Any other groups that are more accepting of self-diagnosis?

Post Reply New Topic

Alas, it's always been like that.

People tend to be tied down to their own narrow ideals, and frequently are not able to extend themselves beyond their "comfort zone."

At times, my response to this would be: "tough nuggies." That's when I'm in a "screw it" mood.

Other times, and I hope they are more productive times, I could, in a Socratic fashion, try to encourage these people to "extend" their comfort zones through the overt expression of ideas. Ideas which are kept hidden by fear are wasted.

Thanks Kraftie. I'm delighted that someone understands what I'm saying.

Yep. If others would imagine themselves as a 50s-something adult who has accidentally come to realize that he or she probably has an ASD, they might see the experience differently. Imagine that, as a result of his or her realization, the adult seeks a diagnostic evaluation. Before the evaluation, the adult completes legitimate screening tests and factor tests, researches and writes a list of his or her lifelong characteristics (many of which are still affecting his or her daily life despite a lifetime of self-taught adaptation skills).

The evaluation starts off badly because the diagnostician doesn't want to discuss the adult's test results and characteristics, and takes notes during a Q&A discussion where the adult can't refer to his written evidence. The diagnostician then has the adult complete a psychology test which has no history of recommended use or effective results for diagnosing ASDs in people of any age.

At the follow-up meeting, the diagnostician finds a couple of factor diagnoses, but declines to relate them to an overall diagnosis of an ASD, and fails to refer to, examine or rebut any of the adult's written evidence in a written evaluation. Dejected and a little angry with himself or herself, the adult ends up re-researching where he or she must have gone wrong in the self-evaluation and accidentally finds Wrong Planet online.

After just a few weeks of interaction with the forum, the adult starts reading criticism about self-diagnosis from others who say that they have been professionally diagnosed. The criticisms aren't exactly personal attacks, just some generally unflattering descriptions that the adult knows are aimed at those like him or her, though, even if true, the descriptions do nothing to support the professionally diagnosed individuals who published them. So, why would they write such things?

How should that adult feel about Wrong Planet at that moment? It is apparently not as welcoming and inclusive as he or she had believed. The criticisms persist and pervade, and months later, the adult sees the same descriptions pop up again, and again.

To me, the illustration provided by AspieUtah is right on the mark--and most illustrative, cohesive, and understandable for all readers.

Of course, an official diagnosis carries more credence, in general, than a "self-diagnosis." However, there are many times when the process of a "self-diagnosis" leads one to the latest research. Clinicians, at times, are too busy (understandably) to harken to the "latest research," and rely upon impressions which were formed, say, 10 years ago. Autism has changed quite a bit even over a 10-year span.

This is why clinicians should really take a look at what the potential diagnosee has uncovered in the course of his/her research.

Alas, owing to overwork, clinicians frequently are reluctant to incorporate these new impressions; they rely, in a primary sense, upon the established diagnostic process. They find it a convenient template.

Very well said AspieUtah.

Without a professional diagnosis, I would never feel comfortable saying that I am Autistic no matter how much it might seem to me that I do. So I don't claim to be self-diagnoses, but that it is possible that I may have it.

Several years ago, in a half hour conversation with someone who's job is working with children who have Asperger's, he asked me if I had ever been diagnosed with Asperger's! I asked why he asked and all he said was that it would fit. Before that conversation, the thought had never even crossed my mind.

Since then I have taken the on-line tests that indicates that one might have Aspergers and scored rather high on them. However, I also know that there can be a certain bias in even asking such questions. "Do you ..." can easily get the test subject to interpreting the question in such a way that the results favor whatever is being tested for. Without an independent evaluation by someone expert in doing the evaluations, I really don't trust the accuracy of the results of those tests.

Consequently, I don't claim to have Asperger's. The closest I will come is "Maybe, maybe not".

I respect that. I always say that "I have been screened" with AS or an ASD, or "I very likly have AS." It is a tedious difference, but one which I believe is necessary to remain accurate and truthful. Maybe, eventually, I will seek another diagnostic bite of the apple, but, for now, the experience is still too bitter.

I made a bet with my roommate as to how many people would find some god forsaken way to apply what I said to them and then either go on the defensive or go on the attack. Thank you I just won $5. (Which means I can go get myself a new paint brush yay!)

Btw all the things I said are common quotes, common sense, words of wisdom stuff. Mark Twain, Earnist Hemingway in specific for the ten dollar words. None of it was directed at any particular person or group or cognitive difficulty. If you found you fit the specific behavior that was described then maybe you do, though I certainly didn't say anyone did nor did I make fun of it or give any indication of hostility towards it.

Oh and those four syllable words your group is calling me, do share as I'm sure some of them fit, some of them won't fit, and some might just be hilarious.

We all have the choice to react with hostility (or in the case of some members, sarcasm) or at least ask what was intended when something rubs us the wrong way.

I think if there was an understanding that many times, what people write that's offensive may not be intended as an attack, WR would be a better place.

This isn't about TOM or being NT or having ASD, and we can choose to do better for one another. What I wish for most is that members who don't like what I say, would just state a position politely, instead of using sarcasm and belittling. Maybe that's what this thread could move toward, is there a way for us to become a place where people can assume others here aren't out to get them and refrain from being unkind!

I think that it is good for people to eggspress their opinions, and I don't want people to refrain from saying things that they really think and think are important.

That's what I wish for too.

I keep seeing people talking about the rules and how they are not breaking the rules. But just because something isn't against the rules doesn't make it okay.

Also I notice people have very black-and-white interpretations of rules. But forum rules are usually meant to be dynamic, not concrete.

I didn't use sarcasm or belittle anyone.
I didn't call anyone names or tell them to shut up.
I want to set the record straight that I didn't do these things.

I also stated that they were rules/guidelines I live by and was sharing them in hopes it offered some clarity. Meaning that I saw people getting upset and wanted to help offer something to soothe them. So here's the list again with direct meanings.

"Meaningful conversation rarely repeats itself nor does it seek or demand validation."

Meaning that when people are engaged in a meaningful conversation, that they acknowledge each other's views and don't try to invalidate or begrudge one another and both parties feel naturally like they have been heard without one party submitting.

How does this apply here: If anyone felt that they weren't being heard they should try to only engage with people who are open to listening and trying to understand.

How it doesn't apply: That people's views are meaningless over what I think.

"Most intelligent people are articulate and don't require 'ten dollar words' to make their point.

Meaning that no person with any intelligence/understanding will purposely try to sound smarter when trying to convey an idea. That they understand others may not have the same level of understanding of the words and will make an effort to simplify their idea. Every scientist/academic on tv and in life speaks plainly unless teaching a class or talking to a colleague specifically about a process. As well they don't try to force understanding.

How does it apply here: There are always people who use words to make them look smarter and try to degrade other view points such examples can be found in just about any argument no matter the cognitive ability. If anyone felt that someone was doing that they should understand that they really aren't as intelligent/understanding as they make themselves out to be and consider the source.

How it does not apply: I don't think people are stupid for using or knowing big words, I know more than most, that doesn't change the fact that they should be used appropriately for the audience and not to show dominance.

"People that derive pleasure from continuing behavior, that they have been made aware of has negatively affected another, should be given compassion for they are stuck in their own toxicity."

Meaning that attacking them back isn't going to help. Instead show them some compassion and understanding that they may not be at a place where they can be at peace with themselves let alone anyone else.

What it means here: should be self explanatory. if people are getting upset with something someone does or says, and they expressed that they feel hurt, but the person doesn't stop then they shouldn't take it personally as the tormentor(s) are obviously having issues greater than you and compassion should be shown by not attacking them back. That they should try to be more understanding.

What it doesn't mean: that people should bully or think they are better than someone else, because they were attacked.

"Allowing others to dictate your worth by falling victim to their doctrines will only leave you valueless."

Meaning people will always believe what they want or understand, you can't change that. Nor should you put your self worth in the hands of those beliefs you should only value yourself as a person based on you, your beliefs, and your experiences.

How does it apply here: many people felt marginalized on both sides and expressed it by blaming the views of others for it. That they felt like their self diagnosis wasn't good enough or even their diagnosis.

How it doesn't apply: I'm having trouble thinking of any negative way that can be taken.

"Rules I try to live by. Maybe they will help give some clarity to things. "

Meaning exactly what it says.

How it applies here: I don't like the fighting or seeing anyone hurt.

How it doesn't apply: that I am am saying anything negative about anyone.



As well telling Norny that he has no reason to apologize should've been a fairly clear indication that I had no one in mind or had any malice.

Just to be clear I was referring to the forum rules, not your rules.

The quotation by Hemingway was directed at William Faulkner, who actually did use a lot of flowery language...and was a Nobel Laureate and someone who was admired by Hemingway. Hemingway's admiration toward Faulkner was also related to a fierce and occasionally bitter rivalry toward the same man, therefore the insult.

Would you say that William Faulkner did not have valid ideas because of the fact that his language was more elaborate?

Or should I, being someone who, like Faulkner, uses more elaborate language, believe that Hemingway's ideas must be somehow less worthwhile?

Neither the hyperlexia nor the hypergraphia are difficulties unto themselves, but they are idiosyncrasies in how I communicate. I just identified the accompanying neurological consequences that are associated with them.

There are some people who go through life believing that I use the kind of language that I use in order to try to dazzle people. I do not. I use the kind of language that I use because it happens that I like it.

Unfortunately, some people would think that there must be some kind of communist plot if you don't prefer the same flavor of pudding as they do.

I didn't think you were.