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

Post Reply New Topic

This is what people do not understand! The concept of there being ASD or aspects of ASD somehow outside of what the relevant professionals do or say is merely theoretical; practically speaking, there is no ASD outside of that realm. There is no perfectly correct concept of ASD floating around the universe waiting to be found, or lurking in the minds of spectrumites waiting to be released; it (the concept) is totally determined by the doctors. Everything that is known about ASD is based on their research.

Even if people try to get together professionally diagnosed people to diagnose other people, or add to or even supplant the existing knowledge base of the condition, that still derives from what the doctors have already done because those gathered people would have been diagnosed according to the research done and standards set by previous doctors, and their collective opinions on and information about ASD are therefore informed by that selection process to some extent. And little or none of what such a group might come up with will have an effect if the doctors don't accept it. Practically speaking, ASD is the doctors' concept, therefore, defining and diagnosing it will remain their territory.

Therefore, the hope or expectation that any "problematic" aspects of professional diagnosis will be ameliorated by this sort of process — a process which is based on the very thing it is meant to fix — may be in vain. At the least, it is premature and simplistic to expect anything related to the knowledge of and practices surrounding ASD to be improved by merely changing who is involved.

Any diagnosable condition deviates from "spectrum of normality" on a clinically significant level, hence it is a diagnosable condition, so it is in a way logical that those on the "spectrum of normality" define the definition, as they are able to observe the deviation.

I agree.

Non-normative: different from the norm
Abnormal: different from the norm in a way that is considered undesirable, wrong, or pathological



Not sure how you got that.

A person doesn't have to be autistic to study autism.
I regularly study NTism without being NT.

I sense that there are some here (not necessarily those who have posted in this thread) who disagree with anyone (expert or otherwise) whose opinion on autism differs from their own world view. It’s almost as if they have co-opted the label, for their own personal use.

Where is the option for it's not valid, but it's okay?

That is not the definition of abnormal.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal
"Abnormal: different from what is normal or average. Unusual, especially in a way that causes problems"
or
"Abnormal: deviating from the normal or average"

I think this is a false dichotomy. And I don't think any of the argument against a negative connotation makes sense. This is what seems political. A scientist does not need a particular weltsgefuhl in order to use the scientific method to make discoveries about the nature of reality. Only in the fantasy world of the deconstructivist/lit crit people does this kind of thing matter and I am not interested in any of that stuff.

I think hydrogen has properties that people discovered and the analysis of hydrogen is not dependent on the race, sex, species, neurology or particular phenotype of the observer. I think there is an objective reality, however hard it may at times be for us to discover it and I think there is something about autistic people that is objectively different than neurotypical people.

If you want to ask "What is it like being autistic?" then you must ask autistic people. But anyone can describe the differences between autistic people and others as they perceive it.



To the extent that I think I understand what is meant here, I do not agree with it and it seems more pointed at political or even psychological aims than at trying to understand things as they are.

That may be the definition, but in reality it is complete bologna. There is no "normal". People describe it, lable it, and write about it. However, when you tell someone that you are normal, contradiction runs rampid through their mind, and they really have no idea what you are talking about. I don't care who you are.

People like to hear that they are normal. It is a sign of reassurance that makes them feel good about themselves. Just like how most people believe they are smarter than everyone somehow. That is not reality.

Yes there is, but the term is inherently relative, rather than absolute. There is a normal relative to something — but there is no unqualified, universal normal.

Who is the best authority on what you think and who you are: yourself or some outsider who doesn't know you nearly as well as you do and in all probability doesn't know anything about autism as it is like from the inside except as second hand knowledge passed through the grapevine to him from some other equally unqualified individual. Would you ask directions from someone who lived someplace and knew it like the back of his hand or from some tourist who was was only guessing?

Self-Diagnosis is the ONLY way to get at the truth... along with a lot of personal research and thought. Others can help to guide you but ultimately you know yourself the best.

You are authority on you, but autism specialists are authorities on autism.

I have questions. I will start off with relative to what? With all the warring, controversies, religious, and non religious differences, sexual preferances, different addictions (everyone has at least one, and it doesn't have to be a drug either. If you are "autistic" someone is going to call it a special interest.), racial discrepancies, nationalities, ratings from IQ, to EQ, to whatever else ends in a Q that is going to make you different from everyone else, what your parents, and siblings did to you, and how you were raised, your diet, the stuff you're breathing that is in your air, your school, and what they put you through.

I will stop there.

If this is about how your brain works, and that defines normal, than everyone's in a pickle. No two are alike, just like a fingerprint. You can differentiate, and relate to everyone.

Is normal a majority issue? Like brown eyes or something?

I just threw that out there for fun.

I have no money for this stuff, and insurance believes it is unimportant enough not to cover it. However they will let you take short quizzes, and give you pills so you can be dependant on an addictive brain game.

That being said, I have not been formerly diagnosed. I know that I am different. Everyone tells me so. I have had an extremely difficult life trying to adapt. I did it well.

I do not choose. If this is a choice, I would choose not. People not only look at this as a difference, they see it as degrading. It is a disease, a syndrome, and a disorder. according to most others it lowers you. In fact, you are better off hiding the very idea towards most people, unless they can relate.

You know as well as I do that people need a proper diagnoses, just so people can believe you. I don't need other input for me to believe me. The idea, and information is out there, and I can get all of it to see if it is what it is. Chances are I'm not wrong, or delusional. Most people who self diagnose that are thorough, and are honest about it are not wrong. The nay sayers on here are not so much right as they are fortunate. I don't have the golden horse shoe up my butt like some I see on here who can just go and get a diagnoses. I can tell them apart like night and day. It can be snobby, and spoiled. Sometimes smart, snobby, and spoiled. There are other diagnosed nay sayers on here that are young, and spoonfed. I can tell those apart too. Soo easy, soo nice.

If you have issues, and need help, most will not help you when you need it unless you do get a diagnoses. That is not only wrong, but it is sad to not be fortunate, and have these problems, and issues. People need to see on a piece of paper that you have a problem, and need help. They need to categorize me, and that is not about me. Otherwise they will not help.

Nobody knows what is right, and how to believe, unless they have a title, and a piece of paper anymore. Even some of the people on here that claim to know soo much, and be soo smart, need to tell you that you need a piece of paper. They have one, and without it, they know nothing, and that is not smart.

They don't know themselves either, because they need someone to tell them that they are them? I can't believe I just wrote that down. It is soo true, and yet soo stupid I can't even believe it is reality.

It is NOT normal to think that others are normal, and I am not. They are not either, and that is relative.

I will tell you if I am right about me as soon as I cough up three thousand dollars, or whatever. It might as well be three million.

Not necessarily... they only know about it by second hand information at best.

Is it a good thing? Getting it recorded professionally may have some advantages ...

*It might be good for any future legal troubles to get it on record.
*Doctors may offer drugs.
*My employer lets employees designate "mental illness" (not specifically autism) on their employee record. I marked "mental illness" in case an ASD-employment issue arises.
*There are special government hiring incentives/ and company diversity goals for mentally ill people. ASD people would fit in that category with a professional diagnosis.