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
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a review of a book that purports to make the case you're stating is not made here. That seems like a high bar for a review to me. Unless, do you mean you've read the book and the book fails to substantiate this claim?

>>ALittl+W9
Obviously a review can't give the argument in its full detail, but that doesn't mean this presentation is good.

Did the DSM-IV result in inaccurate diagnoses? Worse treatment? The review doesn't clearly state a single negative consequence. For that matter, reading the review, I can't even be sure if the book argues that the DSM-IV was bad, or if that's merely the review authors' opinion. I expect that kind of clarity from a review, and it's missing here.

Or again, on the point about the DSM-IV being a response to Rosenthal, what I'd like to read is something along the lines of "Cahalan's book presents detailed evidence that the DSM-IV was [influenced/prompted by/etc] the reaction to Rosenthal's experiment".

In defense of the reviewer: the worst issue might be a case where the title simply promises more than the article delivers. And the reviewer typically doesn't write their title, so it may be the editor who is to blame.