderstandings don't happen, guess I will go dig up the part I misunderstood...I did not just make something based on nothing up.

Autism is defined by its symptoms, which are behaviors, such as communication in your "neurological condition that effects communication" quote. Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that involves deficits in social interaction and communication and shows repetitive behaviors. The behaviors are part of the definition itself, as just saying autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder without any mention of autistic behaviors does not distinguish autism from any other neurodevelopmental disorder.

Alright yes here it seems implied here that introspection is not part of the basis a diagnoses is made on...but rather its strictly based on observed behavior. Didn't 'make it up in my mind'.

I just looked up various definitions of autism and none of them include any detailed list of symptoms, its simplified to a neurological condition and some mention a couple traits/symptoms...the symptoms are the symptoms not the definition...The DSM is not a collection of definitions of mental disorders, its a book full of more detailed lists to aid in the diagnostic process by outlining symptoms.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 09 Dec 2014, 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you read what I wrote, you can see that I did not say that introspection is not part of the basis of a diagnosis.
Instead, I said "defined", not "diagnosed".
There is a difference.
IQ testing is also often part of diagnostic process, like self-report is often part of process, but IQ testing does not define autism, as introspection does not define autism.
Behaviors define autism.
You did make it up in your mind, because anything that you interpret as an implication but others did not say in words is made up in your mind.
Sometimes, that is accurate and occurs often in social cognition, but in this case, it is inaccurate.

I did not say that lists had to be detailed, you made that up too.
I said that definitions include deficits in social interaction and communication and repetitive behaviors.
If definitions of autism did not include these, then the statement of what autism is is non-specific and nearly meaningless.

And the interpretation came from an actual thing that was typed, thus I could not have entirely made it up.

You said the symptoms define it, the definition is not a list of symptoms...the symptoms describe it they do not define it as definitions tend to be more simple than a more detailed description of a word. So what am I making up exactly

Your interpretation is in your mind.
Someone can interpret whatever they want from what words I posted, but that is in their mind, not mine, and they need to attribute it to themselves, not me.

I said that behaviors define autism.
Deficits in social interaction and communication are behaviors that define autism.
Repetitive behaviors also define autism.
In almost all single-sentence definitions of autism, there are mentions of deficits in social interaction and communication and repetitive behaviors.
If these are not mentioned, then autism has not been defined at all, because these things are autism.

Autism is a disorder.
Carbon is an element.

These statements don't define autism or carbon, as there are other disorders and elements that are not autism or carbon. These statements categorize autism and carbon as disorder and element.

Autism is a disorder involving deficits in social interaction and communication, and repetitive behaviors.
Carbon is an element with atomic number 6.

These statements define what autism is and what carbon is to distinguish from other disorders and elements.
Autism is defined by specific kinds of behaviors, and further descriptions can provide details about autism.
Carbon is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus, and further descriptions can provide details about carbon.
This approach is how things are defined in science.
I could say the information about autism and carbon in one, two, or three sentences, but the information about behaviors and protons is part of the definition of the thing, otherwise there is not enough information to define the thing.
Carbon is an element. It has atomic number 6. There are 6 protons in its nucleus. This is what makes carbon carbon.
Autism is a disorder. It involves deficits in social interaction. There are also deficits in social communication. There are also repetitive behaviors. Together, this set of behaviors makes autism autism.

Autism diagnosis usually involves clinical observation of behaviors, childhood history of behaviors, and self-report by people who can self-report of their behaviors, cognition, and perception. Childhood history is highly recommended but optional when parents or others are unavailable to report childhood behaviors. Self-report is optional, as many people can't self-report. Clinical observation of autistic behaviors to compare with behavioral diagnostic criteria is non-optional. This is the critical part missing from self-diagnosis.

I agree with babybird except that I did self-diagnose before I was diagnosed. Learning of the spectrum and my place on it was a huge weight off my shoulders as I was almost 50. I didn't even realize it was a weight until it lifted, which was the result of self-diagnosis after much research.

What are they supposed to do about what, exactly? If they can't get an official diagnosis and want one, there's nothing they can do other than to continue trying to find ways to get one or give up.

I agree there are more good things then bad here but I am taking into account that people in a fragile state tend to look only at the bad parts and would be hurt by coming here right now. There are other sites and resources besides WP. When a newbie comes on and the first response they see is an extension of this debate instead of whatever thier issues are I can't see that as helpful. But I do see this as a very temporary situation.

It does seem like every position on this topic has been thoroughly articulated now (along with all sorts of hyperbolic auxiliary arguments, appeals to authority, calls for censorship, character assassinations, appeals to emotion, etc.) so I would expect the topic to go dormant again for at least a little while.

But I think anyone who is exploring autism, and thinking, "could this label fit me?" is going to run into this topic. It's unfortunate that some of the critique of self diagnosis comes with negative speculation about the motivation behind self diagnosis-but this is human psychology. People are often needlessly mean spirited and learning not to let that get you down is a essential life skill.

If I was telling someone about this place, I would just tell them to be aware that this will come up and perhaps to avoid the problem by being more precise and saying "I think I am probably autistic" rather than "I am autistic." That way they can avoid stirring up the issue.

I like your sig. I survived the '70s, too!