University of Iowa.
Personal Disord. 2013 Oct;4(4):390-1. doi: 10.1037/per0000042.
Comments on the original article by Widiger (see record 2013-45025-016). Widiger provides a thoughtful overview of some reasons the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5) personality disorder (PD) proposal came to its current position in Section III of the manual, as well as insightful advice about how to move forward. Markon comments that psychiatry seems to suffer an inordinate fear of what would transpire if authoritative nosologies were unavailable as guides to scientific discourse. Widiger's admonishments to be thorough, rigorous, and fair in developing arguments for a given model are good advice for anyone in science, not only those involved in constructing an authoritative nosology. However, Markon remarks, as we move forward, it is also important to ask why do we have such nosologies, and are they really needed to fulfill those purposes?
对 Widiger 原文(参见记录 2013-45025-016)的评论。Widiger 在手册的第三部分对《精神障碍诊断与统计手册第五版》(DSM-5)人格障碍(PD)提案目前所处的位置提供了一些深思熟虑的概述,以及关于如何向前推进的有见地的建议。Markon 评论说,精神病学似乎过分担心如果没有权威的分类学作为科学话语的指南,会发生什么情况。Widiger 告诫说,在为给定模型提出论点时要彻底、严谨和公平,这对科学界的任何人来说都是很好的建议,不仅对参与构建权威分类学的人如此。然而,正如 Markon 所指出的,在我们向前推进的过程中,也很重要的是要问为什么我们要有这样的分类学,它们真的需要满足这些目的吗?