« Sullivan, Race, Intelligence ctd | Main | Herman Cain's Saga Continues: 13-year, just-ended affair alleged. »

Monday, November 28, 2011

Comments

But do any of the dissents and criticisms stand a chance of causing them to rethink anything? I confess I am pessimistic.

I'm pessimistic, as well.

I'm curious about your take a reaction from a lay reader. I ended up having a copy of the DSM-III because of a malpractice case I was defending. I found the book remarkable and interesting, and spent a little time studying through it. When I attempted the same thing with the DSM-IV, I found it virtually useless-- it seemed a classic example of the cliche that a camel is an animal designed by a committee. I wondered what had gone off the rails, or whether I'd just been mistaken about the good I'd seen in the prior edition.

So my question is for a professional's take on that.

I think you're right about design by committee, but it reaches deeper to the influences of pharmaceutical interests and diminishing theoretical grounding in favor of sciencey-sounding empiricalishness, which is not a real word or a compliment.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photos

Photography