Book Elaborations: Overdependence on the DSM
Apr 12, 2016 2:14:33 GMT -5 by Auburn
Heron, Alerith, and 5 more like this
Post by Auburn on Apr 12, 2016 2:14:33 GMT -5
Notes on the DSM
Ty. I think this is a fair critique, and I want to elaborate a little on my opinion regarding these classifications, and why an argument was included in the book that treads in this territory.
On the case of DSM diagnoses being debatable, fortunately it's not something I have to do much personal work to support. The most recent studies and general consensus is confirming that the diagnoses of ADHD and autism/aspie have been heavily overused. There has been a surge of diagnoses of this sort in children, and the supposed epidemic has been a result of a misunderstanding of basic human qualities/personality traits. And this misunderstanding is not unrelated to a lack of understanding of type.
This entire question relates directly to how we as a culture define normality (and by extension, oddities/anomalies), and I feel that this question cannot be properly appreciated with a one-size-fits-all approach to gauging human nature. I don't so much intend to make a statement about autism itself, or to invalidate true research that has been made. But the DSM is not itself the research, but rather a collective interpretation of those studies in order to compile behaviors that ought to be of some concern.
To give even more dire examples, homosexuality used to be a medial diagnosis in the DSM for ages. In the 1970s, the diagnosis was removed partly from the DSM, and then fully in the 1980s. As cultural opinion has shifted, due in part to research but also in part to overall societal opinion, that definition has changed.
As another more related example, what amounts to simple introversion has for periods slipped in and out of the DSM, and this itself should raise our skepticism toward the dependability of such categorizations. They have potential to cause, and have caused, damaging effects (such as by over-medicating children) in the past.
If we postulate that CT is in some way an actuality of our species, then the absence of its factoring would naturally distort many notions about what is a normal and functional human. Since we have yet to scientifically quantify where the line between normal and unhealthy is, much of the time what determines a person's behavioral categorization is the attitude and climate of the culture.
In light of this, my criticism of the DSM isn't coming directly from my own investigation - but from the research others have conducted which verifies how relative it is, and how fickle its standing as any "official" standard for behavior classification really is.
Notwithstanding the unquestionable quality of the writing, notably the blend of insight and reserve, I find that your most significant conclusion about the autistic spectrum is still a bit assertive, a bit "jungian" perhaps, at least from someone who lacks both the academic authority and the experimental proof.
Ty. I think this is a fair critique, and I want to elaborate a little on my opinion regarding these classifications, and why an argument was included in the book that treads in this territory.
On the case of DSM diagnoses being debatable, fortunately it's not something I have to do much personal work to support. The most recent studies and general consensus is confirming that the diagnoses of ADHD and autism/aspie have been heavily overused. There has been a surge of diagnoses of this sort in children, and the supposed epidemic has been a result of a misunderstanding of basic human qualities/personality traits. And this misunderstanding is not unrelated to a lack of understanding of type.
This entire question relates directly to how we as a culture define normality (and by extension, oddities/anomalies), and I feel that this question cannot be properly appreciated with a one-size-fits-all approach to gauging human nature. I don't so much intend to make a statement about autism itself, or to invalidate true research that has been made. But the DSM is not itself the research, but rather a collective interpretation of those studies in order to compile behaviors that ought to be of some concern.
To give even more dire examples, homosexuality used to be a medial diagnosis in the DSM for ages. In the 1970s, the diagnosis was removed partly from the DSM, and then fully in the 1980s. As cultural opinion has shifted, due in part to research but also in part to overall societal opinion, that definition has changed.
As another more related example, what amounts to simple introversion has for periods slipped in and out of the DSM, and this itself should raise our skepticism toward the dependability of such categorizations. They have potential to cause, and have caused, damaging effects (such as by over-medicating children) in the past.
If we postulate that CT is in some way an actuality of our species, then the absence of its factoring would naturally distort many notions about what is a normal and functional human. Since we have yet to scientifically quantify where the line between normal and unhealthy is, much of the time what determines a person's behavioral categorization is the attitude and climate of the culture.
In light of this, my criticism of the DSM isn't coming directly from my own investigation - but from the research others have conducted which verifies how relative it is, and how fickle its standing as any "official" standard for behavior classification really is.