Redefining Crazy: Researchers Revise the DSM

I don’t have the energy to read what is probably a load of crap and will only serve to piss me off. But I thought some of my readers might want to know about the piece out in Time Magazine right now on the creation of the DSM and the controversy surrounding it.

The bible of bullshit
The bible of bullshit

7 thoughts on “Redefining Crazy: Researchers Revise the DSM

Add yours

  1. I definitely have mathematics disorder. I wonder what the medication is used to fix that? I sure hope my insurance covers it, and I sure am glad to know my problem has a name!!

  2. frankly I think it’s utter fiction and does nothing but promote the pathologization of all human behavior that the powers of be deem “abnormal.”

    EVERYONE on this planet could fit into at least one of their pathologizations and that’s a common joke among clinicians when I was working … A JOKE THAT IS BASED IN FACT however and we all knew it.

  3. When I was obtaining my psychology degree, I always had an issue with the DSM. I always had the impression (and still do) that the book is out of date.

    Yes, it provides a good starting point on some topics but I’ve always felt there is a heavy bias towards a group of psychologists who’ve stuck to the “core values” – regardless of the fact that this is published by the APA.

    Again, good place for perspective but off for the current state of what is known about mental illness.

  4. The DSM and all psychology books speak about mentally ill people like their aliens and freaks and psychology textbooks and the DSM just continues to present the stigma of mental illness and it blows.

  5. Actually, I thought it stressed a lot of good points. One of the main messages in the article was that there are a lot of factors that cause things to get screwy in our lives and that not everything should be pathologized.

Leave a Reply

Powered by

Up ↑