2 ms·
That maybe important for a practioiner. But otherwise these labels don't have much meaning. Obviously her situation is unique. Although it may fall under the um
by mola 5y ago
That maybe important for a practioiner. But otherwise these labels don't have much meaning.
Obviously her situation is unique. Although it may fall under the umbrella of some DSM definition, but the meaning there is only for a medical perspective and not "a human perspective". We cannot be reduced to some statistical artefact. We may statistically significantly share some common traits with other people, but it doesn't make us the set of these common traits.
The model is not reality especially so for the DSM, which was built in a medically theraputic context. And should be taken as such.
- pmoriarty 5y agoMany therapists use the DSM only for insurance purposes, as insurance companies demand an official diagnosis before covering treatment. The DSM's role in therapy itself is highly questionable.
- guerrilla 5y ago> But otherwise these labels don't have much meaning. Hard disagree, the experience of somone with bipolar is a lot different than somone who's schizophrenic or only has major depression or generalized anxiety. Mania and the specific difficulties it causes for psychosis are radically different than what the others have to deal with and so is the general unpredictability of life (for planning and commitment purposes) and especially the types of effects it has on relationships. Each of the disorders have totally different profiles subjectively and objectively and different things they have to deal with. It's definitely not just a "statistical artefact" dispite the possibility of multiple diseases causing the same symptom clusters.
- mola 5y agoAnd these experiences usually can't be reduced to the symptoms list in the dsm. These lists are very simplified models that are useful for certain things.