I have a cousin who's a psychologist who has several times at family gatherings said that she'd love to analyze me. There is no way I'd ever want a record of what that may uncover especially after seeing what a dogs breakfast the DSM is
I'm confused as to why so many assume the DSM to be complete. it isn't. It never will be. This fact is clear. It's in its fifth edition. The preface makes it clear that the DSM is ever-evolving, correcting its own misconceptions, identifying previously unknown disorders, and admitting that clinical research is ongoing. The DSM-5-TR is the newest edition. The TR stands for Text Revisions. And they even took the time to add a new diagnosis, prolonged grief disorder. It is not some infallible word of the almighty god, Psyche.
The DSM is given far too much weight, and yes, what once was a semi-valuable tool, used for billing codes is now, for the lazy and under qualified, a total crutch. There are more labels out there, and cross-labels, subsections, bits and bobs - so that the focus can be on trying tp fit into a label, instead of the human being treated as the unique individual they are. It can be a useful tool, as long as one’s toolbox contains many other excellent resources. To rely on it alone is a grievous error. To use it as one’s main source is dangerous.
I couldn't find the link again, but I recently read a paper referring to the DSM as a "mess", and proposing that a new strategy for diagnostics be undertaken. I think they referred to a more behavioral-based process.
I have a cousin who's a psychologist who has several times at family gatherings said that she'd love to analyze me. There is no way I'd ever want a record of what that may uncover especially after seeing what a dogs breakfast the DSM is
I'm confused as to why so many assume the DSM to be complete. it isn't. It never will be. This fact is clear. It's in its fifth edition. The preface makes it clear that the DSM is ever-evolving, correcting its own misconceptions, identifying previously unknown disorders, and admitting that clinical research is ongoing. The DSM-5-TR is the newest edition. The TR stands for Text Revisions. And they even took the time to add a new diagnosis, prolonged grief disorder. It is not some infallible word of the almighty god, Psyche.
The DSM is given far too much weight, and yes, what once was a semi-valuable tool, used for billing codes is now, for the lazy and under qualified, a total crutch. There are more labels out there, and cross-labels, subsections, bits and bobs - so that the focus can be on trying tp fit into a label, instead of the human being treated as the unique individual they are. It can be a useful tool, as long as one’s toolbox contains many other excellent resources. To rely on it alone is a grievous error. To use it as one’s main source is dangerous.
Jon Ronson has a good sense of humor. And thought The psychopath test was a great read.
I couldn't find the link again, but I recently read a paper referring to the DSM as a "mess", and proposing that a new strategy for diagnostics be undertaken. I think they referred to a more behavioral-based process.