Robert Jan said:
You can diagnose a weirdo with whatever fancy name you want, hes still a weirdo.
Just like you can excuse a stupid person saying hes just dyslectic, discalculistic and has a concentration disorder, hes still gonna be stupid.
what happened to the world where the cross eyed are called cross eyed, the fat are called fat, the ugly are called ugly and the humpback is called hump
Disorders that fall within the diagnosable criteria of the DSM-IV don't have a fancy name for lack of cogent rationale. Yes, we all suffer from some form of neurosis, but that doesn't mean we all have, or have need of, a fancy name for our set of problems. Yes, some people are just further off the tip of the bell curve than others without needing to meet the criteria for some formal disorder.
However, those who truly fit into one of the specific diagnosable categories do so not simply because they happen to exhibit several atypical behaviors, but more so, they function with regard to a chronic set of atypical, maladaptive behavior indicative of a common psychopathologic root.
We can observe the function of two individuals, one a schizoid and the other having OCD, and we will likely agree that they are "weirdos." However, the explicit nature of their deviant and maladaptive behavior is quite different - and need to be dealt with in different ways.
As you said, we could give any arbitrary label to these two individuals. However, the truth remains that a big piece of each of their respective psychological profiles are uniquely congruent with those exhibited by a minority population of others.
In specific reaction to your mention of dyslexia, it’s evident you are not clear on what dyslexia is. Many geniuses are or have been dyslexic. Some of the very mechanisms characteristic to dyslexia, though manifesting in dysfunction in some area, are the same mechanisms thought to give rise to advantage in certain cognitive areas.