singletrackmind - I have sent you a PM
Bumpity bump as I don't thing singletrackmind has seen my PM and I hope it has some useful stuff in it
I decided that at the age I was there was no point in chasing a formal diagnosis.
I had this conversation with a "social prescriber" a few weeks ago. He said that a diagnosis isn't necessarily just for the patient's benefit but for everyone else's. Eg, your employer. I'd never really considered it like that. I'm now on a waiting list.
Don’t be too quick to think there is something wrong with you.
I'm increasingly of the mind that it's a numbers game. What we call neurotypical is, well, just that, it's "typical." There's more of them. If they were a minority we'd have support groups for them. Eg, "stop staring into people's eyes when you're talking to them, it's threatening and weird."
I had this conversation with a “social prescriber” a few weeks ago. He said that a diagnosis isn’t necessarily just for the patient’s benefit but for everyone else’s. Eg, your employer. I’d never really considered it like that. I’m now on a waiting list.
Its very much a balance. If I had been 30 then a diagnosis might have been useful in gaining me access to services and to help get workplace adjustments, at 55 this was much less so. You have to consider what a formal diagnosis will give you and if there is any benefit to you directly or indirectly
Its also partly philosophical - as a nurse working with old folk I was always far more interested in abilities and disabilities than labels. Social model of disability rather than medical model if you like
Hi Singletrackmind the first thing that sprang to mind when I read your thread title was Bowlbys "Attachment theory" - as one of the four basic attachment styles is "avoidant". I then went on to read a subsequent post and wondered whether knowing about attachment theory might help you at all. It's less self diagnosis I think, more a help to understand self and others.
I find it fascinating; essentially Bowlby who was a psychologist working in the 50s and 60s, theorised that our social and emotional development as children is directly linked to the relationships and experiences we have with our primary caregivers. We then take this into adulthood. He concluded that there were fours basic styles: secure, disorganised, avoidant and ambivalent. They sometimes get called slightly different things. Even though his work is some decades old now, it still stands and is taught in relevant subjects. It has been added to by more modern theorists who have included other styles.
So absolutely everybody has an attachment style, and they can also be mixtures. I have found it really helpful to think about my own, as it demystifies to some extent why I react the way I do. It also helps me to understand others a little. The good news is that it is suggested attachment styles don't have to be permanent.
There is tons about it on the internet. You may know about it already, but if not it may help you to make a bit more sense of things, to go along with any other reading and courses of action you have decided on as per above. This is one website I just found which I think explains it well.
Take care 🙂
