How 'bout that DSM-5-TR?

[clausewitz2]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Pssh. 2nd Edition Forever!

"Dissociative Identity Disorder is the THAC0 of the DSM." Discuss.

 

[WisNeuro]

"Dissociative Identity Disorder is the THAC0 of the DSM." Discuss.

I dunno, the number of people per capita who can accurately calculate THAC0 is far higher than the rate of legitimate DID. However, the number of people who think they know how to calculate THAC0 and the number of people per capita who think they have DID is probably a similar number.

 

[Mad Jack]

Pssh. 2nd Edition Forever!

THAC0 still makes my head ache

 

[Mad Jack]

Does this make the ICD-10 Pathfinder?

 

[clausewitz2]

Does this make the ICD-10 Pathfinder?

And the PDM-2 is naturally DCC/LotFP/insert your favorite OSR game here.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Do I even need to buy this? It seems like each version contains a lot of diagnostic hairsplitting as oppposed to clarifications and useful clinical distinctions. I probably will as it is sort of a necessary business expense as I don’t want the new students coming up to catch me referencing some antiquated concept out of the DSM IV. It would be like I’m the old guy talking about kids listening to them record players and encyclopedias. “He just said that patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder has Asperger’s, time for the old man to pack it in.“

To be honest until the field advances to where we can make more meaningful distinctions between what the various disorders really are and identify various physiological and functional neurological markers then i remain skeptical. I see distinctions in clinical presentations and etiologies and treatment responses in my patients that are not captured in these categories and i have intuitions and ideas about some potential connections between these, but don’t see movement in that direction. i also see biological vulnerabilities and environmental or personality differences that play a role, but when we don’t use etiology as part of the diagnostic differential, it makes me wonder If we are going to see meaningful improvement. I think maybe we need another revolutionary shift similar to DSM2 to DSM3 and no I’m not that old, just read about it.

 

[PsyDr]

I see they revised the binding to be both ugly and reflective.

 

[Alemo]

Do I even need to buy this? It seems like each version contains a lot of diagnostic hairsplitting as oppposed to clarifications and useful clinical distinctions. I probably will as it is sort of a necessary business expense as I don’t want the new students coming up to catch me referencing some antiquated concept out of the DSM IV. It would be like I’m the old guy talking about kids listening to them record players and encyclopedias. “He just said that patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder has Asperger’s, time for the old man to pack it in.“

To be honest until the field advances to where we can make more meaningful distinctions between what the various disorders really are and identify various physiological and functional neurological markers then i remain skeptical. I see distinctions in clinical presentations and etiologies and treatment responses in my patients that are not captured in these categories and i have intuitions and ideas about some potential connections between these, but don’t see movement in that direction. i also see biological vulnerabilities and environmental or personality differences that play a role, but when we don’t use etiology as part of the diagnostic differential, it makes me wonder If we are going to see meaningful improvement. I think maybe we need another revolutionary shift similar to DSM2 to DSM3 and no I’m not that old, just read about it.

A-f***king-men. This perfectly sums up how I feel about things currently.