Is self-diagnosis okay/valid/a good thing?

Post Reply New Topic

It provides an acceptable explanation for much that has gone before.

As I wrote in my introduction "Lived on all continents except S. America and Antarctica. Kept moving in the belief that one day I would find somewhere where the people were more friendly, then discovered a year or so ago it was ME".

A self-diagnosis, if it is such, will enable me to understand why my life has been as it has, and seek to make sure I don't make the same mistakes again. In this regard it has been invaluable.

When you have been around as long as I have (70 + years) you learn coping strategies. Which quite likely could lead a specialist to suggest that a person doesn't have Asperger's. There are many of us who don't wave a white flag at the first sign of difficulty.

Other than my slightly older sister there is no one still alive who would have known me as child. Yet my reading and research would definitely suggest that I was austistic as a child. And sixty to seventy years ago I suspect the words Autism and Asperger's weren't even in the dictionary.

Do you really want to understand? or is this more of a rhetorical question?

I have seen you say many times in these discussions that you do not understand the reasons people are giving, but it seems like it does not make any difference how many different ways it is explained to you. I get the impression that you do understand, you just don't agree.

I think you're making some very flawed assumptions..."so few problems in life" and "isn't impaired enough" are not necessarily true of people who self-diagnose. If you ask questions that are loaded with false assumptions, you are not likely to get explicit answers.

I don't think I would benefit from a professional diagnosis at this time in my life, but that does not equate to not being "impaired enough" or having "so few problems in life." I have significant problems and impairments, but I don't think that having a professional diagnosis would help me. Self-diagnosing has given me a context for understanding and living with my impairments.

Hehe. Can you imagine trying to explain your life with its successfully self-taught adaptations, characteristics and challenges to someone half your age with a Ph.D. who simply doesn't see evidence of your self-identified ASD? I have said it before and it deserves repeating here: Most professional ASD diagnosticians work with children aged six months to 11 years of age because that is generally where the diagnostic criteria and autism industry has placed them (camp followers of all kinds follow the money, don't they?). Unless the diagnosticians specialize in adult diagnoses (an inadequate and underdeveloped niche among professionals in my opinion) the diagnosticians wouldn't generally recognize the differences between children with ASDs and adults with ASDs. Are we surprised when they might end up resorting to what their professional life experiences have informed them and see many of their adult patients as neurotypical compared to their younger patients?

But here's the thing: if people have had difficulty with clothing textures and strong smells in their lives, they have sensory sensitivity as an explanation. If they have had communication difficulties in their lives, they have literal interpretation as an explanation. If they've had trouble learning in school, they might have a visual learning style as an explanation. Etc. etc.

The point is that the traits of ASD explain what people are going through, especially in terms of the individual mistakes a person has made in their life, as you mentioned. ASD itself, the condition, doesn't really explain anything, because it is made up of several traits, and it's unlikely that anyone has all of them. For example, one could tell someone that one is autistic, and that person wouldn't know whether you are hypersensitive, or hyposensitive, or a bit of both. They don't know which traits apply, and so one hasn't given them a practically useful explanation; one has merely given them a theoretical construct (this is especially true in the case of the sub-clinically impaired, who lack the present concrete problems they can point to and say "this is my autism manifesting").

Obviously, no one has to self-diagnose to recognize the ASD traits that have affected their life, and thereby have an explanation. The process of self-diagnosis goes above and beyond the recognition of the traits, and concludes with a statement (whether to oneself or to others as well) to the effect that the traits collectively qualify as an ASD. But how does thinking or saying that one's traits constitute ASD help explain anything beyond what the traits themselves explain?

This is why I don't understand when people say that a self-diagnosis of ASD gives them an explanation for their lives.

Some of the true motives are starting to come out now.

Basically, I see the self-diagnosed as wanting all the benefits of an Aspie diagnosis but none of the drawbacks.

If you don't agree with diagnosing yourself on the spectrum, then don't do it. Simple as that.

Live and let live. Other people diagnosing themselves on the spectrum really isn't harming anyone or anything.

There are many different aspects of this topic open to legitimate debate, however as long as we are honest with each other then we know where we stand. I'm not going to pretend to have an official diagnosis and if I did, the problem would be dishonesty - not self diagnosis.

No. I didn't have that explanation before I started researching autism. It never once occurred to me that the explanation was sensory sensitivity, pure and simple. I was looking for convoluted psychological reasons why I would get upset in certain situations and many times I didn't even realize exactly what it was that had set me off. It didn't make sense to me that just feeling an uncomfortable wrinkle in my sock or a tag in my clothes could make me feel upset all day long. That seemed completely irrational to me. I had absolutely no context for understanding that, so I would overanalyze it and look for other reasons.




Yes, the condition does explain something. It provides a context for understanding various traits and symptoms that otherwise might seem disparate or unrelated. If what you are saying is true, there would be no need for anyone to have a professional diagnosis of autism either, because each trait could be understood and explained separately.

What benefits are acquired from self diagnosing on the spectrum? For me it was knowing myself a little better and understanding some of the root causes for setbacks in life.

It's not equivalent to a professional diagnosis on paper, I think we can all agree on that fact?

Again, I can only speak for myself, but when others are wrong:

. They misrepresent the disorder/condition, and often trivialize/romanticize it
. They reinforce a process that from my perspective, is generally dangerous

. They may convince a physician into believing they have something, such as ADHD, resulting in over-diagnosis, which relates back to the first point

If they are blatantly wrong (usually teenagers in my experience), it annoys me and I cannot trust them because they seem to only want a label to identify with and to gain attention from that. Not that I have problem with gaining attention, but a person that does this simultaneously trivializes a disorder, and is generally intoxicating to deal with.

I don't so much care for the dangers associated with improper treatment/medication, because that's their problem, and not mine.



From my point of view, uses of self-diagnoses are primarily social, where I can see an 'explanation' making sense.

Being that older people seem to self-diagnose at a greater rate than younger, I don't even feel that I need to presume they have suffered throughout their lives without knowing why, as that's almost a guaranteed.

Strictly in a logical sense, it may not provide an explanation (as you have presented), but humans are multifaceted and cannot confine their feelings. I think this issue relates to something more complex than anybody here could post. A lifetime experience of being denied appropriations for their sensory issues or executive function (for example) surely causes damage. There is bound to be some underlying psychological trauma reinforcing the use of a self-diagnosis, rather than stating individual aspects.

This seems to be caused by different interpretation of terminology, again.

So I can agree with a logical perspective, but not from an emotional one. IMO both are equally as important when defining how terms are used in this context.

Circular reasoning seems to be a theme of several ASD submissions on this thread. You start with your premise which you state not as idea but as if it were fact, then find reasons to prove it is true, even when it isn't true.

No wonder people are getting confused here.

Yep.

You've managed to confuse me.

If I speculate on some (not all) self-diagnosed people's motives, I'll probably send certain people into a total tizzy.

Let's just say that some neurological and mental health disorders are more desirable than others. Asperger's is relatively desirable, because it is well-known, associated (however dubiously) with creative geniuses throughout history, and can confer "giftedness" as a trait, amongst other things.

However, there are some drawbacks to having an official diagnosis as well. At least AspieUtah actually went for a screening, so fair play to him for not being scared to do that. But other people don't want the "stigma" of actually, gosh, having a potentially embarrassing disorder on file.

In the circlee in which I move, ASDs carry a considerable stigma....nothing desirable whatsoever. If I would disclose my Spectrum status, I would be treated differently, viewed with suspicion

Yes, I can imagine this. In defending a PhD, one learns very quickly the importance of objectivity.

The above sentence is patronising, anti-intellectual, and is an argument from age (i.e. the false assumption that being older = knowing better).


With respect to circular reasoning: what is 'self-diagnosis' but a form of circular reasoning?



Again - at what age is 'self-diagnosis' valid?

Three issues that are coming through strongly in these threads:

1 For older adults (50+) the revelation of ASD identity either was or will be self-generated in the vast majority of cases.

2. No sound "professional" diagnostic process nor criteria exist in respect of this group, who have also learned to "mask" symptoms from a lifetime of practice, in many cases.

3. People in younger age groups often fail to see how ageist their beliefs about professional diagnosis are, and this may be either a wilful or accidental blindness.

The ageism has been ignored so far. It's on the table now.