Author Topic: Psychiatric Diagnoses Are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ In Treating Mental Health  (Read 632 times)

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,860
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/07/psychiatric-diagnoses-study-casts-reasonable-doubt-on-red-flag-laws/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=86a0cfc9c1-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-86a0cfc9c1-21698227#axzz5tZhz2RqI

https://www.studyfinds.org/study-psychiatric-diagnoses-are-scientifically-meaningless/
To me this is another predictable conclusion, but interesting that people are taking a serious look at this. 
Quote
Researchers performed a detailed analysis on five of the most important chapters in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Heath Disorders (DSM). The DSM is considered the definitive guide for mental health professionals, and provides descriptions for all mental health problems and their symptoms. The five chapters analyzed were: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and trauma-related disorders.

Researchers came to a number of troubling conclusions. First, the study’s authors assert that there is a significant amount of overlap in symptoms between disorder diagnoses, despite the fact that each diagnosis utilizes different decision rules. Additionally, these diagnoses completely ignore the role of trauma or other unique adverse events a person may encounter in their life.

Quote
According to the study’s authors, the traditional diagnostic system being used today wrongly assumes that any and all mental distress is caused by a disorder, and relies far too heavily on subjective ideas about what is considered “normal.”
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 27,341
Quote
According to the study’s authors, the traditional diagnostic system being used today wrongly assumes that any and all mental distress is caused by a disorder, and relies far too heavily on subjective ideas about what is considered “normal.”

Several decades ago, after the breakup of a relationship for which I had held high hopes, in an effort to get a better handle on what to expect in relationships I approached a clinical psychologist who served with me on the board of directors of a mental health halfway house to sign me up to take an MMPI [Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory]. I had to go through a "professional" because ordinary mortals can't just take the test and have the results mailed to their home. So he set it up, I went to the testing center and took the test, and a couple of weeks later his office called and said the results were in.

But he wouldn't just send them to me. He made me come in and see him in his office. And the results were basically fairly straightforward, but he said there were a couple of areas where my attitudes were "outside of statistical norms." As it happens, those were the areas that had led to the demise of the relationship, so it wasn't a surprise. In fact, it was exactly the confirmation I was looking for. But the psychologist's response was to want to immediately have me sign up for one of his men's group therapy sessions so I could "adjust" my attitudes to fall within the statistical norms.

I told him I had no interest in adjusting those attitudes, thanked him for getting the test run, and I asked for the report. He refused to give it to me, citing a state law that (a) applied to psychiatrists, not clinical psychologists, and (b) prohibited release of patient information to third parties without the patient's consent.In the end, I turned to another psychologist friend, who had shrink #1 send him the report ... which he (#2) promptly handed over to me.

What the shrinks consider "normal" is not necessarily what real people might think of as normal. And what the shrinks label as abnormal may just be old-fashioned morality.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
100% Politically Incorrect by Design

230RN

  • saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,936
  • ...shall not be allowed.
Re: Psychiatric Diagnoses
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2019, 12:35:02 PM »
Everything's normal under the normal curve.

We can establish arbitrary points to describe where we might start paying attention to something, but they're still just arbitrary points on a continuum based on someone's (or some committee's) opinion as to where the subject will have to make an appointment to $ee me.  Do you have in$urance?

The inherent arbitrariness is what is meant by "scientifically meaningless."  There are few objective hard points to settle on decisions.  It's sort of like 5 volts versus 3 volts which distinguishes the old time computer ones and zeroes.  Purely arbitrary, no objective scientific basis to choose those points.  On beta Centauri VI, it may be 6.3 zongles versus 2.9 zongles.

Mainly because 6.3 zongle regulators were plentiful on the zonglage regulator market. :rofl:

Terry, $230RN
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 09:55:35 PM by 230RN »
WHATEVER YOUR DEFINITION OF "INFRINGE " IS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT.

Angel Eyes

  • Lying dog-faced pony soldier
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,444
  • You're not diggin'
Niles:  "Oh, who knows why anyone does anything."

Frasier:  "Remind me again what you do for a living."

""If you elect me, your taxes are going to be raised, not cut."
                         - master strategist Joe Biden