[ SECRET POST #5825 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5825 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 46 secrets from Secret Submission Post #834.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Non-fandom pet peeves

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT - Oh, that makes a lot of sense actually. Sorry if it's tiring or hurtful for you to share it. Honestly I was just curious because I seldom meet adult women who managed to get diagnosed PDD in childhood and aren't severely impaired now (ie. non-verbal).

Some kinds of impairments are more evident than others, or rather more problematic behavior and I say this as someone who went through a few "problematic" phases. Language impairments are easily noticeable and "problematic" behavior even more of course. So it makes a lot of sense depending on where you live etc.

Hmm. Not sure myself. Growing up I had internet at home (in the 90-00s) and was a nerdy oddball with unspecific/unhelpful diagnosis, and researching psychology topics became a hobby for me. And I didn't know what I wanted to go to college for, so I got into a psychology bachelor program because I was interested in research, but also in new possibilities such as UX design. Of course becoming better at masking was a goal too though I wasn't aware of the concept of "masking" at that point. Something like that happened to me and I assume to many others who had a similar trajectory. But I doubt that has anything to do with the rise in certain diagnosis. To me it's more that sadly professionals haven't been interested enough in doing differential diagnosis as they should and instead choose to hand out diagnosis that are convenient for them (because they're getting paid to advertise meds or whatever else). It's not illegal, or even unethical to do something like that because in the end it's trial and error: a med may not work the same way for 2 people with the same (proper) diagnosis as etiology may not be the same. It's immoral but immoral can pay the bills too. But that's just my belief. And then there's a lot going on with research as well, how much the DSM has changed in recent years, how genetic studies are advancing and ethical aspects... there's a lot that could be said (and improved ofc) about it all.