Self-identified as opposed to self-diagnosed

Post Reply New Topic

I know there is quite a bit of debate about how people describe themselves if they haven't had a formal diagnosis.

I read an article recently in which the author described herself as having 'self-identified' with a particular health problem.

Do you think the term 'self-identified' is more acceptable or appropriate than 'self-diagnosed'?

I think self identified sounds much better, mainly because it isn't used much so it doesn't have any stygmas. But self identifed could mean that you just think you have it compared to self-diagnosed you "know" you have it.

"Self-Identified" is definitely more appropriate. I used to be self-identified (a decade ago). I was never comfortable saying or with anyone who said "self-diagnosed" mostly because one cannot diagnose themselves objectively - not only does the individual lack experience in the medical field, they are also prone to prevalent selection/exclusion biases. It takes a more objective outside source to assess a diagnosis. Especially of a psychological kind.

I didn't want to have anything different with me - I ignored it for the longest time, played down my differences. My selection bias went the other way. I didn't want it. But I was wrong.

I prefer the term self diagnoses...considering I based my knowledge of having the mental disorders I do on the DSM criteria and accurate information I've looked up myself. To me 'self-identified' seems to kind of indicate more uncertiany.....like 'I think I might possibly, maybe have this disorder.' but I personally feel a bit more sure than that.

But I am fine with whichever wording people want to use, I just don't really like putting it that way...so I don't plan on it.

I could argue that many psychiatrists and psychologists cannot diagnose their patients objectively....considering they all have their baises as well. Not to mention I've taken psychology and the diagnoses process is typically more simple than one would think. Its all based on how the individual matches up to the criteria based on their apparent symptoms. Its not as though they can look at your brain and see what mental disorders you specifically have.......because for one everyones brain is different already, and sometimes there are different things that cause the same symptoms. So it not as though the human mind is even close to being figured out yet.......besides there are a lot of incompetent professionals in every field including mental health.

I find self-identified far better, because that's what really is being discussed in most cases - the idea that no professional found this, they found it themselves, and they're using that knowledge to help themselves.

Diagnosis to me is a lot more about the formalities, while having identified it is a lot more about an idea of what's going on. Most people on here who talk about self-diagnosis are focusing on the "I have an idea of what's going on, this makes it easier to understand myself, and lets me try to work on the impairments that come with it."

To me its not about certainty, its about the effects of the identification or diagnosis. I would say that self-identified doesn't have as high of a requirement of certainty, but I don't think it is innately a lower level of certainty either.

I prefer the term "self-identified". "Self-diagnosed" seems to imply that the person thinks their self-diagnosis is as valid as a diagnosis, whereas "self-identified" acknowledges the fact that thinking you have ASD does not necessarily mean you do have it.

I like "Self Identified." I don't think I have the objectivity to actually diagnose myself. Of course, I'm not sure the people who do the actual diagnosing are necessarily objective either. Many of them have their heads up their asses. Not that I don't have my head up my ass, it's just that it IS my ass, so I know my way around up there.

I'm inclined to put it, ...thinking you have ASD does not necessarily mean that professionals would think you have it.

Unless you have a professional opinion, there's a strong possibility you have got it wrong. I'm pretty sure, but I wouldn't like to call it. It feels dishonest to self-diagnose and close the book. No one can "know" for sure. You might "know" you have a PDD, but you couldn't know you qualify for the Aspergers diagnosis.

I'm 90% sure of a PDD including aspergers, there's plenty of margin for error there.

Jason

Even with a professional opinion there is a strong possibility you have got it wrong.

To "self identify" sounds very good and appropriate to me, while "self-dx" is imo a little bit pretentious. Also, formal and substantial processes are (always to my surprise) very different things.

While I would feel more comfortable outside of this group expressing that I am self-identified. However here, I want to say that I am 100% self diagnosed. Not the soft blow version that I would give to general public.

The difference between being able to be objective in your self dx or not is: how honest you can be with yourself. Those with high level of integrity should be perfectly fine about comparing their issues with well defined diagnostic criteria and saying "yes" or "no"...

The only people who to my logic wouldn't be capable of self diagnosing would be:
People who are too borderline (just barely fit criteria)
people who cannot be honest with their self about self observations (an important life skill, especially for an aspie)
People who might have troubles understanding the diagnostic criteria (poor language, logic, or understanding skills etc.)

everyone else is just scared to out and admit that they know what they know or something...

I don't understand why its such a difficult thing.

I see switching to self identified as simply a way to avoid an argument or debate on the validity when not having the time to really go into it.

That said: I'll probably start using it in RL as a way to tell more people!

No, I think it's an extension of being a Special Snowflake.

Well I know I am on the autism spectrum.

I'm a self-identified robot.

I meet the diagnostic criteria outlined in the RBM-II, text revision 4. Plus, I identify with my fellow robots more than I do humans. Toasters and I have a kinship.