Untitled Document

The Unified Theory of the Nervous System
and Behavior

Cognitive Philosophy /Brain Theory by Steven Michael Harris

The DSM Process

The DSM-IV (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) opens by proudly stating in the Acknowledgments that "DSM-IV is a team effort. More than 1,000 people (and numerous professional organizations) have helped us in the preparation of this document."

This statements is an indictment. Any compromise between a truth and a fiction is always a fiction. A half-truth is always false. A half-lie is always false. (The brain actually operates according to similar logic.) The truth about any element of science or medicine has never been achieved by compromise, by committee.

So this system that dictates how the professional world of the brain/mind/medicine must think about disorders and behavior and treatment is the product not of a truth about the nature of the brain and the mind but the product of compromises between different factions according to various personal and political and economic influences. Much of the organization of the DSM is not according to any truth about the nature of the way the mind/brain works or about the nature of treatment, but to serve the needs of various doctors seeking credit for their work to further their careers or the needs of the insurance companies to make it easier to process claims or the needs of various individuals and organizations seeking funds for research, etc.

Once a system such as that presented in the DSM is created, it becomes a self-preserving monster of a system that defines the nature of future work and defines the language of the fields of study and grows until the number of people with influence whose reputations and finances are dependent on the continuation of such a system never retreats. This system will naturally squash other systems of thought that conflict with the DSM approach and those involved will use its influence to ingrain the system into government regulations and controls and dominate the control of the flow of money into research.

Remember that the DSM is not a system to describe the workings of the brain that was provided by the logic of the brain. It is a system invented to explain a logic that is unknown. It is a much more difficult scenario than if Russian Language were used to describe the nature of English but with no word of English understood in translation. The problem is not in offering an approach to explaining behaviors and disorders but in institutionalizing such an approach with nothing close to any confirmation of any validity to this approach in terms of how the nervous system actually works.

The system created by the DSM is like any governmental body that once created will always grow in size and power even when elimination of that body is best for the good of society.

The creators of the DSM operated in teams. In the introduction: "Work Group members were instructed that they were to participate as consensus scholars and not as advocates of previously held views."

I'm not sure of the exact nature of the consensus process used by these doctors, but I have seen the consensus process in operation in various organizations and it is an extremely flawed process. All members must agree on a particular issue. Consensus means the avoidance of majority rule. Different members might have disagreements about a particular topic or vote and opt to remain silent with their objections when it appears that their viewpoint will not win the argument. But a minority opinion has the power to "block" a vote on any issue. This system sets up a resistance to change and offers a way for the system to be manipulated by anyone who figures out how to manipulate it. You can control the system if you can control the wording of the issues brought up for a vote.

For example: If a committee is considering to eliminate parking on a particular street using the consensus process, one person can control the outcome of the decision if that person is able to influence the wording of the question put to a consensus vote. Suppose that the minority member is outraged because she wants to be able to park right in front of her house but the other committee members know that the street is too narrow for parking on both sides and need to eliminate parking on her side of the street as a safety issue. But the woman with the issue is in charge of the parking committee and is able to control the wording of the proposal. The question can be posed two ways.

"Shall we continue to allow parking on the west side of Green Street?" With this wording the one woman would say yes but the majority of the committee would say no and, using the consensus process, the majority of the committee would get its way because they have the right to block this proposal. (So the decision would be "No, we will not continue to allow parking.")

"Shall we eliminate parking on the west side of Green Street?" With this wording, the majority of the committee wants to eliminate the parking but the one woman wants parking to continue so she would have the ability to block this decision. (So the decision would be "No, we will not eliminate parking.")

It is the wording of the question that matters. If the person who wants to manipulate the system as a minority can make sure that the proposal is worded so that his/her choice is on the "No" side of the question, then that person will get his/her way. This means that any proposal for change can be shut down by a minority voice (no matter how logical or illogical that voice might be).

This is the system used in the creation of the DSM.

People feel that they are using a fair system with consensus because it sounds like a good idea to have everyone agree, to have everyone happy. This is a choice between emotion and logic. Consensus is a flawed system that can be manipulated so that minority rules.

Majority rule is a flawed system too because often the majority of people are unwilling to accept inconvenient change even if it is for the good and the majority of people often are not smart enough to see the good logic of a new idea either.

If you want a flawed system that is averse to change, choose consensus. If you want a flawed system that allows for idiotic change at times, choose majority rule.

The best system is to follow a dictator who has superior logic and makes superior decisions but such a person is only a fiction if given reign to make decisions in areas of concern where his/her expertise is limited. A superior dictator must have followers that are smart enough to recognize what is superior about the logic being presented. In real life, the superior mind is rarely recognized by enough people to be given any jurisdiction that really matters if any significant change will occur on account of this mind. The biggest flaw in the dictator model is that in any collective decision (even involving a dictator who requires followers willing to agree to his dictates), conflicts between the truth and power will occur and a concern for maintaining or increasing power will taint decisions regarding any truth. So any dictator put into a position of power will have to be the kind of person who has no concern for power - the kind of person who is unlikely to welcome any political position.

There is no perfect system for making collective decisions. This is why important changes in the understanding of the truth always come from enlightened individuals

(An interesting aside is that there is no social prohibition against self-congratulation in collectives as opposed to self-congratulation by individuals. In a collective document such as the DSM there is a lot of self-congratulation in the form of "We would like to thank the wonderful contribution by the following doctors..." when the "we" doing the thanking are the very same doctors being thanked. Work on a document such as the DSM can be very fruitful in promoting the careers of any who are involved - who then have a professional stake in promoting the status of that document and resisting any logical arguments against that document.)

[Click to Go Back to Unified Theory More Essays Page]

[Click to Go Back to Unified Theory Directory Page]