Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The excellent articles in this Special Series underscore the centripetal forces pushing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), including DSM-5, toward science, as well as the centrifugal forces pushing the DSM away from science. These articles demonstrate that, some assertions to the contrary, many of the DSM-5 revisions were indeed responsive to data. At the same time, these articles underscore the point that certain assumptions and constraints are impeding the DSM's scientific potential. I highlight three such centrifugal forces here: (a) unwarranted categorical assumptions, (b) unwarranted belief in natural kinds, and (c) the DSM's many masters. Although the DSM is in part a scientific document, it is also in part a pragmatic compromise among multiple competing demands and constituencies. I encourage boosting competition in the marketplace of ideas as a means of enhancing the verisimilitude of the psychiatric classification system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scott O. Lilienfeld (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: