By discounting the self-diagnosed, you play their game

Post Reply New Topic

From the article Self-starters on Shift Journal:

That certainly puts things into perspective, I think, for those who believe that only a professional diagnosis legitimizes someone's claim to being autistic.

hm, i see where you're coming from (or trying to come from). but i think that comparison is completely invalid, if not a little silly.

I'm afraid I don't understand how this has to do with Self-Diagnosing? All I have read that they aren't going to come off as racist or something, and they were playing basketball.. as far as i know Autism is not a form of basketball.

How so? I think it's strikingly poignant.

BUt it isn't Fiddlerpianist it sounds like you are trying to find some story to make everyone understand and accept self-diagnosing which isn't going to happen for everyone and using a story that has NOTHING to do witih self-diagnosing does not make sense.. i mean sweet.. basketball.. but I dont care about basketball and what has happened over there.. I do not live there. I can't relate.

Therein lies the problem since our self-diagnosed "ancestry" often actually *is* in question. However, that story certainly is a great illustration of true identity and autonomy being set aside in favor of governmental blessing and control ... and all for some monthly cheese, stale crackers and dried milk.

Last edited by leejosepho on 12 Nov 2009, 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the scenarios are just completely different. knowing that you are native american or not does not take a diagnosis, there are many rock solid factors that can be taken into account to know if you are or not without having to consult a professional. ASDs are not that easy, and just because someone feels strongly that they have an ASD does not mean that they do, same if someone felt strongly that they were native american (but might not be), the difference you can usually tell for yourself very easily what race you are, or may be. someone who is native american will know it by how they look, or how their parents ancestors look, or stories they have been told, belief systems, geogrpahy, etc. there is no such solidarity in self-diagnosing ASDs.

in the story a man is ejected from the game because he is unable to produce identification to prove his identity. that is perfectly reasonable in this situation. to participate in the tournament you needed to have that ID, this is the same as going to clubs where you need ID to prove your age. it is about making sure that only people with specific requirements can participate in certain activities, it is not about being racist, it is really to keep things in order. if the man who was ejected from the game wanted to participate and was a native american, he would have been free to obtain this identification. why should he? because those are the rules, if he didn't wish to comply, do not participate. i'm sure there are other games of basketball going on. that is the benefit of having the ID, getting to play. same as having a professional diagnosis, it has benefits that being self-diagnosed just does not provide. yes people may be satisfied and content to be self-diagnosed, but they should not expect to be able to have all the benefits of those who have been professionally assessed (not because they are any less on the spectrum, it's just, they can't prove it....and like this story illustrates, that is necessary to maintain order).

and i could go on for many more paragraphs, about segregation, oppression, the difference between race issues and medical stigmas....and other stuff but i am hungry for lunch.

Fiddler.. making this argument isn't going to lead to anything but frustration. You can't convince the diagnosis snobs that ASDs are more common than they used to be thought, because they want to believe that they're rare and special. It doesn't matter how good your point is, because there are the people who are already on your side, and the people who will argue with you no matter what. Both sides have already made up their minds. You can't logically argue with someone who doesn't care about logic or about whether or not what you have to say is valid. If they agree they already agree, and if they don't, they're not listening anyway.

This holds true with pretty much any debate -- Autism, religion, politics, whatever. People only ever do two things in life; what they want to do and what they have to do. No amount of persuasion or reasoned argument can change that fact.

woah. this has nothing to do with what is better, professional diagnosis or self. just how it relates to this story. i am an actually an advocate for the self-diagnosed. if anything it seems like you are the snob, so far up on your highhorse that you can't even keep things in context, just start jumping around yelling like a child! come on now, we're adults here most of us. you obviously have some sort of grudge, i suggest you get help.

Very true. I know that I'm not going to convince anyone who has already made up their minds. But at the same time, if everyone has already made up their minds about everything, why bother to have a discussion forum?

There are a lot of other topics that are discussed much more rationally. This one just seems to invite trouble. Especially because the definition of "self-diagnosis" is so very vague. It's seems to be only trolls who are against self-diagnosis across completely, but of course they usually speak up in these threads. Then it ends up looking like the more moderate people are completely anti-self-diagnosis, when they're not. But it feels that way to anybody who isn't professionally diagnosed.

88BK, that last comment was uncalled for. I might have been able to explain my point, but your "get help" bit was just nasty, and doesn't give me room to explain why I dislike the self-diagnosis debate threads. You said that just to be mean. As you well know, "getting help" isn't much help to most people with ASDs anyway. Which usually leads to being blamed when the therapist gets frustrated. Not to mention the thousands of dollars that go into that useless therapy. So you're being an "adult" by being rude to me?

To clarify my point: I have zero faith in psychological testing. My view of psychological testing is about the same as the anti-self-diagnosis people's view of self-diagnosis. Therefore, I view self-diagnosis as nearly as valid as professional diagnosis, not because I consider self-diagnosis infallible, but because I view professional diagnosis as very fallible.

I hate this debate, but am wading into it again. However, what I'm a little bit offended about at this point is the whole ancestry thing. I would love for someone to take a look at me and tell me which ancestry I am. I am adopted. I do not know. I do not have have other people to look at to tell, and so many traits can not even show up between generations that I doubt if most people have a clue what they really are, ancestry-wise. As humans, we tend to identify with groups that are similar to us. I have identified with my adoptive family, with their beliefs, stories and traditions. But I am not part of that group biologically... does that make me any less of one of my family? Am I not allowed at the reunion because I can't prove my blood ties to the people I've known (almost) my entire life?

I also identify with this community. This is a group that is quite similar to me in behavior and generalized traits, sometimes beautifully and painfully so. I have not gone to a shrink to be identified as "technically" as some might like. I have not been DNA tested to see what my ancestry is. I see it as a same-same sort of situation. Do I plan on going to see the shrink? I've been Googling all day to find a good one. But whatever that person says is not going to change who I am, and it's not going to change the fact that I identify with this community. Just like if I were to ever somehow get tested for my "technical" ancestry. I could turn out to be... anything and it wouldn't stop me from seeing my family as just that, MY family. Is that wrong? I can't see how either of these things are wrong.

And as for benefits of being professionally assessed, I guess I don't see any. I'm not looking for anything, I'm not looking for anyone to treat me any differently than they do now. Yeah, I guess I'd like to get another opinion, but it's not going to benefit me in any way other than: then I'd have another opinion. It's not going to change who I am. You could label me a giraffe and I'd still be me. Do I get to wear a pin or wave a flag in some parade if I get formally diagnosed or something? Is there a certificate I don't know about? Because I'm not seeing it.

Other than lineage (which would not be the case if you were adopted), what kind of criteria would you consider to be "rock solid"?


Well, I guess the next logical question would be to ask what defines an ASD. There are at least three different criteria that I'm aware of (there are probably more), and they all vary. So by whose standards does one have or not have an ASD? And furthermore, who are the people writing these standards? I doubt that very many who came up with these definitions are autistic.

The article goes on to say:




The analogy isn't being made to get hung up in the details of one being a sporting event and the other not. The point is that members of a particular group are assigning validity to a construct that was created by people who are not members of the group. In the case of autism, by asserting that DSM IV (for instance) is a valid litmus test for determining whether someone is autistic and can "validly" speak to autistic issues, you are playing by the rules of the non-autistic establishment. It's as simple as that.

you're still trying to argue the validity of self-diagnosis with me. why?? that is not what i am talking about AT ALL. i am talking about the story in the OP not being the best comparison for the struggles of the self-diagnosed. i think it is alot harder for the self-diagnosed. i mean in that story the man who was rejected could (most likely) at least say "well look at me i am clearly native american and here is my family who is clearly native american", what is a self-diagnosed person supposed to say when questioned? how are they supposed to defend themselves? there's nothing they can point to to say "yeh well i may not have the documentation but here is this and this and this..." is that fair? is that the same? i don't think so.

it's fine that you have zero faith in psychological testing, you are not alone, there are many people ESPECIALLY those who are self-diagnosed who agree with you, and i understand why. i'm sure if had been through similar things to you, i would agree. but my experience with the medical community has been very good for the most part, so i have formed different opinions.

and i may have been rude, but i think you completely ignoring the context of what was said in this thread just so you could tirade was pretty rude too.

Last edited by 88BK on 13 Nov 2009, 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

well with native americans, i suppose it would be a combination of characteristics. specific physical features, biological family history, geographic location. but...i'm not really meaning that. i'm saying if you had 9 full blooded caucasians and 1 full blooded native american all in a row, it would be easier to spot the native american then it would be to spot the autistic if you had 10 NTs (of any race) all in a row with 1 aspie (of any race).




that's exactly the point, ASDs are too complex and it's community is too diverse to be defined that easily. all the crieterias are a joke. ASDs can not truly be defined by a bullet point list, they require descriptive paragraphs. but there is also no denying that there are professionals that do exist that have taken the time to educate themselves thoroughly on ASDs and the people with them. and i don't mean just reading the latest research, i'm talking about the ones who spend time with people with ASDs to develop an understanding of their inner workings, things that go beyond any criteria that currently exists. hopefully these are the people who will be a part of the new DSM. i think these people are definitely qualified to make a reliable diagnosis, and as ASDs become more and more mainstream, more professionals are taking the time to become involved in learning about them.

but no the current criteria and standards were definitely written by people who had little information, but then, if you know this, why would you support people self-diagnosing from this criteria? you have essentially said it is unreliable, so therefore, so would any diagnosis derived from it.




that there is the internet for ya....