Critical of self diagnosis - you shouldn't be

Post Reply New Topic

I'm just kind of confused on what's being discussed now. It seems to keep changing.

Same as it has always been — for people to discuss self-diagnosis.



Is it? That isn't clear to me at all. I see a lot of "arguments" that are at best tangential to the topic of self-diagnosis — the unavailability and/or poor quality of professional diagnosis, ludicrous and unfounded accusations concerning the motives of people who criticize self-diagnosis, and even one poster who ascribed to self-diagnosis the magical power of deterring people from seeking out unqualified doctors.



I disagree that prohibiting criticism of self-diagnosis helps this site to be supportive. Frankly, this site functions to support me by allowing me to post my opinions without modding me to death like other sites have done. If this site increases the limits on the sorts of opinions one can post, I would view it as being less supportive than it is now.



I actually expect this thread to end soon, but these are of general use.

Continue as before, except:

Stop saying overtly nasty things like wishing that people would burn in hell.

Everyone read everyone else's comments carefully.

Most importantly: Everyone say what they mean, and assume that everyone else is saying what they mean.
Example: If somebody's comment makes you feel unwelcome, say "I feel unwelcome" instead of projecting your feelings onto other people and saying that they want you to leave WP (unless they actually say that they want you to leave). Do not say, "I feel that you think x," because that is not a feeling, that is ascribing a thought to a person.

Stop generalizing specific instances (both positive and negative) unless you have concrete proof of a trend.

Speak in concrete terms rather than vague language that is doomed to be misunderstood. If it is difficult to express an idea, add some sort of disclaimer to your post. If you fail to answer direct questions about your post, don't expect to be understood.

Take time to consider possible ambiguity and clarify before posting the comment.

Take responsibility for their own reactions.

Use the rest of the site! Feel sad? Post in the Haven. Have a few choice words for those psychopathic self-diagnosis haters? Make a rant in the Rant thread. Want a thread about self-diagnosis that involves no criticism? Create your own thread and specify what you want to discuss. Want an even more fiery self-diagnosis debate? Try the PPR sub-forum.

I can't help but feel you are victimizing yourself, especially in ways that were never intended; it seems to me that you have created the 'telling others what they should do' and 'blaming and shaming' primarily in your own mind.

I am sorry for any pain you may feel but in all honesty, I see attacks toward those against self-diagnosis, and not those that have self-diagnosed. Those against self-diagnoses have been referred to as bullies, bigots, and a slew of other negative terms that users have made up.

Yeah, me too. I suppose I've never understood 'grown-up' debates, nor will I ever fully understand.

One more thing: It might help if people state precisely what they mean by "self-diagnosis."

Based upon writings by Norny, Btbnnyr and Alex, this is what I now understand:

Self-diagnosis involves an individual having no less than 100% confidence that they are suffering from a certain condition/disorder (in this case ASD). Any individual can determine if they are on the spectrum provided that they research the topic “enough” and come into contact with enough people who have it. Because a self-diagnosis does not include outside observation, some people insist it cannot be valid.

This site has an inclusionary ethos, being open to criticism constantly is not inclusionary, unless of course your linguistically competent/talented/like debates. It removes a valid emotional reason for this sites popularity from self diagnosed Autists/Aspies and reserves it for the diagnosed; the majority of members here can identify with being open to constant criticism in real life, I think some might be apathetic from it. The members who openly identify as self diagnosed are clearly soft targets.

Seems to create a hierarchy where if you click the diagnosed option in your profile you will be able to use this site without being undermined in non self diagnosis discussions. Just pointing it out.

I do not understand why the standards of the privileged from wealthy progressive countries are being applied here to everyone, without regard for circumstances, seems crude and insular.

Civil on topic debates in the open, are IMO preferable to the censorship environment for both sides of this discussion.

Preying on fear of constant criticism and confrontation is not inclusive of long term members, especially when diagnosed members like taking aim at soft targets for their own amusement on whims. Why is that ethos tolerated under the guise of ‘validity’, ‘support for abilities’ or ‘healthy debate’? It traps people into a state of high alert, and I think most folks would be irritated and vulnerable when in that state and censored.

I consider this to be like politics.

I am from Australia, and the two major political parties are Liberal and Labour. If you vote Liberal, chances are you've had a debate with a person who votes Labour before and vice versa. It only gets heated when a person directly attacks the other (i.e. 'only idiots vote Labour'), or when the issue is highly controversial and it naturally escalates into logical arguments with no exception for feelings.

Self-diagnosis isn't a way of being, like being autistic, or being neurotypical. No one is attacking a person by attacking the concept of self-diagnosis.

How they are distinguishable:

. Self-diagnosis is bad

- The concept of self-diagnosis is impersonal. Yes, there will be many that are correct with their self-diagnosis, but there are also many that are wrong. There are many arguments with which one may support self-diagnosis (i.e. costs, location, individualism) and many against, such as lack of objective/professional assessment, generally heightened expectation of error and a related misrepresentation of a disorder.

. Autistics/neurotypicals are bad

- This directly attacks a person, no matter how vague/general the terminology is. If a negative statement is made about a personal group, it affects all that are part of the group. Racism, sexism, misogyny, heterosexism result from this.

It says in the wp rules that it is acceptable to attack an opinion, belief, or philosophy, but not to attack a person.
I follow the rules when I criticize self-diagnosis.

I agree and don’t have objections to your message regarding diagnosis; it has been consistent and clear.

There's nothing here that's worthy of the BanHammer.

This is, for the most part, a proper debate, I believe.

It's mostly a matter of semantics, really. Language is ever-evolving. "Self-diagnosis," within this context, does not imply an "official diagnosis." The term "diagnosis" has acquired a more general meaning within this context, and it is acknowledged as such by many.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 01 Dec 2014, 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

[MODERATOR]

No, nothing in this thread is against the rules. Yet.

Very well said.

it's really terrible when someone feels intimidated enough not to participate in substantive discussions, especially those which might yield a productive solution.

I've actually had that happen to me--but I had "bite the bullet" so to speak--and insert my input, anyway (no matter how "non-intellectual" the content might be.

There are times, as well, when an impasse is reached. When this happens, personal attacks and rhetorical techniques tend to increase, thereby lessening the quality of the discussion.

There really are times when people must "agree to disagree."

Given this definition of self diagnosis, I would think no one would ever claim it. 100% confidence in anything. should be rare.

It seems to me that people are talking somewhat at cross purposes.

I think there are people who are describing themselves as self-diagnosed who mean that they think the preponderance of the evidence they have sifted through points toward their being autistic and they are now preceding as it was a fact. Specifically, they are taking steps to control the factors that tend to have negative outcomes and create the conditions they do best in, with the insights that learning about autism about these factors. I don't think the critics of "self diagnosis" would find fault with this behavior.

I think the people who are objecting to self diagnosis are being completely accurate about their objections and their arguments are clear and rational. A person examining themselves cannot possibly have the external perspective required for diagnosis. A person who has not been professionally diagnosed has no legal standing to request accommodations, aid and so on. A person who has not been professionally diagnosed and whose traits are very much outside the typical autistic phenotype should not claim that their experience shows that the phenotype is wrong and autism is something else. I don't think people who consider themselves self diagnosed would disagree with any of this.

Kraftiekortie posted while I was writing this and I agree with those sentiments.

I think as it often happens here people may be focused more on the wording of the title than the actual content of the OP. It seems like people are defending their right to be critical more than anything.

I don't agree with the concept that simply posting an idea on a forum leaves it open to criticism and/or debate - especially not on a support site. If people feel intimidated, attacked, or criticized, it is not a supportive environment for them.

No one is obligated to give support. But no one is obligated to criticize either, or to debate aggressively on a topic just because they disagree with it.

How can this be a supportive environment for everyone when allowing a the most outspoken or aggressive members to express themselves freely makes it a bad environment for others?

Maybe my idea of a support site is different from what others have in mind, but I don't think a forum this large and inclusive can truly be a support site. Inclusiveness is a very broad form of support that tends to favor the most insensitive and aggressive members.

On a more personal level, support comes through exclusion. Quite simply it comes through excluding people from one's life who are unsupportive, unkind, uncompassionate, etc.

If I had the option to make my posts here completely invisible to people who behave in those ways, I would do so in a heartbeat. Problem solved. Facebook, as much as I dislike it, does give that option to completely and totally block people.

I don't enjoy the feeling that I have to be on alert for "unsupportive posters" every single time I post here. I want to exclude those people from my life in every way possible.