Is self-diagnosis okay/valid/a good thing?

Post Reply New Topic

Very clever, Norny.

I've never seen any posts which would get you "ignored"--except by somebody irrational, who reads things which aren't there.

Yep....I'm agitated at least some of the time, and usually blow off steam in my pillow.

I don't see the "rant" quality in your posts. I see a little bit swerving from the topic--but who doesn't swerve away from the topic? LOL

I see "impulsive" more than I see "rant."

"Rant" is when you curse, and make copious use of symbols other than letters, and make sweeping negative generalizations.

Ty, I am working on my pHD of a NiceCupOfTea, but with my own flavours.

-puts on business glasses
-sips tea and lightly stares upward and left, looking all pretentious



Sorry I didn't intend to imply that I felt I was ignored. I meant that I don't want to PM somebody something absolutely abhorrent and be put on the website's Foe/ignore list.



Well then, it appears I diagnosed myself incorrectly with 'rant'. JOKES please no one take offense just trying new stuff here LOL

I'm just trying to feel happier when I post rather than busted up and cynical, but I can't seem to balance them without putting on a dunce cap and going insane, because I get carried away with myself and like it too much.

TBH I don't think anyone would care if it swerves from the topic, because this thread is as packed as a constipated man in the 1800s. No one will notice if a post or two strays from the norm. >;L

-licks

Do they? How can anyone tell? I haven't gotten my hands on many autism research papers, but I don't recall that any of them specified whether or not the study was double-blind, explicitly or in the description of the experimental method. How does a person determine such a thing?


That actually seems completely arbitrary to me because self-diagnosis is not a legal matter. Not that I really care all that much about the question. "The age at which self-diagnosis is valid" is not meaningful until one specifies the meaning of "valid."

What I stated is my impression; it's not set in stone.

If one relies solely upon the "quizzes," one is not doing a thorough job at all.

Many autism studies I've encountered are peer-reviewed, double-blind, etc.--especially when they pertain to fMRI's and things like that. Personally, it would be great if autism could be diagnosed via a more medical/objective basis.

Then we wouldn't be here squabbling

I feel the age thing is arbitrary as well; I just wanted to provide SOME kind of answer.

I thought we earlier established that self-diagnosis goes beyond mere suspicion. This is one of the challenges I have with this entire thread. We need to agree on definitions, so we are all talking about the same thing. Please note, AspieUtah, this is not directed necessarily at you, but everyone on the thread. I personally get confused, as I am not 100% certain what people really mean.

In any event, on this issue, I do not care at all about the law. IMO - Any parent, teacher, adult, etc. that hears an undiagnosed minor say, “I strongly believe I am autistic” is being irresponsible if they do not intervene in some way.

Let’s bring this closer to home. I have two teenage daughters, both of whom have some autistic traits. They both also have issues with anxiety (unfortunately, anxiety run in my family). Both are highly introverted and not too “social”. Please note, I am not measuring their level of “social-ness” based upon social cognition, because I am not certain if I would recognize this if it “hit me on the head”. Rather, I am measuring it based upon the number of friends they hang out with during non-school time (i.e. the time I am able to observe them). So, are they autistic? I have no idea. While I have noticed minor autistic traits in everyone, I do not have the first clue about recognizing autism in anyone. But, the moment one of them told me, “I strongly believe I am autistic”, I would definitely have them speak to someone to get evaluated. My daughters are of the age, that if they declined my suggestion to be evaluated, I would honor that. But, it would be irresponsible of me not to suggest/encourage it.

MRI or genetic, yes. The screening tests that I used were quizes, though I have tinkered with more than one quiz simply for amusement's sake. From the get go last January when I stumbled accidentally onto the infamous Wired magazine test, I found better information from the Cambridge source, itself, than from an exclusively online source. That said, I find the RDOS.net quizes claims its ongoing internal analysis shows a scoring consistency with other, more legitimate screening tests. If true, I might support its quizes more than I do now. But, I would like to see a research paper about such studies, and not the RDOS publisher itself. Still, it gives me some hope for the quiz category.

Indeed. I wish a standardized model of self-diagnosis could be determined, if only for the sake of discussion.


But, in the United States, at least (and, I suspect, most other nations), there are no age limitations on the First Amendment rights of free speech and association. So, let's look at the extremes for a moment: Professional diagnosticians claim the ability to diagnose children as young as six months of age. Some descriptions of diagnostic criteria conclude that childhood diagnoses typically aren't valid beyond 11 years of age when adult diagnoses are expected. Now, I suspect that most children aged six months to 11 years of age won't even understand autism let alone have the cognitive abilities to self-diagnose. So, let's restrict the age range with the ability to possibly self-diagnose to, say, 8 to 11 years of age. Even at that age range, I suspect that most, if not all, children would need external stimuli (like a friend, or a teacher's instruction-lite about autistic classmates) to even consider that they might exhibit similar characteristics and question whether they would also have autism.

So, the idea that "children" self-diagnosing, even it doing so involved risks (it wouldn't in my opinion), most such children wouldn't even entertain the idea of doing so, would they?

Now, let's examine the idea of "adult" diagnoses of minors aged 12 to 18 years of age. I agree that most within the age range will at some time be exposed to the fact that some of their friends have ASDs and accommodate them fairly. They might begin to wonder if they have similar characteristics, too. They might even claim that they believe that they are autistic like their ASD friend(s). I suspect, if such a self diagnosis isn't accurate, such a claim is about in the same league as the same teen-aged adult wanting seriously to be an astronaut, archaeologist or ballerina. I would presume that the teen-aged adult would study his or her newfound interest in autism, space travel, old bones or dance, realize probably that it isn't for them and move on to more pedantic pursuits like dating.

For those who stick with their claims of and interests in autism, how is it any more risky or injurious than the teen-aged adult who decides one day to become Jewish? Years of autodidactic special-interest research ensue and, by college, the now older teen-aged adult realizes cognitively that, while his or her studies have been educational and interesting, they simply made a mistake in applying that knowledge to themselves. No harm, no foul. Humans of this age range do all sorts of weird personal experimentation. Very little of the experimentation remains into adulthood. Why should autism be any different for those teen-aged adults who simply made a mistake, but are all the better for having learned about it, themselves and their future family, friends and coworkers who will have autism?


Excellent reaction! It loses nothing in an application to my scenerios. So, you have one or both of your daughters evaluated for one or more ASDs and find out there is no there, there. Okay. The world doesn't end and not one other individual with an ASD is harmed in the pursuit of truth, however long it might have taken. But, let's not prohibit others from their own long train of personal exploration, especially if it includes a temporary mistaken belief about themselves. That is life.

I found out about me and autism when I was 13. There wasn't professional help available for me. There wasn't people who would diagnose me. There wasn't therapists who would work with me.

Was because I was 13, I shouldn't have identified with Asperger's, after going into heavy research? Someone suggested it to me from outside (a mental health professional who didn't know enough to say more than that she thought it was likely), I researched it a lot, and I identified as such. I learned a lot about myself in that research. I didn't realize things about myself, didn't realize things about people, and used the research to learn and think about what the world and me and people and everything is like. And I identified with Asperger's at age 13, while not seeing any professionals and without seeing any for it.

(This was approximately what I did the summer before and for 9th grade. I first saw a therapist for this half way through 11th and was officially diagnosed after graduating college)

Good for you! I imagine there was a lot less information available to you then. But, you found it anyway. That is tenacity.

The big thing was really the bias against females. It's still here, but less than a decade ago.

Most autism studies in cognitive neuroscience are not double-blind or blind at all.
The researcher knows what kind of person they are putting into the MRI or which data is whose, but they apply the same analytical code to eberryone's data.
Some psychology studies dependent on behavioral coding are researcher-blind, as in the specific researchers doing the behavioral coding don't know which person is autistic.
Studies involving therapeutic trials are not participant-blind, as someone or someone's parents knows what kind of therapy they are doing over weeks.

However, I don't think that reading research studies is directly applicable to self-diagnosis, as I said before.
Some autistic group's fMRI activation pattern will not help someone self-diagnose, since they don't know their fMRI pattern.
Behavioral measurements will not help, as they can't measure their behaviors the way the researchers did.
Some behavioral coding result will not help, as their behavior was not coded by a professional according to certain guidelines that involve large manuals and months of training.
Someone can read and read and read, learning all about autism research, but they can't apply what they read, and diagnosis is about application to each individual by a trained/eggsperienced person according to specific guidelines.
Also, most research studies are not meant to be applied to diagnosis by anyone, they are to learn about details of autistic brain/cognition/behavior.

I think reading research can help with how you think about what people mean by certain things. I don't think its what will be the information that directly helps people determine if they think they are autistic or not. There is a lot of people misinterpreting what people mean by certain words, phrases, and ideas. If they read research, they are more likely to understand what is meant by those, instead of misinterpretation things as things they match.

However, it won't help with the base gathering information very much. I've just found I understand certain types of information better the more research I read, and can explain it to others better the more information I read. I know I've said things which were just wrong in the past.

One of the studies I've participated in, the person who determined which traits I have, and the person who did the other test were different people, though both knew I have a diagnosis of an ASD. That was the only one with any level of blind-ness. (Being a research subject is fun).

True. My experience in reading screening-test related, and other, research papers was most informative from the semantic POV. But, the test-related papers also showed me that the tests I used have been re-tested in other countries with matching results; this confirmed the tests' validity and kept me from wander too far afield from their applications. In fact, I have been studying BAP, MAP and NAP recently and found no studies which confirm the phenotype among non-familial individuals. If anyone knows of any, I would appreciate knowing about them and their web links.

Reading research can help understand what some autistic traits are, but whether a person has those traits are difficult or impossible to determine by themselves or without the specific research apparatus/devices used in the studies.

Good point. Aside from observation, what apparatuses and/or devices are used in notable studies?

SS, I could give you a professional consultation for Christmas to assist your diagnosis and treatment with your severe case of nitpicking, if you would like help with it... though your sustained demonstration of how ignorant we are in relation to you has been diverting in its own peculiar way.