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

Post Reply New Topic

@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.

I agree with this.

It's a shaky analogy, but being prohibited from criticizing self-diagnosis feels to me like I'm part of a religion, where I am carefully monitored how I speak of the faith, and if I disagree with it even in the slightest of ways I will be executed. I relate it to religion because it is impersonal, but often a strong part of someone's identity.

I view it as very different to publicly criticizing what is directly personal, such as autistic individuals or NTs, which is an example that I keep using because most are familiar with it.

This, in my opinion, is OK:

. I don't consider self-diagnosis a valid process because it lacks too many core components of a diagnostic procedure. The diagnosis cannot be used for legal purposes, blah blah blah

. Self-diagnosis has a lower guaranteed rate of success (especially in my experience), therefore I do not think it's generally a safe thing to do

This is not:

. All self-diagnosed people are deluded
. I don't consider autistics/NTs to be very intelligent, because they are always doing [insert activity]
. I hate autistics/NTs, they're all so arrogant

Because they are personal attacks.

I would suggest using the Ignore feature for anyone if lack of tact or compassion from another user here is a problem. It would be nice if everyone who debated this issue did in a way that's thoughtful of the feelings of others but it's not realistic.

I suppose that's an option.

I've never used the ignore feature. As much as some people annoy or irritate me, I accept that it's symptomatic of ASD to be socially clueless like that.. as well as rigid in their thinking and so forth. Also, it helps build my tolerance levels for things other people do that irritate me - so I do actually get some value out of it.

Norny it's just exhausting for me to address the things you say because you make a lot of wrong assumptions. I can't handle responding to people who communicate that way.

I should report everyone on this website for failing to be supportive of me. Where were they when I was homeless? Where were they when I needed a home, a job, food, clothing, or just a friend? Where are they now when I need just a little encouragement and affirmation? NOWHERE, that's where! I had to get up and out of the gutter all by myself, and without any help from anyone here.

I work at a job that requires me to be sociable to a bunch of testosterone-poisoned modern-day Neanderthals who think that anyone with a handicap or disability is less than a man, and that any man who feels physical pain or depression is a "p****". I drive 30 miles one-way during my commute on crowded freeways during rush-hour traffic filled with people who seem hell-bent on taking me out of the gene pool. But does anyone on WP give a damn? NO!

Thus, if failing to be supportive is a reportable offense, then I should report every member and mod of Wrong Planet for not being supportive of ME.

It's only fair, right?

I don't think anyone here is required to be supportive of others, but it is a good idea to refrain from being unsupportive.

One doesn't always have to be "supportive"--but it would be nice.

Opinions are just that: opinions. They are not usually iron-clad facts. That's the way I take them. I don't feel "attacked" by someone having a different opinion from mine. It's just the way the cookie crumbles.

It would be ridiculous to report someone for being "non-supportive" in the absence of personal attacks.

I wouldn't even report personal attacks. I deal with them in my own way: by acknowledging that opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one. And by rebuttal (always refraining from personal attacks myself).

I see nothing wrong with "self-diagnosis" under the WP definition of it. It's the product of research/exploration. Autism is not glamorous. Autism is not hip. Autism is just autism.

I see nothing wrong with official diagnosis--but even the highest ranking doctors are always questioning how official diagnoses are done, and the criteria for official diagnoses.

All in all: people are entitled to their own opinion. People are entitled to question opinions--provided that they don't attack the integrity of the opinion-maker.

I agree with this.

I looked at most of those threads and started one and I did not see personal attacks.

I did not see attacks directed at any particular poster, but I did see some posts (none of yours btbnnyr) that speculated about the motives of the self diagnosed as a group in a very hostile way.

I am thinking of posts by several posters over several threads that suggested that the self diagnosed are:
* Frauds intent on criminal extraction of benefits from the government
* Delusional
* Malingerers
* Liars
* Attention seekers

While none of these accusations was leveled at a particular poster, I believe that some of the self diagnosed posters felt that each of these descriptions was aimed at them and had an emotional response to those negative posts in aggregate.

I can see that there were no personal attacks, but I can also see that the general attacks on the motives of the self diagnosed would be perceived that way. It's easy to conduct a thought experiment and imagine describing other groups (e.g., blacks, gays, jews) with negative generalities--"none of these remarks were personal attacks" would not go very far as a defense for such remarks.

I think think this is an important topic that should be open to debate, but:
* It would be good if the anti self diagnosis people (not accusing anyone in particular, here) refrained from negative speculation about the motives of the self diagnosed
* It would be good if the self diagnosed recognized that the most of the objections to self diagnosis really are not personal attacks and should not be lumped together with a collection of all the most hostile speculation about the motives of the self diagnosed.

I think some of the aggrieved among the self diagnosed responded to the feeling of being attacked by attacking those they saw as hostile and this was somewhat more direct than the language that was initially perceived as an attack. I think Starkid's comments about trying to take people's posts at face value (and dealing with what is posted rather than what is perceived to have been implied) outlined a very good alternative approach to this response.

Just speaking in general about life I am surprised by how often people feel the need to express their opinions. I rarely do.

There are lots of other things to talk about in a forum, like experiences, stories, and feelings. Personal opinions are not always wanted in those kinds of discussions.

The analogy I keep thinking of is it's like sitting down to eat with someone who criticizes the kind of food you are eating. They think it is wrong to eat that food, but I like it and I'm going to eat it anyway. That's fine that they have that opinion, but I don't want to hear about it through the entire meal.