Why Do People Hate Self-Diagnosers?

Post Reply New Topic

While I understand the appeal of a terminology change from "self diagnosed" to something else for autistics it at best a partial solution because it does not deal with the larger issue which what is autism. It will "solve" the issue for language exacting autistics but won't solve the larger issue which is that many won't accept you as autistic unless you show obvious and continual impairments. This whole thread as interesting as it is, is a deflection. The rest of this post is not about individual posters or even necessary WP. Self diagnosis and Aspergers are symbolic of what is perceived as the massive overdiagnois of autism hurting recognition of the problems of "real autistics". We can describe how we were not picked up back in the day forever but if we obtained some sort of "normalcy" be it job or marriage it is implied we are not autistic because we do not fit their definition of autism. What is really insulting to some is the idea of autism identity, because the idea is how can you identify with an impairing disability.

There have been very roughly three Autism era's.
1.The classic autism era 1940's until late 1980's when only the most severe were recognized if they were at all.
2.The DSM IV/Aspergers/positivity era 1990's/2000's
3.This decade, backlash against era #2.

While we talk about how unrecognized "milder" autism was back in the day, based on posts here it is still fairly common and being propagated by many professionals who do understand the newer definitions but disagree with them, some to the degree of wanting take us back to era #1.

There are definitely days I feel we are going to lose everything gained and be right back in era #1. Charges of faking it or being a drama queen, or you are just..... is certainly reminiscent of the 1960's and 1970's. But that probably is an overreaction. But we are going backwards and probably will be for awhile, so the best we can do is limit damage until the trends change as they usually do.

Your situation mirrors my own very closely, except that I was in my mid-thirties when Aspergers entered the DSM. I'm pretty sure that the only people who had access to a psychiatrist in the UK in the 1960s were either very disturbed children, dangerous, or potentially dangerous criminal types, or people in institutions; and maybe some very well-off upper middle class or celebrity types with too much time on their hands (and not much wrong with them).

I spent half a decade standing on my own in the playground of my primary school in the 1960s, not speaking a word to anyone during that whole period and not having the slightest idea how to interact with anyone my own age. None of the teachers ever showed the slightest sign that this was any of their concern, and my own mother, who worked in the school kitchens, never apparently saw anything odd in this.

I can't emphasize enough to some of the younger readers of this forum, or even some of the middle-aged ones who perhaps grew up in a somewhat more 'advanced' middle-class environment, that this really was a different universe to the one I read about so often in this section of the website.

My god -- Who_I_Am, and DeepHour --- both of your posts are me exactly.

This was me too as a child. I too went under the radar in school because I was well-behaved in public situations including the classroom, was very, very quiet, and did well academically.

The only people who thought/knew I had a "a problem" were my own family members because it was only at home that I could fall apart (aside from restaurants -- I lost it in restaurants as a child). But it was the 1960s and although we were fairly middle class, my parents still were not really aware of modern psychology and they were the king and queen of denial and "shoving problems under the rug" -- in other words, just "dealing" without saying "Wait a minute, our child is having problems and what are we going to do about that?" That just didn't happen in my family.

DeepHour -- that was me too: standing in the playground talking to no-one. I used to walk around and around in a circuit, just thinking my thoughts, or stick my head in a book to deal with school breaktimes. Again, in the 1960s nobody even batted an eyelash at withdrawn behavior. I was even selectively mute, and all the teachers did was fuss a bit about it, try to give me assembly pieces to perform, but that was it. Nobody rushed anyone to a psychologist in those days unless the kid was climbing the walls or killing kittens.

AsPartOfMe -- I just saw your latest post; sorry I just made another very personal post about my 1960s experience -- I just wanted to respond to the two other posters as our experiences are so similar and I wanted to acknowledge that.

You're correct though, the topic as gone OT a little in the course of talking about personal pasts, although some of us I think are trying to explain why someone can be overlooked during certain eras, as other members were questioning that as if it would be unlikely to happen. I agree with your summary of the eras.

I think I need to join the club of "wait a second are we clones" Very similar experience, just I was born the (late) mid 90s. Since I seemed pretty happy and was not causing any problems academically or in behavior nobody even thought to think there was anything wrong. I wouldn't talk to any adults at all other than my parents and my nan. I wouldn't really talk to any of the others kids, either. I was just seen as very shy and that was that. Not playing with the other kids nor getting involved in their games was just under shyness. I did what I was told and my school performance was above average so on the school's part there was no reason to be concerned. There was a point in school (up until where I was majorly behind and if that went on much longer I'm sure something would have been done. Each yeargroup (60 kids) was split into 4 sections - they had names but I can't remember them. I went from the bottom one with about 5 or 6 kids, into the second bottom one with 25 kids, quickly into the second top one again with 25 kids and then finally into the very top one with again 5 or 6 kids. Well at least for math - for the other subjects it was a mix between the two middle ones. It didn't raise any concerns so here I am only just getting started on the diagnosis process at 18 years old.

iliketrees, it's amazing how many of us have almost identical experiences, even from different generations!

I think it helps a lot to discover that one is not alone. A few years ago I was under the impression that whatever it was that was "wrong" with me, I was alone and nobody else seemed to have my problems. It's amazing to come here and find out there have been others out there all along and I never knew.

And I'm sorry to hear that you were overlooked too, even though you grew up in the time when supposedly "they" notice these things now. It just goes to show, people can still go under the radar, especially if the academic side of school is going okay.

I wish I could find that guy! I don't know how my avatar "disappeared!"

How would you guys feel about a larger version of the Tasmanian Devil for an avatar?

I thought your old avatar was one of those cartoon versions you can make of yourself from a photo! Was it just a stock avatar from a database of them?

I love the Tasmanian Devil, although I keep wondering why he's not central in the space. It's like he's standing to the side. (Why that bothers me I have no clue! )

...And your friends/co-workers are experts on Autism?

Do they know more RE autism than the scant generalisations encountered in the media?


There are a number of fallacies committed in your post - and others throughout this thread:

1) Anecdotal Fallacy - 'using a personal experience or an isolated example instead of sound reasoning or compelling advice'

2) Appeal to probability 'a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case)'

You're also arguing from numbers i.e. 'everyone else seen it'.


The attempts in this thread to justify 'self-diagnosis' all follow paths that are completely and entirely logically faulty. The following faulty arguments are found:

1) Appeal to fear (frequently found in 'self-diagnosis' threads in the context of 'things were terrible back then but are better now' - which does not correlate with adding validity to 'self-diagnosis')

2) Appeal to pity ('my grandpa suffered as he didn't receive a formal diagnosis')

I'll just list a few more rather than giving examples:

Appeal to spite - a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.

Wishful Thinking - a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

Appeal to motive - where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.

etc etc



Let's assume I'm quite a fast runner. My friends don't run, but to them I'm fast. They have told me before that I'm fast. I think I may be the fastest man on earth.

I'm going to tell people I'm the fastest man on earth. Or maybe I won't tell them, because I know within myself I'm the fastest man on earth. And don't dare think of telling me otherwise, as you don't know me, and are not in a position to invalidate me.

I am a self-certified olympic-level sprinter. It is part of my identity. I live within the self-certified sprinter culture.

Are you denying me my identity by telling me I may not be the fastest man on earth?



Every argument for 'self-diagnosis' is doomed to fall apart as structurally it'll have to commit a logical fallacy to validate itself.

This shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on any individual per se - it is a comment on unsound logic used to derive a conclusion from a false premise.

It can probably still happen now - tetris linked a TV series with 4 episodes (so far?) called "Born Naughty?" and the episodes are 44 minutes in length and each one looks at 2 children. There was a child with clear autism signs in episode 3 who was 10 I think. The fact he got that old does say something. The kid had no friends at school and got bullied but the school didn't raise concerns as far as I can tell. Episode 2 had a 3 year old girl who could only repeat what was said to her and I don't know if that preschool raised concerns over it - didn't even recognize her repetitive behavior. So while it's better than the 60s it's still not perfect and people can get through. At least the girl was recognized at the right age, and the boy still fairly young. I don't know what's gonna happen for me - I'm not a kid anymore, so if they'll do anything I don't know.

sonicallysensitive -- it's a long thread and I may have overlooked many posts, but are there many people here who are "justifying self diagnosis"?

Some of the later posts have merely been a few of us older ones -- who are now diagnosed -- digressing a little by talking about the reason why our generation got overlooked for possible autism. And then some sharing of experiences while in the limbo land of wondering. Hence we necessarily had to go through at least some duration of time in which we recognized traits -- in order to even take the next step and get a proper evaluation at all.

That's not a "justification" of self diagnosis -- that's an explanation of why and how such a stage of thinking can come about. Because whatever else may be open to speculation, it's pretty much a fact that at one time a huge chunk of history saw only severe cases sent for evaluation, leaving others to no choice but to eventually "notice" it in themselves later -- and some go on to make sure (seeking an evaluation) while others do not or cannot.

In my own case, as one of the older ones, during my personal time-period of that stage, I tried not to think of myself as "self diagnosed" but merely "self suspecting" and on the road to making that appointment.

As for those who remain self diagnosed, I don't think they're really trying to justify anything to anyone, as many of them seem to acknowledge they don't claim official status, just an inner satisfaction of what they feel to be true and often keep to themselves, even.

Last edited by BirdInFlight on 22 Jun 2015, 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Regardless of the arguments against self diagnosis, I see a far more persuasive argument for accepting it just in the protection against going after one another it offers and without looking any further.

But if one needs to use logic the logic is that different professionals in different locations use varying criteria in diagnosing people. The diagnosis isn't cut and dried, I can't pretend otherwise.

Autism is not like pneumonia. There are very few clear-cut "objective" symptoms--except maybe the core symptoms described by Kanner.

Additionally, autism is in a state of constant flux; whereas there's been very little change in the criteria for pneumonia since at least the advent of "germ theory" in the 19th century.

What do you folks think of this avatar?

It looks a bit like me. This person has the same basic facial shape and prominent forehead as I.

I have lighter hair, don't have a mustache, and look somewhat younger.

The mystery deepens.

He resembles me much more than Taz does, and a bit more than the previous guy.

People say I'm a dead-ringer for Robin Williams when he was in his 40s. I have a better nose, though.

I had no idea it was your posts I was reading until I came here. All this changing has thrown me off - "wow this guy has more than 11,000 posts but I've never seen him before" came into my mind a few times

This profile picture looks a lot like me in real life.