On the Garbage that is the DSM-V

Post Reply New Topic

May, 2013, actually. http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

DSM-IV is still in effect. Some professionals however, are already (kind of) adopting the new criteria. Some are looking to both and DX'ing according to both sets of criteria, but still using the current DX terminology.

EDIT: You may be right though. Since they must all know Rett's is going away, it probably is a lame duck at this point, since it doesn't look like that proposal won't go through.

Of course I know what people say it is. I was turning it around however sarcastically, and exposing it for what I think it was.

I think they learn most things non automatically, and I am not disputing it. I was criticizing the theory of mind because I feel that some of it is in fact a cover up of an imposition by others on how others should feel in the same situation.

I even said that it was first used to describe schizophrenia. What I think I meant to say was autism in that form was dreamed up by Leo Kanner.

I said all we are told. Not we are all told.

Oh this is pathetic. I don't literally mean told. I mean the idea is reinforced for many of us that we have problems that we don't have.

You have failed at comprehension again. I didn't say that it weasn't trash. I said that I worked through it and it was fine.

And this is your counter argument really. Can you actually talk about the DSM IV and DSM V already?

THat isn't excuse for allowing it to get worse.

I didn't say anything about that. Also if that is true then why are you saying that a system that oversimplifies and constricts everything is okay?

This is a tautology.

Yes, your misreading based on my criticism of theory of mind which you failed to actually grasp at what I was saying or the nuances of it. This is a just so fallacy again. You're just saying that I am wrong without saying how.

Look, why do you keep making this hurtful accusation? I already said that I don't care about whether what I say is accepted. All I care about is that the right thing happens.

No they don't. In fact you are the one who has made childish remarks most of the time like 'whatever' and 'get a life'. THey show frustration and childish inability to deal with someone rebuffing them do they not?

yes actually. I did on this thread. It said five characteristics required and I said six. I was corrected and I accepted that. This is mostly because the person I was talking to wasn't wrong or using misinformation or using cheap underhanded assertions about my character that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Okay so now we can add selective quotation to the mix of logical fallacy.


No, actually I was saying that people who bully Christian Chandler can't justify their bullying so they lie to themselves.

So you not only accuse me of bullying you with no evidence even though you are the only one who has made bullying remarks but you also accuse me of having delusions of grandeur when I don't even care if I convince anyone, only that I do right.

No, I haven't. I have picked apart their remarks. I have said that they don't have a reason to think that bullying is okay and I have fought hard over right and wrong. You just say I am bullying but it is you who are bullying when you tell me to get a life and accuse me of doing so many things.

So accusing me of being a bully for doing what I didn't do, saying that I have delusions of grandeur even though I don't intend to convince anybody of anything, telling me to get a life, saying whatever flippantly towards me and telling me that you don't care one iota about what I say in return isn't bullying? I feel hurt, and I am serious. The only time I have ever felt this bad was when I was accused of calling the USA Nazis.

I wasn't being snide at all. The fact is that saying get over it is a cliched insult that says nothing.

Just so fallacy again, and another insult : No, I wanted to change the understanding of the symptoms. Why is it that you keep accusing me of things?

But you're doing those exact same things right now. Why should I take your abuse?

I thought I was actually going to talk sensibly on this subject, but all you did was attack me head on and condemn me whilst twisting what I say and do to mean what you want.

Look, Gedrene, talking to you is like trying to have a conversation with an endless tape loop that does nothing but repeat the same things over and over, ending each time with "What did I do?"

I've not only explained what you've done, but posted examples, which you asked for (evidence and proof), yet every time you reply, you remove the evidence from the reply and deny it was ever there to begin with.

You start this crap, then complain when you get the crap back at you, removing what you said that started it all, and denying you ever did what your posts clearly show you did.

It's pointless to argue with you, because you just do the same thing every single time, then deny you did anything at all, or said anything that could be taken as an insult, even when it's been SHOWN to you.

You ask to see what we see, we show it to you, you erase it and deny what we said you did, then whine that we're being unfair.

It's pointless. Utterly pointless to continue attempting to hold a sensible conversation with you.

Why do your threads degenerate into this kind of thing instead of staying on the topic you want them to be about? Take a look in the mirror. It's YOU who causes it.

That's all I have to say. I'm NOT giving you any more evidence or proof just to have you erase and deny it's existence.

From now on, I am firmly requesting that you refrain from replying to ANY of my posts, or quoting me. If you do, I will consider it harassment, and treat it appropriately as such.

I, in turn, will no longer reply to or quote you. It's not worth the time or the aggravation.

Peace.

Thanks, MrXxx. I agree with all you say.

Gedrene, you are like someone who has the occasional headache and thus feels qualified to participate in a forum for migraine sufferers, telling them that what they experience can't truly be migraines because you don't share their symptoms and decrying the criteria by which they are diagnosed because those criteria would exclude you.

No, it does not. In any case where autism and Asperger's Syndrome appear to be the diagnosis, the more severe form of autism wins out. There are flaws in DSM-IV concerning the speech delay. Tony Attwood himself says this in this book. Even the WHO criteria is flawed. This is a man who has countless years of experience in this field. He cites the Gillberg criteria among others as being used instead for some cases.

You also need to change your tone when you talk to people. It is bad enough you remind me of ____ when I see your words, but even worse when you remind me of _____ concerning what you think the diagnostic criteria should be seen as and what you think it is. Both members are banned and I cannot mention them by name.

EDIT: It says my post was edited without anyone below it for some reason.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 22 Nov 2011, 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think the criteria are being misunderstood by some.

This says "deficits in social-emotional reciprocity ranging from" and gives a range of examples. Failure of normal back and forth conversation is an example that fits this - so does reduced affect and response. Even if I didn't qualify for this under reciprocal conversation, my affect is pretty minimal and is one of the traits that's been described to me repeatedly.

Each of the criteria lists possible ways in which the criteria can be met, and it seems to me that it is easier to meet any given criterion than it is in the DSM-IV. Just counting the number of symptoms required and comparing them doesn't really provide a full picture.

I'm glad it's harder to get diagnosed. Back in the mid-90s, kids were getting diagnosed left and right for stupid reasons. If a kid would rather sit in his room and play video games instead of go out and play soccer, he was diagnosed. If a kid constantly acted up in class, he was diagnosed. If a kid only had a few friends and didn't go to parties every weekend, he was diagnosed.

So we were taking it literal.

It took me time to get over the phrasing, too. When I understood it better, that addressed my primary objections to the new criteria.

True, I think part of it was an editorial mistake in the DSMIV in 1994 that allowed an individual to be diagnosed with PDD NOS, with only one of the core triad of diagnostic criteria. An individual could have only the RSBI criteria, like you say here, an abnormal obsessive interest in playing video games and other RSBI behaviors and receive a diagnosis of PDD NOS.

My understanding is they determined that a significant number of cases were getting diagnosed incorrectly because of the editorial mistake, (75%) and they changed it back in the year 2000, where two out of three of the core triad of criteria were required as they were in the DSMIII.



This an obscure fact but an extremely significant one considering the DSMIV is used on an international basis, and the majority of cases of ASD's are PDD NOS.

It is amazing to me that this mistake went uncorrected for 6 years, the period of time that the massive reported increase of diagnoses of ASD's was reported. The diagnoses were supposed to have been corrected in 2000, but whether or not they ever were in clinical practice is questionable.