Listen now (16 mins) | Autistic POV podcast episode 11 (podcast 2 on this topic) In this episode of the podcast, we talk about the possible relationship between autistic traits and psychic ability...
While you are focusing on Autism, a wider argument has been made against the wholesale use of the DSM in general. Unfortunately, its development as a tool for insurance reimbursement and research has been overshadowed by its adoption by non-medical, non-researchers and generalized. Prior to 2013, 5 separate diagnoses existed on their own. Since then they were all lumped together and referred to ASD without even a cohesive theoretic framework for research.
As always Barbara, your insightful observations are so useful.
Thank you Frances! A lack of cohesiveness seems to be a hallmark of autism research. Matthew Bellmonte makes a comment about how ironic that is (given the theory of decreased central coherence in autism) in one of his papers. I'm curious what you mean about the DSM V being overshadowed. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the DSM in terms of a cohesive theoretic framework for research, either. Are you saying it is supposed to provide that kind of framework and doesn't? I am not a science person and feel like I missed something. I love your comments. They always make me stop and think. Please keep them coming!
As you can see, I have significant biases against the generalized use of the DSM. I'll list them in no particular order: medicalizing the wide range range of human behavior to such a degree that many medical or nursing students can fit themselves into at least one diagnostic category, creating ever more labels ("Disruptive mood dysregulation", pathologizing normal behavior ("Social anxiety disorder"), positive implications for the pharmaceutical industry, limited inclusion of the variety of cultural norms. In my view, the two categories of research and reimbursement are challenging enough but in the hands of counselors, social workers, nurses, etc. the whole person is often lost. In my dotage, I advocate much more of a positive psychology approach, strength based and beginning with how the client views him/herself living life.
Most of us want to understand ourselves but I'm very wary of relying on the DSM. Or another way to put it is that as much as I can enjoy mining my dreams as Jungians do, it's not so useful in day to day living.
I hope this has been helpful and not muddied the waters, my dear Friend.
Thanks Frances. I know what you mean about pathologizing behavior. I don't necessarily think the behaviors cited in the DSM are wrong but the difference between one behavior and another can be subtle. In diagnosing autism, a whole battery of tests are administered so clinicians aren't relying on the DSM alone, but this isn't necessarily true of other conditions. I also agree that the pharmaceutical industry benefits. I appreciate your thoughts!
While you are focusing on Autism, a wider argument has been made against the wholesale use of the DSM in general. Unfortunately, its development as a tool for insurance reimbursement and research has been overshadowed by its adoption by non-medical, non-researchers and generalized. Prior to 2013, 5 separate diagnoses existed on their own. Since then they were all lumped together and referred to ASD without even a cohesive theoretic framework for research.
As always Barbara, your insightful observations are so useful.
Thank you Frances! A lack of cohesiveness seems to be a hallmark of autism research. Matthew Bellmonte makes a comment about how ironic that is (given the theory of decreased central coherence in autism) in one of his papers. I'm curious what you mean about the DSM V being overshadowed. I'm not sure I understand your comment about the DSM in terms of a cohesive theoretic framework for research, either. Are you saying it is supposed to provide that kind of framework and doesn't? I am not a science person and feel like I missed something. I love your comments. They always make me stop and think. Please keep them coming!
As you can see, I have significant biases against the generalized use of the DSM. I'll list them in no particular order: medicalizing the wide range range of human behavior to such a degree that many medical or nursing students can fit themselves into at least one diagnostic category, creating ever more labels ("Disruptive mood dysregulation", pathologizing normal behavior ("Social anxiety disorder"), positive implications for the pharmaceutical industry, limited inclusion of the variety of cultural norms. In my view, the two categories of research and reimbursement are challenging enough but in the hands of counselors, social workers, nurses, etc. the whole person is often lost. In my dotage, I advocate much more of a positive psychology approach, strength based and beginning with how the client views him/herself living life.
Most of us want to understand ourselves but I'm very wary of relying on the DSM. Or another way to put it is that as much as I can enjoy mining my dreams as Jungians do, it's not so useful in day to day living.
I hope this has been helpful and not muddied the waters, my dear Friend.
Thanks Frances. I know what you mean about pathologizing behavior. I don't necessarily think the behaviors cited in the DSM are wrong but the difference between one behavior and another can be subtle. In diagnosing autism, a whole battery of tests are administered so clinicians aren't relying on the DSM alone, but this isn't necessarily true of other conditions. I also agree that the pharmaceutical industry benefits. I appreciate your thoughts!