3 ms·

1) The DSM is controlled by psychiatry not psychology 2) One of the biggest criticisms the NIMH levied was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the scientific

by anbende 12y ago

1) The DSM is controlled by psychiatry not psychology 2) One of the biggest criticisms the NIMH levied was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the scientific findings collected in the last 20 years by psychologists. 3) The practice of clinical psychology != psychology. Most psychologists do research. Clinicians practice. Unfortunately the two disciplines are both quite demanding, and it's generally not possible to do both at the same time.

lutusp 12y ago
> 1) The DSM is controlled by psychiatry not psychology Actually, it's controlled by neither psychiatry nor psychology (but influenced by both groups). And it's being abandoned by the psychiatrists as we speak: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... > 2) One of the biggest criticisms the NIMH levied was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the scientific findings collected in the last 20 years by psychologists. No, that's false. As the above linked article shows, the complaint was that it's all symptoms with no root causes. Had there been a corpus of science being disregarded, surely someone would have mentioned it during the long DSM-5 editorial process. But there was no science whose absence they could complain about. > 3) The practice of clinical psychology != psychology. Do you suppose that a doctor can offer a clinical practice not backed up by research? No, (s)he cannot -- (s)he would be expelled from the field. The expulsion would be informed by clear science. This isn't true in psychology. The reason? There's no science to ignore. > Most psychologists do research. Clinicians practice. Unfortunately the two disciplines are both quite demanding, and it's generally not possible to do both at the same time. You're missing the point that what experimental psychologists do has no relevance to clinical psychologists, unlike the example of scientific fields, where every new scientific finding influences the entire field and other fields as well. Cosmologists study nature at the largest scales -- entire galaxies. Particle physicists study nature at the smallest scales -- quarks, smaller than atoms. But cosmologists and particle physicists work together, share findings, and attend each other's conferences. Why? Physics is a science. When cosmologists discovered dark matter, this immediately caught the attention of particle physicists, who are now embarked on a program to find out what kinds of particles make up dark matter. When particle physicists discovered that neutrinos have mass, this caught the attention of cosmologists, who realized this means they had to rewrite their theories of stellar evolution. If cosmologists were psychologists, of course this could never happen. After all, what do particle physicists know? The answer? They know science. Experimental psychologists ignore, or disown, clinical psychologists, and the reverse, regarding them as frauds. Why? Psychology isn't a science. Were it a science, validated empirical theories would unite the field, as quantum theory and relativity unite physicists, and evolution and cell biology unite biologists and doctors.

by anbende 12y ago

lutusp 12y ago

> 1) The DSM is controlled by psychiatry not psychology Actually, it's controlled by neither psychiatry nor psychology (but influenced by both groups). And it's being abandoned by the psychiatrists as we speak: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... > 2) One of the biggest criticisms the NIMH levied was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the scientific findings collected in the last 20 years by psychologists. No, that's false. As the above linked article shows, the complaint was that it's all symptoms with no root causes. Had there been a corpus of science being disregarded, surely someone would have mentioned it during the long DSM-5 editorial process. But there was no science whose absence they could complain about. > 3) The practice of clinical psychology != psychology. Do you suppose that a doctor can offer a clinical practice not backed up by research? No, (s)he cannot -- (s)he would be expelled from the field. The expulsion would be informed by clear science. This isn't true in psychology. The reason? There's no science to ignore. > Most psychologists do research. Clinicians practice. Unfortunately the two disciplines are both quite demanding, and it's generally not possible to do both at the same time. You're missing the point that what experimental psychologists do has no relevance to clinical psychologists, unlike the example of scientific fields, where every new scientific finding influences the entire field and other fields as well. Cosmologists study nature at the largest scales -- entire galaxies. Particle physicists study nature at the smallest scales -- quarks, smaller than atoms. But cosmologists and particle physicists work together, share findings, and attend each other's conferences. Why? Physics is a science. When cosmologists discovered dark matter, this immediately caught the attention of particle physicists, who are now embarked on a program to find out what kinds of particles make up dark matter. When particle physicists discovered that neutrinos have mass, this caught the attention of cosmologists, who realized this means they had to rewrite their theories of stellar evolution. If cosmologists were psychologists, of course this could never happen. After all, what do particle physicists know? The answer? They know science. Experimental psychologists ignore, or disown, clinical psychologists, and the reverse, regarding them as frauds. Why? Psychology isn't a science. Were it a science, validated empirical theories would unite the field, as quantum theory and relativity unite physicists, and evolution and cell biology unite biologists and doctors.