wp getting annoying

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make.

Objectivity is both overvalued and overly assumed in professionals. Many biases about various conditions are actually taught in the same classes that are supposed to teach how to critically approach research materials. I have heard generalizations about people with various conditions that were both extremely wrong and taught in university.

One reason I specifically said Simon Baron-Cohen is not a great source of autism information is because he carries a ton of biases about autistic people that inform his research.

I don't really feel like a veteran as I am pretty new, but I guess I would say when WP becomes more annoying than positive for me, I will leave it. I kind of wish for that to happen, though I like and admire people here who are trying so hard, because if it ever does, and it's by my choice, it would be because I've found a way to connect to people in the real world that I don't have now. So I guess also, right now, the annoyance I sometimes feel is something I try to see as an opportunity to practice stepping back and letting someone else deal with the confusion, or not. And I watch what people do and try to learn from it.

I agree with ToySoldier, a lot of people are desperate. When you're desperate, blaming others is sometimes a way to keep going, and a reason to live not die. It can hold you back and cause problems, but sometimes it's a necessary step.

Much of the time, the kindness and acceptance here, even for people who seem extremely provocative, is higher than in the real world. So I guess also I try to stay aware that when people blame, and they are still accepted, there is a chance that I can be part of WR and acceptable as well here. And I like that.

It wasn't specifically directed at you at all. I quoted you because I wanted to make the argument even when comparing a specialist to a self diagnostician so I wanted to acknowledge your comment about specialists.

Doctors don't diagnose themselves because they can't be as objective as another professional. Yes they have biases and can be subjective which is why I said in the other post that no-one is objective all the time but they can be more objective about you and your life than you can (generic you). It's hard to get out of your own head and observe yourself from an outsider's point of view.

The specialist would look at your school records and parental reports (ideally, if you had these things) and your behaviour at the interview and your test results ect. and evaluate you as an outsider based on their experience, education and knowledge. Even just being an outsider has some value , IMO. It doesn't make Mr. specialist completely objective but it makes him more objective than (generic) you assessing yourself.

Ah, this is a thing that frequently trips me up when quoted and not addressed. Sorry! And yeah, your post makes more sense to me if it's not addressed to me.



I understand that, although I am dubious about anyone ever being truly objective.

Something that is interesting to me is how some people here are more critical of self-diagnosis than many of the professionals themselves, who are supposed to be more objective and more capable of making these determinations. Like Tony Attwood outright saying "If you think you have it, you probably do."

I wouldn't say I'm more critical about specific self diagnosed people than I am about professionals. It's more that I'm critical of people diagnosing themselves with neuro-developmental disorders or any kind of disorder really, in the first place. *I'm not critical of professionals diagnosing ASD if they specialize in ASD because they are qualified to do so, but I am critical of people diagnosing themselves with ASD in the first place, they are un-qualified to do so.

Tony Atwood said that when there was much less awareness about AS on the internet and in the media. Medical doctors will tell you that when certain disorders are talked about in the media people do tend to think they have them. For example a doctor once told me that about meningitis because there were tons of commercials for meningitis on T,V in Canada at the time. I had a sore neck along with flu symptoms and I asked if I might have meningitis and he said he had tons of people with sore necks asking him that who didn't have it and it turned out that I didn't have it. My professors of psychology talked about how ASDs are becoming a fad in research and diagnosis. What happens is money is given to people researching ASD and not other disorders so more profs research ASD. I think ASD has become more of a trend and information about it is more abundant so now "most people who think they have it actually do" might not be as true.

I don't place much significance on what one clinician/researcher like SBC, Tony Attwood, or Lorna Wing says about autism. I place more on what various studies showed and what are the leading ideas based on the studies. It's fine to criticize the methods and interpretations of the studies, they and the people who do them are not perfect and make mistakes, and each study has limitations.

Also it has become an identity and culture now, Asperger's has and as discussed earlier on this forum some people don't even think of it as a disorder but as a difference, a gift or even the next step in evolution. Even if people don't buy into the most extreme views held by a minority of the community these views might appeal to people. Even if they don't the idea of having an idenity and a community might appeal to some people causing them to try (unconsciously perhaps) to make their symptoms fit Asperger's or ASD. There might be some lonely people who have some symptoms similar to ASD or some ASD traits who love the idea of the aspie community and want to fit themselves into it. This isn't a horrible thing and is understandable but it's one thing that could lead to an incorrect self assessment.

I'm not saying everyone who identifies ASD in themselves doesn't have it ,some clearly do. I'm just saying the above may be the case for SOME people.

Strongly agree.

What I meant to say was that I'm not critical of profs diagnosing what they specialize in , I don;t think they shouldn';t diagnose ASD whereas I think I , for example, shouldn't diagnose ASD or another layman.

I'm still critical of their ideas and methods and think people should be and professionals and specialists are most certainly fallible.

I don't see the point of being so critical toward people self diagnosing. Most do it because they have problems and are trying to figure them out. When they're met with "You can only know if you see a professional" as frequently happens here, that doesn't help in the least. Most are aware that seeing a professional would help, but for whatever reason they may not have access. My lack of access to a professional and encountering that kind of attitude kept me from dealing with things for three full years, which is why I am critical of people who are especially not themselves professionals trying to patrol the autism borders, as many posters here do.



Tony Attwood has said it at least in the past few years, which is definitely after that awareness.



I don't think this is something that can reasonably be concluded from available information. Things I have heard about professors saying about many such things have been downright wrong or even dangerous. Two that come to mind immediately are: "Autistic people do not understand that other people are people" and "Borderline patients who talk about suicide are strictly doing it for attention, so don't feed their need for attention." Which is why such a high number of borderline patients successfully kill themselves.

So when a professor says "it's a fad" I am dubious because I do not know what context that's stated in, what the professor's qualifications are, or what their biases are.

Also, people diagnosing themselves with ASD aren't doing the equivalent of "my neck hurts, do you think it might be meningitis?" That's a whole different level. People hear about stuff and think "Is this possible?" But it seems to me that when people self-diagnose something like ASD, they spend a lot of time researching it themselves. I think here is one area where objectivity is overly valued. People inherently have subjectivity about their own experiences, and objectivity is used to deny that subjectivity, to say it's not good enough. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Rather than discouraging people who think they might be autistic, or telling them they require a trained professional to discover something they can demonstrably learn on their own, I think more constructive and less "appeal to false authority" engagement would probably work better.

Like, no one asks why someone might need a diagnosis in the first place, they just say self diagnosis is wrong or shouldn't be done because of the trained professionals, etc.

And I find such arguments less than convincing because I have been diagnosed with everything I've initially self-diagnosed myself with - because that self-diagnosis was an impetus to actually seek help when it was accessible. Except, of course, for autism, in which I was delayed for three years because of the extremely negative attitudes about self-diagnosis I ran into on this forum and a few other places online when I first considered it a possibility. I didn't know what resources were available to me and didn't have access to any medical professionals, and per the whole "critical of self-diagnosis" thing, I shouldn't even think I might have it until I have a professional confirm it for me. I was only able to actually find help and get diagnosed when I tossed that aside as the unhelpful advice that it is.

I think I phrased that more harshly than I wanted:

What I mean is, I think it's more constructive to find out why a person thinks they might be autistic or need a diagnosis because often they really do need something and this is a possibility they're exploring as to the cause.

Many of the "critical of self-diagnosis" types go pretty far, saying it should never be done and one should not mention anything to any professionals so as to not influence their perceptions. This is akin to saying "Go to the doctor for a flu but don't mention sinus congestion, coughing, post-nasal drip, headache, fevers, muscle aches. Just let them figure it out."

I think my comment was misunderstood when I referred to individual professionals knowing more than people who don't specialize in autism. Definitely research is the thing to look into, but anyone can do that if they have access. For university students and researchers, this research is accessible. For people like myself a lot of it is not and I can only see abstracts or filtered through the media (which gets everything wrong.

But the comment was made in response to the comment about people saying their lay research means they know more than professionals. The truth is they do end up knowing more than professionals who don't specialize in autism, but do know less than people who do.

Except Simon Baron-Cohen, because a lot of his stuff is nonsense.

Fair point.

Yes, I think they should be evaluated and maybe something else is wrong with them that they never would have thought of and I think their suspicioins should be taken seriously. To me there's a big difference between thinking you might have X and saying "I have X , I know for sure whatever the doctors say".



I agree with you on this, that people should bring their concerns and suspicions to a doctor, I wouldn't be against someone saying "I suspect I may have autism because X,Y and Z". I just don't think they should say "I have a neuro-developmental disorder" after only self assessment.

Well, I guess I was wrong about when Atwood said that people who think they're autistic are usually right. I said I can be critical of professionals and I do disagree with him there although I think it may have once been true or closer to true when the general public knew next to nothing of autism and there was not much of an autistic community. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree here. Edit- to add- Also, I agree with you that diagnosis of ASD and other developmental and mental conditions is less objective than that of physical health/medical conditions. I also agree that there is bias and subjectivity in any diagnosis to a certain extent. However, I still think an outsider (outside of oneself, I mean) and a specialist with years of knowledge and experience working with people with such a disorder is able to give a much more objective diagnosis of a person than a person can give himself. Again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

For me it was "I am 90% certain I have X, and I am 90% certain the doctor will agree." And she did, so yay for me I guess.

I don't think going to a doctor and saying "I am for sure autistic" is constructive at all. I didn't. I did put together all the information and evidence I could find to support it for the doctor I did see, though.



Yes. The person I was thinking of who said "don't say anything to influence the doctor!" was the psych guy who also said "autistic people don't know that people are people." So, yeah, consider the source there.



He's said it formally in a few places and informally has said it more recently. There's a youtube series where this guy was interviewing Attwood and fielding questions from viewers, and that was in 2010 or so I think.




Well I agree a professional with training is going to be better at diagnosing autism in anyone than someone who does not have those qualifications. I am not qualified to diagnose autism in anyone, and even though I diagnosed myself with it, I also used that as impetus for a professional evaluation.

I am sorry for putting things harshly. I don't think as much about how I say something so much as what I say, and I agree with agreeing to disagree.

If by harsh you mean unintentionally mean or hurtful, I didn't think that about anything you said. I have no idea if anything I said sounded harsh or mean or offensive but I certainly didn't mean it to and I'm sorry if it did.






Agreed!

Holy crap... I didn't realize just how much I did this until I read this. Is this common?

Happens to me all the time.

daydreamer84: You didn't seem harsh at all. When I re-read my post it seemed a lot harsher than I intended, but I am glad you didn't take it that way.