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

Post Reply New Topic

I get what you mean but it still doesn't make sense in my head. Look, I want it to make sense but I think my problem here is that I still don't understand how people can claim to be so sure about it that they're just as qualified to diagnose themselves as a professional is. That, to me, suggests there's no need for professionals and that's not the case. Why do people not just say they suspect they're autistic instead of saying they're sure? I really want to know and I'm really trying to understand here.



I definitely agree that professionals can be wrong as well. I just think it's less likely in this case.

But yeah, I could be wrong.

This is perfectly okay, and I'd advocate for self-diagnosis. It helps to have an idea, especially if you want to go out in the world and seek a diagnosis. Getting a diagnosis costs money, a LOT of money most people just don't have barring they have ridiculous insurance, and I can't expect many people to have that. I was fortunate to get diagnosed when I was 9. If I had not done so, I don't know where I'd be today and chances are I wouldn't have the job I did, or the means of getting a diagnosis today.

The only situation I have a problem with self-diagnosis, and this is all too common, it's the disgruntled ex-girlfriends and neglected wives who say, oh my (insert relationship pronoun here) is ignoring my needs and doesn't talk to me, he MUST be autistic. It really trivializes my life experiences.

I can't say that I just "suspect" anymore because it wouldn't be an accurate reflection of how I view myself. I've said this several times already but I'll say it again. I didn't just decide one day to self-diagnose. It finally became so self-evident to me that I'm autistic that I just cannot deny it anymore. I recognized that I was autistic years ago, but I simply did not have enough knowledge of autism back then to be sure of it. Now I do.

I'm not as qualified as a professional, by any technical standard, as I do not have the education or experience that a professional would have. But I don't need that level of qualification to be able to diagnose myself. It's not that complicated...or rather, if it is, or seems to be, it's only because there's no objective test for autism yet, and people (including professionals) continue to have widely varying opinions about what autism really looks like or how it presents.

Worth noting: When a specialist diagnoses a particular "condition" they will often preface it with a statement to the effect that "it is only an opinion", and you are more than welcome to get second and third opinions from others. It is not fact. Everything within this realm is subjective.

My belief is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. If I can look back over the last fifty years and say with some degree of confidence that I now understand why such and such happened, then I don't need some "professional" to agree in order for me to get closure on an event.

I am not in awe of a wall full of certificates, hung there to convince the ingrates that they are getting value for their money when they pay the account.

An ASD diagnosis, especially an adult diagnosis, is based on highly-subjective criteria, using highly-subjective testing whose standards are far lower than that found in most medicine. Especially when performed by an Autism specialist, it is based on the (relatively) latest knowledge of ASDs; therefore, it inherently carries more weight. It is required for services.

I wish, of course, that more objective signs of autism would be discovered--especially within such things as fMRIs. The standard of diagnosis would rise closer to medical levels. We wouldn't be having this debate, no matter how substantive it is.

There are specialists whom provide quality diagnoses only after months of assessments and others that may dish out a diagnosis within 30 minutes. Though it's impossible to safely presume any discrepancy in accuracy exists, that's only one example of how professional methods differ. There are flaws with professional diagnosis, but it's the best there is. It's the only way one can obtain support, which should be the primary reason for seeking any diagnosis. I type this so that it can be compared to a self-diagnosis.

Individuals here may self-diagnose after many months (or perhaps years) of thorough research and investigation, but that does not eliminate the fact that there are also people that self-diagnose inappropriately. I have encountered many such individuals myself. There are flaws with self-diagnosis, but for an individual who cannot obtain an official diagnosis, it may be something they need, not for support that an official diagnosis provides, but for affective purposes (i.e. the 'explanation' of one's struggles).

The debate is not a dichotomy - there are decent arguments for and against over differing planes such as age, processes and emotional needs. Arguments seem to have dissolved into misinterpretation due to this unperceived multifaceted nature of the debate.

To be honest, I don't understand why there still needs to be massive issues. I'm no preacher but is anyone else with me on this? If not I'm OK with the continuing heat, but as others have specified newcomers or those with a scarred past may not be, and there are still clear expressions of distress. Perhaps 'valid' should have being defined in the OP to prevent offense from occurring. I don't see a reason however why any heat is now not fixable.

Maybe I should have defined it but I unfortunately didn't think of it when I started the thread. Besides, I really don't know if it would've helped anyway.

TBH I didn't really know what else to say, I just wanted to include an example that could reduce tension in the future, though it is probably inevitable.

The fact is, if you do in fact have Asperger's, then you have Asperger's. Having Asperger's does not depend on a person with a piece of paper that says they know stuff saying that you do in fact have Asperger's. It does matter if you need it to be legally recognized, say for getting help through official channels, disability, etc. But, another human being's opinion on whether or not your brain is malfunctioning does not affect the reality of said malfunction. Recognition does not manipulate reality.

In a way, recognition can manipulate reality (not the brain wiring obviously).

If a person doesn't have Asperger's, and they are diagnosed or self-diagnosed with Asperger's, they still 'have Asperger's'. The only thing a person can do is trust another person's diagnosis. In my experience, self-diagnosis is less trustworthy in general than official diagnosis; I have nothing against any self-diagnosed individual, I am only against the general concept.

I am not OK with a person stating that they have Asperger's if they only have self-diagnosed, but I am completely fine if they state that they self-diagnosed with Asperger's, and I won't publicly express doubt that they have Asperger's purely because it's a self-diagnosis (unless it's blatantly obvious they do not have it). I have encountered far too many self-diagnosed depression, OCD and ADHD sufferers (that obviously do not have it) to be naturally fond of the direct statements, for reasons such as potential misrepresentation, trivializing and romanticizing.

I don't despise a person that is self-diagnosed and claims that they are autistic without specifying that they are self-diagnosed, I just don't agree with that decision, just for clarification.

Anyone could potentially misrepresent, trivialize, or romanticize ASD though. Even with a professional diagnosis. What does that have to do with self diagnosis?

Speaking of misrepresentation... autism speaks cough cough...

Indeed. And, only for the purpose of another example, doesn't the very existence of a Wrong Planet web site (not to mention all the other WP-like sites) provoke the occasional misrepresentation, trivialization and romanticization of ASDs, even among those who are professionally diagnosed? More than one similar topic has had its share of diagnosed individuals who claim more than their diagnoses could explain. My point is that, like those individuals who buy a new red car and suddenly see nothing but other red cars, no one is immune from the newness of discovering ASDs within themselves and making the occasional overstatement (or even misstatement) based on that discovery. That phenomenon isn't only a characteristic of the self-identified. In other words, how an individual learns of the possibility of having ASDs doesn't determine how that individual will express it to others for whatever reason. In my experience, I see individuals with ASDs (diagnosed or identified) being very careful about how they express it.

A professionally diagnosed person is much less likely to do those things, at least in my experience. Autism has not being trivialized to the extent OCD, ADHD and even anxiety disorders have, again from my perspective.

Self-diagnose is a dangerous weapon if it spreads to those that do not wield it cautiously. Individuals from this website may invest a great deal of time researching and investigating for themselves, but there is no guarantee that others do.

Professional diagnosis would never get to a point where autism suddenly only refers to being obsessed with video games, but self-diagnosis may. That's a very extreme example but I CBF appropriating it to my point.

I do accept that the argument I presented is not polarizing, but my experiences has shown it to be negatively weighted to self-diagnosis. It isn't irrelevant to contrast it with professional diagnosis. There is an analogy I once used to explain my position, involving an army general (equivalent to medical professional) and an ordinary person (equivalent to a person that self-diagnoses). To put it simply, you would be less inclined to be completely accepting of the ordinary person (not as an individual) firing a handgun around you than the army general. The ordinary person may have experience shooting guns but that is unbeknownst to you. That is the general concept of self-diagnosis. I'm very tired (3AM) so I hope I haven't made a typo here.

I hope Autism Speaks self-destructs!

Please tell me all of these people you encountered with these self diagnoses who 'obviously did not have it' are people you know or at least have observed a significant amount of time IRL....and that you don't think you can seriously determine such things over the internet.

As for the rest that makes sense, and I think specfifying self diagnoses is better than saying 'I have autism' if it is only a self diagnoses, but wouldn't go correcting people over it because it does not matter much to me.

Opinion does not form reality. That's my argument in a nutshell. Thoughts do not transform reality. Actions do. Thoughts transform thinking, not the outside world. The only person that can effect reality with a word is Jehovah. And yes, I did mean to use the word effect not affect. Effect as in implement, as a verb.

I question the quality of the research that people do as part of self-diagnosis and accept as good enough to label themselves with autism. To me, amount of time is not that important, as one could spend large amounts of time doing low-quality research or little time doing high-quality research.