I'd go further in dereifying psych disorders by making clear they are just constructs that don't really take shape til we define them.
Eg What we call #schizophrenia could have been defined in dozens of different ways- no one of which would be much better than any other.
Eg What we call #schizophrenia could have been defined in dozens of different ways- no one of which would be much better than any other.
https://twitter.com/MarkLRuffalo/status/1429458737308307462
3 epistemological umpires:
#1 Naive realist (Spitzer)- "There are balls & strikes & I call them as they are"
#2 Constructionist (me)- "There are balls & strikes & I call them as I see them"
#3 Solipsist (Szsaz)- "No balls & no strikes til I call them"
#1 Naive realist (Spitzer)- "There are balls & strikes & I call them as they are"
#2 Constructionist (me)- "There are balls & strikes & I call them as I see them"
#3 Solipsist (Szsaz)- "No balls & no strikes til I call them"
Most DSM disorders are extremely valuable constructs- no more/no less.
Some DSM disorders are mistakes that shouldn't have been included.
No DSM disorder exists totally independent of how it has been defined & who defined it.
Some DSM disorders are mistakes that shouldn't have been included.
No DSM disorder exists totally independent of how it has been defined & who defined it.
So #Schizophrenia is no "myth" to those suffering from it.
But it also doesn't exist outside of how it's been defined.
& how it's been defined is to some degree arbitrary & not the only or necessarily the best way.
I advise people to use DSM constructs, but not worship them.
But it also doesn't exist outside of how it's been defined.
& how it's been defined is to some degree arbitrary & not the only or necessarily the best way.
I advise people to use DSM constructs, but not worship them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
