Self-diagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

The person would be officially diagnosed--but that would defeat the purpose of the diagnosis (i.e., that it not be written). There would be no evidence for it, as far as I can tell, if it isn't written.

Unless there's some way for there to be "evidence" of this diagnosis without it being written out fully--like maybe a seal or something like that.

The discussion about not being autistic until you are diagnosed is much like the question it a tree falls in a wood and nobody is there does is still make a noise? Of course it does. Just because we don't know or hear or experience something doesn't stop it being.

Not to mention that the process of getting a diagnosis varies depending on which country you live in. I had to go through a process of self diagnosing prior to getting my diagnosis as in the uk (at least in my experience) you may not have to pay (in fact non NHS diagnosise are often not excepted) but my GP (doctor) expected me to provide a significant amount of evidence of why I thought I was autistic before he would refer me for an assessment.

Sonic it may be more comforting to see things in a way that is more clear cut, but the world is more grey than black and white. The lack of a diagnosis is just that, you are not officially autistic, but if you are autistic then you are autistic diagnosis or not. Diagnosis is a part of communication it helps us to put things in to categories, to describe things and to communicate more effectively. If you take away language or the evolution that enables speech or the ability to describe or explain things would a tree still be a tree or would it be nothing until it has a name?

I was me before I was labelled with a name, I was autistic before I was labelled with a diagnosis. You and anyone else can choose to see me anyway you want Sonic it doesn't change who or what I am.


To be clear, I am not an activist or anything else I am just me.

One of the stranger comments during my assessment now makes sense! At the written-assessment review a few weeks after the clinical review, one of my diagnosticians made the ominous statement that I could "share this document with anyone or no one; no one else will ever see it except you and our clinic, unless you want them to see it."

Now, I realized that the fact that I was diagnosed in Utah automatically placed my name (and probably my contact information) on the federally mandated state autism registry. So, maybe the written assessment was treated as private communication whereas the registration wasn't. Hmm. The baby was split nicely.

I sing very well and play piano at an intermediate level but I cannot play piano and sing at the same time.

Funny, I was thinking of the exact same analogy earlier today in regards to this exact topic.

Also funny, I saw a guy wearing a tshirt the other day that said, "If a man says something in a canyon and no woman is there to hear it, is he still wrong?" I thought that was hilarious!

There is a federally mandated state Autism registry? That is very scary to me. What purpose does it serve?

Well, as I have written elsewhere at WrongPlanet.net, Utah (having one of the highest rates of autism) was encouraged by the federal government to become one of the seven states to analyze and detail its autism rates. One of my friendly acquaintances in the Utah autistic community, William McMahon of the University of Utah, was an early researcher of autism prevalence in the United States. As far as I know, this arrangement is still operating in exchange for some federal dollars and a slight influence on how conditions among the differing rates might be mitigated.

Your right it is hilarious. Sadly he is still wrong, he just can't be completely sure he's wrong.

This age-old philosophy 'problem' is actually very simple - and highlights the very reason why semantics are important.


The key word is 'noise' - or, as it is commonly, written, 'sound'.

Does the tree make a sound?

It all depends on the definition of sound.


1) If sound is the perception of acoustic vibrations, then no, the tree falling didn't make a sound
2) If sound is acoustic vibrations, perceived or otherwise, then the tree did make a sound.



The definition of this one word changes the answer to the question from a yes to a no.



Any reference to 'language police' is sidestepping the issue: settling on definitions is the very thing allowing anything resembling communication.

I may be misquoting you and forgive me if I am, but to argue that people should say the exact words, "I suspect I have Autism," feels like word policing to me. To say that other words can't mean the same as that feels like word policing to me also.

Whether it was "perceived" by anybody, or any thing, an actual sound, or "noise" was made by the tree falling onto the ground.

It would have been "perceived" by most beings of normal hearing sensitivity had they been present.

Among my perceptions, I can predict earthquakes (only about five seconds away, though). If it wasn't for a witness to this ability (who became angry when I woke him up for every aftershock), I would have been considered a kook by those who don't believe [cue The X-Files music].

Supposedly, I can sense the subauditory P-wave. Go figure.

That's pretty nifty!

If an earthquake is higher on the Richter Scale, is the perception stronger?

I'll respond to you this time since you're not being patronising and actually addressing a point I made:

The benefit of the word 'suspect' over 'self-diagnose' (or 'self-identify', or any such variation) is the neutrality of it.

It would be very difficult to misinterpret 'suspect'.

Whereas, a sentence containing a word such as 'diagnose(d)' could very easily be misread.

I'd personally add more by saying 'I suspect I may be autistic', therefore further reinforcing the unknown aspect.


Whereas - and this is possibly the key issue for those who refer to themselves as 'self-diagnosed': the phrase 'self-diagnosed' gives no indication to the possibility/likelihood of any doubt at all.


It is this use of language to imply assuredness that is misleading. And I think this is why those who do not have an official diagnosis wish to use such language - it removes the presence of doubt.


If all of the above can be refuted, I'll happily accept, should the logic stand.

And take note throughout this entire thread - I'm in no way against someone saying they suspect.



To your point RE 'word policing': this is another phrase that sidesteps & obscures an issue by giving it a negative frame.

Were I to offer you dinner and ask if you'd like steak or salmon, I'm not 'choice policing'.


Given my response is measured, a measured response from yourself is appreciated & expected in advance.

Yes, several conditions affect the perception. But, a five-second warning isn't the coolest super power, now is it? It is just long enough to say "Earthquake coming, hide!"

If it is medically true that one cannot have a condition until after he has been diagnosed like you say, that has to be written somewhere. That is a very weighted statement and so far you are the only one saying it. If it is actually true, it has to be very clear to diagnosticians and doctors so there must be written evidence of it. That kind of claim cannot just be assumed by the medical community.

I have asked you to provide written documentation, other than your own words, supporting this claim and you have not.