It has always perplexed me why the science community has either accepted or tolerated the insane delusions of the modern (and even the ancient) "psychiatry" industry. Most of the DSM x's are un-science and just randomly thrown together by a bunch of egoists who like to use fancy sounding words. The science community ought to express the same negative rigor it has towards religion as it does the psychiatry industry. Religious community is generally the laughing stock of the science community and shamed. Yet somehow the psychiatry community is put on a government pedestal and given respect and serious reverence. For example you will have an incident of gun-violence, and then some scientist will say "We need more mental health treatment in this country". As if mental health treatment is to be taken seriously and that the psychiatric industry is not utter and absolutely modern motivated quackery which it is and always has been historically. In essence they have a picture of what the ideal citizen (read, obedient drone) should be and anyone outside of the norm is labelled ill. And they brace their lies with credible illnesses such as depression, and say "Oh look, we are real, depression is a real illness, that we want to cure" even though their modern close-minded ideologies are the cause of the depression in the first place. From Quora: "The DSM is actually compiled by a group of clinicians that meet and discuss what will and won’t be included in the next edition. One person isn’t the deciding factor, they haven’t that kind of power. And in fact, the main person that might be considered as the factor of discluding psychopathy would be Lee Robins, a sociologist. Why have these things all been lumped together? Well, there is an interesting history lesson to be had in the creation of the DSM. This was well described in the book by Jon Ronson, The Psychopath Test. In it he talks about the original DSM only being sixty five pages. A small drop in the bucket compared to the 947 page monster the DSM-V has become. The original was used for state hospital statistical reporting reasoning, not as an important research tool. Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who was responsible for the lobbying against, and subsequent removal of homosexuality as a mental condition from the DSM gave him the opportunity to be on the editing team for the DSM-III. Spitzer was irritated the overall handling of psychiatry. He found the diagnostic process to be inefficient, and respected people like Robert Hare, who had taken Hervey Cleckley’s psychopathy checklist, edited it slightly, and rebranded it as his own. Spitzer thought that it was a far better choice to be have checklists that psychiatrists could go through and know if a patient had a disorder. For the next six years over a collection of meetings with the rest of the editing team the DSM-III took form. This was done in way that then appeared to be rather pragmatic, and now appears to be rather cavalier. The group of clinicians would throw out names of proposed conditions, like PTSD, ADD BPD and then the traits that in their minds defined these conditions. The reasoning for this was that this would eradicate the guesswork. A clinician could pick up this bible of disorders, find the proper checklist and help the patient sitting before them. Sounds wonderfully scientific. At least it did to them at the time. This is also how nearly every single mental condition that most people that know of was decided on, the overt traits that define it, and the treatment plans that ended up arising out of it. So, now we fast forward to the DSM-V and psychopathy. Robert Hare went toe to toe with a sociologist Lee Robins. Robins contended that empathy was not something that could be quantified by a doctor. That it was too subjective and that sticking to the overt traits that had been decided on for the ASPD definition was what should be all that is offered. The editing team agreed with Robins, and psychopathy was therefore lumped under the ASPD diagnosis, much to Robert Hare’s enraged chagrin. So, it is because of an arbitrary assignment of traits that a group of people decided on themselves in a room that turns into the mental disorders that we all know so well. If your symptoms do not match, you are out of luck, it’s not on the list. I often think of people that have conditions that don’t precisely fit the checklists to be standing outside the very hot nightclub wanting to go in and get the privileges that those that do fit get, like treatment, financial help, validation. You can’t get any of those things because the DSM is the bouncer, and you’re not on the list. Sorry.