Specific learning differences are very common, and autism spectrum conditions are very common, but few doctors or psychologists have training on them. They are as a probable working rule of thumb over 100% under-diagnosed. Protocols have been introduced setting a reliable sequence for diagnostic processes, not often followed though.

Three experts were discussing the elephant, and they were sure it was a tree, a snake and a rope, not an elephant. Trees, snakes and ropes do exist as well, often in close proximity too.

There is a growing literature by people whose communicating and interacting is impacted by their constitution. It is a shame not to give more people the opportunity to explore it and open up for themselves the possibility of adapting in a more knowing way as they continue through life:

- exploring personality and many other issues in a relevant way and hopefully getting the chance of treatment in context for those mental diseases they do have and things like panic spells;

- and again for brain diseases e.g partial seizures, which from the outside just 'look' weird and from the inside definitely feel weird (and which reportedly don't always register on an EEG);

- and getting coaching regarding their interacting style when seriously appropriate (if available), or mixing with like people and/or benefitting from their written experiences.

I am always glad to hear of it on those occasions when helpful therapists and doctors provide constructive help with these disorders; but am always distressed to hear on the many occasions people have reported that the professions used the fact that they have a 'disorder' to discriminate against them. Why go looking for those risks unnecessarily?

In my own experience some correspondence showed that earlier I had been written down as having a personality disorder (not further described) - without being informed about it by the way so I couldn't take any ownership of it if I had wanted - and I usually do want to take ownership of my issues - but later it turned out through a different set of professionals that I have Asperger's and other SpLDs and I am still exploring everything else as well.

If one seems to prove 'negative' (in the positive sense) in specific learning differences in an informed context, one should definitely explore personality issues further and through a site such as the one seen, amongst many others, again an informed environment is what it should be all about.

I was wary of the wording of some of the questions which weren't open ended and gave only two alternatives neither of which would be the case to some respondents, or lay undue stress on passing thoughts as opposed to considered ones, including about other people's thoughts which one conceivably may know nothing about at all; i.e they were leading.

A link to a web site without comment implies that no thought necessarily needs to be given to issues before 'taking' the test and that they should 'buy into' it.

I see lots of people using these results on various sites and some provide a link to it from this site but without stating any riders or disclaimers, and I didn't see one there either.

A broader viewpoint doesn't take away anything at all. It is safer!