[ Rant ] Why Obsess About Dead People?

Post Reply New Topic

Because:

1. They may not actually have AS
2. They may have another condition that mimics some AS symptoms and comorbids
3. They may have another condition that alters their perceptions enough to make their behavior seem Aspie-like, but only to themselves.
4. They may eventually try to self-medicate their self-diagnosed condition, and the medication may be just as inappropriate as their diagnosis.


Then it is our civic duty to guide them into greater understanding of themselves.


Where have I (or anyone else) said that?


I am pointing out the fear of not belonging (a common Aspie trait), and not that there is actually anything to belong to.

And they may actually have AS. There's nothing wrong with pointing out other possibilities, but when you seem to approach from the premise that "if you don't have a professional diagnosis, then these other possibilities are more likely to be true" you're working from just about as much evidence as they are, but appear to be asserting more validity because of the uncertainty of not yet having a diagnosis.

Also, I don't understand why you keep bringing up self-medication - AS isn't a condition that is typically medicated. Also, a self-diagnosis is not what often leads people to self-medication. I self-medicated my ADHD for years before I even thought I might actually have it. I just knew that ephedra made it easier for me to function.



Yes, certainly, help people understand, if possible. But how does "if you don't have a professional diagnosis, you probably don't have AS" as a broadly applied bit of advice help?



You didn't say it explicitly. I picked up the impression from what appears to be scorn and sarcasm when you talk about self-diagnosis.



Okay, I misunderstood your intent.

Bill Hicks must have been a cool aspie huh?

This thread seems to have moved into a different direction from when I started reading it this morning (and then had to go to work). The comparative merits of diagnosis/non-diagnosis aside, I would like to say something about the "dead people" part.

I agree with Fnord that historical suspected cases (and suspected is all that they will ever be) cannot be verified by actual diagnosis, not just because the person is dead, but also because pre-the relatively recent past, no such diagnosis was in fact available.

There is a difference between throwing out speculative assertions about So-and-so had, or may have had, AS and what I would call a justifiable attempt at biographical research into that area in a person's life.

The more famous the person the more one will have to go on as there may be lots of footage etc. plus it may in fact be helpful if there are diaries or other autobiographical writings that could be read for clues as to a person's character, personality and ultimately it may be possible to posit a certain condition or even disorder.

Not in the sense of a medical diagnosis but in the sense of a literary hypothesis. At the end of the day, that is how biography of long dead people works, biographers/writers work from records but there is inevitably conjecture and supposition.

So long as one is honest about that which is conjecture and that which is historical fact an account of a historical figure's personality might well be illuminating, even if it has to stay a hypothesis.

I can go along with this. It all comes down to expressing conjecture as opinion rather than fact.

Saying, "I think ______ may have AS, but I am not a mental-health professional" is more appropriate than saying, "I know that ______ must have AS, even though I'm not a mental-health professional". The former is clearly an opinion, the latter is an outright lie.