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.
I am much more interested in where the notion that it is a diagnostic bible came from. Elevating it past being an insurance repayment manual, which is all it is good for, has caused a lot of problems.
I completely agree. It's function as a diagnostic manual is not in diagnosing disorders but in providing ICD-10 accepted diagnostic codes. Clearly its purpose is for medical billing and not patient care or assessment. It's like a medical doctor using the ICD manual to assess a patient's symptoms, provide a diagnosis, and suggest a treatment plan. It isn't done. It's abhorrent. A medical group would throw that doctor our on their ass.
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.
Well said, and my thoughts exactly. It gets exhausting to see it be elevated to this state of unquestionable heavenly mandate, but to a lot of people it is. It's very strange how it isn't even questioned by many of them, and the notion of questioning is thought of as sacrilegious.
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.
That would be a start. I think that they tried too hard to make the DSM something that it could never be. They wanted an easy checklist system in order to be able to quickly identify what might be going on with a person, but people are far more complex than a checklist.
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
Yeah, I would avoid that. I can't see the upside for you.
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.
I am much more interested in where the notion that it is a diagnostic bible came from. Elevating it past being an insurance repayment manual, which is all it is good for, has caused a lot of problems.
I completely agree. It's function as a diagnostic manual is not in diagnosing disorders but in providing ICD-10 accepted diagnostic codes. Clearly its purpose is for medical billing and not patient care or assessment. It's like a medical doctor using the ICD manual to assess a patient's symptoms, provide a diagnosis, and suggest a treatment plan. It isn't done. It's abhorrent. A medical group would throw that doctor our on their ass.
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.
Well said, and my thoughts exactly. It gets exhausting to see it be elevated to this state of unquestionable heavenly mandate, but to a lot of people it is. It's very strange how it isn't even questioned by many of them, and the notion of questioning is thought of as sacrilegious.
Jon Ronson has a good sense of humor. And thought The psychopath test was a great read.
I enjoyed it as well
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.
That would be a start. I think that they tried too hard to make the DSM something that it could never be. They wanted an easy checklist system in order to be able to quickly identify what might be going on with a person, but people are far more complex than a checklist.