thanks for the presentation, was interesting learning about the various differences b/t the manuals. it's interesting (and concerning) how some people seem to think appealing to the credentials of others makes something more valid. basically the DSM 5 seems as arbitrary as any of the previous versions. "evidenced based manual." Evidence from where? "Careful consideration of the scientific advancements. . ." no scientific advancement exists such that it can diagnose mental illness, so it's unclear how scientific advancements--beyond those able to rule-out physical illness causing mental illness--has actually led to a greater diagnostic precision. i mean people act as though a convention of like minds, of those w/ unsurpassed clinical experience, somehow removes the subjectivity of diagnosis. It's laughable, and imho, shows the extent to what psychiatry actually knows. Even if the "inter-rater reliability" improves, it still doesn't mean what they are actually rating is valid--just as if you convened the "best artists" in the world to determine the best art and somehow came up w/ a scale to minimize discrepancies b/t raters, it doesn't change the fact that the "artness" of art is in the eye of the beholder. then you this exponential increase in diagnoses. . .shit's absurd. from what i've read even the DSM 3 God (forget his name, spitzer maybe) acknowledges the subjectivity and arbitrariness of the DSM.
@jicalzad
2 жыл бұрын
precisely
@SunflowerStrategist3 ай бұрын
the DSM and all versions is not the bible of psychiatry or psychology , it provides a universal language that professionals can refer to for guidance. We are still learning about the brain and its complex mysteries, so as behavior evolve so will the research . Humans put so much emphasis on professional materials when it is not needed. Don't over think this. It's nothing concerning about the DSM until you are as the individual begin leaning into your own understanding and letting your perspective guide you.
Пікірлер: 11
Thanks
thanks for the presentation, was interesting learning about the various differences b/t the manuals. it's interesting (and concerning) how some people seem to think appealing to the credentials of others makes something more valid. basically the DSM 5 seems as arbitrary as any of the previous versions. "evidenced based manual." Evidence from where? "Careful consideration of the scientific advancements. . ." no scientific advancement exists such that it can diagnose mental illness, so it's unclear how scientific advancements--beyond those able to rule-out physical illness causing mental illness--has actually led to a greater diagnostic precision. i mean people act as though a convention of like minds, of those w/ unsurpassed clinical experience, somehow removes the subjectivity of diagnosis. It's laughable, and imho, shows the extent to what psychiatry actually knows. Even if the "inter-rater reliability" improves, it still doesn't mean what they are actually rating is valid--just as if you convened the "best artists" in the world to determine the best art and somehow came up w/ a scale to minimize discrepancies b/t raters, it doesn't change the fact that the "artness" of art is in the eye of the beholder. then you this exponential increase in diagnoses. . .shit's absurd. from what i've read even the DSM 3 God (forget his name, spitzer maybe) acknowledges the subjectivity and arbitrariness of the DSM.
@jicalzad
2 жыл бұрын
precisely
the DSM and all versions is not the bible of psychiatry or psychology , it provides a universal language that professionals can refer to for guidance. We are still learning about the brain and its complex mysteries, so as behavior evolve so will the research . Humans put so much emphasis on professional materials when it is not needed. Don't over think this. It's nothing concerning about the DSM until you are as the individual begin leaning into your own understanding and letting your perspective guide you.