Re:David Rosenhan’s fraudulent Thud experiment set back psyc...
by hyperpape on Sunday January 26, 2020 @08:58PM
(#22156296)
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.
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.