Are you aware that psychology and psychiatry are not the same thing?
Are you aware that the practice of psychology and psychological research are likewise not the same thing and that "practicing" psychologists and "research" psychologists are two very different professions?
The primary claim levelled by the NIMH was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the mountain of psychological research that has been conducted in the last 20 years. This was done for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with a lack of scientific research or evidence on the various conditions elucidated in the DSM (reasons like: "preserving continuity", "insurance concerns" and "ease of use"). The modern DSM is absolutely a problem, but it's not a problem because the science is crap. It's a problem, because the people in charge of the DSM (and yes there were a few psychologists there) didn't prioritize sound science.
> Are you aware that psychology and psychiatry are not the same thing?
Of course, but when you say this, you're acknowledging that they have no common ground. What if I talked about Dark Matter and discussed the work of cosmologists and particle physicists, both of whom are contributing to the research. Would you object that I was unfairly or ignorantly conflating two different fields? No, you couldn't do that, because physics is a science, and sciences are united by theory. What unites psychiatry and psychology, two fields only seemingly joined by a common ground in human psychology?
> The primary claim levelled by the NIMH was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the mountain of psychological research that has been conducted in the last 20 years.
It's true that there's a mountain of psychological research. It's also true that it's not scientific enough to influence clinical practice. Director Insel's complaint wasn't about what's missing from the DSM, but what is present.
Surely you don't think that clinical psychologists would ignore a clear scientific finding that would increase their effectiveness and their income? The reason this hasn't happened is because there are no such findings.
> ... and that "practicing" psychologists and "research" psychologists are two very different professions?
Yes, unlike scientists, all of whom study nature from different perspectives, and all of whom productively listen to each other. The reason that experimental psychologists, and clinical psychologists, ignore each other, is because there's no incentive to do otherwise -- there's no useful science coming out of experimental psychology, and there's no useful science coming out of clinical psychology.
Try to imagine what would happen if a clinical psychologist, or an experimental psychologist, discovered something that would lead to an explanation (a theory) and survive repeated empirical test, and force consensus between different observers. It would produce something not present in psychology today -- it would produce a central, defining corpus of theory that would guide both research and practice. But there is no such finding, no such research, about the mind, because the mind is not -- cannot be -- a source of empirical evidence or theories, what science requires.
> The modern DSM is absolutely a problem, but it's not a problem, because the science is crap.
Yes, that is the problem with the DSM, and you don't need to take my word for this -- read the NIMH's views on this topic:
" ... The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."
Are you aware that the practice of psychology and psychological research are likewise not the same thing and that "practicing" psychologists and "research" psychologists are two very different professions?
The primary claim levelled by the NIMH was that the DSM 5 failed to incorporate the mountain of psychological research that has been conducted in the last 20 years. This was done for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with a lack of scientific research or evidence on the various conditions elucidated in the DSM (reasons like: "preserving continuity", "insurance concerns" and "ease of use"). The modern DSM is absolutely a problem, but it's not a problem because the science is crap. It's a problem, because the people in charge of the DSM (and yes there were a few psychologists there) didn't prioritize sound science.