for all you sexual deviants-

[Baron Von Crowder]

if jerking off is crazy then i'm the most psychopathic motherfucker this side of the nuthouse.

qft!

[Sean88gt]

If jerking off is crazy then I'm the most psychopathic motherfucker this side of the nuthouse.

90w gear oil is never a good idea, but a warm tube of grease......

[stevo]

Classify everyone as insane, and you don't have to worry about banning guns.

Exactamundo. Mental illness = firearm confiscation. Hell, they already have a label for people that don't trust the government.

Stevo

[03trubluGT]

Classify everyone as insane, and you don't have to worry about banning guns.

No shit.

They are going to do it one way or another.

Who defines "excessive"?

[Jester]

and we continue to spiral into this never ending abyss of betrayal by the government...... maybe DOHCTR had it right.

[bcoop]

Stevo - Post the link to the original article, por favor.

[Denny]

Be prepared for more broad classifications like this.

[03trubluGT]

and we continue to spiral into this never ending abyss of betrayal by the government...... maybe DOHCTR had it right.

What about doctors asking kids if there were guns in the house?

This shit is outta control.

[stevo]

Stevo - Post the link to the original article, por favor.

Give me a bit.

Stevo

[Sean88gt]

Give me a bit.

Stevo

^In the bathroom "going insane"

[Shorty]

Being crazy used to mean something. Nowadays everyone's crazy.

-Charles Manson



I'm paraphrasing/writing from memory.

[stevo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/hypersexual-disorder-dsm-5-diagnostic-criteria_n_2005933.html

Had to find it in my page history.

Stevo

[stevo]

I have seen a bunch of criticism on the DSM-5, most of it is generalized, but here is an interesting tidbit from people who were inside the developmental process.

Roel Verheul and John Livesley both felt compelled to resign from the DSM-5 Personality Disorders Work Group. Here is an email from them describing what went wrong in the preparation of this section:

"We resigned from the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorder Work Group in April 2012 with a mixture of sadness and regret. We believed that the construction of DSM-5 afforded an important opportunity to advance the study of personality disorder by developing an evidence-based classification with greater clinical utility than DSM-IV. The data and conceptual tools for such an undertaking have been available for some time and the field seemed to recognize the need for change. Regrettably, the Work Group has been unable to capitalize on the opportunity and has advanced a proposal that is seriously flawed. It has also demonstrated an inability to respond to constructive feedback both from within the Work Group and from the many experts in the field who have communicated their concerns directly and indirectly. We also regret the need to resign because we were the only International members of the Work Group which is now without representation from outside the US.

Early on in the DSM-5 process, we developed major concerns about the Work Group's mode of working and its emerging recommendations that we communicated to the Work Group and Task Force. We did not resign earlier because we continued to cherish the hope that eventually science and common sense would prevail and that there would be an opportunity to construct a coherent, evidence-based classification that would help to advance the field and facilitate patient care. In the spring of this year, it became apparent that is was not going to happen. We considered the current proposal to be fundamentally flawed and decided that it would be wrong of us to appear to collude with it any longer.

As we see it, there are two major problems with the proposal. First, the proposed classification is unnecessarily complex, incoherent, and inconsistent. The obvious complexity and incoherence seriously interfere with clinical utility. Although the proposal is touted as an innovative and integrative hybrid system, this claim is spurious. In fact, it consists of the juxtaposition of two distinct classifications (typal and dimensional) based on incompatible models without any attempt to reconcile or integrate them into a coherent structure. This structure also creates confusion since it is not clear whether the clinician should use one or both systems in routine clinical practice.

Second, the proposal displays a truly stunning disregard for evidence. Important aspects of the proposal lack any reasonable evidential support of reliability and validity. For example, there is little evidence to justify which disorders to retain and which to eliminate. Even more concerning is the fact that a major component of proposal is inconsistent with extensive evidence. The latter point is especially troublesome because it was noted in publication from the Work Group that the evidence did not support the use of typal constructs of the kind recommended by the current proposal. This creates the untenable situation of the Work Group advancing a taxonomic model that it has acknowledged in a published article to be inconsistent with the evidence.

For these and other reasons, we felt that the only honest course of action was to resign from the Work Group. The current proposal represents the worst possible outcome: it displays almost total discontinuity with DSM-IV while failing to improve the validity and clinical utility of the classification. Not surprisingly, the proposal has received widespread criticism to which the Work Group seems impervious."

As it stands now, the DSM 5 personality section is not readable, much less usable. It will be ignored by clinicians and will do grave harm to research. This is the sad product of small group of cloistered DSM 5 "experts" stubbornly ignoring the sharp criticism from within their own group and the near universal rejection of their proposals by everyone else in the field. Drs Verheul and Livesley have performed a service in trying to stop this runaway train and in now explaining how it went off the tracks.

Stevo

[Forever_frost]

This new DSM is the reason I dropped out of the psych program. Everything is a disorder now.

[stevo]

Another sample. If you have a family member die and you morn for more than two weeks, you are mentally ill. If you have a bratty kid, he/she is mentally ill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/health/the-dsm-5-as-a-guide-not-a-bible.html?_r=0

The old D.S.M.-4, for instance, clearly distinguished normal and expected grief after loss from the more severe and persistent symptoms of clinical depression. The new one encourages clinicians to diagnose major depression in grieving patients after just two weeks of mild depressive symptoms — a boon to the pharmaceutical industry, which will no doubt sell more antidepressants and antipsychotics, but of dubious benefit to healthy people suddenly labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis.

Or consider the new diagnosis of “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder” for 6- to 18-year-olds who have “severe recurrent temper outbursts manifested verbally and/or behaviorally.” This would fit a very large number of cranky adolescents, who are famous for emotional extremes and outlandish behavior.

Stevo