It's got to be an improvement to actually call it out, though-- either there IS a problem, and look, here's what it is, and gosh, I guess that means that we'll work our way through THIS set of best-practices here, or...
there isn't really anything but fumbling around in the dark and it's all just idiosyncratic to start with, in which case, why bother with the DSM with all of it's oh-so-official checklists?
I'm not arguing that people in the mental health professions can't-- or shouldn't-- help people who are probably best classified as "other" but it would be a vast improvement to be able to tease them apart from those with problems that can be diagnosed as something in particular using evidence that isn't subjective or opinion-based.
The current state of affairs is like going to the doctor and describing a series of vague aches and pains, and having him/her respond with:
You have arthritis.
a) Let's try more exercise for a month.
b) if that doesn't work, let's try having you rest it for another month.
c) if that doesn't work, we'll do steroid injections and pain management for six months.
d) if that doesn't work, we'll do a hip replacement.
e) if that doesn't work, let's reevaluate in six months.
Clearly that is crazy.
"Aches and pains" can mean so many different things-- some of them self-resolving/transient-- that it's not really diagnostically useful in terms of differential diagnosis. To use it that way anyway is nuts.
