[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 7 KB, 200x288, DSM-IV-TR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4234030 No.4234030 [Reply] [Original]

This is the bullshit-tier.

/Sci/ - why does all western societies revere this when anyone can see that it´s pseudo-religious nonsense?

>> No.4234043

Because doctors using that manual dont get sued.

MDs are not scientists.

>> No.4234045

>>4234043

this

>> No.4234070

>>4234045
I like the idea, but speaking to psychiatry students they don't see it like that. They're all in aw because everything in DSM is 'evidence based' as they call it. But after all they don't really seem to see the difference between stipulated definitions and norms outlayed in a logic and almost theological manner and actual science. DSM is evidence biased.

>> No.4234075
File: 27 KB, 600x413, 1267989889950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4234075

>>4234030
Same reason why religion isn't just called out as plain bullshit; People are fucking retarded.

As long as we continue to allow religion in society, we allow pseudo-religion as well.

>> No.4234076
File: 27 KB, 993x1003, v.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4234076

>pseudo-religious

>> No.4234078

Evidence or not, anything that cannot be expressed in numbers is bullshit.

>> No.4234079
File: 189 KB, 320x240, 1296061084381.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4234079

>>4234075

>> No.4234081
File: 83 KB, 450x432, 04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4234081

>>4234078
0/10000

>> No.4234086

Do you guys know what the fuck "pseudo" means? Nothing about psychology has the pretense of religiosity.

>> No.4234100

quasi?

>> No.4234107

Pseudo ~Fraudulent, under the pretense of being something it is not.

Example; Pretending to be scientific.

>> No.4234113

>>4234107
Then it would be a pseudoscience, not a pseudoreligion, which is kind of my point.

>> No.4234114

>>4234107
By definition, their is no difference between religious and pseudoreligious.

>> No.4234119

Is it subject to change in light of new evidence? Yes it is. Has it proven useful for the treatment of psychiatric disorders? Yes. Is it perfect? Of course not.

I see no dogmas here except for OP's preconceived notions about the DSM.

>> No.4234127

>>4234086
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow

The very concept of self-actualization screams spiritualism.

Anyways, you're meeting the shitty psych students OP. The few good ones have the damn self-awareness to admit that we don't know enough about how the human mind works to have a concrete understanding of the mind itself.

90% of it is theoretical bullshit, the other 10% is more valid and backed by research, but still being studied and revised extensively. Psychology is a fairly young science, with a lot of the research most institutions go by is less than 50 years old. What else would you expect, an equation that accurately predicts human behavior? On less than 2 centuries worth of research? You're asking of something that even 'hard' sciences haven't been able to accomplish.

This thread is more autistic than the entirety of /jp/ and /m/ combined.

>> No.4234133

>>4234127
>90% of it is theoretical bullshit, the other 10% is more valid and backed by research
How can you say something like this without showing why? What do you even mean by "theoretical bullshit"?

>> No.4234146

>>4234127
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
>The very concept of self-actualization screams spiritualism.
What the fuck does that have to do with my post? Maslow's work is not the DSM, nor the whole of psychology. But even if it were, and even if your "self-actualization screams spiritualism" claim were true as well, "spiritualism" and "religion" are still two very different things, so your attempted argument doesn't make any goddamn sense in any way whatsoever.

>This thread is more autistic than the entirety of /jp/ and /m/ combined.
Have a point, you fucking clown.

>> No.4234151

Seriously, Psychiatry and Psychology are not the same things.

Psychologists are scientists working hard to understand one of the most important topics and also one of the softest*: the human mind.

Psychiatrists are doctors who try to help people whose minds aren't working correctly.

>> No.4234215 [DELETED] 

What's wrong, OP? You don't like your diagnosis?

>> No.4234406

Well, psychiatry studies human mental health outcomes using medical tools, but the outcomes themselves depend on alignment to social norms. So psychiatry deals with symptoms at an individual level, but it doesn't do therapy with society's norms. So, if someone is anxious/stressed/depressed/etc because of their difficulty in adjusting to the social norms, psychiatry doesn't question the status quo, but it treats the individual as a problem.

So, it's obvious psychiatry is deeply political, since it's involved in policing behaviours in line with social norms. It's normal for a field of scientific study not to question social norms (physics, chemistry, geology, sociology, etc don't do it either), but it's different when the results from that field of study are applied medically on human behaviour. In this case, it's science being used to impose social norms using scientific methods..

>> No.4234433

>>4234406
You're wrong. The treatment of psychiatric disorders has nothing to do with imposing social norms. A disorder is only diagnosed if it is detrimental to the person's daily functioning. 'Functioning' is related to societal norms, but those in and of themselves do not absolutely determine whether a person can function in them or not. <span class="math">Local[/spoiler] environment is taken as the barometer (if you will) for functioning rather than the norms imposed by a society as a whole. A person could for instance show behavior that would be considered deviant or pathological by the majority of society, but if this does not interfere with the quality of life or wellbeing of the person in question, then they will not be considered abnormal by DSM classification standards.

>> No.4234472

>>4234433
Oh really?

I want to spend the rest of my life with doing nothing.
I don't have social contacts, besides my mother and the internet with its imageboards.
I don't want to interact with other human beings otherwise.

>> No.4234473

>>4234472
Your point being?

>> No.4234486

fuck doctors, all doctors should be killed for pseudoscience. The world will be a better place without doctorss

>> No.4234497

>>4234473
If i were to be forced to undergo a visit to a psychiatry and get a diagnosis, i would surely get some sort of XY-DSM.

Would be actually quite the right thing to do.

Get a diagnosis for EVERY ONE.

And let's wait for the result and analyze them.

>> No.4234511

>>4234497
So your point was that you have a mental disorder? How does that relate to my previous post?

>> No.4234526

Scientologist detected
GTFO

>> No.4234539

another form of control
this is whats 'wrong' with you and i can 'help'