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

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, the answer is 42. To my self-diagnosed compatriots: there are some discoveries in life that make an enormous difference because they enable us to experience a new conceptual wholeness. My discovery had that effect, yours too I hope. It opened doors for me.

This thread has occasionally made me regret joining WP - the personal attacks from some ASD's, their attempts to "poison the well", the circular arguments endlessly repeated, the scaremongering that SD is dangerous - these threads demonstrate many different forms of the ad hominem attack, poisoning the well and attempts at deflection being the most common one here; it's actually good to have some clear examples of those.

Support from the SDs and - surprisingly - one of the ASDs - encouraged me to stick around at least for the meantime. So I will for the time being. If you don't like what I write, put me on your foes list - that's what its for. Personal attacks like the last tirade from Starkid don't derail me and they contravene the rules, deter any possibility of mutual respect and common ground being found. I think this kind of damage can still be healed in time between the two groups and mutual respect will claim the day eventually; both groups may agree that achieving conceptual wholeness is a very valuable human experience, however it cw is obtained, and it's which we all sought in our different ways, and hopefully gained. That's the only common ground I can possibly see arising from here, at this stage, though it's a start, perhaps, toward something good coming of this contentious thread and its cousins. Goodwill could take the healing of this schism a long way I think, and ease the fears of newbies and deter further losses from the existing membership.

For everyone who benefited from discovery whatever its source - good for you. It changed my life.

Last edited by B19 on 14 Dec 2014, 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Exactly.

An introvert could probably pass the Aspie Quiz for example. I haven't been that impressed with the online quizzes I've taken, personally.

The answer is 42 for everyone?

yes, but only as long as you DON'T PANIC, and you know where your towel is.

Towel?

It's hanging over my bathroom door, cuz the towel bar broke off.



I don't get it.

Fair enough. But, I suspect that most neurology and psychology students spend about as much (or less) time studying autism-spectrum disorders (ASDs) as most individuals do when researching their own ASDs. In my own case, I read a LOT of research papers about the screening tests that I completed and the canonical characteristics of ASDs; books about ASDs by psychology professionals; ALL the various ASD diagnostic criteria since 1994; reports about the lives and professional ASD research interests of Hans Asperger and Leo Kanner; and, co-occurent factors of ASDs including those with which I had been diagnosed.

I amn't saying that all self-diagnosed individuals with ASDs research the field as comprehensively (chalk up my own research as a special interest), but I can't say that most do no research, either. By what others here at WP have reported, they do enough research to give themselves a conversational knowledge about the current state of the art evidence regarding ASDs. I believe that such knowledge is probably equal to or greater than that instructed to students. So, unless a student continues study of ASDs beyond a doctoral internship and achieves some kind of ASD board certification, for example, I suspect that most new (and not so new) psychology professionals know only that level of instruction that was given to them when they studied autism in an overview of psychological disorders. Wouldn't this be especially true if their specific research and professional interests didn't include autism disorders?

Yet, the autism community appears ready to bestow a level of professional wisdom on these latent diagnosticians of ASDs while simultaneously criticizing individuals who self-diagnose using knowledge which is more up-to-date, if not wholly more substantive than that remembered by the average psychologist. I suspect that its just about six of one, half-dozen of another.

But, that is completely my opinion.

No autistic individual here is in any way/shape/form against individuals seeking insight. In fact, I'm sure everyone here is in agreement that it is a great thing, and should be encouraged.

The undiagnosed seem to be confusing a rational discussion on the nature of self-diagnosis as a personal attack - in short, this speaks more of lack of confidence with respect to self-diagnosis/oneself.

The Hitchhikers reference - whilst amusing - is diversionary. If we're assuming self-diagnosis is valid, the boundaries should be set i.e.

1) What level of research is adequate for self-diagnosis, and how can subjective reading of articles/books etc be quantified in such a way, especially given the diagnostic process involves false-positives for the very purpose of limiting bias - in the individual, and the assessor
2) What control measures are in place to avoid confirmation bias
3) At what age does self-diagnosis become accepted

etc

The question of age remains.


These are objective issues and not personal issues.

If the above points are taken personally, the issue would appear to be one of identity.


The incidence of misdiagnosis within the medical community is a separate issue from that of 'self-diagnosis', and cases of misdiagnosis do not in any way validate the efficacy of 'self-diagnosis'. This is a fallacy of association.

Self-diagnosis could be seen as cherry-picking.


'Diagnosis', in the context of the term 'self-diagnosis' in relation to autism, is semantically ambiguous, therefore the very use of the word is a fallacy of equivocation, as any individual can say 'oh, I didn't mean that use of the word'. Alex used this fallacy early on in this thread with respect to a defense of the use of the term 'self-diagnosis'. Interestingly, what was looked at was the word 'diagnose' and not the word 'diagnosis' - there is a semantic distinction between both, and using the term 'diagnosis' with respect to a medical label such as autism is misleading at best.

The polysemic nature of the word 'diagnose' in no way validates use of the term in labelling oneself with a medical diagnostic label identified and researched by the medical community.

99% of individuals voting in favour of the validity of 'self-diagnosis' in no way validates 'self-diagnosis' (have a look at my earlier post in this thread on '2+2=7').


The question of self-diagnosis/age remains for the undiagnosed to address.

The only alternative, aside from the undiagnosed addressing this issue, is to pull the entire thread into farce - which is easier than addressing the issue - which would require questioning one's own identity. A quick peruse of the past few pages of this thread confirms this approach.

What is supposed to motivate anyone to address it?

I have spent more hours researching the autistic spectrum than the working hours I put in to gain my post-graduate qualifications.

I have had the advantage of being a participant-observer my whole life in living with others older and younger than me on the spectrum (my son, my daughter, my grand-daughter and my grandson are autistic, not all self-diagnosed).

I am a qualified psychologist, albeit retired.

Cherry picking it was not, though I do so like cherries. Self-diagnosis worked for me and achieved the conceptual wholeness referred to previously.

If you were that confident, you'd seek out a professional diagnosis to confirm what you already know beyond doubt.

Self-diagnosis doesn't count for me. I don't know whether you are on the spectrum or not.

I don't make a habit of paying people to tell me what I already know... and whether you believe it really isn't material to me.

Why wouldn't the undiagnosed address this?

In every instance of a diagnosed autistic being questioned in this thread, they have responded objectively and addressed the specific issue which the question related to.

There have been a number of instances where posts have become personal/very snide remarks toward the medically diagnosed autistics who are objectively questioning this issue.


Outside visitors to this site will possibly see this for what it is i.e. diagnosed autistics asking the undiagnosed a very objective question - and in every instance, the undiagnosed replying with diversion.


We medically diagnosed autistics have answered every question asked of us here - and addressed every point.


The undiagnosed refusing to answer speaks for itself.

PS the autistics among us who are interested in this issue could very easily digress to smug and cynical remarks: the fact the medically diagnosed autistics aren't doing this is, again, clear for all reading this thread to see - including visitors to this site.

For the undiagnosed to address the issue in a mature and objective manner would - at the most basic level - demonstrate at least a basic level of objectivity: objectivity that would, ironically, be required in the pursuit of a self-diagnosis in the first instance.


I ask again - at what age is self-diagnosis valid?

Of course you don't.

Actually I did address it. I said I think it depends on the individual. For me, that covers it. It's not a concern for me like it is for you.



It speaks of not having the same interest in a topic that you have.

It's "not a concern" and you don't have "the same interest in [the] topic", but you've posted throughout a 32-page thread. Okay.

A self-diagnosis is inherently more valid the more research (of the latest peer-reviewed findings pertaining to ASDs) is performed.

This is a higher standard than that used by many clinicians (whose specialty, quite possibly, might not be autism). Any PhD psychologist or psychiatrist could diagnose autism, even without having read the latest research. Moreover, especially for the diagnosis of adults, the standards of objectivity for ASD diagnoses far below that of most medical diagnoses.

I still think an official diagnosis carries more validity--but more weight and respect should be given to self-diagnoses obtained via research at least as rigorous as that of a decently-informed clinician.

I don't believe the validity of self-diagnosis is age-dependent. What's more significant in validity is the content of the research performed, and the comprehension of the material by the self-diagnoser