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

Post Reply New Topic

It isn't arbitrary. If anything, it is very specific. I don't understand how a specific question could be described as arbitrary. Arbitrary implies random/having no reason - the question is specific and has very good reason (see below)

No answer was given. An adequate reply isn't adequate if it doesn't address the issue.

Someone could write a Tolstoy-length reply to the question 'what is 2+2': the length of the reply etc is not synonymous with content of reply.


I'm sincerely looking for the undiagnosed to answer this as it is very important to the question of validity.

If someone believes 'self-diagnosis' is always valid, by definition they believe a 5-year old can diagnose themselves as, for example, schizophrenic.

If someone believes 'self-diagnosis' is only valid after personal research (which should not be confused with scientific research), the question becomes one of control measures i.e.

1) Is the research nothing more than confirmation bias
2) How much research is required before 'self-diagnosis' has validity
3) Does the research include the essential element of the diagnostic process that btbnnyr has continually eloquently highlighted i.e. that of objectivity
etc



Note the question still hasn't been addressed.

sonicallysensitive - I feel compelled to answer this question as the suspense is killing me. My vote is 42. The answer to everything. This ensures that the person has several years of life's struggles after achieving adulthood.

Oh, thank you, Rocket, for answering this question.
I couldn't take the suspense much longer either.

I am truly wondering about other people's answer to this question too.
When I think of me self-diagnosing myself at age 18, for eggsample, I feel horror.
I think I self-diagnosed myself with cancer several times in the 16-20 age range.
One time was when this scrape on my leg wouldn't heal, because I kept picking at it, that was my skin cancer.
Then, this other time I was probably showing legit symptoms of an autoimmune disorder that I was diagnosed with several years later, I thought that was bone cancer.
Also, I felt some lump in my abdominal area and attributed to intestinal cancer.
My solution to all these problems was to think that if I were still alive in one year without going to see the doctor about any of these problems, then I probably didn't have cancer.

I haven't addressed it because it's not important at all to me. And I think it depends on the individual.

I self-diagnosed with ADHD at age 17 and was officially diagnosed 6 months later at age 18.

I am 36 now.

Self-diagnosed individuals cannot get accommodations or SSI.

Self-diagnosis is just that, SELF-diagnosis, meaning it affects nobody else by itself, it only has to with their own opinion of themselves. So unless they are attempting to get special treatment and accommodations from others with it (which is unlikely to work anyway), it isn't inherently a problem. Someone with an official diagnosis could similarly attempt to get special treatment from others regardless of whether they need it. I had multiple people say or imply that this is what they I might do with my official diagnosis if and when I get it (some of them were here on WP, too).

I have never seen first-hand nor heard of anyone using an autism self-diagnosis for special treatment anyway. Probably because many people don't really know what it is, and often have very negative and unfair view of autistic individuals. Doesn't seem like a very desirable label.

If the argument is whether or not self-diagnosis is ok in the case of a debate where someone uses their self-diagnosis as a supporting argument, then yes, that is an invalid argument. OBVIOUSLY. There should be no debate about that.

From what I've seen, this is how the argument here is going. The people against self-diagnosis are saying that it is invalid as it is too subjective. You're right, it has little inherent credibility logically speaking. The people saying it's ok are saying it's good because it allows a person to understand themselves better, find others that they can relate to and thus feel better about themselves, etc. That's what I'm understanding from all of what I've read.

And here's what I have to say about that: They aren't self-diagnosing so they can go out and teach others about autism, based on their self-diagnosis. They aren't self-diagnosing because they want to construct logical arguments, theories, conclusions etc. based on their self-diagnosis. They aren't self-diagnosing so they can have factual, logical debates about their self-diagnosis. They are self-diagnosing because, with their knowledge of themselves (which is presumably fairly extensive, considering they've known themselves for quite a while), they are fairly certain that the description fits, and they feel like they relate to the others who also fit the description. So they tell others they are self-diagnosed because it helps others understand their problems without them needing to explain EVERY LITTLE DETAIL separately.

What they are going for is understanding of themselves, support, etc. Not all this technical crap about how they might be wrong, how it might be a collection of other disorders, how their opinion is too subjective, blah blah blah.

The point is that everyone seems to be missing the point. You're arguing about two different things. One side is saying it has little inherent credibility. Correct. The other is saying it is a good way for some individuals to understand themselves better, and help others understand them as well. Also correct. I'm not diagnosed officially, but just knowing about autism has helped me immensely to understand myself, and for the few people I've told to understand me. Even if I don't ever get an official diagnosis, I still understand myself better, and I've also found a group of people that I can relate to extremely well. All this WITHOUT an official diagnosis. I think it is highly likely that I am autistic, but that is my subjective opinion. But how does it matter in this case?

In my opinion, self diagnosis is never a good thing. I know that's not a sentiment that all people share, but that is my opinion. I'd rather know I actually have something than speculate and worry on it. I've thought I had multiple health issues in the past and went to the hospital, only to find out I was perfectly normal and just being a health anxiety person.

1. I'm all for people trying to understand themselves. Trying to understand yourself is a good thing.

2. Why are things such as "how they might be wrong, how it might be a collection of disorders, how their opinion is too subjective, blah blah blah" crap in your opinion? I'd say those things are relevant when you're trying to understand yourself.

True, but I just mean that they shouldn't be denied support or treated badly because they self-diagnose, especially on an anonymous forum, where there is no way to prove anything anyway.

I agree people who are self-diagnosed shouldn't be treated badly. In my opinion it's not okay treat people badly in general and I think everyone's welcome here at WP. However, I also think it's important to understand that people who are against self-diagnosis aren't evil or think they're superior or anything (not saying people here think that). They're expressing their opinions and frankly I think they have some valid, logical and important points.

I don't know, to me it seems that some people are being rude, sarcastic and insulting to others based on their self-diagnosis. Definitely not everyone, and I'm not going to name any names (I don't really remember them anyway, I just remember the contents of what they said). But that bugs me. I agree that it's not technically valid, but that doesn't mean it's always incorrect, or even incorrect most of the time (in the case of autism self-diagnosis specifically).

To me it does make more sense to get an official diagnosis if at all possible, because I don't understand how someone could be so sure about it. But that doesn't mean they can't be, I just don't understand it.

Sure, some of the things said could I've been said better but overall I don't think one "side" has been more rude than the other (I've seen rude comments from both "sides").

I agree that being self-diagnosed doesn't mean you're incorrect and there's no way for any of us to know whether or not people are. Many of the people who self-diagnose would probably get officially diagnosed if they were assessed so if people want to self-diagnose that's fine by me (though I don't understand it), but I also agree that perhaps it isn't the best of ideas to say you're autistic if you're not officially diagnosed. Not because people who say that are necessarily wrong (since, again, we don't know that) but because it simply isn't confirmed and it could be something else.

I find it difficult to express my opinion about this and I'm sort of afraid of insulting people (which I really don't want to do), which in my head would lead to people disliking me but yeah, I hope you understand what I mean anyway.

+ + + +

IMHO the industry that has grown up around ASD solely relates to the young and their carers.

No, I understand what you're saying. I agree with everything you said. I just don't like this debate as a whole, because there is no real obvious answer, there is too much uncertainty, and nobody is going to come to an agreement. I just got frustrated because to me it seems that everyone is just saying the same thing over and over, and to me it seems to be only causing conflict.

But maybe everyone here is totally fine with having this debate and I'm just misunderstanding. I just don't like arguments/debates in general, they make me feel stressed out, even if I'm not taking part in them.

I think that is covered by using the term "self-diagnosed."

I get it. I don't like arguments/debates/confrontation either.

To the best of my knowledge there are no MRI brain scans available wherein a specialist can point to a specific area and state categorically "this person has ASD". Diagnosis is entirely subjective, invariably based on the personal experiences and learning situations encountered by the "specialist". Medical professionals are not Gods, inerrant and all-knowing.

It's worth remembering that the only person you can guarantee to be at your funeral is you. I believe that every individual should take responsibility for their own wellbeing and health. And that pertains to both their physical and mental wellbeing. Just because some medical professional says it's safe to cross motorways on foot, doesn't make it so. An appropriate epitaph for some here would be "The Doctor/Psychiatrist said it would be okay".