zlacker

>>lcaff+(OP)
While this is fascinating and I'm glad to have read it, it doesn't substantiate that this experiment set back psychiatry. The fact that the DSM-IV was prompted or encouraged by the experiment is suggested, but there's no argument for it. Even beyond that, the article doesn't even hint at an argument that the DSM-IV set back psychiatry (except offering the bare assertion that reductionism is false).

Of course, the DSM is very controversial, and many people could fill in the argument, but this article doesn't do it.

>>hyperp+I3
This is standard fare for the source. The Spectator generally pick one of the authors' bugbears (usually Muslims, The Left, or Political Correctness Gone Mad), write a beautifully written and entertaining piece, all the time aggressively mixing and conflating fact and fiction with a slightly sneering tone. For example: https://outline.com/nMzA8N

>>petere+n5
Makes the site name a bit on the nose, doesn't it?