The problem is that “ADHD” is not defined as a dopamine processing deficiency. It’s defined as a cluster of symptoms that exceed a certain level. Those symptoms could be related to dopamine processing, or something else! So you’re not wrong, in any real sense, but you are wrong by the definition set out by those who say what ADHD is.
A very dear friend, who is a psychiatrist, says that the DSM is mostly to help GPs to identify symptoms, to be able to send people to the psychiatrist, not to actually diagnose.
I hate that in a sense you’re right. The problem is that in a practical sense it’s become so much more than that, too. So due to the law of unintended consequences, the psychiatrists that wrote the manual have built their own prison (if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphors).
To me, it seems that psychiatrists/psychologists need one manual for GPs, another manual amongst themselves, and a third written to placate US insurance companies. Right now they all use the DSM because it’s the only thing.
The problem is that “ADHD” is not defined as a dopamine processing deficiency. It’s defined as a cluster of symptoms that exceed a certain level. Those symptoms could be related to dopamine processing, or something else! So you’re not wrong, in any real sense, but you are wrong by the definition set out by those who say what ADHD is.
I hate the DSM.
A very dear friend, who is a psychiatrist, says that the DSM is mostly to help GPs to identify symptoms, to be able to send people to the psychiatrist, not to actually diagnose.
I hate that in a sense you’re right. The problem is that in a practical sense it’s become so much more than that, too. So due to the law of unintended consequences, the psychiatrists that wrote the manual have built their own prison (if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphors).
To me, it seems that psychiatrists/psychologists need one manual for GPs, another manual amongst themselves, and a third written to placate US insurance companies. Right now they all use the DSM because it’s the only thing.