"Because in so many ways, it's experiencing the positive interactions of actually being seen that builds up self-esteem and worth and you can't do that if you are hiding behind a shield."

🙌🏼🤩 And discovering ways to be true to our authentic integrity, and complexities, is part of the journey, isn't it? There is no one size-fits-all for mirroring. Wholeness is not rigid.

I've noticed that the two reasons you give for us not realizing that we are autistic are also part of a list I made for myself as a reminder in case I tell someone that I'm autistic and they say that I don't appear that way. So this list is a reminder so I have the information on hand at the time:

1) most people don't know much, if anything, about autism, even most professionals
2) each autistic person is different
3) masking
4) autism often co-occurs with many other possible things, like adhd, ocd, hsp/sps, lgbt, etc., which can lead to misattribution/misdiagnosis

So I guess that the same applies to the self as it does others in terms of recognizing autism.

@Tooden
I kinda feel a little embarrassed admitting this, but when a friend of mine told me that they thought I was autistic, the only image that came to mind was that of a small child sitting on the floor, spinning plates and flapping their hands. So of course my first reaction was 'no way'. But I also immediately realized that that was very little information (and shaky at best) to go on, so I was willing to hear them out. And psychology is one of my special interests! And yet that was one of the many things I still didn't know about the field.

So yeah, I don't fault people for not knowing anything about the subject, or believing incorrect things about it. It's to be expected.

@Tooden
I don't know for certain why they do it, but based on what I know of the culture of the field, I assume that the latest information is just slow to trickle through the system. Psychology seems to be the field of science that is most resistant to change. As for why that is, I'm sure that part of it unscrupulous, since it gives people both knowledge and authority to abuse, but I also think that this quote sums it up as well:

"There is probably no field of scientific investigation in which more resistance has been encountered than in those domains which have affected the superstitions men have entertained about themselves."
Technocracy Study Course, 1933

@katrinakatrinka @murdoc @Tooden
Psychiatrists can.

However, if any other doctor just threw chemicals at a problem until they were convinced they'd done the best they could, they'd be sued for malpractice.

You need to image the undrugged brain, drug it, and image it again to see wtf the drugs are doing. Psychiatrists are just guessing. That makes them preachers, not doctors.

@anantagd @katrinakatrinka @murdoc @Tooden
You seem like not an idiot.

Why no?

I read about a psychiatrist in California who only worked with patients who'd be failed by five previous shrinks. Using imaging, he had an effectively perfect success rate. Why is asking shrinks to use imaging a "no"?

@Uair @katrinakatrinka @murdoc @Tooden
I suspect you must have some other bias that leads you to speak so harshly of psychiatry. The entire medical profession still limits the best diagnostics available to only the people who pay enough.

Another more general example: every new patient SHOULD receive a full-body CT or MRI scan, to establish a baseline for that patient against which any future scans - in whole or part - can be compared. Do they do this for all patients? Nope. But sure, if you've got the money to throw at them they'll happily agree to it.

The problem isn't so much psychiatry as the diagnostic limitations imposed on it by those who hold the purse strings. They're left with little recourse except chemical trial and error.

It's all about costs and money. Medical equipment is overpriced, radiologists demand a fortune for their expert interpretation (which may be replaced by algorithmic solutions that duplicate their expertise), ad nauseum.

@VulcanTourist @katrinakatrinka @murdoc @Tooden
Well put. I don't disagree with anything you said.

FMRIs aren't cheap.

But, in my opinion, necessary, if you're going to fuck with somebody's mind.

@VulcanTourist @katrinakatrinka @murdoc @Tooden
I infer that you are a mental health professional.

There's a reason they have the highest suicide rate of any professional. They have to face inflated expectations with insufficient tools.

America could afford to give you guys imaging.

I'm just speaking truth.

I wish you luck and happiness. Stay safe.

@Uair @katrinakatrinka @murdoc @Tooden
No, I'm an impatient patient, not a practitioner. My last practitioner's time with me was only measured in months, and his loss smarted more than usual because he was a fellow gamer with similar interests and outlook. I suspected we might have become friends if we'd encountered each other in a different context.

Now, if you want a practitioner's viewpoint, @hannu_ikonen might chime in.

@Uair @murdoc @Tooden
A doctor is simply someone who has finished medical school and is licensed to practice medicine—psychiatrists included.

Psychiatry is the branch of medicine that's devoted to the diagnosis and prevention of various mental health diseases.

Sometimes curing a disease involves some degree of trial and error, and this applies to all medical fields. It doesn’t diminish a psychiatrist’s status as a doctor.

Using imaging for every case would only add unnecessary costs without clear benefits, as what matters in the end is how the patient feels.

Well that and people are not helpful to autistic people unless you can play a very particular role. Yet so often the same social changes and kindness that autistic people need benefits everyone. Every action I have taken to “accommodate” autistic students has just made me a better teacher for all of my students. Period.

There are changes we could make outside of the world of education too. But it’s scary to bring them up—

@murdoc I had the same image…

@Tooden @pathfinder @actuallyautistic

Sensitive content Reveal/hide

@uva

Agreed. However, I don't think you necessarily need to "come out" to everyone.

I have come out to most people I'm close to and some others. But what it actually means for me to live "openly autistic" is that I have begun to stim more openly, to not hide my sensory discomfort, to be quirky again, to ask for accommodations, to reject invitations/demands... I'm done hiding. I've cut my hair drastically, wear colors again and dare to be weird.

@JoBlakely @pathfinder @Tooden @murdoc

@uva

Yes 🙂
At least, that's what I'm hoping for.

@JoBlakely @pathfinder @Tooden @murdoc

@Sci_Fi_FanGirl @JoBlakely @Tooden @murdoc

Yes, that is an important point too. That being "openly autistic" also is about behaviour and unmasking.

And this can also contribute to a change in what is considered "acceptable" behaviour and thus move things to the better, even without linking it to autism.

it's easy to say that, but in my daily life, I was always punished for being openly autistic. Distressed to the point of mutism? You're just sulky and difficult, here's a slap for your trouble.

There are few people I can be myself with. The kids in my family (my nephew age 6 understood my mutism when I explained it, better than the adults in my family) and my exes, who were toxic in other ways though. It's not safe to unmask with most NTs.

@dedicto @adelinej @murdoc @Tooden
From what I've seen, the people who are in favour of Facilitated Communication (which is a particular thing, where speaking people "interpret" what they think a non speaking person is saying instead of the non speaking person being able to use a device themselves, to express themselves ) are the same people who infantalise autistic people and literally speak for them.

Here is one article about the problems with Facilitated Communication asha.org/slp/cautions-against-…

@Zumbador @adelinej @murdoc @Tooden Admittedly I'm just starting to look into FC, but already I'm getting a very different picture than the one that article (mostly just a collection of position statements) paints. Here's an article advocating a positive perspective on FC. One of its three authors, Timothy Chan, is a nonspeaking autistic who says that for him FC served as a stepping stone to more straightforwardly autonomous communication. Another is Wenn Lawson, who has contributed a great deal to the monotropism theory of autistic cognition. The research supposedly refuting FC appears to be old (1990s) and methodologically questionable. And neither Chan nor Lawson fits the image of an infantilizer.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/353605…