There’s this thing people online tend to do where they’ll take a well-defined word or phrase like autism spectrum disorder and just decide that it actually should mean something else and get mad when everyone else uses the word in the “wrong” way. It consistently derails conversations, and it almost never brings anyone around to a place of greater understanding.

I'm not arguing over the semantics. I am rejecting the entire concept in its overly broad state. Imagine somebody said 'Oh don't worry about your weird coworker. He's just acts that way because he's a Sagittarius.' Obviously you'd look at them pretty cockeyed. I'm not arguing about what a Sagittarius is, but rejecting the idea of it having a well enough defined meaning to ultimately mean anything. Of course millennia of people of all classes, including the founder of analytic psychology (who was quite enamored with astrology) would have strongly disagreed with me.

According to the CDC we're now up to about 3% of kids being "identified" as autistic. [1] In 2010 it was about half as many (per capita). And then in 2004 it was about half as many again. At this rate one can reasonably speak of a majority in the future. Which is quite silly. One of the main differences between a science and a pseudo-science is falsifiability. If an oncologist diagnoses you have a malignant tumor - this is falsifiable. It is either true, or false. You don't need a consensus or an opinion.

But in psychology, there is scarcely such a thing as falsifiability, especially in the overly broad diagnostics. This applies not only to diagnostic/analytical psychology, but even to contemporary research in psychology. Psychology is the butt of the replication crisis with even leading psychological journals seeing replication rates in the twenties. There's something very wrong with this field, and it can be largely explained by considering the fact that it may simply be a pseudo-science.

[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

What you are seeing is the effect of acceptance and awareness, not overly broad diagnostic criteria. It's not reasonable to extrapolate from these rates to half the population.

We are talking about human brains and psyche here, not much is known, and it's hard to conduct falsifiable experiments. If this upsets you, don't concern yourself with such endeavors, who asked you? Not every truth is found through the scientific method. Others are telling you that their diagnosis gave them peace and understand, a foundation on which to build an identity. Why are you here trying to take that away from people? What is your reasoning for making these arguments?

I got my autism diagnosis in my early 20s (from a licensed psychologist, before you ask).

It was a life-changing experience for me. Suddenly I was able to understand and validate my experiences and shortcomings, and to improve myself based on that understanding, instead of resigning myself to the fact that I’ll always just be a ‘weird’ human with ‘weird’ opinions, feelings and experiences.

I suppose though that since a random guy on HN said so, this is actually impossible, and I should just go back to having the entirety of my lived experience dismissed as ‘weird’.

Gee, I’m sure glad we cleared that up.

Same here. After a diagnosis, one is able to give in and learn how to cope with it instead of fighting it, struggling and letting it lead to self deprecation.

Strategies and research about it aside, the fact that one can come to "accept" oneself despite that condition is very important for general mental health.

I still wouldn't wish it on anyone but personally I'd always accept my self as a valid human with a valid life despite that.

Why do you think things like astrology persisted for so long? If not for the Church (which banned astrological prediction as blasphemous contradicting religious belief in self determination), it'd almost certainly still be with us. In fact when founding modern psychology Jung was heavily influenced by astrology. See - astrological psychology. [1] And his earliest work was with schizophrenia, from which the invention of autism would shortly emerge as a form of 'mild schizophrenia.'

It's always the same game with pseudo sciences. It appeals to our biases or desires, which results in enough people turning off their skepticism (because they like or agree with what they hear) to let it perpetuate itself. In astrology no issue or problem was of your own nature or doing, it was merely because the stars were not aligned. That has gradually transitioned to being replaced by because you have this psychological classification, or that.

You are still the exact same weird person you were before the diagnoses, and you always will be. And that's perfectly normal, so to speak. The declining trend of real, and deep relations, in the West seems to have left many people failing to understand something. Everybody is weird. If you think somebody is "normal", that simply means you don't know them well enough. And weak autism diagnoses and treatment in modern times seems increasingly geared towards pushing people towards arguably undesirable traits (such as excessive emotiveness) while doing away with many traits and characteristics (such as singular focus, minimal susceptibility to emotionality, or obsessive attention to detail) that are highly beneficial for leading a productive and successful life.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_astrology

Yes all people are weird, and autistic people are people, so it's no surprise they are weird. I don't think this is a failing of Western imagination, I'm not sure who gave you this impression.

Autism isn't about being weird or quirky though -- it's a developmental disorder and the behaviors associated with it are disabling in our society. This is characterize as having "significant impact" on ability to function.

Well, no. Many of the behaviors associated with it, even the literal diagnostic criteria, are extremely beneficial in our society. It's not just a weird coincidence that many of the most successful tech, engineering and even business figures could be (and in multiple cases have been) diagnosed with autism of varying degrees, notably post-facto.

If anything I think the rampant over-diagnoses of middling cases is itself extremely harmful. Because it's going to lead otherwise perfectly viable humans to think that things are just out of their control because they have whatever the trending diagnoses in psychology is, and a diagnoses of failure becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Suicide rates among those diagnosed with ASD, while having at least average intelligence, are ridiculously high. [2] Whatever is happening with these diagnoses is not this self affirmation bs people are spewing.

A bit more than a hundred years ago we'd have been having this topic, with the context of phrenology [1]. A nice little quote from that page: "Phrenology has been psychology's great faux pas. — J.C. Flugel (1933)." And so too will autism be. Until soon enough we might start to accept that psychology is not just a pseudo-science, but an exceptionally destructive one at that.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

[2] - https://sparkforautism.org/discover_article/autism-suicide-r...

> Autism is known as a “spectrum” disorder because there is wide variation in the type and severity of symptoms people experience.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disor...

There is a continuous range of people in between. Where do you draw the line?

This is like asking where to draw the line when somebody is bald. Are you bald if you have 1 hair? Yes. 2? 3? 137? There's of course reasonable room for discretion in saying what is or isn't bald. But it isn't reasonable to say somebody with a full-on afro is on the spectrum of being bald.

Literally some of the most high functioning and successful individuals are being diagnosed as "on the spectrum" of what is, in its "real" form, a completely crippling and disabling condition that yields individuals who would have simply been classified as mentally retarded in the past. This is just completely nonsensical.

What you call "real" form is just a strong form, and there is no clear line to draw between real and not real autism, or between "completely crippling" and "not completely crippling", etc.

Many people are on the balding spectrum.

You could say that we all lose our hair eventually. Some of us are just temporarily hirsute.

Autism is defined by social communication and restrictive behavior - not functioning, why are you so caught up on the functioning side of it?

Because pathologizing and aiming to "treat" behavioral characteristics that are not only not harmful, but actively beneficial in many cases, is completely and utterly absurd. It'd be akin to something like, 'Oh you seem to be oddly content with your life. Have you gotten yourself screened for stoicitis? I hear there's some treatments available.' It's just nonsensical.

The reason behavioral characteristics are pathologized is because they near invariably result in "meaningful" harm to an individual or to others. And "meaningful" isn't a guy saying mean things because he doesn't care about your emotions, but rather a schizophrenic deciding to go start killing people because the voices in his head told him to.