> it’s worthless
Hundreds of millions of people whose lives have been saved or improved thanks to broader recognition and treatment of their disorder would disagree.
Hundreds of millions of people whose lives have been saved or improved thanks to broader recognition and treatment of their disorder would disagree.
Claiming that DSM-5 is "worthless" simply because it doesn't provide physical mechanisms that cause the disorders is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, not the other way around.
> how many have been ruined or ended in part due to the guidelines DSM
You tell us, how many have been ruined? What "guidelines" are you referring to?
Because they looked at clusters of symptoms, rather than actual causes.
Precisely my point.
As for ADHD etc; you do realise they changed the treatments and clustering precisely because of insight in physical processes?!
I stand by that. In fact, historically whenever they did this they caused a lot of harm.
I would beg to disagree: "The DSM is a bunch of nonsense. As long as [...], it’s worthless."
> DSM when not providing the underlying physical processes is worthless.
And when does the DSM ever provide the "underlying physical process"? It certainly doesn't for ADHD or any other chapters I happen to have read, which would make them worthless according to your criteria despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And while I haven't read all 1000 pages of the DSM because it's not exactly my idea of a good time, I don't think it provides that kind of information in any chapter because we simply don't understand these disorders to that extent, as your original comment correctly observed.