Study finds psychiatric diagnosis to be ‘scientifically meaningless’

I worked with a lot of people who had suffered extreme trauma in childhood. Many of them became much more balanced as a result. They did not worry about a few extra pounds or if they had a bad hair day. They were confident because they were proud of how they had survived.

It is similar to the way they keep saying that being ill gives us benefits without every asking us or considering what we have lost.

Trauma is assumed to always lead to mental weakness when it is just as likely to do the opposite. Also it can lead to purely physical problems - arthritis from badly set bones and so on - but any illness after trauma is considered to be of emotional origin.

It is all theory of how the world works with no one actually looking out the window.

 

It took a study to figure this out?

 

Response to the article and statements by Kinderman:

Why Psychiatric Diagnosis Matters. Despite recent claims, diagnosis in psychiatry is scientifically meaningful.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/freud-fluoxetine/201908/why-psychiatric-diagnosis-matters

 

"Despite recent claims, blogging on psychologytoday.com is scientifically meaningful."

Yeah, sure, why not.

 

I see it differently. Those who want to do away with psychiatric diagnoses all together remind me of those who prefer MUS over diagnoses such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia etc. I think there are similarities in the debate.

To outsiders it may seem as if criticis have a point because there are a lot of problems with psychiatric diagnoses and the diagnosis of ME/CFS, but the proposed alternatives tend to make those problems even worse.