Gary Numan's self diagnosis criticized in Sunday Times

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, that is very much what I think too, particularly about the number of undiagnosed people.

For me it was meeting a little girl who reminded me so much of myself as a child. I was mystified at why the adults around her were acting so cold with her. It made me realize that they weren't picking up on her emotions, which to me were loud and clear.

Yes I've seen some people on WP who have complex mental health issues and are flailing. I wish them well and move on. I've also seen some people on WP who are telling others they are autistic, yet what seems to be bothering them is an affective empathy deficiency rather than a cognitive one. Often you'll see them start asking for pm's after a few postings. I ignore them and move on.

What bothers me a lot is when people start attacking others who have a different autistic profile then them. The 'I'm the original autistic and all other autistics should act like me", basically a No True Scotsman.

Thanks for explaining.

LOL, I think the analogy between a physical growth and a behavioral anomaly is unsound.

You can't eyeball the internal characteristics of a cancer, in the way that you can observe your own reactions and abilities in interacting with other people, make observations, and come to reasonable conclusions based on known facts about a specific behavioral disorder. That's not to say everyone who thinks they may have Aspergers is automatically correct, but it is one of the most accessible disorders for self-diagnosis - if you have lived with it for years, the symptoms are immediately recognizable from the moment you first hear about it.

Then there are those nightmare situations, recounted frequently on WP, where someone has a professional diagnosis for a specific condition, then sees a new clinician, who arrogantly insists that THEY know better than the last psychologist, and proceeds to give a completely different diagnosis. After stories like that, it’s kind of a tossup as to which is the more valuable, careful, reflective self-diagnosis, or diagnosis by an egghead with a sheepskin.

As for different celebrities’ timelines, while it is true that Asperger Syndrome did not become a pop-diagnosis until after 1981, and an epidemic diagnosis until after 1994, that does not mean that dedicated professionals would not have known about it well before then. Anyone who loves their work tries to keep abreast of new information and techniques in their field, and Hans Asperger first isolated the condition in the late 1940s, so it would be only reasonable to assume that it would have been mentioned and written about in psychological and medical journals or even mentioned in the odd textbook at least occasionally, at any point after that.

Ackroyd, as far as I know, has never used his AS as a means of attention-seeking, the first time he mentioned it, it was assumed he was joking. He later elaborated when questioned, explaining that he had been diagnosed as a pre-teen, which would have made it the early 1970s, much like Numan. Personally, I don’t doubt Ackroyd, because his very demeanor, vocal inflection and facial expressions are textbook Aspie. Courtney Love, also would have likely been diagnosed in the 1980s, unusual, but hardly impossible, especially since her mother was a psychotherapist.

Seinfeld, OTOH, should STFU. I wouldn’t believe he was autistic if Hans Asperger rose from the dead and diagnosed him. I'm kidding, it's none of my concern, really, but call me skeptical.



When my daughter was born, she immediately developed jaundice, not a complete surprise, because my blood type and her mother's were not compatible. However, as the doctor attempted to treat it, the condition did not respond, and after a couple of days it became quite alarming. My wife and I consulted her sister, a pediatric nurse in a large hospital in much larger city, and she advised that it was probably more than one type of jaundice presenting simultaneously - a very rare occurrence, but the only one that seemed to fit the facts. Of course, the doctor couldn't be one-upped by a nurse, much less one he'd never met, so he continued to insist multiple types simultaneously was impossible, and look for a different answer. In the end, he was wrong, and had to admit it, but in the meantime he endangered our baby girl''s life by following dead ends, when he had the answer in front of him the whole time. As soon as he treated both types of jaundice, of course, they both cleared right up and she's been healthy as a horse ever since. There's a reason why doctors call what they do practicing.

You just articulated what is so scary about going for a diagnosis. In my country there is an autistic girl, who, when I last read about her, had been physically restrained with belts for three years in a mental hospital. She was first admitted because of the usual anxiety troubles a lot of young aspies have. Because they didn't pick up on her autism, she was treated as if she was manipulative, and her self-harming behaviors escalated to an extreme level. She is one of those very intelligent, verbally strong autistics, and because they overestimated her capabilities, not only did they not help her, they actively made her worse.

I really feel for those WP members who are stuck with alphabet soup for a diagnosis. Either they don't get any help, or the help they get makes them worse, and every time they try to talk to mental health professional about the fact that the treatment doesn't seem to be helping, their opportunity to get a correct diagnosis diminishes.

I remember having a conversation with someone I know socially who is a psychiatrist. I asked what their job was like, and they said something along the lines of 'It's satisfying when people are motivated to change, and less fun when people are not interested in changing'. Really? Not interested or unable to?

First off: I'm a Gary Numan fan from back in the day.

I really don't like the idea of people self-diagnosing and publicly announcing it, that was wrong from the part of Numan. Nevertheless, that journalist is a hundred times as wrong.

I agree with her that prominent people self-diagnosing and mouthing around is a bit of disservice. That doesn't mean she's in her rights to insult the man, though.

It wasn't about a physical growth and a behavioural anomaly, you're choosing to misrepresent it like that as a fallacious argument that allows you to ignore the actual intent of the analogy. You want to ignore the actual intent of the analogy because it shines a light on the inadequacies of your own arguments. And that, of course, was why I made the analogy in the first place.

I've always been a bit skeptical of self-diagnoses, personally. I honestly don't mean to sound more-autistic-than-thou because I've been officially diagnosed; I just don't think people need to go off half-cocked because they seem a bit awkward around other people or they happen to have favorite hobbies.

Why is everyone so upset about self-identifying, self-diagnosed aspies?

Are you afraid they might ruin the great reputation we have?

Everybody keeps on bringing up over and over again lazy self diagnosis to invalidate self diagnosis. There are legitimate reasons to question self diagnosis such as personal biases or just bieng too close to ones own situation. I have been a regular on WP and have read blogs by self diagnosed people since 2013. Lazy self diagnosis happens but is far from the norm.

I do not see hordes of people running around claiming they are autistic because they are a bit ackward. There have been a few notable celebrities but that it is it a few. I have read that it is epidemic on Tumbler. Tumbler is not the real world. In the real world Autism is becoming an insult. In the real world even if you have a proffessional diagnosis people are going to doubt you and if you go around saying I am autistic because I am a bit ackward you are going to be held in near universal contempt.

Great comment!

I don't know who this man is.

While Hans Asperger had described what came to be known as Asperger's Syndrome in the 1940s, the term wasn't coined until 1981 and the first English book on the matter wasn't published until 1991. It's possible, being in the UK, that this man's doctor was familiar with the work of Hans Asperger, even in the 1970s...Germany used to be the seat of the scientific community and it was not unusual for German to be chosen as a second language by those who went into the medical and scientific fields. It's also possible the doctor was German himself. That aside, when I was a child in the early 1980s in the U.S. it was not suggested to my parents that I had Asperger's Syndrome, it was suggested to them that I had autism. Asperger's Syndrome was not mentioned until the mid/late 1990s.

Concerning "official diagnosis", the nature of an official diagnosis can vary significantly from place to place, particularly in earlier decades. ADOS was not used until 2001. It's very likely that in the 1970s, the suggestion of a psychiatrist or neurologist that a child may have autism, constituted an official diagnosis. I believe the first time diagnostic criteria for autism was articulated in bullet point fashion was in the DSM III, which was published in the mid 1970s. Before then, there was ICD-6 (International Classification of Diseases), which was the first classification manual to contain a category for "mental health" disorders, but did not contain autism.

I believe diagnoses of autism before that time were made based on the clinician's understanding of that articulated in Leo Kanner's 1943 paper and subsequent papers and case studies by colleagues and associates.

At first glance, yes. But, if we think of autism as someone's "fad," then those who self-identify as autistic ought to get quite bored with the gimmick after a while and move on to other, more personally interesting pursuits, shouldn't they?

But, the fact that some individuals who aren't diagnosed continue to read and research diagnostic criteria, behaviors characteristics and comorbids, and confirm for themselves their autistic experiences while consistently disclosing their identity to those around them (or the world media if they have access to it) seems to tell us that they are either deluding themselves in a big way, or they are correct about their self-assessment.

No, people with mere fads generally ignore them after some time. That a few celebrities like Gary Numan pursue their identity when the apparent obsession might harm their careers instead of help them suggests to me that they are onto something valid.

Your comment works quite well as a clever, humorous statement but what people are worried about has nothing to do with reputation. Psychological self-diagnosis (of any condition) is an irresponsible disservice to the affected people, to science and the truth.

That's even more so if one is a relevant media personality who pops up out of nowhere on the brink of releasing new work. Added atop of everything else, that also becomes quite suspicious.

It seems, then, that only psychological diagnoses would be off limits to self-identified individuals. After all, I doubt any individual would so much as blink when told by a friend that the friend realized recently that he or she was "probably" overweight, "possibly" diabetic or "maybe" losing the ability to hear without having received a diagnosis from a physician.

While I agree that self-identifying with any diagnosis should be done carefully and diligently over time, and with using accurate terminology for the sake of those to whom they might disclose such identification, there is very little that the diagnostic community could do to prohibit, prevent or prosecute individuals from identifying if they chose to do so unless there is evidence of fraud in the pursuit of governmental, educational or professional benefits based on an indentification.

But, I see little harm in those who self-identify with any diagnosis. If it gives them some sense of calm in their lives, the identification would be helpful, not harmful. Most who treat identifying as joining some kind of fad would likely soon lose interest, so whatever harm comes of identifying for a while is pretty much self-regulating.

My own diagnosis of autism isn't harmed of injured by those who choose to research, study and identify their possible autism. I wonder why other autists care so much about other individuals who seek some understanding of their lives, especially when it costs us nothing to let them do so.

And especially when a person can't afford the formal diagnosis. And would derive no benefit from it.

And doesn't misrepresent his/her self as "officially diagnosed."

"Identifying" with autism doesn't make a person autistic, or a person who is trying to represent his/her self as being autistic.

Could have hormonal problems or cysts.


Could have vitamin deficiencies.



Could have an ear infection.

When you have a hammer everything is a nail, and when the only tool in your diagnostic box is a "test" for ASD then that's what you're going to think you have when it could be something else with similar symptoms that a professional would consider you for also.