We've refined and relabeled the art of naming the demon that possess a person based on the characteristics of their symptoms. Then put a scientific sheen on the proscribed exorcisms and potions, without understanding the underlying issue. Modern day shamanism.

That is a bit hyperbolic (we clearly have real knowledge of the underlying neurological mechanisms), but closer to the truth than most people like to acknowledge.

The DSM was never meant to carry the burden we've placed upon it. https://asteriskmag.com/issues/12-books/you-arent-in-the-dsm

I think this is partly right, partly misguided.

Misguided: there's now a focus on causality and precise identification based on symptoms and negative impact caused that wasn't present in the days of exorcisms and shamanism. Those eras were primarily characterized by people in positions of (often corrupt or unqualified) authority declaring diagnoses for others, largely without the consent of the diagnosed. Now, the default mode of mental health treatment is now focused on identifying symptoms according to specific rubrics, and diagnosing (or not) based on the presence of those rather than the agenda, religious feelings, or whims of people in positions of authority.

Partly right: what I described above is the default or desired diagnostic approach. We have a long way to go before it's actually performed for everyone. Coercive diagnoses are not uncommon even under modern medical/diagnostic practices: parents seek out spectrum or ADHD diagnoses for kids who aren't suffering, just not meeting parental expectations; psychotic people are handled by modern mental health systems with extremely low autonomy, etc.

Conversations here are also often confused: diagnoses for many mental health conditions are qualitative and measured not only by symptoms but by harms. The DSM and friends aren't like the diagnostic instruments for cancer or heart disease: physiological indicators are much rarer in mental health, so mental health diagnoses combine enumerations of behavioral symptoms and negative impacts caused to one's life. That implies a subtlety that's hard to come by among non-medical-professionals: you don't "have" ADHD (or OCD, Autism, etc.) in the same way you "have" an ulcer; you have those conditions if you present with a certain subset of the symptoms for the diagnosis, many of which are behavioral. Whether a particular treatment is merited has to do with both symptoms and the harms posed by those symptoms to your quality of life. So saying "I have ADHD" is a less meaningful statement than "I have some symptoms of ADHD and they seriously damage my quality of life, therefore I seek treatment".

Add to that our limited (but growing, and better than it was in past decades) understanding of pharmaceutical treatments for mental health disorders--many of the drugs we use to treat, say, depression or ADHD behave with all the subtlety of driving a bulldozer through a convenience store because you wanted to get a gallon of milk--and you have a complex area discussed using outdated binary pathological terminology. That's a recipe for suspicion and confusion.

In short, it is, as you say, hyperbolic to characterize modern mental health treatment as shamanism. But lingering corrupt medical practice and the complexity of the field for laypeople make it hard to see how, specifically, things are improving in this area.