Do smart people reject most of the DSM as "psychobabble" as a rule?

Analysis:

There is a man behind a curtain that for unknown reasons exists and it is hoped to guess what he's all about. A contestant is given the option of 2 clues:
science, remedial English. (Obviously one is expected to be more useful.)

Science - The man is a narcissist.
RE - The man is a selfish jerk.

It seems this is enough to prove that field of study is at least partially bogus due to the common descriptors being more useful.

Interesting. I had a memorable laugh seeing the inside cover the first time. ~40 names, the career highlight for all.

Another pique -- How do we move this country into a direction for better care when this trash is widely accepted as the "you should seek help" bible?

I don't want this to turn into a general discussion of psychiatry - the DSM's validity is a really interesting on its own. So please ignore my psychiatry bashing. Another thread.

One of the most interesting views on the DSM is from a Harvard psychiatrist who says that psychiatry is basically a self-interested symbiosis with for-profit drug companies, and the DSM is basically a way to legitimize and formalize the giving of drugs, propping up a multi(multi) billion dollar industry.

As an example, you have schizophrenia/psychosis - a terrible condition for which antipsychotics are given. But the DSM vastly expands this category into schizotypical personality disorders, and other disorders with schizotypical elements. This legitimizes the giving of antipsychotics (on top of other drugs) to these non-psychotic people, because within the magical thinking/cult indoctrination narrative of psychiatry, anything that schizophrenics have or do is treated with anti psychotics, and therefore, any of these symptoms can be too even where they're not psychosis. Such off-label prescribing, for which there is no scientific evidence, is the norm, and it's so large that off label prescribing is much larger than on-label prescribing. And considering the side effects of antipsychotics, this is criminal.

So one view of this is of the DSM as a method for formalizing the (quack, unscientific) giving of medication. And indeed, drug companies have a great deal of say in the DSM. This is a fact, by the way:

A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members' Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists
Undue Pharmaceutical Influence on Psychiatric Practice
Big Pharma's Role in Promoting DSM Disorders

Hot garbage doesn't sound like any comfort for troubles beyond composting and funny memes, which also have categorically describable component and activity features.

The category - narcissist - is more clearly defined than the category - 'selfish jerk'. A narcissist is a narcissist based on very specific criteria. A 'selfish jerk' to a hippy is different to what a 'selfish jerk' is to a capitalist. In fact, is there such a thing as a selfish jerk to a capitalist? This may be a more interesting thread.

lock thread/ban op.

i've gotten to know and live with dozens of sick people and the treatment they receive by doctors is universally detested.

i was making a point about armchair psychology/the problem of ostracization due to bad information. but the point was only made to myself, in my own head, naturally. Dr. Drew is a self-described narcissist, probably not a selfish jerk.

Möbius strip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_narcissism

To what extent are criteria purely arbitrary, because a bunch quacks (aka psychiatrists) got together and said "hey, I think it's better this way because it makes me money and gives me more patients.

To give you an example:

In the DSM IV, a diagnosis of ADHD required the presence of traits before age 7 to be diagnosed
In the DSM V, a diagnosis of ADHD required the presence of traits before age 12.

That's a huge difference. An coincidentally, it hugely increases psychiatrist wellbeing and drug company profits and insurer liability to pay for those profits.

All the profession have really done in defining these terms is take common categories of socially undesirable behavior, put clinical words (akin to religious jargon) around them, and called them a new thing. OP's point is that they're really not. A narcissist is a selfish jerk with a few clinical words and constraints added. It's no different to a selfish jerk. There's nothing new here; it's just now couched in cult jargon and given a stamp of authority by the high priest; it becomes canon. It's really no different to priests in the old times diagnosing sins or spiritual maladies according to the church-decided list of no-nos
And narcissism is different from one psychologist to another. A person can go to different psychologists and get different diagnoses and treatments. Repeatability is very low is psychiatric diagnosis, except for major obvious illness which a child could classify.

Yeah, clinicians are people too, and not all clinicians are doctors as well. Art and gardening are hopefully available for all.

Categorizing stuff for the purposes of treatment is difficult. We just recently figured out how to do simple things like have a greater than 50% survival rate for hip replacements and it is pretty easy to identify someone with a hip fracture using x-rays.

Also, I'm pretty sure you all have NPD diagnostic criteria wrong. For instance, one can be a selfish bastard and not come even close to qualifying for the diagnosis.

As an aside, I think that using age-related criteria for ADHD is silly except for when establishing etiology is important for developing a treatment plan. We aren't close to being that granular yet.

I'd worry about Big Drug making an effect on diagnostic criteria if the relevant drugs cost more than ibuprofen.

walgreens+ibuprofen

budweiser-beer, etc walgreens


I'm making an effort at being helpful. The success of my effort will probably always be in doubt.