Am I autistic???? your thoughts please

Post Reply New Topic

Whether or not you are autistic is formally determined by whether or not you fit the diagnostic criteria. As such, some of the traits you listed, while perhaps common to autistic people, are irrelevant (assuming that you accept this standard) to your question in that they are not implied by the diagnostic criteria.

The following are the only relevant positive traits in determining whether or not you are autistic (and the first one is questionable because you claim to do it as a means of escape rather than for its own sake):

DSM-5 diagnostic criterion A1 would be satisfied with the symptom described as a “lack of social skills.” Criterion A2 would be satisfied with the symptom described as a “I dislike eye contact.” Criterion A3 would be satisfied with the symptom described as a “I'm very solitary. Most people annoy me.” Criterion B2 would be satisfied with the symptom described as a “I have maybe 4-5 subjects that I am REALLY REALLY interested in, and want to know everything about, and if I cannot pursue these studies I get annoyed. I never have meltdowns, but I DO whine/complain and act passive-aggressive a lot if I don't get my way.” Criterion B3 would be satisfied with the symptoms described as a “tendency to escape through fixations, obsessions, fantasy and imagination[,]” “I am kind of obsessed with numeric patterns...in particular I'm obsessed with the number 1.618 and with square roots” and “I sometimes get so fixated on details that I miss the whole.”

According to the DSM-5, all three criteria in section A and at least two of the four criteria in section B must be manifested for a diagnosis. Under these symptoms alone (not considering the others or any additional details about these), it appears to do so adequately.

But, don’t go by me. I broke a shoelace today.

It's also important whether or not you, OP are in any way impaired by or experiencing problems because of your traits.

I gotta admit, that bothers me. It is of course part of the diagnostic criteria (which makes sense, since they are the diagnostic criteria for "autism spectrum disorder"). But if we accept that as definitional, it amounts to saying that you can never be autistic and basically OK. For that matter, it even suggests that a "cure" is possible for some HFAs/Aspies, since if you ever stop having a "clinically significant" impairment you're no longer autistic.

For my part, if I were ever to patronize a psychiatrist, I don't imagine I'd have any difficulty getting prescriptions for antidepressant and antianxiety medication (for starters). So I reckon my autism-related impairment is clinically significant.

But I can and often do imagine a version of my life where I have the same brain, but things are just slightly different and I'm basically OK (more stability, fewer stressors). It doesn't make sense to me to think that I'd somehow "not" be autistic in that scenario. I'd still be exactly as autistic as I am now -- just not disabled.

Reading your post, I don't really get a strong impression one way or the other. Some people come here asking if they are autistic, and after doing some more reading and thinking about it, they decide they are not autistic after all. Others find out they are more autistic and more impaired than they first realized. It might take some time to sort out not only what traits you do or don't have, but how impairing or disabling they are.



If it was very traumatic, you might have PTSD. That is common in survivors of religious cults. You also might want to look into the effects of narcissistic abuse. Fundamentalist religious groups are usually loaded with narcissists. That can have very long-lasting and pervasive effects on you.

I had a similar upbringing, and I've questioned whether it "caused" some of my autistic traits. What it comes down to for me, is I have a lot of sensory issues and repetitive behaviors that were unlikely to be caused by anything I went through growing up. Several of my family members have similar issues. I think autism runs in my family.

I disagree; it's possible that neutral differences can lead to someone having problems (which is why I worded my post the way I did: having problems is not equivalent to being a problem/having a problematic nature).



Again, I disagree; the impairment diagnostic criterion is merely a manifestation of the practical side of neuropsychology. By "practical side," I mean that aspect which is geared towards helping people manage their problems. Someone who has no/sub-clinical impairments (or problems, as I prefer to call them) merely has no need of psychology or it's classifications; nothing is implied about who this person is.

It is only when we try to view psychological (or medical) constructs in a more theoretical or universal light, as identities, for example, that we come across apparent absurdities such as someone who was autistic and is no longer. To avoid such things, we need only observe a distinction between the practical and the theoretical; particularly, "being autistic" has little or no concrete meaning aside from fitting the construct comprised by the diagnostic criteria, according to someone's (hopefully) professional opinion.