I see the irony that is your attempt to dismiss these labels is just a way to label these people as self-aggrandizing fraud. In absence of evidence isn't it wiser to not assume such a stand?

edit: it should also be noted that the article says she was diagnosed with sociopathy which isn't even in the DSM-5. In fact the word sociopathy appears once in the entire DSM-5 as an incorrect term to describe antisocial personality disorder. Which to me is a red-flag for self-diagnosis.

The byline is "Patric Gagne is a writer and doctor of psychology from Los Angeles." She might have stretched the truth in the essay, but surely we can still trust NYT to verify something like this? Anyone with a PhD in psychology has had access to all the diagnosis she could ever need. She isn't anonymous. If she really isn't what she so publicly claims to be, someone from her university would speak up. Of course, no one wants to have a public squabble with a sociopath...

Most people that get these labels don't want go feel special. In fact, most are at their wits end and just want things to get better. It's usually the opposite of what you think - these people are often happy and surprised they are not alone.

The label helps avoid a lot of explanation when moving from provider to provider. Any provider worth their salt will see the person as a multi dimensional human.

It's very privileged of you go assume it has anything to do with vanity or a desire to be unique.

(Sorry for the formatting, on mobile)