DSM 5 Could Mean 40% of College Students Are Alcoholics

[Razgovory]

Where ex-alcoholics are concerned, I'm not sure it's useful or accurate to surmise you know their situations better than they do...

Why is alcoholism different than any other type of self-perception that we disagree with?

I don't think it is.  This is why mental health is such a screwy field.

Also, would someone explain the definition of mental disorder to Marty.

[Martinus]

All those things you mention are observable as well.

I agree with Yi. People self-diagnose various mental stuff about themselves all the time, especially in this day and age of wikipedia. I can't see why when someone self-diagnoses as a sex addict or someone with a ADHD for example we should treat such claims differently than when someone self-diagnoses as an alcoholic.

[Camerus]

All those things you mention are observable as well.

To whom?  God?  I think you're still missing the point.

"I am very smart" is much more easily disproved if the subject spews forth moronic statements.

Contrast that with a person who says "I'm am an alcoholic, and actively engaged in alcoholism when I was young" (as per the example Meri gave).  So, you have heard the person has not drunk for many years. Based on that data alone, are you really able to conclude you know more about the effects of alcohol on his life and his past than he does?

[Eddie Teach]

Most forms of intelligence can't be judged by casual conversation either.

[Admiral Yi]

You're right, smart is a bad counter-example.

[garbon]

If it is impairing their ability to function/lead meaningful lives - sure why not?

The impairment is not a requirement for diagnosing alcoholism - hence the expression "functioning alcoholic". I think most people who drink regularly to feel better are alcoholics - I am and most of my friends are.

But that's the point of a lot of things that the DSM categorizes.  I'm not sure why a psychiatrist would be that interested in a functioning alcoholic. Also I think your definition of alcoholic trivializes the issue.

From wiki:

The current version of the DSM characterizes a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present distress...or disability...or with a significant increased risk of suffering."

[Fate]

Just been talking about DSM 5 in the context of military neuroscience. Given that every issue invents new conditions to meet the drugs being researched (see the surge in ADHD for example) there are probably new alcoholism treatments on the horizon.

No, there aren't any significant new alcoholism treatments on the horizon. ADHD is not an invented issue any more than schizophrenia or a broken leg.

How would you "treat" student (or journalist) binge drinking anyhow? Other than the way the British government is already going about it, by making beer £4 a pint

The technical term is "brief intervention." The physician states unequivocally that the patient has a problem with alcohol and emphasizes that this determination stems from the consequences of alcohol in that patient's life, not from the quantity of alcohol consumed. The physician emphasizes the effects of drinking on family, friends, and occupation, as well as any physical manifestation. Something as simple as that has been shown in studies to have a significant benefit in patient outcome. It doesn't cost much, either.

Not everything that happens in medicine revolves around pharmaceutical company conspiracy theories. 

[Razgovory]

The current version of the DSM characterizes a mental disorder as "a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual [which] is associated with present distress...or disability...or with a significant increased risk of suffering."

Thank you.

[merithyn]

To whom?  God?  I think you're still missing the point.

"I am very smart" is much more easily disproved if the subject spews forth moronic statements.

Contrast that with a person who says "I'm am an alcoholic, and actively engaged in alcoholism when I was young" (as per the example Meri gave).  So, you have heard the person has not drunk for many years. Based on that data alone, are you really able to conclude you know more about the effects of alcohol on his life and his past than he does?

There was more data there, but apparently you missed it. "They never crave the drink" is an important part of it, imo. If you never crave alcohol, it seems odd to self-identify as an alcoholic. What made my dad an alcoholic, from my perspective, was that he always craved a drink. Always. Sober for five years and in AA? Still craved it. Dying from diabetes and congestive heart-failure? Still craved it. That, to me, is an addict.

You may also have missed the part where I said that I didn't really care how they self-identified. If thinking of themselves in that way and addressing their issues as an alcoholic helps them, good for them. I may not think they're really an alcoholic, but how does that factor into it at all? They're figuring out a way to cope with their lives that works. Giving it a name doesn't seem to matter, does it?