My new theory on self diagnosed autistics

Post Reply New Topic

That is a very good point. I think too that the fact that this conversation thread is belabored at this length speaks to the fact that even those of us without an "official" diagnosis (myself included) are likely somewhere on the spectrum or close to it.

I think there is a big difference between being self-diagnosed aspie/ASD and the girl who got her psychologist to blind her. Maybe if someone were requesting brain surgery to "make" them autistic that would be closer to the equivalent.

And on the initial article: I am curious what cereal box this psychologist got his/her license from and how is blinding a pt anywhere close to a "treatment?" ! !! ! What about "first do no harm?" No matter what body disorder this woman had i can't imagine that to blind her was a successful treatment. And a psychologist doing it in the office--a lot of holes in this story. It is not very believable to me.

But--let us say a dr truly decided that if this woman wanted to be blind, this was a viable tx option for her. What sane psychiatrist would do such a procedure in office? It would be terribly painful and she would need medical intervention of some type. Pain meds if nothing else. Drain cleaner in eyes could go so very beyond just blindness if a mistake were made. Brain damage, death, or lots in between. I don't buy this article at all. Either it is a hoax or there is more to the story.

And i don't see how this type of discussion or "theory" is helpful. Seems to bring out the "autistic-er than thou" mindset or simply cause questioning between otherwise well-meaning people who didn't need discord sown between them.

I think the condition is probably hard for certain people to come to terms with. Especially people like your father who has known you all your life and accepts you for who you are.

Something that occurred to when reading this is that it is sometimes down to us to be tolerant of the lack of understanding in society. However frustrating that may be sometimes.

I for one do not divulge to people that I have Aspergers. I have no family except for y daughter (she knows of course).

I was diagnosed 10 years ago and it wasn't because I thought I had Aspergers it was because I was already in the mental health system. I had many many problems, suicidal, violent tendencies, couldn't settle down and couldn't look after my own daughter either. I was roaming the streets at night and doing drugs and looking back I was indeed extremely vulnerable.

It was a psychiatrist who actually sat me down and ran through a questionnaire with me in the end. He didn't diagnose me but he referred me to a specialist in the field of Autism. It was the most bizarre of times for me. I got diagnosed with AS and ADHD and although at the time it absolutely shook the foundations of my world I was able to look at my diagnosis and I finally understood myself.

It took me a while still to focus on my life but I would say that I have gone from strength to strength. I got my daughter back. Found somewhere proper to live. Tried to get an education but I'm not the academic type but I work and support myself.

I'm not saying that it's been a walk in the park for me but my life is far far better than it was.

Actually there are some parents who do push for a diagnoses when their kid is normal. Those parents are called as having Munchausen by Proxy and one of them did appear on the Dr. Phil show. Her kid was actually normal but the mother insisted he wasn't so she went doctor shopping until a doctor agreed with her. He was even diagnosed with AS and he said he was not autistic. He had different labels but was then restrained from his mother and chose to live with his father and the mother was convinced that her ex was telling him lies about her and alienating him from her but the son said no he made that choice, not his dad.
This is scary stuff right here and I was happy the kid wasn't so messed up and he seemed to turn out fine.

Last edited by League_Girl on 28 Oct 2015, 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

I thought of Munchausen-by-Proxy but let's face it, even the entire condition - spanning any one of a number of possible methods on the part of the parent - is rare among the general population. (Even if you double or triple the estimates to account for possible non-recorded cases you're still talking about a very small portion of the population.) Taking into consideration that displaying M-b-P specifically as "autism" (and not, for example, poisoning the child's food, encouraging falls/accidents, etc.), we are probably talking about a minimal percent of what is already a minimal percent...Which again would not make this a "theory" that would span a significant portion of the population and probably not meriting a sweeping "theory" to explain any sort of statistical significance. And even if there are such (obviously very rare) cases, in that case, it's not a question of coming up with theories (such as the OP's) in order to prevent people from "pretending" their children have autism, it's a question of coming up with ways to better look out for M-b-P overall, because that's what has caused the deliberate falsifying, M-b-P, not some giant "autism is cool" trend. M-b-P is its own, specific mental illness.

Also...look, not trying to pan the show or those who watch it, but...come on. Dr. Phil. Just sayin'. I mean I'm sorry to say that but...really. You're talking about a show that relies on a degree of sensationalism and "DID you KNOW about this DANGEROUS AND FRIGHTENING ISSUE?"-esque stuff (complete with pannings-in of Dr. Phil's famous "do you BELIEVE this stuff, folks?" face) and therefore, there's not really any reason to believe the stories are always non-exaggerated or even have been confirmed, or that details haven't been left, out, etc. (unless one does follow-up research oneself). Not saying there's no way that particular episode was factual but personally, I'd do my own homework first before believing a Dr. Phil episode without question. They need ratings, they get ratings.

Honestly what we have so far as far as solid support for the "faking autism" idea is a fictional semi-fantasy movie, a horror story about a woman deliberately wishing to be blinded (and already put down to a disorder that isn't related to autism as far as we know but is in itself its own condition) and a Dr. Phil show. I don't want to sweep away anyone else's theories/ideas but for me, personally, this really isn't adding up to evidence of a larger and significant problem.

By the way, was that eye-blinding story ever vetted? And/or explained in any detail? Faux News' article seems very vague.

I don't remember the details but I remember there were both sides, the mother's and the son's and ex husband's. The other claimed her son had all these issues and said her ex was alienating him from her and won't let her talk to him and saying he was lying to him about her but the son's side was different and I could choose to believe the mother and assume the son and father are lying. But I don't see any reason to believe there wouldn't be a parent out there who would push a label on their normal child. There are crazy people out there and some things are so crazy, some people don't want to believe it so they decide to think it's all made up or exaggerated. Some people think I make things up about a boy I used to know who was violent and threw an ax at my brothers nearly hitting them with it and how he broke kids bones and gloated about it because they don't want to believe a kid can really be that bad and be that capable unless I am crazy or the kid was lying to me about breaking kids bones but I don't see any reason why my parents and my brothers would lie to me about him and I have heard him hit his mother when I was there and seen how he treated her and I don't see any reason to think my mom would make stuff up about him about stuff he has done.

People will believe whatever. If something is so uncomfortable to hear, they can just choose to believe it's not real. I think that is how people operate.

I agree that Munchausen's by Proxy is probably incredibly rare. But there is one situation that troubles me, with low-income parents seeking a disability ruling for their children, because SSI pays better than welfare:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... e_effects/

This article focuses on kids being wrongfully diagnosed and medicated for ADHD, as a work-around for welfare limitations. (I'm not sure if this is happening with ASD as well, but it could be a potential motivation.)

Yes, that can happen, but for some of us, we don't want to get upset/disturbed about something that may be being misrepresented, so we require at least basic evidence for a "shocker" story before getting upset about it. Nothing crazy, but at least something that supports the assertion being made. That's where I'm coming from, anyway.

I may be overly-logical but this is usually how I operate, especially as regards "viral videos" (i.e. the blinding), shows that are known to utilize sensationalism in order to get ratings (a standard M.O., I'm not saying they're The Debbil or anything ), etc. Again, if there's anything concrete about these stories, of course I'll believe them; I don't automatically disbelieve them, I realize there are "crazy" people out there, just saying a. I see no reason to believe without questioning, especially in a venue (internet, talk show) that relies on grabbing people's attention and would be interested in seeing links to some sort of evidence for them, and am also saying that even if true, they don't seem to necessarily support that faking autism, etc. is some sort of a larger or growing problem or whatever. That's just my personal view of all this.

I'm not trying to pick on your ideas, I hope you don't take it that way.

So, with all that being said. Are you in support in some way of what the OP is saying or not?

Stories like this will justify peoples beliefs about a kid's diagnoses being a fake and the fact they are just normal kids that need more discipline just because the family is poor or low income. These articles always frighten me.

I understand what you are saying. My mom is the same way. She will be the first to tell me there is probably more to the story than what is being told. If something sounds f****d up, she will be skeptical. But of course she knows there are disturbed children out there and people. Which is why she will read different things on the same subject and if there is only one thing about it, she won't believe it and just take it as an opinion or perspective. I try to do that now.

Umm SSI is welfare....and it pays terribly, a low income pair of parents and their child could not live on SSI in any comfortable manner. Granted its possible in some cases fraud occurs but getting caught for faking disability or making your child fake disability is a very, very, very serious offense certainly not worth the measly SSI income.

edit* I have to say that article is dripping with BS...SSI does not pay thousands of dollars, it is a form of welfare and right off the article seems quite anecdotal. And that is just in the first couple sentences I dread to continue reading

Probably not relevant her but I get social security for my kids because my husband and I are both on it. I am not sure how much they get but it is a lot less than $1,000 each so I can see how someone else might keep having children to get more from SSI for their kids because it all adds up.

Yes but I imagine the amount of parents actually having more and more kids specifically to get more from SSI are a very small minority of parents who are collecting disability on behalf of their children. A parent collecting SSI for two children would then be getting less than 2,000 and so on. From what I understand pregnancies/having babies is not exactly cheap either. Also you wouldn't automatically get more SSI for each additional child...that would depend on if they are diagnosed as disabled or not.

So I kind of doubt the epidemic of lazy welfare parents having more and more kids just to get more SSI, as I say its probably a very small minority.

Thanks for the clarification on that article... Sorry for posting something that wasn't right!

Well, unless the dividend is greater than 1, and the divisor is between 0 and 1, exclusive. Or both the dividend and divisor are less than 0. In both cases, the quotient would be greater than the dividend.

Yes, I prefer your compassionate viewpoints to the OP's dismissive generalising too; and this analysis found very high concordance rates of ASD scores between self and formally diagnosed:
http://abnormaldiversity.blogspot.co.nz ... nosis.html