Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 225 posts

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#51

Post by dang »

lazide wrote: post #30
dang wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please keep nationalistic flamebait off this site. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we want to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Huh? And what is nationalistic flame bait about it? Speaking as someone living it. There is a reason why depression, anxiety, and a host of other issues have escalated for decades , and nationalism has nothing to do with it.

Nationalistic flamebait is when someone makes a pejorative generalization about a country, usually in the context of a comment which has little information, but only denunciatory rhetoric. Your GP comment clearly fits that description, as I read it. This is not a borderline call!

What happens when people post like that is that others, who have the opposite sympathies, get provoked and feel entitled to respond in kind. Of course, what they feel is "responding in kind" is usually much worse, and thus we end up in a downward spiral.

None of this is what HN is for. We want curious conversation here, and that doesn't consist of putting down entire countries, nor of grand generalizations (especially negative ones). Curiosity is much more inclined to look at some interesting or surprising specific about a situation. That's also what the site guidelines ask people to avoid generic tangents (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#52

Post by dang »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #34
dang wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please keep nationalistic flamebait off this site. It leads to nationalistic flamewars, which we want to avoid here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Surely this is a mistake dang? It's prima facie absurd and if not that unnecessarily stifling. The thread is already talking about the statistics of America, it's not flamebait to bring that up. One may disagree with op, but who would actually complain about it being added to the discussion itself? Doesn't creating a situation where something like this can't even be said more contribute to an atmosphere of passive ag…

I don't think it's a mistake; the comment didn't add any information; it consisted of generic negative rhetoric plus markers of internet snark (leading "Eh", "actual").

This kind of thing just doesn't lead to good HN discussion. It's at best a generic tangent and more likely a generic flamewar tangent.

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#53

Post by dang »

qualeed wrote: post #25
dang wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Calling a comment "ridiculous" is against the guidelines? Okay. Hopefully it isn't against the guidelines to say I think that's a silly guideline. Apparently saying "ridiculous" in response to a comment is very selectively enforced, must be my lucky day. Anyways, this is probably the reminder I needed to stop commenting to HN. Some of the moderator decisions you guys are making lately are just.. way off base to me. E…

"What an absolutely ridiculous comment. That is extremely obviously not what I said or implied." is obviously a flamewar reaction. This is not a borderline call!

If you had simply posted the last sentence, your comment would have been just fine.

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#55

Post by brooke2k »

vjulian wrote: post #38

What counts as a “disorder” is often not based on empirical evidence but on what is determined as undesirable, maladaptive, or outside the social norm…by Americans. The DSM in many ways represents the worst of so-called social science.

A "disorder" is just a collection of symptoms that have been empirically shown to benefit from certain treatments. If someone doesn't think they have those symptoms then they can just not seek a diagnosis or treatment. Nobody is forcing a diagnosis on somebody who doesn't want it.

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#56

Post by michaelt »

p_ing wrote: post #42
hx8 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some ways the financial conflicts of interest make sense, because the people that best understand a set of symptoms probably also are the ones in the best position to create new treatments. Being undisclosed makes it feel way more scummy than it might actually be.

That should be true across medicine. A biotech is best suited to invent new medications for existing diseases consulting with or acquiring in-house talent that knows the disease inside and out. Experts generally benefit from their expertise. Nothing new, shouldn't be controversial.

The thing is, society doesn't have to worry that the guy selling crutches is going to reinvent the definition of a broken leg to increase crutch sales.

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#57

Post by connicpu »

vjulian wrote: post #38

What counts as a “disorder” is often not based on empirical evidence but on what is determined as undesirable, maladaptive, or outside the social norm…by Americans. The DSM in many ways represents the worst of so-called social science.

But conceptually in the DSM most disorders are defined by whether they cause hardship in the patient's life. Whether that means some disorders would not have to be considered disorders in an ideal society is irrelevant for this context, because people need help navigating the society we have.

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#58

Post by lazide »

dang wrote: post #51
lazide wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? And what is nationalistic flame bait about it? Speaking as someone living it. There is a reason why depression, anxiety, and a host of other issues have escalated for decades , and nationalism has nothing to do with it.

Nationalistic flamebait is when someone makes a pejorative generalization about a country, usually in the context of a comment which has little information, but only denunciatory rhetoric. Your GP comment clearly fits that description, as I read it. This is not a borderline call! What happens when people post like that is that others, who have the opposite sympathies, get provoked and feel entitled to respond in kind…

As someone who has been here many, many years - this is truly mystifying to me. And not just me, apparently. And also notably, no one responded that way to that comment.

But sure, it’s your show.

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#59

Post by cyanydeez »

connicpu wrote: post #57
vjulian wrote: post #38

What counts as a “disorder” is often not based on empirical evidence but on what is determined as undesirable, maladaptive, or outside the social norm…by Americans. The DSM in many ways represents the worst of so-called social science.

But conceptually in the DSM most disorders are defined by whether they cause hardship in the patient's life. Whether that means some disorders would not have to be considered disorders in an ideal society is irrelevant for this context, because people need help navigating the society we have.

unfortunately, what seems to be driving modern disorder diagnosis is what gets issurance to pay. That's why autism is now a spectrum.

Re: Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5 (2024)

#60

Post by torben-friis »

Hilift wrote: post #54

> The most common type of payment was for food and beverages (90.9%) followed by travel (69.1%). If I am a doctor on a task force, I'm not wasting my time doing that paperwork. Also, this essentially means that nearly every doctor would be in scope.

It was 14 million for 55 people, wasn't it? That's a lot of coca cola cans.
Post reply on HN