Why licensed practitioners are not always better equipped to diagnose autism
When it comes to diagnoses for neurodevelopmental conditions (like autism, ADHD, OCD, etc), licensed practitioners are human.
They are not all knowing beings who can see everything, and who therefore make the correct assessment about a condition 100% of the time.
When it comes to autism, specifically, a licensed practitioner is not *necessarily* better equipped to make an accurate diagnosis than an autistic individual themselves.
They *can* be... and often are... but they are not *always* better equipped.
And I want to explain why. Especially for those who have questioned the validity of self-diagnosis. I hope you will stick around and continue reading.
What it really comes down to is this...
Diagnosing autism is not like diagnosing cancer. (I see people making this comparison a lot.)
It's not something you can diagnose from a brain scan. We simply don't have physical tools to see what autistic brain wiring looks like.
Yes, autistic brains do have some physical differences that can be seen in scans (like size differences in the hypothalamus, which has shown up in some research studies)...
But science is simply not at the point of being able to make a definitive diagnosis of autism from scans alone.
Which leaves identifying autism up to humans based on human observation.
And though practitioners are formally trained to be the people who can do this through a formal diagnostic process, autism is not a condition that can *only* be known and understood this way.
There are other ways to acquire the knowledge necessary to identify autism.
Formal education does offer something specific and *extremely important,* but it's not the only way to obtain knowledge about autism.
And suggesting otherwise does not hold up logically. And I'm going to explain why.
Autism is defined by how brain wiring differences cause a person to *show up differently* in the world. The diagnosis is currently defined by observable behaviors.
A person doesn't need years of education in psychology and neuroscience to understand what those observable behaviors look like.
These are not scientifically complex or microscopic signs that can't be seen by the naked eye.
They are visible signs such as communication and social differences in behavior, and restricted, repetitive behaviors.
Most people are capable of visibly identifying the observable signs of autism if they know what to look for.
In other words, identifying the signs does not require a college degree, let alone formal certification in autism.
But to take it a step further, the observable behaviors are not the actual condition itself, even though that's how the diagnostic criteria are written.
The condition itself is the brain wiring differences that result in a person having an internal reaction to their environment. And this internal reaction happens BEFORE any observable behaviors occur.
That's what makes autism a neurological condition. That it's rooted in neurology. Aka, the brain. NOT behaviors.
Which, at the core of it, make these differences EXPERIENTIAL before they become observable.
Which is the most important aspect of all of this. But I'll get back to that in a moment.
When it comes to the OBSERVABLE elements of autism, most "regular" people have the capacity to obtain an understanding about autism simply by reading and learning the *right* information about it.
In fact, that's the entirety of formal education in a nutshell. Learning the right information about a topic and gaining a complete understanding of that topic.
So when it comes to understanding autism, the "right information" includes...
- The *current* diagnostic criteria and everything outlined in the diagnostic manual (DSM) associated with autism...
- Published studies explaining the nuances of autism that reflect what the field of psychology *currently* understands about autism, and...
- Any other information that offers additional insight about how autism is *currently* understood by the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience.
And thanks to the internet and the current state of information accessibility... most people in the US have access to that information in 2026.
So, that's how autism is defined medically.
But, this actually misses the most important part of what autism is. The part that's entirely internal. The experiential part.
And this is where I think the discussion about self-diagnosis needs to go.
If an autistic person aquires a complete understanding of how the medical field defines autism...
They should, at LEAST, be *equally capable* of accurately assessing *their own* autism.
(This is specific to a person's OWN autism, not anyone else's.)
Because they have the most COMPLETE VIEW of their internal experience that could possibly be known... and can therefore map it to how autism is defined and diagnosed.
Whereas practitioners, at BEST, only have access to a small fraction of information about their internal experiences that can be acquired in a manufactured clinical setting.
So even the *most knowledgeable* autism practitioner can miss important pieces of information about a person during the diagnostic process.
And that's assuming a practitioner is completely up to date on their knowledge of autism.
But when you consider that there are unfortunately many practitioners with extremely outdated knowledge... an undiagnosed autistic person could actually be vastly better equipped to assess their own autism in some cases.
Which is why I believe that many autistic people *with a full and accurate understanding* of how autism is CURRENLY defined, are FULLY capable of diagnosing THEIR OWN autism.
To be clear, and this is important...
- I am NOT suggesting that autistic people *automatically* understand the full breadth of what autism is just by virtue of being autistic.
- I am NOT suggesting that autistic people with a full understanding of the *medical* definition of autism should be diagnosing OTHER people.
- I am NOT suggesting that autistic people who self-diagnose won't miss OTHER possible co-occurring diagnoses.
And...
- I am NOT suggesting that nonautistic people can't incorrectly self-diagnose as autistic when they aren't.
What I AM saying is that autistic people CAN, and often DO self-diagnose ACCURATELY.
And for many autistic people, self-diagnosis is not just the only way to get a diagnosis... but can be absolutely life changing for them... if not life SAVING.
And no one should be attempting to take an ACCURATE self-diagnosis away from a person.
Period.
Ever.
The end.