http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?

pid=s1668-
NINTH ARTICLE 70272007000200004&script=sci_arttext

BASIC RESEARCH WITH ANIMALS STRENGTHENS

THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF PSYCHOLOGY

Formal study with animals as a way to understand human behavior would have
begun with Meyer, who believed that understanding basic animal processes could
contribute to clinical practice. He thought that studying animals (called a
comparative approach) would help us understand the development of human
mental processes, including the development of maladaptive behaviors and habits.
We currently see the presence of animal experimentation in psychological practice if
we also consider Wolpe's work. Wolpe was a South African clinician who was
dissatisfied with the ineffectiveness of available psychotherapies for treating patients
with phobias. He was intrigued by this and by the possible connections between the
animals' fears and those he saw in his patients. Wolpe undertook his own research
using cats, first inducing fears and then looking for ways to reduce and eliminate
them. Wolpe generalized it to his patients and developed what is today called
systematic desensitization for the treatment of phobias. Systematic desensitization is
one of the most effective treatments and commonly used in clinical psychology.
Given these results, one might think that clinicians continue to look for more useful
ideas in basic animal research. And, while some do, it seems that many others,
unfortunately, do not recognize this debt to basic animal research.
A few years ago, a fellow surveyed thousands of psychologists and when he asked
them if they used findings from animal research in their practice, about 90% said No.
But when asked separately if they had used systematic desensitization in their
practice, a A large percentage answered Yes. It can be immediately seen that the first
answer does not fit the second, since both are inconsistent with each other. This
means that many therapists commonly do not know the scientific origin of the
methods they use.
As a result of this lack of knowledge, these therapists do not believe animal research
is beneficial for their patients. That only makes it harder for us to find answers to the
puzzles that clinicians face and harder to recognize and accept the answers, once
found.
 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Josep-
TENTH ARTICLE Artigas/publication/221942040_Do_we_know_what_a_disorder_

DO WE KNOW WHAT IS A DISORDER? PROSPECTS

OF THE DSM-5

Mental problems are generically called disorders. However, after more than half a
century since its incorporation into diagnostic manuals, and despite the habitual use
of the term 'disorder' having been consolidated, it emerges as an artificial construct
with no entity of its own in nature. The article highlights the inconsistencies of the
categorical and polythetic model implicit in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM).

Advantages and limitations of the current model

Both the DSM and the ICD are instruments whose usefulness cannot be questioned.
However, the manuals do not define biological phenotypes. The richness of the
phenomenological descriptions of classical psychopathology has been lost and the
heterogeneity of psychiatric symptoms has not been taken into account.
Furthermore, the same biological, neuropsychological and cognitive basis is
suggested for disorders whose nature may be different. But, despite their limitations,
classification systems are facilitating scientific advances, impossible to imagine
without having groups of similar patients who, even if only phenomenologically,
share supposedly nuclear characteristics.

Inconsistencies in the concept of disorder

The reality that the DSM reveals is that individuals are divided into patients with
ADHD and people without ADHD, patients with dyslexia and subjects without
dyslexia, etc. Or, put more radically, sick and not sick. By contemplating the relatives
of any individual with any of these disorders, or simply observing the individual
from his or her past, one can see the ease with which one suffers or does not suffer,
or whether one enters or leaves the disorder, when it has been resolved. defined as
category. Implicitly, we fall into the error of assimilating disorder and illness.

Comorbidity incongruence

The current DSM model generates excess comorbidity that calls into question the
validity of the model itself. The excessive number of diagnoses bothers not only the
clinician, but also the patient.