Opinions?

so...an extravert?

these are interesting.
what I need is a guide on how to act on those points to gain control of the individual.

KEK

based

Attached: DSM5_phd.png (724x1038, 68K)

I feel like as time goes on more people are going to come out about the abusive and dehumanizing effects of psychiatric treatment. For some reason educated people act as though this school of psychiatry is infallible doctrine to the detriment of any real understanding of the psyche. Often times the 'depressed' and the 'mentally ill' don't seek psychiatry because it works, they do it because nobody else will take them in. The feelings of exile and alienation so common today are never answered in good faith and are band-aided over as 'disorders' because they don't fit into the smooth careerist callousness of the ideal subject. Of course, presenting 'society' as some broadly maleficent force is just as dishonest, pointing fingers at abstract objects that nobody quite understands is a confusing and repressive rhetorical tactic. I'm not sure what the 21st century is headed for, but you'd be naive to think anyone is deriving the human meaning they need from self-help and antidepressants.

Could be useful as toilet paper.

Based and ADDpilled

Because OP is a child, my child.

kek

Nobody:
DSM-5 : you are already have social anxiety disorder

Your lack of understanding of the scientific process and what constitutes pseudoscience only makes you look like a pseudo-intellectual.

The DSM isn't perfect, nothing in science is, hence why the DSM is currently under its fifth revision, and as is the way with all things scientific, scientists are still actively working on and revising it and taking in to account criticisms such as the arbitrary line drawn between normal and abnormal.

Imperfect/incomplete science is still science, not pseudoscience. I suggest you take a closer look at that image you posted.

the future key to the future

Science being imperfect doesn't mean that imperfection can always be handwaved as an inevitable aspect of scientific theories.

Maybe the DSM is imperfect not because science is imperfect but because it's flawed in design.

Tell me: what are the stated goals and implicits moels behind the DSM ?

If you knew what you are talking about you's know that there is no definition of "normal" in psychiatry, scientists are not even attempting to define normal because it's known there is no such thing.
Mental illness is defined on only a characteristic: when a behaviour cause physical or psychological pain and suffering; if you spent even only a day in a psych ward, you'd see that there are people who undeniably suffer from these illnesses: just because the science trying to study them is still at its beginnings it doesn't mean they don't exist

Attached: 1557582044132.jpg (640x392, 72K)

An actual Jewish conspiracy.

My point was a pedantic one that the DSM is not pseudoscience as that poster claimed.
>Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.

What claims does the DSM make? Not much, really. In the preface it reads:
>Since a complete description of the underlying pathological processes is not possible for most mental disorders, it is important to emphasize that the current diagnostic criteria are the best available description of how mental disorders are expressed and can be recognized by trained clinicians.

So from the start the DSM claims that it is only trying to diagnose based on expressed symptoms and doesn't presume to know too much about the underlying causes behind those symptoms. I think many people fail to make the distinction that what the DSM calls disorders aren't descriptions of causes, just symptom clusters along with other reported behaviors derived from statistical analysis.

The Introduction has the following:
>The current edition, DSM-5, builds on the goal of its predecessors (most recently, DSM-IV-TR, or Text Revision, published in 2000) of providing guidelines for diagnoses that can inform treatment and management decisions.

Nothing about this is pseudo-scientific so far.

As for the implicit models, since they are implicit that means they aren't explicitly defined somewhere, and since I haven't read the entire DSM I might not be able to pick up on such implicit models, so feel free to elaborate on them.

Popper proved it all crap. Try again

Big Pharma's Official Salesmen Manual edition 5

Tl;dr

Lol

its like ted says: we live in such a deeply corrupted, unhuman world that we get sick by it, and the oligarchs now make the humans fit their system, instead of changing the system.

Pop a pill and back to work. If modernity does not make you sick, you are more a robot than a human.

>psychology
>freud

Attached: No it's not you stupid fucking hipster, that was made up so you could have some smug sense of s (742x684, 275K)

Based

Attached: 1398444466525.jpg (441x576, 144K)

Popper was a dumb bitch though.

*schniff* these categories of "sane" and "disordered" are an example of, you know, just what you think to be non-ideological is precisely where ideology is at work. The Lacanian "big other", the superego and so on, is the part of our subconscious which teaches us what behaviors are "appropriate" for the society around us, and increasingly these are the logics of commodification, markets and so on. So you see, that which can "schniff" be commodified and sold is deemed "sane", and that which cannot is pathologized away. *tug shirt*

He just wasn't edgy enough for you

>DSM
>psychology

I actually studied this for my postgrad work at the kcl institute of psychiatry. I really really feel it was written in good faith and is a genuine attempt to understand real phenomena in a medical context. I don't buy the 60s anti-psychiatry extremism a la szasz + Foucault, nor the cynical 'big pharma' paranoia. Mental disorders are real and are not cultural inventions in a significant sense. HOWEVER the medical DSM approach is clearly not the full picture; psychiatric medication is not curative and is only symptomatic relief at best. The continued revision of the DSM is most optimistically seen as a struggle towards higher and higher resolution images of reality. For example, somebody could exhibit the same symptoms over the last 50 years, and first be diagnosed with 'manic depression', then restyled as 'bi-polar disorder', then rediagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (restyled as 'Emotionally Unstable PD'), then rediagnosed as 'Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder'. This should be seen as the product of a series of mini paradigm shifts, it is NOT arbitrary, each re-phrasing gets closer to the reality of the individual's pathology, each diagnosis becomes more accurate. And so the understanding of this person's support network becomes deeper and more effective. There is too much cynicism surrounding psychology and psychiatry, just because it doesn't already have simple answers to extremely complex phenomena. Those are just my two cents.

Attached: 1553594179206.gif (500x500, 618K)

Based and informativepilled

I think your mixing things up here. Popper was highly critical of psychoanalysis, but not of modern experimental, clinical psychology, on which the DSM is based. If I'm not mistaken he initially was a psychologist himself, wasn't he?

Hi twitter

retarded post you don't belong on Yea Forums

the DSM-5 is a reference point but not the finite answer. it's like a mechanic's manual for a specific car to point them in the right direction but not the final diagnosis of why the car is fucked up and what should be fixed

The latest iteration of anglojewish alienation

Attached: 220px-Foucault5.jpg (220x270, 19K)

Shut up Foucault.
What part of fuck off and die of AIDS don't you understand?

I often see non-professionals opine on DSM centric psychology and it's always phenomenologically backwards in presenting 'disordered behaviours' as the outcropping of some hidden platonic form of a mental illness and not the other way around, which is the scientific way these illnesses were 'discovered' and documented in the first place. I honestly believe the replacement of psychoanalysis with this model of psychology was a malignant move in that, even if Freudian theories were extreme or overblown (or relied too much on this or that theory of sexuality, or oedipus), the neurosis-psychosis model was far more universal and personally relatable of an experience than the mental illness model (and made more sense, as neurosis and psychosis are presented as particular (mal)adaptations to the world, and experiences one goes through, and not as obscure and inexplicable 'illnesses' or 'imbalances' that became a part of one through what amounts as chance). The thing is in therapy personal relatability of phenomena is incredibly important, where saying the patient is a CPTSD or an MDD presents them foremost as a bundle of symptoms and not as (in the hippocratic oath) a "fellow man in pain" (Not to mention, patients with particularly obsessive characters can become easily obsessed with their particular diagnosis, and lose the bigger picture of their own treatment). This said, I am a layperson and I'm not doubting that this form of psychiatry has helped people out, it just seems like a step down from a more human and existential psychology that is more-or-less a non grata in the institutions today.

this

Kill yourself

Attached: 5CA52EB7-06D6-4B88-8E64-1D54086DFA40.jpg (1078x1360, 116K)

Disgusting.
youtu.be/qlRkLtKqSrY

What you're writing is a not too rare and, in my opinion, fair criticism of the DSM, which interestingly is often espoused by psychiatrists - the DSM is in fact more psychology oriented, as it follows a symptom oriented approach rather than one that puts emphasis on the etiology

lol

facts

"Mental illnesses" are metaphors for "physical illness that we haven't found the source of yet."

Attached: BsRc6Bb.jpg (1280x720, 73K)

Philosophy is not a pseudoscience.
Science is a pseudophilosophy.