Critical of self diagnosis - you shouldn't be

Post Reply New Topic

Admantium, I really admired what you had to say too - very wise and elegantly expressed

Not sure wether I am on the spectrum or not. But I do know I never developed neurotypical after experiencing early childhood trauma of a non-violent nature (but psychologically extreem all the same). I cut my roots in my early teens and plodded on to be declared an adult by the courts at 17 and started a new life in a new, more culturally open country.
In my own culture I was labelled and would no doubt have ended up incarcerated either way at the best. Dead at the worst...

W.E.I.R.D is 'normal':

If anyone has a link regarding hard towards the self-diagnosed, could you please paste it here. I want to see what they have to say.

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny.
-chronically drunk

This is relevant Norny:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/brutereason ... scontents/

Since this is one of the most rational discussions on this topic,I'll give my 2 cents worth. I am not diagnosed nor am I self diagnosed, my profile says I don't know. However, I do know that I think and act like an HFA/Aspie despite a lifetime of trying not to. I know this because I compared my past and present behavior to diagnostic criteria, case histories, and anecdotes of people "on the spectrum". I stretched my investigation discontinuously over about 2 years preventing it from becoming an obsession and maintaining as much objectivity as I could. Still, I will not say I have ASD because I am not a qualified diagnostician and absolute objectivity is impossible. All that said, it's obvious that in practical terms I have "diagnosed" myself.

I respect self diagnosis if it is done thoughtfully. I do not respect self a diagnosis that is little more than pulling a symptom out of the air and declaring oneself autistic. I respect the opinion of those who reject self diagnosis because in absolute terms they are absolutely right. However, re the example above, it is possible, no matter how improbable, that one could diagnose there own breast cancer and effectively treat it. What I am saying is that reasonable tolerance and acceptance is not misplaced.

As for Jerry, he is just another celebrity that has made a statement that the media and some individuals have overreacted to.

My 2¢s are in agreement with guzzle and B19. As guzzle pointed out, misdiagnosis is a huge factor in the psychology game. And most people that do go to get a diagnosis are usually hurting, and end up getting pills to take. Many patients end up taking pills for the rest of their lives.

One of the creepiest aspects of the psychology business is transference. Feelings of dependence on one's therapist are very common. We go in to see a doctor who already has prestige and authority, and he/she listens to us with sympathy and seems to like and understand us... AND has a treatment that they believe will help us. We just have to take these pills, and come back in a week or two. This business isn't much different than astrologers, tarot card readers, or shamans and healers of any stripe. They listen with their special wisdom, they commiserate, they prescribe, and they want you to comeback and share your results. Accepting diagnosis is a cultural phenomena. They are "professionals."

I might add that Mr. Seinfeld has made a subjective "diagnosis", which is automatically suspect. Symptoms of an ASD may overlap with those of other disorders, such as the various forms of depression; and some of these other conditions may alter perception, especially how individuals perceive themselves.

While any individual is free to make any 'diagnosis" they chose, only appropriately-trained and licensed mental-health professionals can make a valid diagnosis of an ASD. And while the epitome of convenience, on-line tests can not provide an objective ASD diagnosis, and should be (in)validated by an aforementioned professional.

Also, people may have fallen into believing Mr. Seinfeld's "diagnosis" for no other reason than their own admiration of him.

I think that validity is key. I respect anyone who makes a self diagnosis in an thorough manner. I would have no reason to question or argue with someone if that person has taken the time to do the research and really understand the Spectrum. I don't think it is right to just assume ASD by shallowly pulling a trait or two out of the air and not really researching what AS is really about. But as far as validity goes, I believe that an official diagnosis is necessary as Fnord says. A self diagnosis is fine for personal satisfaction and even for some things that people might need and I have no problem with that at all and if that is sufficient for some I completely respect and honor that. But for reasons that may be legally binding or to officially claim ASD in an official manner, I think that one would need an actual diagnosis. I also agree that there are some professionals who don't know what the **** they are talking about and in my opinion they have no business being diagnosticians. But I don't believe that every official diagnosis is suspect. I know for a fact that there are some that are so thorough and complete that there is no room for error. So, yes, I think that some self diagnosed as well as some clinically diagnosed can be wrong but I have no reason to judge or criticize anyone who has done a thorough job in either.

This makes me think of the issue of illegal immigrants in the USA.

For all the debate, one issue is that people who immigrate LEGALLY comply with the time-consuming and expensive processes of entering and remaining legally...never mind becoming a citizen. Those who break the law and are not held accountable are basically an insult and injury to all of those who do it the way it is supposed to be done.

Of course, to be fair, having a Dx for Autism doesn't convey any fabulous "benefit" in the USA. You might (and I emphasize MIGHT) get some disability benefit, but really, you are better off never going on disability. The most it does is "prove" you have a "disability" if there is ever an issue where you want to try and invoke the protection of law.

I don't see self-diagnosis as a way of being an "illegal alien" where it comes to being counted as disabled. So long as qualified diagnosticians are hard to find (once you are over 18, few know how to spot Autism in someone who's learned to conceal it) AND the cost is prohibitive (both in cost of service and cost to go and make the trip(s) needed to acquire the Dx) AND diagnosticians are hesitant to slap the label on (after all your time, trouble and cost), to say only an "official" diagnosis should count is really insane.

I don't think most employers would question a person's request for accommodation absent a doctor's note unless you are asking for something expensive or significantly difficult to arrange. I also don't think you need documentation of an official diagnosis to be protected by the law. If you say you are disabled, claim you were not accommodated, and it comes to a court case, you can then go and get an official diagnosis to back what you've always known to be so. The only way the lack of a formal Dx might protect someone from being accused of not accommodating you is if they required you provide documentation of the disability before they would offer accommodation.

Hmmmmm I can see where you are coming from with the immigrant analogy though the problem with that is that immigration procedures are a legal requirement imposed on everyone entering the country. The law is imposed on those who enter illegally too. But I think you are drawing a long bow.

Diagnosis of ASD is not a legal requirement nor a legal issue, there are no penalties for self-diagnosis, (at least not legal ones, anyway, there is prejudice which sometimes emerges from threads like this).

I think the "eye contact" thing is a red herring in this debate, used in a dismissive way to undermine the validity of self recognition. To me, it is far more constructive to look at what the self-diagnosed and other-diagnosed nearly always have in common in their past histories, and there are some universal hallmarks that never fade from memory: excluded by other children, marginalised or isolated in the playground, treated rudely or bullied, called insulting names for no obvious reason (weirdo, ret*d, strange), blanked by adolescent peer groups, the last to be asked to the birthday parties, the clumsiness that was so embarassing. The self-diagnosed and other-diagnosed have these hallmarks in common. The memories for all of us are clear and sharp however many years pass.

Do the self diagnosed remember the acute pain of these experiences? Yes
Do the other-diagnosed remember the acute pain of these experiences? Yes
Do we all profoundly share that knowledge of developmental years? Yes

Is it too much to hope that there might be a shift in this issue in time where mutual acceptance replaces the "contest of validity" and the idea that other diagnosis is automatically more sound? I hope it is not too much to hope for.

My feeling, in reference to Jerry Seinfeld, is that he might have some friends who are actually autistic/Asperger's. Perhaps, he sees some traits of it in himself. I also believe he wanted to "de-mystify" autism by "coming out" in the manner in which he "came out"--perhaps to provide benefit for those "friends." I believe his intentions are good--whether he's actually on the Spectrum or not.

I don't believe his statement trivializes autism.

I also don't believe there is any way to determine if someone is autistic solely via internet posts. You actually have to observe the person IN PERSON. This is an absolute belief of mine. Therefore, if someone says he/she is on the Spectrum, I take his/her word for it. I still don't believe, contrary to others' assertions, that Asperger's/Autism is a "disease of the week" and is somehow "hip."

My friend told me his kid was on the Spectrum because he is really smart. I sent him my notes on Tony Attwood's book that I prepared for my diagnosis and my friend apologized to me big time after he read them. He felt so horrible by what he had said and had believed about what it takes for a Spectrum "parent/self" diagnosis.. I think that happens more often than we realize. But I think that most adults who self diagnose do it in a very thorough manner and have done the adequate research.

My fear in what my friend did is that he might have convinced his son that he was on the Spectrum because of his ignorance and that the son might have grown up believing and claiming that and not found the need to research it further. Also telling others that his kid is on the Spectrum would only spread that kind of ignorance which would do a great disservice to those of us who really are on it. That sort of thing, to me, is really bad and like I told my friend, that kind of claim makes a mockery of people who are really suffering because it trivializes everything we go through and causes other people not to take us seriously.

But again, anyone who has self diagnosed having done the research and having a thorough understanding of ASD because of research and having come to the conclusion that ASD fits them best, I have no reason to disrespect their decision or argue with of challenge them. There is enough information about ASD now for people to make have an educated opinion of themselves and to see if the traits and symptoms fit them. And if all they are looking for is help in that way, I say go for it and whatever help they can get I would wish for them to have..

Fortunately it doesn't happen a great deal with autism as it does with other diagnoses, at least in my experience.

I still do see it more than I would hope. In the cases I have observed it isn't usually a person reading one thing and then self-diagnosing, but a genuine misplacement of human characteristics or characteristics of other disorders (such as depression) as features of autism. You actually see this misplacement of traits coming from diagnosed individuals as well. It happens on this forum.

There is a thread asking what 10 things not to do on WP, and somebody posted along the lines of 'not attributing characteristics such as blue eyes to AS'. That is somewhat what I refer to.

Rational people that are against self-diagnosis are not against people that self-diagnose, but I can guarantee that most will be wary of a self-diagnosis purely because of the frequency at which it goes sour. It's shouldn't be a burden of a self-diagnosed person to prove themselves to these people; if you have self-diagnosed, you should feel content with your own findings. You don't need to prove yourself to a stranger. IMO it only becomes a problem when dogma takes over - when it is somebody's opinion that professional diagnosis is somehow a magical stick of approval signifying that somebody definitely has a condition/disorder, and that any other diagnosis should be dismissed.

It is also important to highlight the difference between suspecting and self-diagnosis:

. Suspecting - Less than 100% sure that one is afflicted by a condition/disorder, but have strong reasons to consider the possibility
. Self-diagnosed - No less than 100% confident that they are suffering from a condition/disorder; they are certain


You can liken it to a scenario regarding a hand grenade:

You will be wary of a hand grenade if it is in a typical person's hands (a self-diagnosed person). Unbeknownst to you, the typical person holding the grenade may have actually had training in the fantastic art of grenades, but as you do not know this, you will be wary. This training is equivalent to an immense amount of research and self-exploration committed by a specific self-diagnosed person. As most people do not spend a great deal of time learning how to properly handle grenades (untrained), and that some may mistakenly assume that they know how to due to playing video games or something (a person who readily self-diagnoses), it shouldn't be deemed offensive for a person to be wary of or even against (in general) what appears to them to be an untrained person holding a grenade. If a highly ranked soldier (medical professional) held the grenade, people would be more at ease, as they would assume he knew better what he was doing by default.

It's not really an argument with a winning conclusion. Some people self-diagnose 'correctly' and others don't, with less guaranteed reliability than a professional diagnosis. That's just how it is.

_________________
Unapologetically, Norny.
-chronically drunk

I like your distinction between suspecting and self diagnosing. I think that is important. I also think that a most self diagnosed people don't do it alone. I really believe that most seek the input of others who know them on their issues so it is not 100% subjective. But even if some don't have the means to seek the input of others, I think that an adult who does adequate and thorough research can come to a pretty close and pretty accurate conclusion. But they really do need to educate themselves properly on the condition to do so.

Funny Norny, when you said high ranking soldier (medical professional) it took me a few minutes to understand that the high ranking soldier holding the grenade was not the medical professional.

It was not obvious to me what you meant because I am a child of a high ranking officer who happens to be a medical professional.

I know that I was diagnosed by one of the two most reputable specialists in the Charlotte area, and I have seen first hand Charlotte is very friendly to children growing up with disabilities, disorders, and learning differences. I am strongly suspicious that he grew up with ASD himself; but more importantly, he gave me a diagnosis that would not fit the DSM 4 or 5 criteria; I too am a very emotional person, who is extremely sensitive to other people's feelings, sometimes to a detrimental extent. In some his diagnoses, if a patient was extremely "over the line" in one area (eg social awkwardness), and the other areas (maladaptive, sensory, emotional, cognitive) were below the line...but the average of those lines on a bar graph scale were over a "clinically significant" line, he would give the patient a diagnosis. Attwood writes the diagnosis is as significant as a reflection of how severely autistic traits have effected ones life. I am highly skeptical of the notion that the majority of well read specialists take a "dry and science-y" approach without heavy emphasis qualitative measures. For the record, I was extremely cautious with my own handling of the diagnosis, I knew that if I simply went along with the flow and hopped on the bandwagon without regard for other reasons for my struggles, I ran the risk of exaggerating my quirks and my attention on my autistic traits, which would skew the perception of my assessor. If I wasn't simply an ADHDer with social anxiety and poor compensation patterns from middle school experiences, I was going to make damn sure that wasn't the case, I had a fear of being a phony aspie overstating neurological challenges, and creating self sabotage in the form of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To restate what I just alluded to, a self diagnosis does have the potential for one to make a false positive, in which case, can have a dramatic effect on how someone views their innate abilities to develop NT skills with practice and experience alone (the route for an aspergian being tuition from designated resources). A diagnosis in any form runs the risk of planting a seed of self-doubt in an individual, a self-diagnosing NT is simply committing self-sabotage, using legitimate evidence in his or her mind to form a conclusion that will dictate how confident the person will be in pursuing social endeavors, maybe for the rest of his or her life.

I also find it funny that we "shouldn't" or "ought not" to be critical of self diagnosis, yet you are critical of someone paying good money to get assessed by an expert with a degree because they want the best opinion possible...when you know there are cases, as mentioned in the thread, of people with no business diagnosing themselves, doing just that, and contributing to a flawed trend of generalizing autism. It's a fair criticism, it's completely reasonable for someone to take issue with that.