You seem to have a lot of insight. I agree that researching bipolar is logical, but try to avoid retrofitting your life experiences to fit a diagnosis; I've done this, and it's very tempting. Bipolar disorder is interesting, really, and psychiatrists find it interesting, too. Reading about it can be compelling.

Also, being knowledgeable about psychiatric and pharmacologic terminology is useful but can also get in the way of meaningful dialogue with your psychiatrist. For instance, s/he may ask, "Do you ever see/smell/hear things that aren't there?", and your response is, "My visual, olfactory and auditory hallucinations only occur in the context of my psychotic episodes while in a manic phase." Or the pdoc wants to talk about meds, and you respond, "Yes, I agree that an SSRI would be a reasonable approach to my bipolar and clearly indicated, but current research suggests that it might precipitate a switch, so I would appreciate your balancing that out with a mood stabilizer and a weight-neutral antipsychotic. I would prefer to utilize a short half-life benzodiazepine for anxiety, recognizing the risks of dependence and withdrawal syndromes."

Obviously, I'm exaggerating. Most of us are pretty bright, so it's hard to appreciate (for me, at least) that my pdoc may be way ahead of me. OTOH, there are bad pdocs, too, so you want to be able to recognize that.