Well, if you are wondering based on this:
because you think you did not see enough action/trauma
I'd say, that's a false paradigm. There's no such thing as not enough trauma, so long as the trauma is a qualifying event. You can have experienced multiple qualifying events or just one - that simply creates the difference between C-PTSD and PTSD (gross oversimplification, there, but good enough for this convo).
And if it's this:
because your symptoms where not like what other sufferers had?
Again, that's not really going to prove anything - so long as there are enough symptoms present in the required areas, for the required duration. Everyone's PTSD looks a little different, and anyone with a PTSD diagnosis will be somewhere along a continuum of more or less symptomatic at any given time.
So - when one is questioning a diagnosis, I'd say it's always useful to really just look at the facts, as neutrally as possible. Analyze your own given circumstances, and not try and find yourself on a spectrum of other PTSD sufferers.
Some people get to a point in their recovery where they would no longer qualify for a PTSD diagnosis. That means that they are in a kind of remission. Once you've presented with PTSD, as far as anyone knows, you'll technically always have it - but that doesn't mean that it's always active.
Personally, I questioned my diagnosis. I had delayed-onset PTSD, and had been living with the trauma event for a very long time, without PTSD. So when all this crap started to churn up, I didn't really grasp that it was a new diagnosis. For some reason I just attributed it to how I was reacting to disclosing the trauma. In hindsight, it's obvious that it was PTSD. But at the time, I simply didn't know that it was possible to develop the disorder so long after the qualifying trauma.
