Absolutely! Allow me to blab once more, then I'll shut up on this...promise. Maybe if we consider the basic medical model we could make some progress on some of these pieces. In the process of diagnosis, it is normal to continue to rule out until you have a pathological condition identified to treat. Surely skill and knowledge go a long way in making a correct diagnosis, but they follow a procedure based on science...hopefully. This requires specific analysis and educated minds.
Finally, behold the specialization of psychiatry. The psychiatrist knows that we classify the norm based our own convenience, and that the bizarre cases help establish the norm, just as do the many "normal" people. Their written textual base, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders allows for this. There normally appears a list of diagnostic criteria for each disorder, and if the diagnostician can identify so many out of the list, a label for the condition is agreed upon. Again, they tend to rule in by first ruling out. Treatment follows. Close misses, the unidentifiable, and the perplexities, are labeled NOS, not otherwise specified. They live with this. Sometimes we may be better off living with the fact that some of these more generic guns, especially the later ones, could be one of many things. If we cannot offer specificity, then they remain unspecific, pure and simple.
In a recent note accompanying the little unsigned John Moll now in the Archives, I listed a series of specific characteristics of the Lehigh school, all of which can be seen in that piece, in spite of lousy photos. That's the type of thing that would be helpful to me on these other areas. The more I know in detail, the more I learn to appreciate the different areas' contributions.
Happy new year to all and may you be one to find an attic condition relic in 2010. JWH
