Is the DSM a scientific tool or a social construct? I argue it’s 95% invalid and propose a way forward.

In this second livestream, Nasir Gami breaks down why the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is largely a social‑construction rather than a scientifically validated system. He explains that only about a dozen of the 400+ diagnoses have solid evidence from genetics, illness course, treatment response, or biological markers, leaving roughly 95% without real validity.

Gami argues that reliability—agreement on definitions—has been mistaken for truth, and that the DSM’s reliance on expert consensus and pragmatic politics has stalled genuine progress. He proposes dropping the DSM in favor of Clinical Research Diagnostic Criteria (CRDC) built on rigorous research, or simply using ICD codes and textbook knowledge like every other medical specialty does.

If you’re curious about a more scientific, evidence‑based approach to psychiatric diagnosis, tune in, share your thoughts in the chat, and follow the show for future episodes.