to the extent that you trust the DSM-IV diagnosis as a benchmark.
What the DSM says, how psychiatrists diagnose in the wild, and how psychiatrists diagnose in studies are three wildly different things. Practically unrelated.
It seems to privilege the hypothesis to use the factoid of non-standardized DSM use to dismiss a relevant point based on best available evidence. Does Douglas_Knight have reason to believe such possible caveats with DSM use renders the point moot, because I consider it non-obvious that such a factoid completely abolishes Roko’s argument?
It seems flawed to counter a specific finding with a fairly large effect with a general critique of the technique without evidence that this particular example is likely to be biased by it.
IOW, what would Dougles_Knight’s response be if his factoid is either wrong, non-applicable or irrelevant?
What the DSM says, how psychiatrists diagnose in the wild, and how psychiatrists diagnose in studies are three wildly different things. Practically unrelated.
Leave a line of retreat.
Hullo?
Edit: I don’t see the relevance of “Leave a line of retreat” to Douglas_Knight’s comment—I would like an explanation.
Sorry, inferential distance.
It seems to privilege the hypothesis to use the factoid of non-standardized DSM use to dismiss a relevant point based on best available evidence. Does Douglas_Knight have reason to believe such possible caveats with DSM use renders the point moot, because I consider it non-obvious that such a factoid completely abolishes Roko’s argument?
It seems flawed to counter a specific finding with a fairly large effect with a general critique of the technique without evidence that this particular example is likely to be biased by it.
IOW, what would Dougles_Knight’s response be if his factoid is either wrong, non-applicable or irrelevant?
It’s a conversation-stopper when used like here.