The real test should be function versus dysfunction.

In theory, that is what it is, in reality the demarcation seems to be more between "comfortable for other people" versus "uncomfortable for other people".

Not always, and not explicitly, but when we look at people thinking they may have asperger's, add, bipolar, anxiety... ANYTHING, frankly- but these individuals actually do not experience difficulties with dysfunction in the day-to-day it is important to really figure out what the point of diagnosis truly is.

DX, in theory, assists with getting treatment and support that is appropriate for specific symptoms experienced. The diagnostic code assists with the financial aspect of this through insurance and assistance programs, etc.

But when people are not actually experiencing dysfunction and merely associate "quirks" and unique behavioral phenomena with a clinical diagnosis- what is the actual point of labeling someone?

You aren't treating something if it isn't causing dysfunction.

I mean, I'm a bit on a tangent here, but a bit not.

Does dark humour, extensive analysis, and highly productive [though maybe at times extremely enthusiastic] tendencies really fit the bill for dysfunction?

...I don't actually think so.
But if a doctor is trying to treat just simple overanalysis [which may introduce a sense of the awkward but can actually be highly beneficial], it's really about making everyone comfortable, including the treating professional at times.

So really, if you aren't having dysfunction, there is nothing to treat as I said.

If you are, the treatment should be geared toward the dysfunction experienced and how that limits an individual... not toward altering what makes a person unique, even if they aren't everyones "cup of tea".

Who cares if you are on either end of the bell curve if you can still be productive and happy.

[note- being constantly unhappy is actually a sign of dysfunction, being sarcstic and dark are not]