would you say they're far from being sciences because brains are so variable that you can't really put a solid measure on them?
and i'd assume OPs aren't responding to you because it gives them cognitive dissonance to accept that it's a possibility they might be the problem
many issues.
replicability of studies and lack of predictive capacity are massive: almost all studies when replicated do not give the exact same outcome, and studies cannot predict the evolution of a phenomenon, or predict the real proportion of a phenomenon;
Mental disorders are merely a list of symptoms, many overlapping considerably;
Overreliance on the discretion of the psychiatrist;
Lack of a definition of "clinical significance" despite it being the most important diagnostic criterion, or defining it as "irrelevant as people seeking help automatically make the situation clinically relevant" in a dogmatic, circular method;
Ignoring external causes despite acknowledging them because the psychiatric business model relies on pathologizing the individual's reaction to the system surrounding him, and selling him their (((cure)));
Going completely against established biological facts;
Being extremely politicized;
Mechanism for including or excluding purported psycho-pathologies is voting, which is 0% scientific.
I'm focused specifically on psychiatry and psychology because I go specifically against these two. I hope you get the gist of it. It's a cult, and their bible (DSM) is completely unscientific. Which is why I consider the "scientific blackpill" mostly worthless because the studies are inherently unscientific. I understand this to be a minority minority opinion tho, unfortunately.
