DSM-V is out and some hinky stuff is goin on maybe

[mrRuckus]

I thought this might interest some of you since many of you seemed interested in the Cluster B threads that pop up from time to time.

http://www.shrink4men.com/2010/12/0...n-the-dsm-v-welcome-to-starbucks-diagnostics/

It seems pretty messed up that there are actual mental disorders that are buried and not published in the DSM under political pressure just because the disorders are primarily in women.

Excerpt... Written by a woman, by the way.

Another example is the APA’s failure to officially acknowledge Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP). Numerous studies have been done by credible researchers documenting and quantifying these behaviors. Individuals who have been the target of these pathological and malicious behaviors know full well how real they are. Yet, the APA won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole, probably because it would also assign pathology to a great many women.

 

[Buddha_Mind]

Man I disagree with a bulk sum of these DSM-related diagnoses. My reason is that these psychologists act as if there is some "base-line" for sanity or normal human behavior. It sometimes seems like nothing more to me than a book of "ills" a person may have if they are unable to fit into a very heavily monetary based, consumerism based, individualism based society that is speedily exhausting its resources and soon to be collapsing its internal support frames (ie, the natural environment's ability to support us with raw materials and provide us with various ecological-services).

Yes there are whackos out there. But whose to say what is supposed to be what (just as this forum questions the traditional act of relationship).

There is a wide spectrum of human behavior which vastly varies based on local cultures and have vastly varied in differing time periods. Right and wrong are flexible, depending on the group viewing them.

I could rant about this more but I won't unless there are new ideas or new critiques.

All I'm saying is, I feel these books just give people a reason to start knit-picking themselves and psychologically unspinning themselves so deep that they convince themselves of countless various syndromes they suffer from...when in reality most of our mega-society (IMHO) is a f*cked up speeding train to begin with.

 

[Jeffst1980]

I thought it was a bit telling that the DSM-IV dropped Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder when faced with pressure from women's groups.

Anyway, I agree that most of these "spectrum-y" diagnoses constitute a very weak science at best, and are heavily influenced by political concerns. I have a difficult time accepting most of studies done in the name of social science, because they are so dependent on interpretation, and thus prone to bias. Of course, the problem is that there isn't a more scientific alternative--and, since the development of psychology has been influential in treating at least some patients, I think that makes it valuable to us nonetheless.

 

[jophil28]

Man I disagree with a bulk sum of these DSM-related diagnoses. My reason is that these psychologists act as if there is some "base-line" for sanity or normal human behavior.

I believe that those "baselines" will remain intact despite your disapproval.

Removal of 'normative' evaluations tosses the whole thing into the murk of such confused beliefs as " personal realities" and other related witchdoctory.
The western scientific model, both physical and social, is the best we have.

 

[pipe007]

DSM V won't be published until beginnings of 2012

APA is gathering the research and making appropriate reforms as we speak

Basically, the DSM is changing how it conceptualizes personality disorder, so far it has used a categorical approach, which means putting disorders as a unique distinct disorder based on objective critiera (if you have 5 criteria, you are diagnosed with borderlina personality disorder).

but massive evidence is showing that people sometimes present with more than one personality disorder, and symptoms overlap between them, you can have an antisocial who meets all criteria for paranoid and narcissistic personality disorders.

you can have a borderline who meets criteria with antisocial persoanlity disorer or a Histrionic who overlaps with dependent personality disorder.

so they have come up with the DIMENSIONAL approach which states that mental disorders range on a continuum from high functioning to borderline all the way to psychotic.

so they are going to implement dimensions of personality disorders and some of these personalities can be grouped together on a dimension where they differ in a matter of degree and not of kind.

so you are going to be diagnosed as having a personality disorder and then the degree of severity of it in a continuum of the 5 personality disorders that are going to stay in the DSM V as opposed to the 10 Personality disorders currently in the DSM-IV.

hope this helps

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Well it´s simple. Read the new DSM-V, and if you still find it too generic, narrow it down with DSM-IV.

What can be seen is that most people who fall into Cluster B show some kind of sociopathy. The more self centered, with sense of entitlement, lack of compassion or empathy, the more sociopathic this person tends to be. It doesn´t really matter if it´s a combination of BPD with NPD, or HPD with ASPD, whatever it is. What matters is the result (they destroy other people´s lives) which is nothing good.

What I see as a problem is that a person may be "only" self centered but not sociopathic. Thus it´s necessary to see all the "layers" to fully and accurately diagnose a person.

I know a person who would date a girl, and later kiss her friend in front of the former to show "power". I´m kind of self centered but to me this behavior is utterly ridiculous and unecessary. This may be a trait of sociopathy as the only thing important for these people is "winning the game".

 

[Buddha_Mind]

Removal of 'normative' evaluations tosses the whole thing into the murk of such confused beliefs as " personal realities" and other related witchdoctory.

The western scientific model, both physical and social, is the best we have.

I'm not trying to argue that the scientific model is an illegitimate approach to human knowledge. Clearly, testing a hypothesis for consistent objective results is important.

But don't you think less people would label themselves as having "anxiety" disorders, "depression" disorders, "restless legs syndrome", ect, ect, if these titles weren't so willingly marketed towards us and broadcast out via psychological manuals? How much of american illness is psychosomatic?

IMHO I am not sure if there is a "universal", "time-held" Normal for human behavior. It is very dependent upon social conditioning, metaphysical beliefs, local culture and customs, ect, and all are being changed with time. The "normal" for a 1950's American Male is different than the "normal" for a 2010 American Male is it not?

I would say there is a "normal" within localized culture (ie, if you are ethiopian you have ethiopian-based beliefs within their culture, or if you are native american, you have native-american based beliefs about "reality"). If you are acting within your cultures understandings, than you are "normal". But if you are outside, you are considered abnormal. Example: european settler's view of "normal" by comparison to native peoples who were viewed as "abnormal"...

I suppose all I'm really trying to say here is that "normal", in many ways, boils down to whatever is accepted during your time within your localized group.

But for sure there are people whose cookies are not in their jar...schizophrenic/psychotic behavior...paranoid realities, ect, ect...there is credit to these labels or diagnoses.

But for example, see the following link:
http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/bipolar-disorder-symptoms-types

Literally, Type 1 Bipolar is:
A person affected by bipolar I disorder has had at least one manic episode in his or her life. A manic episode is a period of abnormally elevated mood, accompanied by abnormal behavior that disrupts life.

^^
Hasn't everyone had some episode in life of elation, perhaps followed by depression? The birth of a son and the loss of a son. Married and divorced. Hired and fired. These are some examples where a person may celebrate and then feel pain later on. Some people experience more extreme highs and lows, and this too changes with maturity, stage in life, ect, ect. I am just not sure it is so easy to categorize people this way, because then all of these rather normal folks, going through the ebs and flows of Life and Uncertainty consider themselves madmen...I would like to see how "with it" some of these western psychologists are. I would guess every human being has some interesting facets to their behavior.

 

[pipe007]

yes we have all had periods where we have felt elated and "manic like" HOWEVER, to be diagnosed with a manic episode, symptoms must persist for at least 1 WEEK

this symptoms are more severe than what your normal excited elated feelings that you described BUDDHA MIND, this symptoms are pervasive, DANGEROUS to self and others and causes dysfunction in different areas of life

in moderate to severe cases, these people need hospitalization because of self injuries and destructive behavior, almost to the psychotic range...

its not just a feeling of elation, or feelign high, but its INTENSE and and out of control, it consists of

- inflated self esteem and grandiosity
- decreased need for sleep
- more talkative than usual
- flight of ideas and experience that thoughts are racing.
- distractibility to unimportant irrelevant external stimuli
- increase in goal directed activity (sexual , social)
- excesssive involvement in pleasurable activiteis that have HIGH potential for painful consequences

finally it MUST be sufficiently SEVERE to cause marked impairment or necessitate hospitalization to PREVENT harm to self and others

 

[Buddha_Mind]

This is a fair response. I acknowledge what you are saying and I agree that those are some real issues.

I really am not trying deny that mental illnesses and extreme sets of behavior exist...I am just weary of western psychology sometimes at the succinctness in which it categorizes human behavior (which is a wide ever-changing spectrum!).

But really -- I know there some f*cked behavior out there! Cutting, mad-man-lunacy, psychotic behavior...I've witnessed...I do not disagree these things exist!

 

[squirrels]

The DSM is highly political.

Homosexuality used to be classified as abnormal sexual behavior, until a bunch of homos went to Washington and lobbied to have the book changed.

It's a guide, based on what psychologists consider to be "normal". It is by no means a complete list of all mental conditions out there or especially the many possible variations thereon.

Like everything else in the soft science of psychology, figuring out 10% of something is enough to get you published, so the other 90% is left for someone who cares.

I don't believe in this sitting around and coming up with DSM classifications for women. It seems extremely nerdy and I think way too often, guys use it as a coping mechanism when relationships don't work out and they aren't confident enough to settle for, "dat bish crazy". They need someone with "authority" to tell them they are still okay.

 

[omkara]

Like everything else in the soft science of psychology, figuring out 10% of something is enough to get you published, so the other 90% is left for someone who cares.

Well the fact is that serious mental disorders do exist, due to the f***ed up nature of modern society. And although it may not be as objective as you'd like, it's still necessary to try to find the most empirically sound ways to help these people.

We have done away with traditional sources of ethical and moral authority. So psychology is what we are left with as a semi-objective standard of truth in the arena of human personality/interactions. You moral relativists really have no ground to stand on, throwing around pejoratives like "soft science," when it is because of the same moral ambiguity in our society that psychology has been left to fill the vacuum.

 

[squirrels]

Well the fact is that serious mental disorders do exist, due to the f***ed up nature of modern society. And although it may not be as objective as you'd like, it's still necessary to try to find the most empirically sound ways to help these people.

We have done away with traditional sources of ethical and moral authority. So psychology is what we are left with as a semi-objective standard of truth in the arena of human personality/interactions. You moral relativists really have no ground to stand on, throwing around pejoratives like "soft science," when it is because of the same moral ambiguity in our society that psychology has been left to fill the vacuum.

What??

So are people with mental disorders considered "immoral"?? :crazy:

There's a difference between morality and sanity. You're trying to turn one conversation into another one.

 

[jophil28]

We have done away with traditional sources of ethical and moral authority.

Yes but not entirely, however I agree that we have removed a lot of it's authority and it's power to regulate behavior.
THe liberal mind, in its attempts to transform daily life into a kind of extended childhood, sees "rules' as restrictions (as children do ).
Hence, our present dilemmas.

 

[Jeffst1980]

One good thing, though, is that most folks with personality disorders are pretty open about it these days. I've been on first dates with girls that brought up antidepressants within the first half hour. This saves me a lot of time.

 

[azanon]

We have done away with traditional sources of ethical and moral authority. So psychology is what we are left with as a semi-objective standard of truth in the arena of human personality/interactions. You moral relativists really have no ground to stand on, throwing around pejoratives like "soft science," when it is because of the same moral ambiguity in our society that psychology has been left to fill the vacuum.

Just so I'm clear, by "traditional sources" did you mean those derived from invisible god(s)/imaginary friends and/or books they supposedly authored? If so, unfortunately we haven't moved passed that. Only approximately 15% of the world's population has.

 

[mrRuckus]

I really don't care about the labels. I just think it's fvcked up that women whine and we fvcking change science to make it so they're happy. Next we'll be changing anatomy books because we discover some area of the brain where women are worse than men at whatever function.