[lemming]

Our daughter was diagnosed with dyscalculia, and the diagnosis was very helpful, both for us and for her. She was really struggling with maths and felt like she must just be stupid. The diagnosis helped her to understand that it's just a very concrete thing that she has that affects one aspect of her functioning, and doesn't mean that she's dumb, or lazy, or whatever other story she had ended up telling herself. We are homeschooling her, and it also helped us to understand what was going on for her, and to adapt how we teach her appropriately.

> That said, aside from getting funding for treatment or acceptance of accommodations...

Both of those can also be life-changing, but you make them sound like trivial details. They are not.

[bigfont]

It sounds like the diagnosis marked a point of positive transformation. Before the diagnosis, your daughter attributed her math challenges to global stupidity and laziness. After the diagnosis, she attributed it to a specific difficulty with math. That reframing does sound healthy and helpful. It also sounds like the diagnosis helped you accept the situation and adapt your teaching modality.

Certainly, funding for treatment and acceptance of accommodation can make a life-changing difference. That in part motivates many caring and concerned practitioners to widen diagnostic criteria, so that more people can access benefits. I can see how I came across as trivializing those benefits. Quite the contrary, though, I meant to express that yes, diagnostic labels can bring positive results, and we need to weigh those against the negative results, especially when other options exist.

[jrflowers]

> Quite the contrary, though, I meant to express that yes, diagnostic labels can bring positive results

This makes sense. By saying:

>Why bother?

You were describing how helpful a diagnosis can be.

[bigfont]

By saying why bother, I meant to discourage diagnosis, while acknowledging its benefits and costs.

[jrflowers]

Exactly. Diagnosis is a beneficial thing that shouldn’t happen, a straightforward and common sense position to take

[bigfont]

I agree it isn't straightforward.

Some things can lead to benefits, without themselves being beneficial.

In psychology, diagnosis is sometimes like that. It can lead to treatment, accommodation, and funding, but the diagnosis on its own may not be beneficial, may cause harm through stigma, and may not be necessary to access the benefits.

The alternative: when possible, provide the benefits without labeling the person as disordered.

[jrflowers]

Exactly! Some things can be bad or good for certain people in certain contexts, and such things should categorically be avoided. In a similar vein when I see people discussing hydration online I point out that the only way to guarantee not drowning is to not be near or consume water. While some may complain about “thirst” they ignore their lungs’ “thirst” for oxygen! Why bother?