Your (and the authors of your paper) reliance on biomarkers are not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed. The fact you even ask about 5 vs 6 demonstrates a lack of understanding (or willful ignorance of) of how and why the diagnostic criteria are what they are.

Completely disagree with your conspiracy theory about the drugs. That's just laughable. Obviously need to prevent abuse, but there are both legitimate uses of and reasons to restrict general use of the drugs. Not to mention there are non-stimulant drugs as well, which kinda stomps on that argument.

▲

erlich 8 hours ago | parent [-]

We are just talking past each other now.

> not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed

Psychiatry as a whole is questionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#Controversy_and_cri...

Read about the history of the DSM regarding ADHD. You can look at all the versions/volumes and how and why it evolved over time. Ask yourself if you think it is actually good science.

	▲	LocalPCGuy an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I have done exactly that. I've seen your bias re: psychology as a whole and it appears to color your research and information gathering. I hope, like I have been doing even if not apparent from my replies, that you are able to consider your viewpoints and whether they actually hold true. Along those lines, I do appreciate this conversation. I do like questioning what I believe, and I had to steelman some of the views you put forth and then see where they then didn't hold up. I do that while being willing to change my own mind if that is where the evidence leads, but the research presented didn't hold up to scrutiny. So while I definitely disagree with you, I do so from a place of appreciation for pushing me to do more digging into this things and whether I should hold the beliefs that I do.