[MajimasEyepatch]

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.

[somenameforme]

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

[ModernMech]

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?