We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The most curious aspect of the status quo in psychiatry, though, is how a scientific-looking manual put out by a small organisation with no public accountability has come to be viewed with such reverence. Not for nothing is the DSM known as “the psychiatric bible”. Perhaps its bullet-pointed diagnoses do satisfy a religious need, the old existential ache for reassurance that “even the hairs of your head are all counted” and there’s no reason to be afraid.
Evidently in some professions, being awarded a doctorate means that you must stop judging ideas on the basis of things like observation, measurement, and objective reasoning, but must instead evaluate them according to the opinions of whatever authorities have weighed in.
The attitude is prevalent in every profession for which general ed math is good enough. It is pandemic in education, for instance.
The problem with psychiatry is that the experts to a man or woman, cannot ever examine a personality face to face without the results having been heavily Heisenberged by the fact of the interaction presence.
Every report is asterixed by the ''as examined on this day by a partnership of the patient and the doctor''.
This fraught subjectivity is is less important to the extent of the patient's objective record, leading to the ridiculous proposition that the less the doctor knows about the patient, the less bias informs the diagnosis.