Any other groups that are more accepting of self-diagnosis?

Post Reply New Topic

I think this is assuming that the doctor consciously, deliberately wants to milk the patient for money, which is probably not what usually happens. People tend to take the path of least resistance to making money. They don't necessarily put a lot of thought into what that path is.

Money is not the only incentive...not having enough time to work with someone carefully, not wanting to put forth the time/effort to do a real differential diagnosis, wanting to go play golf instead that day, etc.

Plus other factors can come into play as disincentives like personal bias or prejudice, or the personalities of doctor and patient not meshing well.

The path of least resistance is the most direct path, ie, one diagnosis, the most obvious diagnosis with the simplest and most obvious treatment (often an Rx) unless the patient puts up resistance to it and/or the symptoms offer resistance because the treatment does not work.

One thing to note, which I think might be of some importance:

There seems to be a reluctance, on the part of clinicians, to diagnose autism spectrum disorders because it is perceived as being "over-diagnosed."

That huge thread in particular, those against self-diagnosis cop the brunt of personal attacks, being reported etc. There is always an uproar when self-diagnosis is not supported. It isn't officially taboo, but in light of other issues that do not receive the same treatment (such as examples I gave), there seems to be a notion of taboo.

In the past, self-diagnosis threads have been locked for the reason of 'support site'. Reasons such as 'it's a support site' are not valid unless referring to direct personal attacks/offense etc, but they are used (even by the administrator) when self-diagnosis is concerned.



It doesn't seem that they are free to express their opinions, because individuals have been actively seeking to prevent negative discussion of self-diagnosis, whether intentional or not. There have been artificial reasons thrown around such as the notion of a 'support site' in favour of quieting those against it. While I understand the nature of this website myself, it should not be used as a reason to prevent an impersonal opinion.

I have also seen individuals referred to as bullies, bigots, many synonyms of unkind, and outright insulted, despite not having prompted this. There are rage posts from self-diagnosed individuals that to me seem like somebody has told them their whole life has no value, when this is not the case at all.

I know that when I post, I don't intend for others to feel pain, and I am often careful to mention that because this can happen, but it would seem that for holding an opinion that opposes self-diagnosis, a person suddenly becomes deserving of hate.

I don't deny that pain exists with those that support self-diagnosis (that is obvious), but all these ideas basically sum-up that those against self-diagnosis are evil, oppressive and failing to meet website expectations, when to me, it seems like those that support it are doing the most oppressing and (in some instances) rule breaking.

That's what I mean when I say it isn't a polarizing issue, as it is being made out to be, via emotion.

A person that delivers a personal blow and breaks the rules is just as responsible as another, regardless of their point of view.

It's not like when a person disagrees with self-diagnosis, that they are completely unwelcoming all individuals who have self-diagnosed. I disagree with taking illegal drugs, but I still have friends that do. I can't imagine those friends getting all offended, fiery and angry at me for having that opinion.


I am sorry for the immense amount of $10 dollar words (as somebody put it). I can't be bothered summarizing my thoughts again, because I have just been out for hours.

I should also note that in this thread, people are criticizing professional diagnosis, in a very similar way to how self-diagnosis was criticized. This is what I mean by taboo.

I wouldn't say that I believe in "criticizing" official diagnoses. Obviously, they have a useful place--especially when it comes to obtaining services and obtaining "peace of mind."

If the money was there to pay for it, I'm sure the vast majority of "self-diagnosers" would pursue an official diagnosis.

I don't think they're the "end-all, be-all," though--especially when it comes to something as imperfectly understood as autism.

The bulk of adults that came into the my husband's psychologist's office for testing, where there to get on SSDI. He was one of the few testing sites that the SSA judges didn't have issue with.

He told me he had a 40% diagnosis rate for Autism, and the rest was mood/personality disorders. He did very little talking to my husband. My husband sure the hell didn't want to talk to him, so that was just fine...lol..

The sad thing was, the psychologist also told me, he pretty well knew my husband had HFA or Aspergers. It was just seeing how severe, which the testing would show.

The only reason he didn't get the HFA diagnosis, is he had no language delay as a child.

My husband believed he was Schizoid, and convinced himself through online testing. The psychologist shot that theory full of holes fairly quickly. Nobody believed he was Schizoid at all.

The diagnosis saved us because work could not flat out fire him. It was the one time ADA worked. Self diagnosis means nothing in that situation.

Personally, if you don't *need* the offical diagnosis for accommodations, self diagnosis doesn't bother me.

What's this phrase "even by the administrator" supposed to mean? Even? The site belongs to the administrator so ultimately the admin makes the decisions on what kind of site it is, or is intended to be. And the admin makes decisions on how to run the site so it can be what they want it to be. They choose the reasons and those reasons are valid whether you agree or not because it's their site.



Again, artificial reasons? Artificial by what standard?



The nature of the site IS the reason to prevent anything that the site admin wants to prevent.



When it is repeated over and over again, it encourages a culture that is unwelcoming.




I disagree...I haven't seen anyone say or even imply that all professional diagnosis is wrong, or invalid, or anything of that nature. What people are saying is that it can be wrong.

Funny, I just recently ordered, for my young nephew, Michael Chrichton's books, Jurassic Park and Lost World, in hopes of teaching him the moral that, although you can give direction to nature and create a stage for nature to act itself out on, you cannot play God with nature, which I think extends to human nature.

The admin might have the ability to direct the philosophy of the site or even to shut it down, but the admin also has to deal with the reality of how people are. People developing cliquishness of some kind is part of how human beings, AS or NT, will always be. They WILL find a way. It's not that they mean to. They just do.

I think that here in the US, an adult in their 30s or 40s with a diagnosis of HFA could go to ten psychiatrists with their complaints, and if our patient never mentioned autism, then maybe one of the psychiatrists would pick up on that as a dx.

Last edited by tall-p on 02 Dec 2014, 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is not a ruling by Alex, it is his opinion. My point is that referring to the notion 'a support site' to prevent people from explaining their criticism of self-diagnosis isn't valid, because the discussion occurring was within reason and no different to many similar (if not worse) discussions in the past. Self-diagnosis is receiving special treatment, hence the real reason for oppressing those against it is not 'a support site', but to prevent those that are self-diagnosed from taking offense. If the reason really were because it was a support site, many more would have not been content with discussions about other things in the past.

I can relate it to walking into a gaming convention. Imagine somebody expresses their critical opinion about a specific game genre, and those that love the genre are outraged and seek to prevent criticism from occurring. That's not healthy, and it doesn't even solve the issue. On this forum oppression is actually worse, because those that are critical of self-diagnosis will still hold that opinion, just not be free to express it.

As for 'even the administrator', I never intended that to be taken deep into the realm of implicit meaning. That's just something I wrote to indicate how vastly the idea had spread, as people have being referencing his power (including yourself) to dictate how the site functions. He has requested reports from people that support self-diagnosis, but not against, because of the emotional reactions of the self-diagnosed. Those against self-diagnosis have barely done wrong - the arguments have been taken way too far and personally and it now warps the nature of freedom on this website.



I am fine with how Alex decides to run the website, as long as the rules are not ridiculous. In my mind, prohibiting critical discussion of self-diagnosis but not anything else is ridiculous and hypocritical.

I do not claim that he has done anything I describe, but I am just hoping he will not be swayed to create such specific rules. If it isn't OK to criticize self-diagnosis, it should not be so for criticizing any group of people, or anything that could possibly be a part of one's identity. That is ridiculous, and oppressive. As long as there are no personal attacks or anything that can be translated to an attack on a person specifically, discussion should be permitted.



I don't understand how it is unwelcoming, when NTs are welcome here. This feeling of unwelcome seems to stem from taking criticism regarding a concept personally. Your opinion is also innately as valuable as a person critical of self-diagnosis. I don't understand feeling unwelcome in this situation.

If encouragement of an unwelcome culture is of prime concern then I would again expect there to have been far less battles between groups such as the classic AS and NT.

The lack of expansion to other contexts is precisely why I don't feel there are any real arguments here, hence why I referred to criticism of self-diagnosis as taboo, and the notion of a 'support site' being invalid to use.



I don't understand what is wrong with a person criticizing self-diagnosis as being wrong or invalid. If you believe that it is right and valid then from my perspective, you shouldn't need to get upset about it (not you specifically).

I haven't invested much emotion into what I have stated here at all but you seem to be directing anger towards me. This is part of what I mean when it feels to me that those with real, logical arguments critical of self-diagnosis are being forcefully oppressed without any good reason. I haven't tried to insult anybody at all and I have stuck to the rules, and so have most of the others (at least from my witnessing), but in return I am essentially ignored and dismissed as a tasteless bully, that should be quiet, which ironically opposes the suggestions of an inclusive environment.

@Norny

I was the one who said 'ten dollar words' and there is no need to apologize. Have a good night.

Criticizing self-diagnosis seems consistent with wp's rules of attacks against opinions, beliefs, and philosophies being acceptable. I have criticized the process of self-diagnosis as one that I think is invalid. I didn't say anything about persons or personal eggsperiences being invalid, and I don't even know what that means, I am just using the words that others have used to say that I did something that I didn't do.

I really, really need to get to bed very shortly; I am not ignoring anybody, I just don't have time to write a lengthy reply addressing several different people's points.

But that 40% diagnosis rate for autism immediately jumped out at me. The guy who did my preliminary assessment told me that about half the people who got referred to the service - an adult autism clinic - got a diagnosis for autism. Let's say it's 50%. The remainder had genuine problems, but the psychiatrist obviously didn't feel they were caused by autism.

I think it is harder to self-diagnose than people think, but that is just my opinion.

About these reports of posts that are not supportive, what are the behaviors that would cause one to be reported for not being supportive? Which are all the things should be supported to avoid being reported for not being supportive?

I think you're taking this far too literal.

There isn't any sort of requirement or expectation to make posts with supportive statements about self diagnosis.

In general, it's just that others are making a valid point that it's getting annoying & should be unacceptable when some people decide to be jerks about self diagnosis, discounting the validity of someone's post with any sort of post saying "yeah, well you're self diagnosed so I/we don't believe what you're saying" sort of stuff.

Like I wrote pages ago, I've been annoyed by the same thing on this forum. I've always been transparent about the fact that I'm self diagnosed, and yet in some threads - particularly any one where I've mentioned what has worked miracles for me in terms of treatment protocol to minimize symptoms - some people like to bring up the fact that I'm self diagnosed & then make comments that I shouldn't be believed or taken seriously because of it. Their loss if they want to think that way, I suppose.. but it's still irritating having others tell you that because a professional hasn't written it in their pen that somehow my/our knowledge of ASD and my/our own lifetime of experiences are inadequate or invalid.

Make sense?

I think that posts should be reported only for violating forum rules.
There shouldn't be certain acceptable or unacceptable opinions on wp.
Which opinion is supportive or unsupportive is subjective and different for different people.

I think Bookmaker was talking to Dillogic about his "self diagnosed cancer" comment.