The earlier you're diagnosed the better the outcome ?

Post Reply New Topic

Compared to a comparable person who has been diagnosed in their mid 30s, as opposed to early/mid 60s , I think the outcome could be significantly worse .

When you put it that way - I believe being diagosed in one's thirties is usually better than in one's sixties but it does not scale into early childhood that way.
I believe being diagnosed soon after serious problems requiring professional help emerge is generally the optimum.

A poll would be interesting... I seem to remember people are quite split on this one.

I can't tell myself - as mentioned, it would have helped if I understood - but both the stigma and the way they were dealing with this kind of stuff was pretty bad back when I was a kid. I'm glad I dodged that bullet...

They have more accommodations and options for the young ones these days, but they still face a lot of prejudice and some - and their parents - seem to end up seeing the label as more limiting than it necessarily has to be. They are still seen for the most part as flawed and incapable of autonomy

That makes total sense . Unfortunately though for a good number of us such a recognition , in relation to ASD, came many years after the emergence of serious problems .

I agree with both of those. If it had been recognised when I was 50, I think things would have been reasonably OK. But the crisis I had then wasn't recognised for what it was, and I was encouraged by the so called experts to do exactly the opposite of what I needed to do, which made everything far worse. I think that's the point when it went from an earlier diagnosis being very helpful, to when not being diagnosed was a disaster.

Both have their pros and cons.

I'm lucky to be diagnosed at the age of 8 because it meant I got support throughout school.
But having a diagnosis didn't make me feel any better about myself. It just made me "the kid with the label", and kids and teachers defined me as my diagnosis.
And there's all the appointments and therapy sessions and everything I had to attend with my parents, which made me feel "mental". I was only a child so I didn't understand what all this was about, even though I was aware about my diagnosis. So I wasn't happy.

Most people on the spectrum are diagnosed in adulthood, even those that were born in the 1990s when Asperger's was heard of. And I think it helps you socially if you're not lumped with a diagnosis at an age where you and your peers are too immature to handle it. Undiagnosed children seem to "fake it til they make it" and gain more friends and social lives in their teens and adulthood.

That might quite often be true , but it certainly wasn't the case with me . I've never had many friends or much of a social life . There was no "faking it to make it" .

I absolutely agree with you QC. The aspies on the academic staff were continually bullied, sidelined, undermined by the dominant group of NT academic staff. The targets eventually withered or went to other countries, or just left. My AS son in law would never want to be diagnosed, and I don't think he would ever have been appointed professor if he hadn't learnt to fly below their radar. Even so, it has been very stressful for him. The cost of camouflage is high too, so it's a double bind. He is a scientist, and a well regarded one. Now he focuses on applied research conducted off campus rather than being in the centre of academic life in charge of a speciality. He seems much less stressed and happier since this change, though he is still a member of the academic staff.

I've mixed feelings on this.
To speak in general terms about being diagnosed in childhood, it would depend on the supports available, some do more harm than good.

There is the labelling, othering and layman bias, but I think that happens regardless of when a autistic person is diagnosed. The outcomes would be similar with subtle differences. A label attached to the isolation, or a myriad of possible reasons for it.

Early intervention that focuses in part on mastry motivation could be beneficial, yet I see much energy going into training.
It would help academically with simple things like extra time, a laptop, or access to a quiet space.
Earlier diagnosis would also change the trajectory of a persons life... many opportunities come only once but if you approach them with the wrong toolkit, it can be a wasted opportunity. Like picking a socially orientated career and gaining qualifications in that area.

It depends on the person and the person's environment. Unfortunately as mentioned in another thread most people do not understand autism resulting mis and wrongheaded treatment.

I think earlier is bad especially in the American context because early diagnosis is designed to get the kids Applied Behavioral Analysis therapies. I think one needs a lot of maturity and toughness to handle the stigmas, the mistreatment and the realization that this is a lifetime condition and that Autism is complicated and ill-defined condition.

For me later was better but 20 years earlier than age 55 would have been better still as I probably could have made better career and personal decisions.

In answer to the question I would say yes and no. As I am older, I need to be assessed. I reached a point where things have effected my life, but in the past, though I found school was quite difficult, and collage was worse... But some of the jobs I have done and the experiences I would not have done if I was classed as dissabled.
The problem is now that I hit burnout several timss in the last few years and it has hit me. So now I could do with being assessed as now I need the help until (Hopefully) I can recover.

It's true that discovering autism in my mid thirties changed my personal decisions significantly and I feel gratitude for all I've been spared as a result. It would have been ideal to find out in my mid twenties.

I wouldn't want to be diagnosed in childhood if I lived in America, ABA has gained some traction over here, but is generally regarded as training and is being met with resistance online at least.

This was the case for me. I don't remember the exact age, but I was diagnosed before I turned 10. Had I not had a diagnose, my parents might not have pressured me in to going to special education school, for examble, and I could've possibly continued to more respected schools and eventually gotten a better job.

Or maybe, had I stayed at my old school, I would've broken down from bullying and killed myself. Who knows.

Being born in Hungary in the '80s, I don't think it would have made a difference for me if I had been diagnosed as a child. Or, if it would have, I can only imagine in a negative way (stigma, prejudice, closed doors).

I think there are a lot of other, socio-economical/cultural/political factors at play here, you can't generally say early or late diagnosis is better.

I'm very glad I did not get an early diagnosis, or even one in my 30s and upward. While I had my share of misery and bullying, lonliness and confusion, for some reason I never thought it was because there was something wrong with me. Even as a child. I did not understand why the rest of the world didn't understand what was patently clear to me.

I don't think I had the maturity to deal with the consequences of having a diagnosis/awareness earlier on.

I guess I was ready for it when I started seeking psychological help at the age of 21. By then I knew there was "something wrong with me" well enough to reach out for professional help myself.
What bothered me weren't my autistic symptoms, it were my C-PTSD symptoms (random violent freaking out) but without understanding my autistic traits, me and my therapists couldn't understand my emotional life to identify and treat the traumas.