By discounting the self-diagnosed, you play their game
hmm...attacking you? by questioning your motives on why you turned a thread about a story into an argument? um, that's not an attack, sorry to tell ya. just a question. people who feel like everything is an attack are people who are always on the defense, no mystery there. nobody in this thread turned into an argument, except you, i'm just asking you why you did that??
i'm not raging, i'm just curious! i don't want to talk about that validity of self-diagnosis, especially not with you. you don't seem to understand that i am on your side, which is fine, but it makes debating with you boring and tiresome and downright pointless.
When I refer to people who are self-diagnosed, I'm not talking about people who are diagnosed with nothing, I'm talking about people who have been diagnosed with half the DSM and never found any help or anything accurate. I'm talking about people likely to be diagnosed with agoraphobia because they're afraid to go anywhere or see anybody, or people who got slapped with a borderline diagnosis because they're the most severe self-injurer most doctors have ever seen, and therapists find them frustrating because they don't know how to communicate. I'm talking about people with serious problems who get really, really upset by these threads about how anybody who doesn't have an official diagnosis doesn't have a real problem. I'm talking about people who have LOTS of diagnoses, but can't find help because the root of the problem isn't being addressed, and who are getting blamed for that. I'm talking about the anorexics with undiagnosed AS who will probably never be diagnosed because they're girls, so nobody will even consider it, and who can't get help because you can't treat an eating disorder in someone with AS in the same way as you can with a cheerleader or dancer. I'm NOT talking about people who don't have real problems. A decent number of the people I'm talking about are probably going to die from the lack of diagnosis.
Ok.. um.. I didn't mean for this to turn into another rant.. I'm just trying to explain the difference in what "self-diagnosed" means to me as opposed to some of the anti-self-diagnosis people..
(Not you, WhittenKitten, you make sense, and it sounds like OddGoat is of the same opinion you are about those with problems vs. those without problems. It's probably actually just trolls who do the completely anti-SD thing rather than the anti-self-diagnosed-people-without-real-problems thing. But it just makes it hard not to filter all anti-self-diagnosis discussion through that.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/music ... 745453.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 17492.html
I dont agree with you on this one. Just because you are sucessful doesnt mean you havent got a disorder. There are quite a few famous people with Aspergers... its just that because the traits and problems arent uniform, it can be possible for some people to do ok if they find the right niche that supports their talents and doesnt aggravate their problems.
my friend I spoke of earlier (not Ladyhawke I dont know her)
is doing well, but she still has the disorder, just like me. Ive often wondered why this is and lately I have thought that her early experience with autism professionals gave her the help she needed, whereas I didnt find out about AS until I was 25. She has had a good 12 years of social skills training on me and far less stress, so now she is not a mess and I am.
_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf
Taking a break.
Somebody who can function because they got help for a disorder is different than someone who functions well on their own, though. If they got treatment for the disorder, much of the point of that treatment was to improve functioning, and it was help they got because they had problems functioning.
It is not really that simple though. Some people with AS can luck out and not struggle much at all with it, for various reasons.
You can have a person who is reasonably low functioning who still manages to have a good life, like Temple Grandin,
and you can have a person who is very high functioning yet is a wreck because they were thrown in with all the NTs and expected to cope with a social system they didnt understand, and work at the level of an NT in the workplace when they were high-functioning yet had huge problems organising themselves.
Its just not as simple as people say it is. There are so many different scenarios that occur. Some people do not too badly in career for example, though have problems making any friends, and look back at it all at retirement age and think: oh well. It was my life. Not the usual life but Im ok with it. I know such a person.
For some people, not making friends is a major calamity. For others, not making friends gives them more time to do stuff they want to do.
_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf
Taking a break.
Maybe I don't understand correctly.. but I kinda thought that the way you mentioned "the higher functioning person who is a wreak because they were thrown in with NTs" and then the "lower-functioning" person who became successful, kinda correlated with my point, or at least didn't contradict what I said. (So maybe it wasn't clear what I was saying?) I guess even if someone doesn't get actual treatment but kinda lives as though they did, that would be the same thing as getting treatment. Like if they just have a lot of support, and help to find their niche so that they can succeed despite those difficulties, that's almost the same thing as receiving treatment for a specific disorder.. just possibly more personalized and not so based on a label. 'Cause to say that the "higher-functioning" person is a wreak because they didn't get help means that the "lower-functioning" person who isn't a wreak must have gotten help.
I still maintain that if someone can do well without any special accommodations, they really can't have a disorder, because they wouldn't meet the criterion about impairment. Some people do get special accommodations without a label, though.. but usually with those people, it's very mild so those "special accommodations" aren't anything huge.
I'd like to second this -- if people are worried about SD people who are living fine with zero issues, and never really had any -- Bill Gates with a little less money -- then I can understand the concern. That does sound like people looking for a label in order to be "clinically" cool & quirky, which would be really offensive.
I don't know, but I'd like to think most of the SD people are not in that category, but rather are looking for answers to serious difficulties, and that AS, after some serious looking into it, seems to fit (and be helpful to know about). But I grant there's the issue of what kind of people I'm seeing in life (not much since I basically never the leave the house or talk to anybody, these days), vs. who/what someone younger/in-different-circumstances is encountering.
This thread got pretty hot, but it's become quite helpful to me in understanding where the 'other side' is coming from.
I believe it is a difference in opinions we have, perhaps always will have

If they had many AS traits and qualify for PDD-NOS why is it so offensive that they may want to claim to be on the spectrum and meet others also there?
I have met a few people through the Aspergers groups who seemed to have very little trouble with their lives... they should still be allowed to meet others with AS.
_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf
Taking a break.
self diagnosed VS self diagnosed? now i've heard it all!
though if someone didn't have any problems, why would they even come to the conclusion that they have AS? wouldn't there HAVE to be some sort of reason they would come to that decision? i mean i find it hard to believe a person would self-diagnose aspergers just for fun, or to be cool.
I guess I dont see autism the way other people in this conversation do. I see it as a collection of traits. I dont believe it always leads to major problems, and I think environment and upbringing are very important. I think it is a disorder when a certain number and types of traits are present, due to genes. I dont see it as a disorder because people arent doing well, but something that exists in its own right as a genetic and developmental anomaly. I know NTs who are doing pretty far worse than some AS people I have met are. But then, just my opinion, I think it is genetics plus environment.
Oh, and if Bill Gates showed up at an ASD spectrum meeting I was running and said he wanted to explore the possibility he was on the spectrum, I would welcome him. Also, he would be able to afford to buy drinks for everyone.
_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf
Taking a break.

If they had many AS traits and qualify for PDD-NOS why is it so offensive that they may want to claim to be on the spectrum and meet others also there?
I have met a few people through the Aspergers groups who seemed to have very little trouble with their lives... they should still be allowed to meet others with AS.
It's actually not a matter of not being on the spectrum, but of not having a disorder. As I understand it, the workgroup for ASDs for the DSM-V is even planning on accommodating that exact view. They're going to classify a sub-clinical autism that isn't a diagnosable disorder because it doesn't go along with impairment, but it is still part of the spectrum. A few months ago a re-defined the word "geek" to mean "sub-clinical aspie." A few people stated that they'd fall into that category.
Also, it's not like ASDs are the only disorders that go along with impairment. That's a criterion on pretty much every disorder. The "NTs" that you know who are doing worse than aspies could have depression or anxiety.. or anything else. (I'm not completely sure what disorders classify someone as non-neurotypical. I've seen a few instances of people with AD(H)D being referred to as non-neurotypical as well.. not sure where the line is, or if there is a line.)
I don't know, but I'd like to think most of the SD people are not in that category, but rather are looking for answers to serious difficulties, and that AS, after some serious looking into it, seems to fit (and be helpful to know about). But I grant there's the issue of what kind of people I'm seeing in life (not much since I basically never the leave the house or talk to anybody, these days), vs. who/what someone younger/in-different-circumstances is encountering.
This thread got pretty hot, but it's become quite helpful to me in understanding where the 'other side' is coming from.
I agree. It is kinda hard to understand the whole view of self-diagnosis as being something done by people with no problems, when you eventually figure out that an ASD is actually the reason you meet the criteria for agoraphobia. The whole anti-self-diagnosis thing is also just really upsetting for people with real problems but no official explanation, which is why these threads get so heated. Between what WhittenKitten and TheOddGoat said, the whole argument at least makes more sense to me now.
I only read bits and pieces of this thread because I am kind of fatigued tonight. I have had a hectic past two days and attended a reading seminar that required group work . But anyway:
A person with AS is usually very truth oriented and seeks to find the truth. I believe that a person who has AS (like I strongly feel Fiddlerpianist has) is quite valid in his self-assessment of himself.
To emphasize my point I firmly believe I am twice diagnosed with AS. My first diagnosis came in a clinic/office sitting on a couch with me being told professionally, "You have AS." Now I have a file in Cincinnati stating that I have AS---I have a label for life now. My second diagnosis came from me after the professional diagnosis. I set down with scores and scores of articles and diagnostic criteria. I analyzed every aspect I could get to on AS to see if there was anything else I could have had. I placed charts together in analyzing my internal thinking/personality. I analyzed over two hours of home movies of me as a child. I took audio tapes of me talking as a child to a highly qualified speech expert who works with autistic children and being told that my child speech was typical of AS children. After months of this strenuous procedure of analyzing, I gave myself the AS diagnosis too. Fiddlerpianist is doing this same thing. I firmly believe that the self-diagnosis can be better analyzed than the professional one. And if that person doing the self-diagnosis does indeed have AS, then I believe it is a reliable diagnosis---since we with AS often get obsessed with autism and become experts on it. I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but I believe I know as much about AS as many professionals. And I believe many of you do too.
I don't know where this thread went since I only scanned the beginning of it. The self-diagnosed have probably gone through a nearly torturous thorough self-diagnosis that can be more intense than the professional one.
I have a challenge for some of you that are like me---professionally diagnosed. Do a self-diagnosis of yourself if you haven't already. But I bet many of you will say, "I already have." Ok...how do you compare your self-diagnosis against the professional one?
There can be important merits to a self-diagnosis if done honestly. For example, a psychiatrist might see that you are not socializing properly and say it is because of autism. But can that psychiatrist get into your mind to see why? Could it be because of some other condition rather than autism? But in a self-diagnosis, the person doing the analyzing is already inside their mind to render an honest answer---if you can be honest with yourself.
_________________
"My journey has just begun."

If they had many AS traits and qualify for PDD-NOS why is it so offensive that they may want to claim to be on the spectrum and meet others also there?
I have met a few people through the Aspergers groups who seemed to have very little trouble with their lives... they should still be allowed to meet others with AS.
It's actually not a matter of not being on the spectrum, but of not having a disorder. As I understand it, the workgroup for ASDs for the DSM-V is even planning on accommodating that exact view. They're going to classify a sub-clinical autism that isn't a diagnosable disorder because it doesn't go along with impairment, but it is still part of the spectrum. A few months ago a re-defined the word "geek" to mean "sub-clinical aspie." A few people stated that they'd fall into that category.
Also, it's not like ASDs are the only disorders that go along with impairment. That's a criterion on pretty much every disorder. The "NTs" that you know who are doing worse than aspies could have depression or anxiety.. or anything else. (I'm not completely sure what disorders classify someone as non-neurotypical. I've seen a few instances of people with AD(H)D being referred to as non-neurotypical as well.. not sure where the line is, or if there is a line.)
Well again, we can agree to disagree, I still see it as a spectrum, whether or not DSM is met, I personally think the DSM is too simplistic. I see the presence of the unusual brain development as being the disorder, and not what happens to the person consequently.
_________________
"Caravan is the name of my history, and my life an extraordinary adventure."
~ Amin Maalouf
Taking a break.
Wait, but we can't agree to disagree if we don't disagree in the first place, and I thought that what I said was the same as what you said-- that it's a spectrum, and that there are parts of the spectrum that don't necessarily include dysfunction. I think the only thing we disagree on is whether or not the word "disorder" should be applied to that specific part of the spectrum.. and I'm not sure that disagreement over the application of one word in the description actually counts as a disagreement.
sartresue
Veteran

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
Only you gnos and I gnos topic
At this point, I am beginning to wonder why it is asked if we are diagnosed or not.
Sometimes I do not see a difference between the dx, the self dx, and the unknown.
_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind
Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory
NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo
They are stealing my work.
Half-Aspies are real, outside the DSM, and as little as one trait can be disabling.
A Dx, a self Dx, are gong to find two things. The first, does it meet the criteria, the second, which parts of the criteria.
Line up all official Dx, you will find a wide range of behaviors, degrees of everything, which only study and self assessment can sort out.
Half-Aspies have a worse time, they do not fit the whole criteria, but on one or two issues, they are full members of the tribe.
Wrong Planet and books is about all they have, but not all of it applies to them. The same goes for parents, spouses, they may have partial traits, thier child more, and everyone is looking for understanding.
Nothing about this is clear and simple, but if you identify with a group, you are likely like them.
Now the Dxing is done by people who studied more than Autism, they have a strong interest in Abnormal Psych, all of their coworkers do too, and they spend their days with the strangest of humans. As a profession they have a high rate of self medication, they kill themselves, and from Hannibal Hector to the shooter at Ft. Hood, some turn out very strange.
At least none of them are Autistic. So they can only guess what part of the DSM others fit. They themselves seem to fit most of it, but they are professionals.
Autism is a world. We can learn to deal with the other world, but never join it. Very few of them could ever learn to deal with our world.
We have Brand Identity.
I read your entire post and thought it was very well-thought out and well-written. We all have our own opinions of this, and I respect that. Your quote here is extremely important in my opinion for those of us on the autism spectrum.
You claim that people with only some of the criteria met for AS have a "worse time." Why? I think I know why. People on the spectrum are usually very black&white thinkers---we don't like grey areas. And guess what? If a person meets only some of the criteria---then they are in that grey area. And that can be frustrating I am sure. My diagnosis was easy because of meeting the criteria on the DSM-IV and Gillberg, but I can see where hitting the grey would be frustrating because of the black&white thinking.
Please help me clarify the grey area here---could those people be considered PDD-NOS?
_________________
"My journey has just begun."
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Anyone here play The Sims? |
04 Jun 2025, 5:45 pm |
What Do You Love to Play? |
02 Jul 2025, 11:12 am |
Why you are never too old to play Video Games |
01 Jul 2025, 7:02 pm |
Can autism be diagnosed at any age? |
16 May 2025, 4:53 pm |