Is a “B” in grad school really a “C”?
The first of my two coauthored articles (with Mike Gayle) on professionals’ attitudes toward the DSM has been published in the September 2016 issue of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Here’s the reference and abstract:
Raskin, J. D., & Gayle, M. C. (2016). DSM-5: Do psychologists really want an alternative? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 56(5), 439-456. doi: 10.1177/0022167815577897
Jonathan D. Raskin and Michael C. Gayle
State University of New York at New Paltz, NY, USA
Only two published studies, both from the early 1980s, have specifically examined psychologist attitudes toward the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The current article rectifies this by presenting the results of a recent survey of attitudes toward the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5. Though the DSM has changed over the years, psychologist attitudes toward it have remained remarkably consistent. Although more than 90% of psychologists report using the DSM, they are dissatisfied with numerous aspects of it and support developing alternatives to it—something that psychologists over 30 years ago supported, as well. The finding that almost all psychologists use the DSM despite serious concerns about it raises ethical issues because professionals are ethically bound to only use instruments in which they are scientifically confident.
From the standpoint of social constructionist approaches to meaning-making, this presumption that how you act stems mainly from stable and enduring qualities inside you is suspect because it fails to fully consider the crucial influence of context on behavior. That thoughtful, deliberative, and soft-spoken person you are at work is quite different from the suave and charming flirt you become on that first Match.com date or the shirtless, face-painted maniac you morph into while tailgating on Sundays. Which one reflects who you “really” are?
I’m quoted in this article on the social benefits of learning to read body language, which appeared in Inc.com.
New post on my blog, “Making Meaning: Constructing Understandings in a Confusing World.”
We often speak of “getting inside someone else’s head.” When we talk this way, we usually mean that we wish to understand things as others do so that we can grasp what otherwise might seem like utterly incomprehensible behavior. If we could get inside the heads of our boss, our significant other, or that bloviating political candidate on TV then we just might be able to know what they are up to and why.
…even though we all have a general sense of what it means to be happy, one of the things we notice if we pay close attention is that happy to one person can be pretty different from happy to another.