[IFC_LLC]

I took the liberty of indulging in some reading.

I must admit, it feels a bit strange. The truth is that I learned my first steps in programming by working through large, formidable books. In fact, my very first programming book was Assembly Language for Intel-Based Computers by Kip Irvine. After that, I read even larger books, many of them multiple times.

I have always been fond of reading well-written books by knowledgeable professionals. After reading such works, you come away with real understanding, greater clarity, and often new creativity. Books are valuable, and I have always respected a good one.

Yet the DSM-5-TR is quite the opposite. The Preface clearly states that the work is intended for everyone:

“The information is of value to all professionals associated with various aspects of mental health care, including psychiatrists, other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, counselors, forensic and legal specialists, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and other health professionals.”

I happen to be a social worker, and I have read a lot of books. I know how to study. I carefully looked up any words I might have misunderstood and used the dictionary freely.

But despite all my efforts, I often failed to make sense of what I was reading. One would expect a theory followed by a conclusion, or an observation leading to a conclusion, or a theorem that is then proven. Unfortunately, that structure is missing here.

A typical DSM entry begins with a statement presented as fact, only to be followed by other statements that seem to contradict it.

Take, for example:

“The prevalence of disinhibited social engagement disorder is unknown. Nevertheless, the disorder appears to be rare, occurring in a minority of children, even those who have experienced severe early deprivation. In low-income community populations in the United Kingdom, the prevalence is up to 2%.”

This kind of contradictory phrasing is standard in the DSM.

Again, the DSM is publicly available, and anyone can read it here: https://www.ifeet.org/files/DSM-5-TR.pdf

I would have expected more precision from a scientific book.

[naveensundar]

Logically, your example is not contradictory.

  1. We don't know actual prevalence
  2. But believe it is low
  3. Upper bound in some community is 2%

It is not at all contradictory.

[NoahZuniga]

> This kind of contradictory phrasing is standard in the DSM.

I'm not sure I see what's contradictory in your example. Could you elaborate?

[IFC_LLC]

How can one identify an illness where one can't even tell who and how often have said illness?

In fact, there is a way of doing that. And we, as programmers, have access to those methods. It's called Numerical Analisys. At times it's quite amazing to see how well mathematics can estimate data.

One of the examples, is German Tank Problem. https://www.numberphile.com/videos/clever-way-to-count-tanks

While being an extremely opaque problem we are able to handle it to an extremely precise numbers.

One does not have to be that acquainted with the ways of math to figure things out. One can just use some data source and point such data source out. I mean, any book, be that a book on financing or programming book would have a list of references under such statements.

And here we have it. An absolutely out-of-wack statement saying that the poorest regions of Britain are affected by this condition more than others. Who? Why? Where? How was this number obtained?

Probably "contradictory" is not a right word for such a claim. But I would love to see at least anything that would prove such a statement.

In fact, flip to the end of the DSM and look for the list of references. You'll find none. I kid you not, there is not a single reference to an outside source in this book. This means that my work on "Use of Dynamic Library Link to execute Assembly code in C#" that I've written in 2005 while in the university has 6 more references to outside sources than the DSM itself.

The reason for my beef in here mainly that all the numbers are just stated, with no respect to what numbers are. And I would expect either an explanation of a numerical method to estimate this number, or a source as to where this number has been gotten from.