The DSM appears to be on shaky ground, scientifically

[icehorse]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, commonly called the DSM appears to have been created largely using the consensus of a handful of psychiatrists who often used a debate and consensus approach, and on the fly decisions while creating the book. In other words, the DSM is frequently NOT based on extensive, high quality research and peer review, as we might expect.

Here's a summary of the video link below. The speaker in the video interviewed (among others), world renowned psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who led the small team that created the DSM, version III, around 1980. Spitzer's team vastly enlarged the number of defined mental disorders from the DSM II:

Video summary:

- Spitzer is the leader of the task force that heavily revised DSM II to create DSM III.
- The task force was very small, ranging from 9 to 13 members.
- Frequently the task force created new diagnosis based on internal debates and then voting.
- Frequently new disorders were created on the fly in these meetings.
- Many of these new disorders require expensive medicalization.

The speaker in the video, James Davies, published his findings over eight years ago, and no one involved in the creation of the DSM III, DSM IV, or DSM V has rebutted his claims.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Good, people have been saying that it's faulty for quite a while now. Their overreach and lack of scientific evidence is absurd.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I recall similar criticisms back in the 1970s, and since...

 

[Revoltingest]

The DSM has always been a work in progress.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The DSM has always been a work in progress.

..as has the FSM

 

[icehorse]

The DSM has always been a work in progress.

That misses the point. It's hard for me to believe that you didn't know that when you made the post.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, commonly called the DSM appears to have been created largely using the consensus of a handful of psychiatrists who often used a debate and consensus approach, and on the fly decisions while creating the book. In other words, the DSM is frequently NOT based on extensive, high quality research and peer review, as we might expect.

Here's a summary of the video link below. The speaker in the video interviewed (among others), world renowned psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who led the small team that created the DSM, version III, around 1980. Spitzer's team vastly enlarged the number of defined mental disorders from the DSM II:

Video summary:

- Spitzer is the leader of the task force that heavily revised DSM II to create DSM III.
- The task force was very small, ranging from 9 to 13 members.
- Frequently the task force created new diagnosis based on internal debates and then voting.
- Frequently new disorders were created on the fly in these meetings.
- Many of these new disorders require expensive medicalization.

The speaker in the video, James Davies, published his findings over eight years ago, and no one involved in the creation of the DSM III, DSM IV, or DSM V has rebutted his claims.

They have been pushing the validation of that manual to further defend the woke agenda that has been going on as being something normal.

 

[Revoltingest]

That misses the point. It's hard for me to believe that you didn't know that when you made the post.

Nay, I think you're missing the point.