First, learn what gives. I've huge doubts about the objectivity of the entire diagnostic foundation here, as the original research was trying to discover why some Polish kids didn't make good Stormtroopers Communists. I finally realised specialists in my subjects had no difficulties with my theses, ie it's not my end, but the shrinks', of the communications which are at odds. Further, they've only ever talked extensively to one person, Temple Gradin. At that point I tore up the diagnosis and looked more widely. Now, this is me being subjective, not anyone else, and your diagnosis may be fine, but where they started from also influenced ADHD, so it's a far wider issue. Simply saying "I'm the expert, you know nowt" isn't enough, they don't live inside of "me" and unless it's a good fit...you get my drift. Even the High Court had enough of that line recently, when they took the diagnostic authority of The Tavistock Clinic, Freud's last base, away: I was cheering because they caused most of my issues!
So, where do we start? I think we need some kind of poll, as to how comfortable we are, self-critically, with our specific diagnoses, as the fact we're self-advocates implies we're not entirely at home with the standard models, if they even exist. It's in the details it all falls apart. We think differently: if so, how? I think more, and I don't think linearly, necessarily, because one thought may have a number of implications. This is probably a male thing, ladies tell me this is their normal, but one factor in choosing Kinetic Shift trauma therapy, as it only uses light hypnosis, so I could run the meditation on one channel, monitor the drain on a second, communicate with the therapist on another, as long as none became cognitively active.
