It seems reasonable to doubt a person's self-diagnosis of a condition that is difficult for a trained doctor to diagnose.
Moreover, surely it's not "whether they are selfish" that's at issue but why?!
Still further, if someone has a diagnosis of having different brain states that affect social interactions that doesn't mean one must accept deleterious interactions -- generally people don't accept violence because it's caused by psychopathy, for example.
One cant decide for oneself that one is a well functioning member of society, the other members of society decide that.
So, yes, the commenter is free to determine their actions as selfish (diagnosis or no); just as you are free to determine me to have been uncaring, or whatever, based on this comment. What is hoped is that others will make accommodations for us because of our difficulty in being less-selfish in our actions, or less-abrupt, or whatever.
The interesting (well, I find it interesting) observation is that many people, particularly unintellectual people and people who are not philosophically inclined, are much more willing to accommodate someone who has (or seems to have) a named condition than someone who is different/weird/eccentric in a way that is not labelled thus.
For example: someone is slightly rude to a member of an ethnic minority. But then the same person is revealed to be struggling with some recognised neurological abnormality.
Another example: an elderly person with no kind of criminal record suddenly starts viewing some kind of illegal pornography. But then it is revealed that this change in behaviour might be caused by a prescription drug they were given.
Even in the case of violent crime people seem to make a bizarrely black-and-white distinction between a criminal who is a dangerous psychopath and one who is "evil".
Of course this observation is not a new one. See for example Beckert's monologue near the end of the 1931 German film "M". But the general public still doesn't see any problem with labelling some people as sick and some people as evil, even while they can't tell the difference.
I think psychopathy is quite a poor example because psychopaths are capable, if they choose, of not hurting people or breaking the law. On the other hand, I think there are a great number of things we wouldn't expect the mentally retarded to do that we would expect of people who aren't retarded.
Moreover, surely it's not "whether they are selfish" that's at issue but why?!
Still further, if someone has a diagnosis of having different brain states that affect social interactions that doesn't mean one must accept deleterious interactions -- generally people don't accept violence because it's caused by psychopathy, for example.
One cant decide for oneself that one is a well functioning member of society, the other members of society decide that.
So, yes, the commenter is free to determine their actions as selfish (diagnosis or no); just as you are free to determine me to have been uncaring, or whatever, based on this comment. What is hoped is that others will make accommodations for us because of our difficulty in being less-selfish in our actions, or less-abrupt, or whatever.