Any other groups that are more accepting of self-diagnosis?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with this.

It's a shaky analogy, but being prohibited from criticizing self-diagnosis feels to me like I'm part of a religion, where I am carefully monitored how I speak of the faith, and if I disagree with it even in the slightest of ways I will be executed. I relate it to religion because it is impersonal, but often a strong part of someone's identity.

I view it as very different to publicly criticizing what is directly personal, such as autistic individuals or NTs, which is an example that I keep using because most are familiar with it.

This, in my opinion, is OK:

. I don't consider self-diagnosis a valid process because it lacks too many core components of a diagnostic procedure. The diagnosis cannot be used for legal purposes, blah blah blah

. Self-diagnosis has a lower guaranteed rate of success (especially in my experience), therefore I do not think it's generally a safe thing to do

This is not:

. All self-diagnosed people are deluded
. I don't consider autistics/NTs to be very intelligent, because they are always doing [insert activity]
. I hate autistics/NTs, they're all so arrogant

Because they are personal attacks.

I would suggest using the Ignore feature for anyone if lack of tact or compassion from another user here is a problem. It would be nice if everyone who debated this issue did in a way that's thoughtful of the feelings of others but it's not realistic.

I suppose that's an option.

I've never used the ignore feature. As much as some people annoy or irritate me, I accept that it's symptomatic of ASD to be socially clueless like that.. as well as rigid in their thinking and so forth. Also, it helps build my tolerance levels for things other people do that irritate me - so I do actually get some value out of it.

Norny it's just exhausting for me to address the things you say because you make a lot of wrong assumptions. I can't handle responding to people who communicate that way.

I should report everyone on this website for failing to be supportive of me. Where were they when I was homeless? Where were they when I needed a home, a job, food, clothing, or just a friend? Where are they now when I need just a little encouragement and affirmation? NOWHERE, that's where! I had to get up and out of the gutter all by myself, and without any help from anyone here.

I work at a job that requires me to be sociable to a bunch of testosterone-poisoned modern-day Neanderthals who think that anyone with a handicap or disability is less than a man, and that any man who feels physical pain or depression is a "p****". I drive 30 miles one-way during my commute on crowded freeways during rush-hour traffic filled with people who seem hell-bent on taking me out of the gene pool. But does anyone on WP give a damn? NO!

Thus, if failing to be supportive is a reportable offense, then I should report every member and mod of Wrong Planet for not being supportive of ME.

It's only fair, right?

I don't think anyone here is required to be supportive of others, but it is a good idea to refrain from being unsupportive.

One doesn't always have to be "supportive"--but it would be nice.

Opinions are just that: opinions. They are not usually iron-clad facts. That's the way I take them. I don't feel "attacked" by someone having a different opinion from mine. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.

It would be ridiculous to report someone for being "non-supportive" in the absence of personal attacks.

I wouldn't even report personal attacks. I deal with them in my own way: by acknowledging that opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one. And by rebuttal (always refraining from personal attacks myself).

I see nothing wrong with "self-diagnosis" under the WP definition of it. It's the product of research/exploration. Autism is not glamorous. Autism is not hip. Autism is just autism.

I see nothing wrong with official diagnosis--but even the highest ranking doctors are always questioning how official diagnoses are done, and the criteria for official diagnoses.

All in all: people are entitled to their own opinion. People are entitled to question opinions--provided that they don't attack the integrity of the opinion-maker.

I agree with this.

I looked at most of those threads and started one and I did not see personal attacks.

I did not see attacks directed at any particular poster, but I did see some posts (none of yours btbnnyr) that speculated about the motives of the self diagnosed as a group in a very hostile way.

I am thinking of posts by several posters over several threads that suggested that the self diagnosed are:
* Frauds intent on criminal extraction of benefits from the government
* Delusional
* Malingerers
* Liars
* Attention seekers

While none of these accusations was leveled at a particular poster, I believe that some of the self diagnosed posters felt that each of these descriptions was aimed at them and had an emotional response to those negative posts in aggregate.

I can see that there were no personal attacks, but I can also see that the general attacks on the motives of the self diagnosed would be perceived that way. It's easy to conduct a thought experiment and imagine describing other groups (e.g., blacks, gays, jews) with negative generalities--"none of these remarks were personal attacks" would not go very far as a defense for such remarks.

I think think this is an important topic that should be open to debate, but:
* It would be good if the anti self diagnosis people (not accusing anyone in particular, here) refrained from negative speculation about the motives of the self diagnosed
* It would be good if the self diagnosed recognized that the most of the objections to self diagnosis really are not personal attacks and should not be lumped together with a collection of all the most hostile speculation about the motives of the self diagnosed.

I think some of the aggrieved among the self diagnosed responded to the feeling of being attacked by attacking those they saw as hostile and this was somewhat more direct than the language that was initially perceived as an attack. I think Starkid's comments about trying to take people's posts at face value (and dealing with what is posted rather than what is perceived to have been implied) outlined a very good alternative approach to this response.

Just speaking in general about life I am surprised by how often people feel the need to express their opinions. I rarely do.

There are lots of other things to talk about in a forum, like experiences, stories, and feelings. Personal opinions are not always wanted in those kinds of discussions.

The analogy I keep thinking of is it's like sitting down to eat with someone who criticizes the kind of food you are eating. They think it is wrong to eat that food, but I like it and I'm going to eat it anyway. That's fine that they have that opinion, but I don't want to hear about it through the entire meal.

Since this post immediately follows one in which I expressed some opinions, should I take it as an indirect message not to express myself about these things? I hope not!

In a discussion forum, when someone creates a new post about a certain topic, it is pretty much expected that people will express their personal views about that topic. In so doing they may share experiences, stories and feelings, but these are seldom given with total objectivity. It's OK if people don't all agree about stuff and if you don't like the general direction of someone's post, you can just skip it.

Yep...in a discussion, people will invariably express their opinions. Otherwise, it's not a discussion. Any potential discussion will be "stopped in its tracks."

Hmmmn. I don't feel so much that it is aimed at me or anyone else in particular. On that I have no idea and really don't care.

What is annoying and frustrating is that people generalize about people doing those things as if there are lots of precedents, ie examples of those people being found to do those things. When in reality I don't think there are many examples of situations like that at all. I personally don't know of even one example.




I really wish you wouldn't try to explain how other people think/feel/perceive on their/our behalf. I tend to ignore posts that misinterpret me because I feel like it takes too much time and energy to correct it.

I don't understand why people need some sort of explanation of "the motives" of people. Either they can relate to me, or not. If people don't relate to me or dislike what I'm doing, I don't think it is going to matter to them "why" I'm doing it.

Er, no, I didn't see your post while I was posting. I was responding to Kraftie's post before yours. I am slow at writing so I am usually at least a step behind on responses.




Or I can comment about what I think of someone's post if I don't like their post, the same as they can give their opinion. I am not required to skip it.

I understand what you're saying, Dianthus. Dialogue is also about sharing one's experiences without the need for criticizing every point.

I think we need a hybrid site: One where one could express opinions--and one where one could convey their experiences without immediate judgments being thrown your way.

The trouble with the internet: it's really quite a vehicle for venting, owing to its anonymous nature.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 03 Dec 2014, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, that's a relief!


Of course! And that's part of what keeps things interesting.

I'm hyperlexic, and I have sensory dysfunction to go with it. I have hypergraphia and the seizures that go with it. Whether you know it or not, we are not affecting this, and some of us are harassed and bullied over it. On the other hand, there are some in our own number who would call you names (of four syllables) and question your level of education because of the fact that you are different in your own manner of communication. In fact, there are some individuals who have a sensory dysfunction and relatively high level of intelligence and even think that others, who require noise in their environments to stimulate them, are just "bad people" and may even be moved to hateful acts.

Because our society truly has lost its way, people in today's culture will not believe that a person who thinks differently from how they do could be a well-meaning person. For instance, some of us feel comforted by the sense of "legitimacy" that is associated with professional diagnosis, and they find it sort of scary to be out there on their own without the help of a person who is in an officially recognized capacity to help them on their way. Others find it self-affirming and empowering to take a mindset of "self-help," and this doesn't mean they reject western medicine or something. They just feel best if they figure themselves out on their own terms before heading for a clinic. This is not because they think they know better. They just find it sort of scary to "take the plunge" to go seek diagnosis.

Today, we have an attitude that someone who thinks differently and has different needs just has something wrong with them, and that is why our society is crumbling.