[yobutdude]

Sure and that's the cohort that benefits from the 26% and 50% reproducible science. I grew up around the types that truly need the help in rural America. Saw many people truly benefit.

The other 74% and 50% is nonsense like Myers-Briggs and non-formal language use means someone is a dysregulated nonce; just modern phrenology. Often but not always peddled by rich kids who got a degree and decided everyone who isn't rich like them fits some definition they memorized in the DSM. And they charge money to tell them so; win win.

Frameworks in the DSM are also barely reliable. Inter-rater scores suggest descriptions for anxiety only fit like 23% of the time. I forget the exact number, it's in the low or middle 20s. Descriptions for a diagnosis of depressive disorder are only accurate 30-some percent of the time.

When looked into the primary contributors to DSM are big pharma employees. Zero conflict of interest