The major findings listed in the article make sense: > • Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules > • There is a huge amount of overlap i

The major findings listed in the article make sense: > • Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules > • There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses > • Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events > • Diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need I think the alluring thing about diagnoses is it quickly gives closure, so we don't have to think, balance facts, or ask why. Check some boxes and we can draw a type of a person by characteristics as we would with the periodic table of elements. We've been raised in a culture (or multiple of them), have an upbringing and have a story behind that impacts how we trust others, we need to be loved, have complicated emotions, we have impulses and drives, and sometimes there is a biological/chemical aspect to it, we're made of elements. As a society, we're here now cooperating because we care to help each other. We're complex social beings, and it's hard to put us to a definition and have it do us justice. One of of the big papers criticizing mental illness is this: https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Szasz/myth.htm https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Szasz/myth.htm Another one is Rosenham Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://youtu.be/1MbARnJqjnc?t=519 https://youtu.be/1MbARnJqjnc?t=519 - Some podcast talk on diagnosing mental illness / diagnosis and how not all clinicians would come to the same agreement on someone's behavior.