comment: >
  
  Asperger's is not savant syndrome. Even a decade ago, when it was still considered a valid condition, having a special talent or ability was never a requirement for the diagnosis. The Rain Man type of autistic individual is actually exceedingly rare, nowhere near the norm, even if you consider only the upper end of the spectrum.
  With that out of the way, to your main point: 
  I do agree that there are tons of people who self-diagnose as autistic but aren't, the internet is full of them, i know it because i was one. When i was 14 i was convinced i had Asperger's. I changed my mind when i met people who actually had that diagnosis and realized that autism is a disorder of neurodevelopment, not a personality, and the few quirks i had were nowhere near it. So i agree with that.
  But the point of an actual clinical diagnosis is to give the individual a framework to help them in whatever aspect of life they're struggling with. It's not just slapping a label on their forehead. You either need a diagnosis because you're struggling in life or you don't need one. That leaves little room for overdiagnosis
context: Are we discussing the diagnosis methodology or the behavior / symptoms levels and their denomination?
  Do I think big pharma would create sub-divisions to create products and increase revenue? Yes.
  Do I think doctors (as a class/ science ) would purposely misslabel people in bad faith? No.
  Do I think people can label themselves as afflicted from an illness in order to excuse bad/anti social/ schizophrenic-like  behavior so they can get more attention? Absolutely.
  Do I think there is a real mental illness epidemic ? Yes.
  Am I changing your view? Not sure. 
  Am I a Dr? Absolutely not >
  
  The diagnosis methodology