[SilasX]

No, you are. You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic criteria. Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one person".

Yes, someone is very confused here and wasting people's time, but it's not me.

[lutusp]

> You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic criteria.

It's not every day that I hear someone argue that scientific standards aren't applicable to an issue potentially resolvable with science.

> Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one person".

But that is true, and it's been proven over and over again. Psychologists cannot reliably diagnose mental illnesses -- this is a matter of public record and scientific evidence. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says, "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."

This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned. Read this from the sitting director of the NIMH:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."

Well put, Doctor Insel.

[nzp]

> This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned.

This is like saying: "This is why biology and [insert-some-unreliable-medical-procedure] are being abandoned." (because said procedure was found unreliable). Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical practice, psychology has little to do with this. Terminology should be used properly, and we should be aware what words mean, especially if we criticize sloppy science or health care.

[lutusp]

> Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical practice ...

A wise choice, since that debate took place, psychology was found wanting, and is being abandoned as a result. Which part of this are you not clear about?

> ... psychology has little to do with this.

Psychology has everything to do with this. Psychology's basic premise is that there is a normal behavior, a "good thing", and we should all aspire to it. Meanwhile, in reality, evolution requires diversity to function. Diversity stands at odds with the idea that there is a single correct model for behavior.

The important thing to understand about evolution is that it's strongly backed by scientific evidence, unlike psychology's belief system. One piece of evidence in favor of evolution, by no means the only piece, is us -- we arose by way of natural selection, and this happened by way of innumerable failed experiments. No natural selection, no humans. That's strong evidence for how badly psychology pictures reality.

> Terminology should be used properly, and we should be aware what words mean, especially if we criticize sloppy science or health care.

Don't tell me, tell the director of the NIMH and the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the country, who is arguing for the abandonment of the DSM:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s...

I cannot impress on you strongly enough that the present criticism of the field of psychology is entirely justified by facts.

[nzp]

Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry. That was the point of my post. You're using these two words as if they are synonyms. They are not. In fact they have little in common. One is a science (psychology), the other mostly (not completely) pseudo-medical quackery with little to no basis in the actual science it's supposed to be grounded in.

As for the DSM, I'm afraid the highest ranking (what they have ranks in psychiatry now? ;)) psychiatrist's idea will lead to even more quackery. DSM isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and practically, but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity. Abandoning the idea of having a list of (at least somewhat well) operationally defined disorders and working to improve that will again lead psychiatry to a state where a psychiatric diagnosis is no better than a random choice of an arbitrary label (it really was like that in the first half of 20th century, later things stated getting a little better).

[lutusp]

> Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry.

Please stop confusing psychology and science. A psychiatrist is a psychologist with a medical degree. Which part of this is in any way confusing? The reason for the special category "psychiatrist" in modern times (wasn't always true) is to allow drug prescribing, which is what psychiatrists now do (psychologists do most of the talk therapy).

> DSM isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and practically, but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity.

To aspire to objectivity, the DSM's editors would have had to allow evidence for causes of mental disturbances, not just effects (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed). But when given a chance to accept a cause-effect relationship, the editors rejected it, a story told in "Book of Woe" by therapist Gary Greenberg.

Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes. Modern medicine would collapse. And modern psychiatry/psychology has collapsed.

According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects. I hasten to add that neuroscience isn't ready for this burden yet, but it's not tainted in the way that psychology is.

[dragonwriter]

> (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).

This is false. While causes are usually not the primary focus of the DSM given its intended purposes, a number of diagnosis do include causes (particularly, those that where the presence or absence of a particular cause is relevant to diagnosis.)

There are many very legitimate criticisms possible of the processes behind the DSM in general or any particular edition of the DSM in particular, but this is not one of them.

> Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes

The DSM isn't a general manual of psychiatry, its -- first and foremost -- a diagnostic guide.

> According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects.

Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects, it differs in modelling lower-level, intermediate causes and mechanisms -- which are fundamentally very important to psychology.

OTOH, its unlikely to replace psychology (rather than simply informing and refining it) for the same reason that chemistry is still around after various domains of physics did more to reveal the lower-level, intermediate processes underlying the higher-level effects studied within chemistry.

[moocowduckquack]

"No, you are."

That stops being a valid debating tactic after around the age of six.

[SilasX]

Making assertions that you back up is always a valid debating tactic.

[moocowduckquack]

much as I appreciate fiction, I do expect it to have some kind of foundation to help with the suspension of disbelief