That depends on what their problem is with it. As far as manuals for defining diagnostic criteria for disorders, it does the job well enough, as it gets regularly updated based on new research. As far as being a comprehensive understanding of human psychology, it is fundamentally shit.
Disorder classifications are ultimately made up to better facilitate “treatment” so people can reach a “functional” level. What is and is not considered a disorder inherently depends on the society in which it is created, as what might be dysfunctional in one time and place might be perfectly normal in another. The entire project of classifying disorders has this limitation, and it shapes how we understand all of human behavior even if it really shouldn’t.
However, the DSM is not worthless so long as its uses and limitations are understood and accounted for. It provides an overarching standard with which to plan therapy that updates with current research. It helps inject the greater scientific context into therapeutic techniques, which keeps therapy grounded as practice. It is an imprecise tool, but not one that doesn’t help people.
Her and our problem with it is that it pathologises understandable behaviour and labels it, splitting it into discrete classifications whereas psychology (and differences in it) is more complex than that and is often interlocking/intersectional or whatever word is best.
It also stops people from getting treatment such as those diagnosed with BPD as they are then “too difficult to work with”, therapist says this should be thought of as a manifestation of trauma instead, in fact a lot of things probably should be ioo.
It also can make people into diagnoses instead of individuals and that’s very problematic.
We hope you can understand what we mean by this.
We have a problem with the idea of ‘mental illness’ or ‘neurodivergence’ in the first place as it seeks to establish a baseline by which all must adhere to or else there is something ‘wrong’ with you and it must be fixed and usually in the most ineffective ways possible due to procedures, funding, ableism and saneism. Plus differences do not inherently mean ‘broken’ and that should be acknowledged more.
Sure, if people want help they absolutely should be, but most of what the field of psychology and psychiatry do is not help, they are extremely gatekeepery, financially driven and don’t understand nearly enough to actually help, if they even care at all to do so.
We think a better system could be created, indeed there are some anarchist therapists out there and those that want to look at things deeper in the scientific fields. However, in our current system there is still a deeply problematic ingrained lack of desire to go far enough to actually help, because the individual is focused on only when a lot of issues are actually due to the way society/the world works, which many in the field do not like to acknowledge or do anything about.
Edit: Plus labelling people a specific thing can actually trap them in boxes and make them see all their problems through that lens only which isn’t helpful or good, especially as it can sometimes exacerbate their issues.
That is a good reason, and it mostly intersects with my view. There is a real bias in western thinking for putting reality into boxes, only to forget that those boxes are made up approximations. I really don’t mind approximations, but they do need to be tempered and not taken too far. I guess we’re just not smart enough to be responsible with our limited understandings. It’s just too convenient to ignore the rot in the foundations of our worldviews.
The DSM is shit and should be done away with 😁.
Even our therapist told us this.
That depends on what their problem is with it. As far as manuals for defining diagnostic criteria for disorders, it does the job well enough, as it gets regularly updated based on new research. As far as being a comprehensive understanding of human psychology, it is fundamentally shit.
Disorder classifications are ultimately made up to better facilitate “treatment” so people can reach a “functional” level. What is and is not considered a disorder inherently depends on the society in which it is created, as what might be dysfunctional in one time and place might be perfectly normal in another. The entire project of classifying disorders has this limitation, and it shapes how we understand all of human behavior even if it really shouldn’t.
However, the DSM is not worthless so long as its uses and limitations are understood and accounted for. It provides an overarching standard with which to plan therapy that updates with current research. It helps inject the greater scientific context into therapeutic techniques, which keeps therapy grounded as practice. It is an imprecise tool, but not one that doesn’t help people.
Her and our problem with it is that it pathologises understandable behaviour and labels it, splitting it into discrete classifications whereas psychology (and differences in it) is more complex than that and is often interlocking/intersectional or whatever word is best.
It also stops people from getting treatment such as those diagnosed with BPD as they are then “too difficult to work with”, therapist says this should be thought of as a manifestation of trauma instead, in fact a lot of things probably should be ioo.
It also can make people into diagnoses instead of individuals and that’s very problematic.
We hope you can understand what we mean by this.
We have a problem with the idea of ‘mental illness’ or ‘neurodivergence’ in the first place as it seeks to establish a baseline by which all must adhere to or else there is something ‘wrong’ with you and it must be fixed and usually in the most ineffective ways possible due to procedures, funding, ableism and saneism. Plus differences do not inherently mean ‘broken’ and that should be acknowledged more.
Sure, if people want help they absolutely should be, but most of what the field of psychology and psychiatry do is not help, they are extremely gatekeepery, financially driven and don’t understand nearly enough to actually help, if they even care at all to do so.
We think a better system could be created, indeed there are some anarchist therapists out there and those that want to look at things deeper in the scientific fields. However, in our current system there is still a deeply problematic ingrained lack of desire to go far enough to actually help, because the individual is focused on only when a lot of issues are actually due to the way society/the world works, which many in the field do not like to acknowledge or do anything about.
Edit: Plus labelling people a specific thing can actually trap them in boxes and make them see all their problems through that lens only which isn’t helpful or good, especially as it can sometimes exacerbate their issues.
That is a good reason, and it mostly intersects with my view. There is a real bias in western thinking for putting reality into boxes, only to forget that those boxes are made up approximations. I really don’t mind approximations, but they do need to be tempered and not taken too far. I guess we’re just not smart enough to be responsible with our limited understandings. It’s just too convenient to ignore the rot in the foundations of our worldviews.