91ɫ��Ƭ

From social media therapists to Google rabbit holes, self-diagnosis has never been easier. But as Professor Jill Newby explains, the trend carries both risks and rewards.

We live in an age where clinical labels once confined to the – the diagnostic manual for mental health professionals – now spill into everyday language.

It’s not unusual to hear someone’s ex was a narcissist, or someone’s boss is a sociopath. Or that neat and tidy people are ‘a bit OCD’, while your unfinished projects might prompt you to start googling ADHD.

According to 91ɫ��Ƭ Sydney clinical psychologist Professor Jill Newby, it’s hardly surprising in the age of online personality tests, TikTok therapists and YouTube gurus that people might be drawn to diagnosing themselves.

“The internet's accessible 24/7 and it's free,” she says.

“It's very easy for people to get the information they need, especially when algorithms play on their natural biases.

“On top of that, accessing mental healthcare is expensive, and there are often long waitlists. It can also be embarrassing, and some people feel ashamed of asking healthcare professionals their questions and worry about judgement. Self-diagnosing over social media doesn't have that same shame and stigma.”

What could possibly go wrong?

Convenience is a powerful motivator, but is it dangerous to make an appointment with Dr Google rather than see a qualified mental health professional?

Prof. Newby says the internet and social media are new tools, but the motivating principle is not a new phenomenon – before the internet, people sometimes relied on self-help or psychology textbooks to work through issues.

But what concerns her is how accurate the information is, the qualifications of the people who are producing it and the way algorithms are designed to prioritise information based on popularity rather than suitability.

“There's a tendency for health information, both in the way it's presented online, but also the information we pay attention to, to be quite alarming.

“Even the way that Google searches are listed – the top clicked web pages are often alarming stories about rare life-threatening diseases or psychological conditions, not the benign, boring information that might be a more likely explanation for what people are experiencing.”

The resulting anxiety starts to feed on itself, as people follow a rabbit-hole leading to even more distressing information and personal stories about physical or mental health problems.

“If this information is coming from people who aren’t qualified health professionals it can be completely wrong,” Prof. Newby says.

“It can be based on their personal experience, which is often very persuasive and engaging. And that can be a real problem, especially if it delays diagnosis, leads people to pursue the wrong types of treatment or they incorrectly self-diagnose themselves.”

What’s in a label?

Even when the information isn’t outright wrong, the everyday borrowing of clinical terms can blur the line between normal ups and downs and genuine mental health conditions.

For example, trauma, a word that was once reserved to describe the psychological injury of living in a war zone or enduring sexual, physical or emotional abuse, can now describe a meeting that didn’t go well.

“Using these terms in everyday normal experiences tends to pathologise them and may reduce the meaning of what is considered a trauma,” Prof. Newby says.

“Likewise, anxiety is very normal – everyone experiences it from time to time. But labelling everything as anxiety can be problematic, because people with anxiety disorders – which go far beyond everyday stress or nerves – have a very different experience.”

She adds that depression can also be used loosely. It’s normal to feel sad after a breakup or the death of someone close, but clinical depression is when someone has a long-standing severe cluster of symptoms that impairs their normal functioning, long after the original trigger.

“By stretching words like trauma, anxiety and depression to cover ordinary stresses and setbacks, we blur the line between normal human experience and diagnosable disorder – and risk mistaking one for the other.”

Diagnosing others

Because of the stigma associated with mental illness, we tend to keep a lot of our self-diagnoses to ourselves. But when it comes to others – especially those we’re in conflict with – we’re more than happy to dish out diagnoses.

“People are very quick to diagnose other people with quite pathological disorders like narcissistic personality disorder or conditions like autism or other forms of neurodiversity,” Prof. Newby says.

“You’d be forgiven to think there’s a lot of narcissism going around, with the amount of times it’s being used. But this is probably a lack of understanding about what a versus someone who treats someone poorly or has a fragile ego.”

The danger, Prof. Newby says, is that when clinical diagnoses are turned into casual labels – or even insults – they risk reinforcing prejudices and diluting the meaning of serious disorders.

But it’s not all bad

Prof. Newby is quick to point out that the internet has also opened up access to reliable, evidence-based information, and in some cases self-diagnosis can be the first step toward seeking real help.

“Having freely available evidence-based information can be a good thing because it democratises health information and provides people an understanding of what they’re going through.”

It may prompt someone who thought they had a flaw in their personality – like, ‘I’m lazy’, ‘I’m selfish’, ‘I’m no good at study’ – to realise that the behaviour getting them into trouble may be a treatable condition. So the act of self-identification may be the first step towards them seeking out the right services.

There is also a very human reason why we might be prone to self-diagnosis: our need for certainty.

“One way to gain a sense of control over the unknowns is to categorise information. That can be comforting and validating,” says Prof. Newby.

She adds that the benefit of using psychological terms in everyday speak could even destigmatise conditions, making it easier to talk about mental health openly.

“There are real benefits to having freely available evidence-based information,” Prof. Newby says.

“Where I get concerned is when the information online is misleading or inaccurate, but this is not to say familiarising yourself with psychological concepts is a bad thing.

“The real challenge is in keeping the best of what self-diagnosis offers – like openness, awareness and access — without losing sight of the expertise that makes those diagnoses meaningful.”