Deconstructing the DSM

In light of more recent research, these propositions are looking a bit ridiculous. Disorders appear to occur on a continuum with normality; current categories are riddled with comorbidty and overusage of 'other' categories; and increased reliablility at the expense of validity has only been of temporary assistance in increasing diagnostic agreement, but has stunted the theoretical progress of psychopathological research.

Like a windows update, the DSM taskforce aim to rectify the problem by returning to an etiological framework based on genetic and biological categories. They are planning this change despite the fact that the path from genetype to phenotype expression is decades away from being identified. Endophenotypic research is in its infancy, and research into polygenetic and epigenetic effects, as well as neurodevelopmental effects are only in their infancy. The need to create excitement in the field to gather research funding and societal support for biological models has led to an overestimation of the field's progress. This is partially to do with the complexity of brain research, and the lack of conceptual clarity between the neurosciences, genetics, and psychological sciences. Although this direction will lead to advances in our understanding of pathophysiological processes, conceptual confusion will undoubtedly limit scientific progress. However, it is highly unlikely that the mess caused by the DSM can be cleaned up by critical analysis.

So what should our response be? The only possible strategy to combat the DSM monopoly is to provide a better theory, a better model, a better diagnostic tool, and a better rationale for doing so. Below is the approach I intend to take.

A Metatheoretical approach

Based on Experiential Regulation Theory (ERT)

Using Hope, Faith, and Truth as functional dimensions

Called the 'Human Diagnostic Manual'