leonheartmm
Senior Member
No the DSM is not. The DSM suffers from major criticism and isn't useful that often.
fail, it is always used and neglect of use can be grounds for suspension of medical licences and malpractice lawsuits. EVERY piece of psychological literature suffers from major criticism.
If that was all that was used there would be many cases of misdiagnoses.
there are. or atleas claimed to be. but then again a psychological diagnosis isnt similar to a somatoform diagnosis. its nearly impossible for stubborn parties to PROVE either way. that is why different schools exist and multiaxial grading in the dsm exists. it is to tackle the problem from certain ANGLES, be is psychoanalytical/behavioural or medical.
However, since you have likely never diagnosed anyone you wouldn't know. There are books that deal specifically with each one of those schools. But I'm not asking for books because those aren't good sources (ie. they are secondary literature). I'm asking for primary literature and if you don't understand what that is then your entire argument of coming from a scholarly perspective is shot.
true. i am not a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist and wud never give any person a confirmed psychological diagnosis, im not that silly. but then again, have you? and again, what is primary literature????? dsm 4-tr is THE primary source of diagnosing disorders. its called the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL for a reason.
Also, the articles I referenced are not representative of any single school of thought. In fact, most of them are eclectic and take the practical psychotherapy approach. Proving that you haven't access to them despite them being widely accessible to the scholarly world.
their sources might be eclectic, but your references in question are not. and they are just that, articles, a drop in the bucket. the theories of sexuality and generally accepted view of psychologically healthy sexual lifestyles is a much larger and established thing. and please dont say they take the practical psychotherapy approach, they take the biblically conveniant psychotherapy approach is more like it. and many things are widely accessible and i have read many such material, you on the other hand have never seemed to have gotten literature telling you the general view of sexuality that psychology has taken in the last century or so. theres a reason mainstream christianity/islam etc is against psychology despite claims of reconciliation.
Second, the psychodynamic school of thought is progressed so far past any of the ideas that you are bringing up that it's not worth my time to discuss this with you. Second, Freud is not well respected. He is the most the ridiculed persona in the history of psychology. He has done far more harm than good. Everything that he influenced was indirect influence, such as the theory of developmental stages and the existence of defense mechanisms, but his precise ideas are no longer considered valid at all and he was disowned by his own students. Jung is often ridiculed as well.
really? because client centred psychoanalytical therapy still forms the basis of most psychodynamic treatments. plus the idea of i.d. ego/superego is pretty much intact, there are advances etc, like dissociated/frgamneted ego for psychopaths n whatnot but the basis still exists. the basis of phobias is still accepted to be internal conflict and the psychosexual stages are still extensively references by the majority of psychodynamic adherants. dream interpetation still plays a major part. surely you know all this. cause i just confirmed from a harvard qualified psychiatrist with over 20 years of practice and running a rather large non profit ngo and psychological treatment facility here. infact im pretty sure he said many of the psychodynamic adherants still use hypnosis today. {and this is a psychIATRIST}.
second, freud IS well restpected. and the insult of christian psychologists etc do nuthing to take away from his respect and place in psychology. his ideas were in infancy but not one without a grain of truth to them. its just that his ideas are misinterpreted because people fail ot understand what he MEANT when he said sexual drives etc, since it is different from a layman's definition of such things. you have to understand where he was coming from before his findings can be reconciled with general knowledge as your perspective sees it. as for the claim of more harm than good 😆 😆 😆 😆 , simply because it does not cater to your subscribed morales doesnt mean its harmful. he has done a LOT of good and psychology wud not have progressed without him, nor would acceptance{that you unfortunately fail to see} of sexuality and justified instincts as healthy and necessary be accepted today by psychologists.{or perhaps your not understanding that at the times he voices his thories, the world was a much much MUCH more repressive and suffocating place than it is now. your judgement here is very much biased}. and yes, those ARE his theories, defence mechanisms, they were ESTABLISHED later like much of his work. but they are his nonetheless. only a few followers disowned him, many who left merely believed in more than just his version{jung being an example}. jung is reidiculed, yes, but so was galileo, and to this day, anthropologists who claim the earth is over 2000 years old or evolutionists, yet there is nuthing unscientific or wrong about their claims.
Third, that case study is introductory psychology. Freud's conclusions are considered laughable. The ideas of penis envy and sexual longing for the mother is so dated it hurts.
REGUARDLESS, it is a passage from psychology which you were demanding. and his conclusions are laughable to YOU. it is a fact that the phobia in hans vanished and that he didnt carry the guilt etc associated with it. im not saying i agree with it fully or at all, im just comparing it your rebuttal based on SOLID evidence which comes in forms of selectively quoted statements. penis envy, i agree is one of the few ideas of freud's which has been proven untrue{however i would advice u to read freud's own words on the subject, on how humble and open minded he is when suggesting such a hypothesis, and how much he accepts it is shaky. you might be surprised to the personality of the man which is so often demonised}. as for the oedipus and electra complexes, i think you cant accept that there is sumthing to it because your misinterpreting freud's meaning of SEXUAL ATTRACTION. you can not generalise with freud, read what hes saying. youll understand the meaning behind it by grasping HIS views on the motivational eros and thanatos. simply put, he associated all things PLEASUREABLE in one way or another to sexuality. because he is emphasising more on the fact that they wudnt exist if you were male or female then he is using sexuality as a way of describing sexual lust. similar to his thoeries of why god is often considered male. quite interesting even if you dont at all agree with his point of view.