DSM-V TR

As some of you may already know (Ross) the draft of the DSM-V TR has been release.  The final version isn’t set to be released until 2013.  I’ve simply attached a link to a few good blog posts about it since im swamped with school right now and don’t have time to write one of my own.  When I do get more time later this week I plan on of course reviewing the last two new blog posts and commenting.

the first one (more of a summary)

the second one

Advertisements

3 Responses to DSM-V TR

  1. Ross says:

    The first one doesn’t work, it just links back to TE Party. Unless you’re trying to ironically point out the complete lack of public discussion on the DSM-V since the draft came out, in which case I totally agree because I’ve been trying to find reasonable commentary on the motherfucker for days and there’s almost nothing out there.

    A few comments on the neuroskeptic post.

    1. It makes fun of the DSM. That makes me happy.

    2. I think the “psychobiological dysfunction” change is fairly significant. An “underlying behavioral dysfunction” could literally mean anything insofar as it relies on the psychiatrist/therapist/whomever to interpret the patient’s behavior. An “underlying psychobiological dysfunction,” by contrast, describes the root of mental disorder solely in terms of the patient’s physiological function. Practically, I suspect this change represents a further shift away from psychoanalytic/behaviorist models of psychology and a further emphasis on a biological/scientific paradigm.

    3. “E. That is not primarily a result of social deviance or conflicts with society.” I think this is pretty silly. All forms of mental illness are “primarily a result of social deviance.” Sociopaths cause “conflicts with society” because they don’t follow the same moral rules as everyone else. Schizophrenics perceive reality differently from everyone else – but remember, they’re not pathological if they’re religious, because that’s socially acceptable. 90% of people who lived a thousand people would probably be considered mentally retarded today. I don’t see what purpose this subpoint serves except to undermine cross-cultural dialogue on mental health and irritate me.

    4. “Diagnoses should be true. The whole point of the DSM is that it’s supposed to be an accurate list of the mental diseases that people can suffer from. The diagnoses are in there because they are, in some sense, real, objectively-existing disorders, or at least because the American Psychiatric Association thinks that they are.”

    Bull-fucking-shit. The point of the DSM is to help people. It HAS to have a normative dimension. What’s a “disorder?” Is it literally anything in a human being that’s “not ordered?” If so, who determines what’s “ordered” and how?

    Subpoint B of the DSM’s criteria for mental disorder is “clinically significant distress.” The purpose of the DSM is to identify people who are distressed and help them. If the harms of identifying a group as distressed outweigh the benefits, then obviously the DSM shouldn’t fucking include them.

  2. joeyglick says:

    I wish I cared about this. I feel lost in a sea of diagnostic criteria that don’t seem interesting to me.

  3. joeyglick says:

    This seems to really anger Ross. Which I find interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: