3 ms·

For nerdsnipers who would like see if DSM-IV is "better" the wiki is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519711/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519711

For nerdsnipers who would like see if DSM-IV is "better" the wiki is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519711/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519711/ Going back to DSM-III TFA has a good link https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.15121509 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2... >This is unproblematic as long as DSM criteria are understood to index rather than constitute psychiatric disorders. With "index" taken to mean: >a pragmatic and well-validated way to identify [a] syndrome I.e. "Do DSM Compress?"

raverbashing 1y ago
Here's the thing. As much as the quality of professionals vary a lot, the practical aspects of understanding DSM (or even medical issues) plays an important part This is probably exacerbated by the closure of mental institutions where you could see in person what the textbook means exactly. Trying to understand diseases just by the text (and not even considering differential diagnosis) is an exercise in frustration. And I feel more professionals lately are just "Chinesing room" it instead of having actual experience