4 ms·

But conceptually in the DSM most disorders are defined by whether they cause hardship in the patient's life. Whether that means some disorders would not have to

But conceptually in the DSM most disorders are defined by whether they cause hardship in the patient's life. Whether that means some disorders would not have to be considered disorders in an ideal society is irrelevant for this context, because people need help navigating the society we have.

cyanydeez 1y ago
unfortunately, what seems to be driving modern disorder diagnosis is what gets issurance to pay. That's why autism is now a spectrum.
- eddythompson80 1y ago
  It’s the other way around AFAIK. Insurance pays for what’s categorized as a disorder by the DSM. Or did I misunderstand your statement?
- estimator7292 1y ago
  [flagged]
- sophacles 1y ago
  And atoms used to be the smallest division of matter. Then we learned about smaller things. Understanding changes as we do more research into a thing.
  - cyanydeez 1y ago
    No. This is lumping, not splitting Im not arguing people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder shouldnt get benefits. Its that the spectrum isnt as related enough that insividual disorders would make more sense. But that would require getting the health insurance industry to do more adjustments.
noosphr 1y ago
Remember that in the US slaves wanting freedom was a mental disorder that made it past peer review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
- plandis 1y ago
  What is your point? Surely you’re not trying to draw some conclusion between an entire countries modern day medical field and a theory a person proposed in the 1800s, right?
  - sedivy94 1y ago
    Hi, not the parent poster here. I believe the argument being made is that diagnostic criteria, and diagnoses themselves, can be shaped by cultural norms. As the Overton window shifts, so do the thoughts and behaviors that we deem pathological.
  - lutusp 1y ago
    > Surely you’re not trying to draw some conclusion between an entire countries modern day medical field and a theory a person proposed in the 1800s, right? That would depend on whether anything has changed since the 1800s. But that's very clearly not so -- consider that recovered memory therapy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy), based on as much science as drapetomania, was practiced in the 1990s, and still has adherents today. Also, for human psychology to be regarded as a medical field, it would have to be based in science. But human psychology studies the mind, therefore by definition it's not based in science.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- dlivingston 1y ago
  Reading your linked article, it's clear that this was viewed as absolute quackery even back then, and is about as conflict-of-interesty as you can get: commissioned by Louisiana at the height of the Civil War, and proposed by a doctor who served in the Confederate Army [1]. His suggested treatment for Drapetomania was "whipping the devil out of them". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Cartwright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Cartwright

cyanydeez 1y ago

unfortunately, what seems to be driving modern disorder diagnosis is what gets issurance to pay. That's why autism is now a spectrum.

eddythompson80 1y ago
It’s the other way around AFAIK. Insurance pays for what’s categorized as a disorder by the DSM. Or did I misunderstand your statement?
estimator7292 1y ago
[flagged]
sophacles 1y ago
And atoms used to be the smallest division of matter. Then we learned about smaller things. Understanding changes as we do more research into a thing.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  No. This is lumping, not splitting Im not arguing people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder shouldnt get benefits. Its that the spectrum isnt as related enough that insividual disorders would make more sense. But that would require getting the health insurance industry to do more adjustments.

noosphr 1y ago

Remember that in the US slaves wanting freedom was a mental disorder that made it past peer review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

plandis 1y ago
What is your point? Surely you’re not trying to draw some conclusion between an entire countries modern day medical field and a theory a person proposed in the 1800s, right?
- sedivy94 1y ago
  Hi, not the parent poster here. I believe the argument being made is that diagnostic criteria, and diagnoses themselves, can be shaped by cultural norms. As the Overton window shifts, so do the thoughts and behaviors that we deem pathological.
- lutusp 1y ago
  > Surely you’re not trying to draw some conclusion between an entire countries modern day medical field and a theory a person proposed in the 1800s, right? That would depend on whether anything has changed since the 1800s. But that's very clearly not so -- consider that recovered memory therapy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovered-memory_therapy), based on as much science as drapetomania, was practiced in the 1990s, and still has adherents today. Also, for human psychology to be regarded as a medical field, it would have to be based in science. But human psychology studies the mind, therefore by definition it's not based in science.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dlivingston 1y ago
Reading your linked article, it's clear that this was viewed as absolute quackery even back then, and is about as conflict-of-interesty as you can get: commissioned by Louisiana at the height of the Civil War, and proposed by a doctor who served in the Confederate Army [1]. His suggested treatment for Drapetomania was "whipping the devil out of them". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Cartwright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_A._Cartwright