I'm afraid you are giving the psychiatric profession way too much credit. Most DSM disorder categories don't perform well on measures of inter-rater reliabilit

I'm afraid you are giving the psychiatric profession way too much credit. Most DSM disorder categories don't perform well on measures of inter-rater reliability. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rater_reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rater_reliability). One implication of this is that the categories can't be assumed to be well-defined scientific entities. Now, the DSM could be a shadow of some more complete, correct taxonomy of mental disfunction—certainly it's based on observation of genuine distress, so it's not completely arbitrary—but by scientific or medical standards, it's very shaky. Here's an article about the situation in relation to the DSM: https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/03/the-dsm-5-field-trials-inter-rater-reliability-ratings-take-a-nose-dive/ https://www.madinamerica.com/2013/03/the-dsm-5-field-trials-... It's not uncommon for people who haven't looked seriously at the mental health field to assume that the so-called medical model of mental illness meets the same high standards of intellectual rigour as other areas of medicine, or other endeavours such as engineering. I put it to you that you are in exactly that position: the very basic point you are making ("This is as complex as engineering! Leave it to the experts!) indicates that you are unaware of the unique flakiness of psychiatry. This is contested territory, and many professionals are invested in a certain dubious framing of the situation.