Autism

You can get rid of the spoiler tag, brother, we're all in this together. I'm happy to discuss this topic with everyone, including people who feel like maybe I shouldn't be having this discussion here.

Yes, I think you touched on exactly my problem. We have neurodivergence, but you can't say you're OFFICIALLY neurodivergent unless it's DEBILITATING. But being divergent isn't about a disability, it's about difference.

Politically, it's a bit of a mess. People with autism want to overcome the stigma of it being a disability by recasting it as a style of interacting with the world, but if they leave the disability model, they lose legal protection.

why I strongly support self diagnosis

As someone in a developing world, where access to mental professional is virtually impossible, due to cost, availability, competency of doctors( lots of doctors here are down right malicious), and safety, I know that in truth, the majority of the people in the world, both developing and developed, dont have access to an official diagnoses.

Techinally I am now diagnosed with ADHD(though not autism) but amphetamines, the most effective drug for ADHD, is banned in my country. So even a diagnoses doesn't guaranty you support, depending on where you are in the world.

I hate the conversation about self-diagnoses because there isn't that acknowledgement. Most of the world has access to the internet, in some form. People are gonna use labels that resonant with them. I am even luckier than most, I self-diagnosed myself 5 years before my official diagnoses, because I only now have the money and resources to do so. Most self-diagnosed people want to seek professional help and get actual accommodations, bit there is no acknowledgement that is a privilege.

Just like being poor is a sin, being self-diagnoses is its own sin.

I'm a peer-reviewed autistic man in social work; it's not great.

I don't think the mental health system is safe for anyones, less so for neurodivergent people.

No real friends? I thought I was alone in that!

(Well, I also do not have internet friends but..)

Your comment has been filed under "Tips for the Coming Genocide." I don't check the hispanic box on ANYTHING these days.

But the CURRENT benefit of getting an autism diagnosis is that it qualifies you for Americans with Disability Act protections (ADA) at work. For instance, if they're trying to fire you for being "anti-social", for instance, they couldn't legally do that if you had an autism diagnosis.

I knew a guy that introduced himself immediately as having autism. He was socially quite terrible and would go into fits of rage when he felt people weren't respecting him. His old store didn't want to risk firing him and risking an ADA lawsuit, so they put him forward as an internal candidate to our store with absolutely GLOWING reviews (I'd worked at his store for a few weeks and saw that he was a disaster), and the reviews were so glowing that he was promoted at our store into a SUPERVISORY position. Within a few months, everyone hated him and he almost got into a few physical altercations with other coworkers. But even then--and there's cameras everywhere--he wasn't fired, just transfered to a different position, setting up displays at various stores where he could work alone.

I felt bad for him because he was really wanted a lot of social contact even though he bungled every relationship and I don't think he'd be happy working by himself.

Edit: Other benefits of ADA protections are you can get accomodations that make work easier, like being allowed to wear headphones, etc.

Thanks for the example: psychology is not science, it's feels. That's why I don't really value a diagnosis per se because if I get it or not might just depend on who I see.

So you have all these traits but no diagnosis. What have you learned about autism that's helped you understand yourself? Or at least does it help you feel "normal", that is to say that you are the way you are because you were born that way and not from trauma?

I do question the value of a diagnosis as "useful intel" because if you go in with a bunch of traits, but don't get a diagnosis, you still have those traits. Likewise, if you do get a diagnosis, you still have those traits. The precise boundaries that the individual evaluator uses to determine autism is really the only thing you learn by getting evaluated.

I might steal "neurospicy" because it has no definition and people aren't going to gatekeep it as much.

Thank you for your kindness.

What's your social situation now?

I think I HAD a good deal of social anxiety, but now that I've mostly overcome it, I find that people just don't want to be my friend.

I had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder rob me of about 20 years of my life.

Be wary of defining yourself by diagnoses and getting into systems where you are a "patient" that needes to be "fixed." Seeing yourself as ill can be more debilitating than an actual illness.

What I've learned is that nobody can know me better than I know myself (and also that knowing oneself is a process that sometimes involves risk).

Yes! The algorithm served me what I think is a slightly tighter set of her autism story, and it made some strings hum in the guitar of my mind..... she's the proximal cause of this post.

Yup. Everyone has a bit of everything, the question in psychology is if it INTERFERES with your life in a significant way or not.

But what would a diagnosis change for you? If you got one or your didn't?

but if any of us got tested it would be borderline at best.

Ironically, I thought this way about myself for a long time. When I got evaluated as an adult, I got high scores for most things. Turns out, what I thought was borderline, was not borderline at all, I am just good at masking, for my own detriment. I am not saying it is the same for anyone else, who knows, but sometimes people perceive themselves very differently, than mental health professionals do - in all directions.

The real issue is that we live in a society that doesn't respect us individuals, so we need to qualify into a diagnostic category to have any kind of rights. That diagnostic category needs to have a enough people in it that it has political power (what was likely behind the merger of Aspergers and Autism into autism spectrum disorder), but not so many people that it loses legitimacy.

It's largely a political project.

I can't cope with life inside of a clinic either lol

But if you are asking about the definition it means not checking off enough boxes in terms of diagnostic criteria.

(I copied this from a resource on child diagnosis but same applies to adults. I should also be clear not all places in the world use the same criteria so I'm using mine as an example.)

To meet diagnostic criteria for ASD according to DSM-5, a child must have persistent deficits in each of three areas of social communication and interaction (see A.1. through A.3. below) plus at least two of four types of restricted, repetitive behaviors (see B.1. through B.4. below).

In addition to meeting these, the traits must:

• must be present in the early developmental period (childhood)
• symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning
• these disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability or global developmental delay.

So if you have a lot of struggles but don't show 2 of four of the repetitive behaviors you won't get diagnosed. Same as people who check off enough of the traits but haven't had significant challenges because of the sheer luck of living a life that is coincidentally accommodating. Don't remember your childhood or don't have old report cards or people who can objectively describe your behavior as a child? You're out of luck!

Generally, the medical system doesn't get involved until something "significantly impairs functioning" in one or more different realms. So if someone has all the traits of X, but it doesn't get in the way of their socializing or working or jerking off, they don't get a diagnosis. There are some exceptions to this--like hallucinations will probably always land you a schizophrenia diagnosis, but the general idea is that the medica system should not get involved when there isn't an actual problem.

For "sub-clinical" I just mean any constellation of systems that doesn't fully meet the official critera. So there's usually a list of things and people need to have 3 things off one list, at least one of another list, and they can't have anything on this other list. So sub-clinical would be someone who meets many of the criteria for diagnosis, but not ALL of them.

take pride in being smart and knowing things including "fun facts" especially if it's a quirky history thing. Counterpoint: this is less about the factoids themselves, and more about if there's an interesting story to tell around something.

My mom is visiting and I'm realizing that I only want to talk to her if it's about concrete topics (which could include concrete but does not include any discussion about myself lol). It has nothing to do with her, rather that people I deal with in my daily life know better than to attempt that conversation pathway because I will just glitch lol