Is self-diagnosis reliable?

Post Reply New Topic

You did, in fact, say that. Thanks for the ad hominems though!

When I was 3 years old, I was classical autistic. When I was 12 year's old I was high functioning autistic. When I was 16 year's old I was Asperger's Syndrome. I am 25 year's old today and I'm just me. Except the underlying cause of those diagnosis, the way my brain works and the way I process data have not changed. The way in which I externalize the difference has changed.

I refute your accusation that I am "just" spouting rhetoric, I am presenting a rhetorically sound reasoned argument in accord with the fashion of debate. If you feel ill prepared to attack the merits of the ideas I put forward, I would ask that you refrain from making attacks on my person that do not bear out upon examination of the facts.

What does this have to do with anything? People who don't understand what science is are passing judgment and telling people properly performing science to stop doing that because only trained proffesionals do "Science!" and they use "The Scientific Method!" to do so. If your understanding of something stops at the primary or secondary education stage, fine, but don't expect to be able to participate in discussions about data in a context that goes beyond that.

Why is self diagnosis potentially as good as proffessional diagnosis? Especially in psychoanalysis of all fields? Who knows you better than you? The model of the current state of understanding of the human mind is sitting there ready to be accessed by anybody who wants it. Reach out and take it. Do science. Learn how to follow the forms of logic and reason, and use those forms on the data you see. Repeat until death.

I could start making argument from authority and quote a bunch of Professionals who agree with me, but that would be a logical fallacy. If I believe it to be so, and believe I understand why I believe it to be so, I should be able to defend the stance on the merits of the stance, not the merits of those who agree with the stance.

^ ditto re daniel's post above. although i was not non-verbal.
However i did lapse into periods of almost no talking in teen years and off medication the same thing happens. i see no point in the bulk of exchanges.

I also had defiant behaviour, was an excelling student in primary school and the last two years of high school (and was known as the weirdo druggie superbrain in the intervening years...the girl who doodled on all her books, daydreamed, swung on her chair,tapped her pen, wore weird unmatching clothes, was ostracised and bullied by the other girls, stimmed and truanted incessantly,self-medicated, to avoid the crowded complexities of school. troubled, rebellious, too brainy.....

I also had 2 parents who were so weird themselves, they barely even engaged with us in anything vaguely resembling a normal manner. My mother - who is now an avid reader on ASD's - now acknowledges that 2 of her 8 are probably AS and the family is riddled with traits.

Who was frigging looking in the 60's?

I am humoured by some saying "someone would have noticed something." People noticed PLENTY weird about me, but no-one cared enough to take action. and when they did at 22 and i was put in a psychiatric unit, they viewed it simply as clinical depression. And then there was the string of misdxe's following that......

The name for my presentation wasn't in existence yet.

Last edited by millie on 11 Jun 2009, 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Crassus,

One thing that a professional has over an individual is the ability to observe how the individual behaves (this is closer to objectivity than looking at yourself, which will always be closer to subjectivity without input from another), and they also have more knowledge in regards to how the disorder in question manifests. More practical ability, so to speak.

The professional does not have some zany special power to allow that observation, they interview my friends and family. I can interview my friends and family. I can be open with them about why I am interviewing them and discuss the way in which the things they observe about me relate to a possible diagnosis. In my specific case, I have actual medical professionals intimately tied into that interview network, and they have regularly reaffirmed, tacitly even, what I am stating here regarding self diagnosis.

Let's back up a little bit here. How exactly do people usually end up going to get a diagnosis from a professional for something? They practice self diagnosis to determine something is out of whack, and when their understanding of underlying causes of symptoms reaches its limit, they go see somebody with a deeper understanding. If somebody is autistic, and they "take an interest" in self diagnosis, are we really so naive as to think the limit of their understanding is going to be reached before they should be reasonably assured they are performing diagnosis correctly?

My official education ends at having never attended a single day of high school and instead just getting my GED. My best friend went on to complete high school and is currently working on his application for residency which has a deadline fast approaching. He just a few hours ago suggested three new medical articles relating to autism for me to read. One is about atypical response to sensory stimulus. One is about diagnosing autism in adults, even when they have no speech difficulties. The third one is regarding the current state of understanding Asperger's Syndrome. He doesn't bat an eye at me being able to keep up with and understand this stuff, because why would he? I clearly keep up and understand this stuff. I grew up with one of my major responsibilities and motivations being discussing the course of my own treatment with the medical practitioners responsible for my treatment.

If at all possible, one gets a second opinion. If it is at all possible, you should get a second opinion about everything. When talking about medicine, get as many opinions as you can stand to get because this is your life. Measure as many times as possible, only cut once if you have to actually cut, but if you don't even have to cut, if you can just kinda bend it out of the way maybe that would be better.

Wow, it's like looking at myself there, but exchange depression and all of the other misdiagnoses with OCD. I read in a nice little pamphlet at Minds & Hearts that it's not uncommon for "us" to end up in psychiatric hospitals in "our" early twenties.

Crassus,

It's more likely that a professional will know how an ASD will actually physically manifest than you or anyone else not trained in recognizing it. They, after all, see people with these conditions all the time. Granted, no one is infallible, and not every professional has the same level of experience/training, but I'd put their opinion of how I actually appear over that of someone with no practice (theory can only go so far). It's not the professional's fault if a diagnosis for something doesn't exist, so if someone is missed due to such, that's how it goes.

You are falling prey to a variation on Argument from Authority. My argument was that given the assumption of a proper understanding of the rules of logic and a common source of diagnostic criteria, there is no inherent reason to expect a professional to be more accurate than a layperson regarding diagnostic ability.

Nah, there's no appeal to authority fallacy here, as it's given that it's more likely a professional will know how an ASD will actually physically manifest. Training and all.

There's nothing saying that a layman can know the same, of course, but using a balance of probabilities, I'd rather a medical professional give me their opinion on how I appear than a philosophy graduate, whether it's physical behavior in regards to a mental disorder or how to interpret an fMRI I had. Now, if I have a problem with their use of the theory, I can question it and apply what I know to it, and then go on from there; it may be that I am incorrect, or they were, with further study once I have their opinion.

You appear to be making straw man arguments. I don't know what it is you are refuting of mine that I said. I think we are, in fact, in agreement. Maybe you are directing these comments at someone else?


You didn't answer your own question very well. I didn't read this paragraph and think to myself, "Ah, okay. That is how this is relevant."


Explain to me how this isn't "just" rhetorical, and explain to me how this comment fits into our little debate... or is this comment directed at the overall thread? I'm having a really hard time telling where this fits in with our discussion.

Well, professional diagnosis generally seems to be more valid when it comes to detailed analysis and/or complicated presentations seeing how there are surprisingly many autistic people who don't know all that much about AS and other forms of autism (just basic things and their personal opinions that have no validity for anyone but themselves if at all).

Obvious from when people say 'I have the real definition of autism' and 'autism is trait X' and 'trait Y is part of autism' and 'by the imagined definition of myself of the nature of AS you are/are not autistic/that traits if LF/HF'. People have yet to discover the 'real autism' or 'what autism truly is and how autism on the whole shows', the world only got a current definition that's a bit helpful to many people with the conditions (and unhelpful to several others with autism) because it finally acknowledges that they're impaired and not like everyone else but in need of help and assistance.

There are exceptions of course, people who really know their stuff.

I think it's also a world of a difference if somebody says 'I discovered ASDs 3 weeks/3 months ago and I think I have AS' if they got no medical history pointing obvious AS symptoms out that are just undefined or have autistic relatives that they know real well than it is if somebody says 'I have known about ASDs for such a long time now, I've been researching this and been in contact with others on the spectrum for a year or more now and I am still sure that I have it despite the many differences and complexities of AS/other ASDs that I know about'.

If somebody got to ask about what repetitive behaviours or social impairments are that almost all autistic people have then I feel like laughing when they state whether they think/claim they are sure whether them or anybody else has autism or not.

I am a very smart 40 year old, but I didn't understand the full nature of autism. I always thought autistic people were like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. I had no clue that an "autistic" person could appear almost totally normal and functional but still be autistic.

I have most every symptom of Asperger Syndrome to varying degrees. Being highly functional, I learned to repress some of them when in public. I learned to compensate for others. The rest I still struggle with. Until I described my typical "misadventure" in public relations to a forum and asked if anyone could explain why it kept happening, I had never before heard of Asperger Syndrome.

Saying it is a given because they are a Professional is explicitly an appeal to authority, you are appealing to the authority of the profession to support the argument that the profession is clearly more of an authority. There is no consensus on how ASD actually physically manifests within medicine, how can they actually know something that the profession makes no claim to know by virtue of being member to it?

I have PDF excerpts from psychology journals addressing issues of improper classification of ASDs at hand right now. Two questioning whether or not there is any meaning in a seperation between low functioning autism, high functioning autism, and asperger's. They are a part of the foundation upon which the next edition of the DSM appears to be based if you've seen the release of discussed changes from the DSM conference. Many practicing therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists are still basing their diagnosis on the DSM-IV criteria from 1994, and will not begin integrating the findings since then until the publishing of DSM-V, likely to be 2012. Kanner and Asperger published their autism papers in 1943 and 1944 respectively, and it was not until the mid nineties that the Freudian fridge mom model was being widely abandoned. It remains today not entirely abandoned.

While I have great respect and admiration for the medical field, especially in the area of mental health disorders and the treatment thereof, there have been grave failings and abuses perpetrated systematically against medical minority groups. From schizophrenia and psychosis to autism/PDD, people I knew were sent to institutions because they were written off as non-compliant by people who were caught up in the cult of personality of a dirty old man who liked cigars.

The silliness of this is that I'm trying to convince lay people of something that medical professionals readily admit to me with regularity.

Fiddler, rhetoric is the use of language to lend momentum to a point. I have not particularly addressed anything in the past few posts to you, because you have provided little of substance to respond to. If you believe I'm not supporting a point, make an argument against that point. If you are unclear on the point, ask for clarification. You have simply resorted to attacking my person or writing style.

My point is this, medicine and science in general are not some magic art hidden behind closed doors. The entire point of Good Science is that it is carried out in public view and exchanged with others to promote progress. The participation of the patient is crucial to the success of every step along the way in medicine. The guy running the experiment has to know what questions to ask, but you need to understand how to answer in a manner that is most useful to them and science as well. Instead of foisting it off as something professionals do and we react to, I'm trying to demonstrate that a more informed non professional understanding of a field can only help promote and advance that field.

I will state once again, I have never said I think the average lay person is prepared to perform anything approaching a medical diagnosis. I have argued from the direction that just because lots of lay people are not informed does not somehow mean all professionals are MORE informed then ALL lay people. I have argued that lay people are inherently required to make self-diagnosis to some extent simply to establish when to go get a professional diagnosis.

How do you even decide to bring an issue up with a medical professional? You or somebody who knows you diagnoses you with a potential issue or you decide something has become an inconvenience in your life and want to pursue change. This will most often be a lay person who decides something is or is not serious enough to warrant an actual doctor becoming involved.

I don't see how anyone is arguing that?

Sure professionals aren't all informed to the same degree and most people know that and thus won't bother to bring this.

Some professionals are specialised in autism, some don't know anything about AS. That's a frequent discussion on here and an expereince many users especially of WP seem to make according to what they report.

Maybe you're just reading too much between the lines?

Most autistic people after all do not do this put-meaning-between-lines thingy.

Back on page one somebody made a reference to Asperger's being no longer a particularly useful scientific term. Nicks was the one to take issue with that reference and who I had primarily been addressing things to and others took issue with things I had said to them in the context of the discussion we were having.

NicksQuestions suggested that clearly scientists performing science created a certain sense of validity by having respected "The Scientific Method" and I was in the process of bringing him up to speed on what his teachers were leaving out so that he could feel better prepared to understand what really goes on in day to day scientific pursuits. Some of this line of conversation I had with Nicks bled into other threads leading me to suggest to Nicks that He and I might be better off pursuing it by either establishing a self contained topic one of us could start a thread for, or moving to a private medium.

I've not yet heard from them in response to that, and instead have found my debate style being criticized for being just rhetoric and straw mans, which I found startling because I have always been given compliments for having a strong persuasive voice in my writing. Upon closer examination of the offered criticism, I found I did not agree with the assessment. Further the person offering it was claiming not to have argued something, which was a rephrasing of exactly what they had said, in relation to the label of a disorder being the cause of problems relating to people stereotyping you based on it. This came up because I was suggesting that an over reliance on the behavioral side of ASD was hurting the pursuit of a more accurate scientific understanding of underlying physiological causes.

So here we are I guess? I agree with the suggestion that Asperger's Syndrome is not a particularly valid designation at this point, by the way. The underlying science I have seen suggests the division to be arbitrary. This was the purpose of my own explanation of how when I was 3, I fit the criteria for classical autism. Today I would be diagnosed as Asperger's Syndrome if at all. I have developed through the arbitrary artificial designations progressively, and am now left with enough control over my symptoms that I have no outwardly apparent behavioral disorder, I just have to work to maintain that for long periods of time without risking seizures and shutdown.

So... I think I'm missing something out here. How do the first 3 paragraphs about what discussion you had and that others said you were making straw-argument relate to that I said users didn't say they did not believe that some professionals do not know about AS/classical? I don't think I want to know about the argument and other things because this discussion has started way before I started to read it and it has already gone off-topic from what I understand?

But I want to comment on your last paragraph!

AS as defined by DSM-IV-TR and AS is not arbitrary in how it relates to classical autism. I'm trying to figure out how anyone who met criteria for classical autism can now meet criteria for AS and I can come up with no plausible possibility actually.

You cannot be diagnosed with AS if you do not fit all criteria.

Both sets of AS criteria in DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 explicitly state that there has to be no language delay, no cognitive delay before age 3 as well as normal curiosity about the environment and that there can't be delayed self-help skills and impaired adaptive behaviours (in the case of the DSM: except for reasons other than a narrow, all-encompassing interest) Both set of criteria also say that if you can be diagnosed with classical autism, you cannot be diagnosed with AS.

If you met classical autism at age 3, it's absolutely correct to refer to yourself as still classically autistic. A diagnosis of AS if you did not meet the criteria before age 3 already would be a misdiagnosis according to current criteria.

I have in my possession an article from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, dated feb. 2003, titled Outcome in High-Functioning Adults with Autism With and Without Early Language Delays:Implications for the Differentation Between Autism and Asperger Syndrome, addressing a long standing controversy in the field about whether or not there is a solid medical basis for differentiating Asperger Syndrome from Autism or they should no longer be considered separate conditions.

In the introduction to this article, it also references the "considerable disagreement about the validity of the diagnostic criteria used in DSM-IV" and even cites other articles to check into for more on these issues. This has been one of the points I've been making in the debate so far and having people tell me I'm wrong, when I'm quoting recent medical findings at them. The DSM-IV is from 1994, it is old and busted and even when it was new it was behind the curve.

The main criticism leveled at the asperger designation is related to the fact that, if you follow the criteria strictly, it is unlikely if not impossible to diagnose someone as having Asperger Syndrome.

Last edited by Crassus on 11 Jun 2009, 10:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

i have no idea what you are attempting to say. so i can not respond to this.


i find that hard to imagine, danielisyourname.
did i read a post by you where you said you were lfa or mfa once? i can not be bothered to search because i am also doing other things.

i also saw a video you posted here that showed you stimming. it was severe. if you stimmed and acted that way when you were a child, then surely you would have been noticed by someone. you can not say that you were normal as a child and suddenly became autistic.

you say that no one "picked up" anything strange when you were a child, but your video (if i remember that it was yours) was a rather severe looking situation where i am sure many people would take notice. you were rocking about and stimming in it.

are you saying that you did this as a child and no one ever "picked up" on it?
wow!
you must have grown up in the company of people who did not care about you. i will relax my idea that you must have come to the attention of someone in your world at an early age if you are sufficiently autistic. i will not lose any sleep over it though

out in the rural areas there would be not much ability to deal with it i guess.

i think the problem with my post in this thread is that i am more different from normal people than most of the posters here. i was noticed by people at a very early age, but if you were not noticed, and you got to adulthood, and you suddenly decided to look for answers as to why you have not found happiness, and you find AS, and it kind of fits, then you are just landing in a safe harbor.

i think most people on this site are higher functioning than me.


i find that difficult to imagine because you would have been expelled from schools and you would have been sent to some remedial place in all likelyhood. you have not ever reported events of that nature.


that sounds like a "hand me down" where people give presents that they received, but do not want, to others.



sorry i can not make any sense of this sentence. i can not reply.



well there you go.
i am tired of writing in this thread.