The scary thing is, is that although calling it ‘poverty’ does sound satirically ludicrous, I can imagine it being swallowable as ‘poverty-induced conduct and/or affective disorders’. ‘The malnutrition has caused the brain to degenerate, so indicates pharmacological intervention to normalise starved neurochemical processes’. Also, ‘the starvation is damaging the brain more than the drug might, and we are really hoping that the normalising effects of the pharmacotherapy will enable you to enrich yourself, because the vicious cycle created by poverty-induced brain abnormality needs to be broken. … Maybe, after your brain’s been renormalised, you can be re-equipped again to break free from the poverty which caused your brain abnormality in the first place. We’re doing this because we’re on your side (smile sweetly here).’ As for biological blah-blah. I’ve always hated that word because is not society just a (biotic) process of some human and other (?) lifeforms? Isn’t a “social” approach biological, too (in the same way human geography would be the (human) biological aspects of geography)? I suppose my take on this is that it is aetiology and philosophy of medicine at play here. Bad social experiences denormalise the body. A bad experience can injure the body including affecting the mind. A normal body would have bones broken by a hard fall. No one would suggest that bones re-fusing is an abnormal symptom of ‘osteolysis’ (a word I constructed here from combining forms to mean ‘broken bones’—not sure if attested before, or a neologism) or ‘osteolytic disorder’. In the same way, minds heal. These healing processes might be unusual (because of the great diversity of minds from which our communities thrive from); but not necessarily abnormal ([not] not how they *ought* to be). Unusual mental healing processes are often dubbed abnormal sheerly due to their unusualness. If, however, the process genuinely is not helping, it might need improving, à la repositioning bones. However, psychiatry as practised will often be just as maladaptive as those processes it seeks to improve (even the genuinely unhelpful ones). Unlike bones, however, minds cannot be crudely readjusted or repositioned by mere hand or instrument manipulation. ’Software’ glitches cannot be fixed by spanner, screwdriver, and hammer; if it is coding which suffices. So, firstly, is a somatic (and I would say, including mental) effect of a bad environment: • unhelpful (e.g., bones which need surgery); or • part of the normal healing process (e.g., bones fusing back together again)? The second question is what an even abnormal process is caused by. Is persistent sadness a healthy response caused by persistently dire situation which would spur a person to redress the direness of his/her situation? Do you treat the sadness with drugs or something else, or its root cause? Is the dire situation external or internal (like neurochemical). If the latter, probably in the first place caused/unbalanced *by* drugs (perhaps a psychiatrist’s), thus with external distal causes, I would say. Finally, I believe psychiatry exists—I just believe it is seldom practised, and those that do are perhaps not accredited as such (e.g., a good validating friend), or by psychiatrists who dissent from status quo ethos. What gets called psychiatry and medicine (of the mind) is usually mired in pseudoscience and false assumptions. However, the principle that mental health exists, I subscribe to. However, vested interests have often corrupted the ways we determine mental health to get us to view healthy mental conditions as ill, usually by exploiting the condition’s unusualness—which it will invariably be, if not sheerly due to the great and wonderful diversity in thinking humanity has. Furthermore, unhelpful (but profitable) adaptations have also been encouraged through profit interests’ advertisement to become usual. We do not view smoking as abnormal, even though it is often unhelpful; because it is usual. Drug dependency is excluded from England’s Mental Health Act. Drug dependency is not thought of in folk parliance as a mental illness, even though it is a mental biochemical process, and often unhelpful. Why not?—it is usual. Astronomy isn’t called ‘astrology’ because of the folk ideas about the signs of the Zodiac. Otherwise, the word ‘astrology’ fits the meaning ‘astronomy’ fills. The DSM’s ‘astrology-esque’ psychology does not mean humanity cannot practise, study, and further real psychology, even if we have to rename it ‘psychonomy’ or such like in the similar way scientific astrologists used the word ‘astronomy’ to distinguish. We just have to be vigilant against astrology-esque psychologists trying to infiltrate (perhaps [though, definitely not always] unwittingly, with best intention) astronomy-style psychologic endeavour with their ideas. Unlike many astrologers, psychiatrists force dissenters to comply with their ethos. Astrologers that aren’t emotionally backmailingly agressive just have a different ethos to astronomers’. I hope my psychology here is astronomy-esque, and even and especially if it is not, that I do not force my psychology ethos on anyone (either pro- or anti-DSM). The only thing I object to morally in pro-DSMism (and perhaps, to an extent with anti-DSMism, despite the latter being my stance too), is their staunch steadfast complacent willingness and eagerness even, to impose DSMism onto dissenters. I am okay with people who hold opinions, I disagree with, but don’t force your opinions on me (and perhaps get rich doing so). Practise it with voluntary non-disinformedly influenced participants. What do we replace astrology-esque psychiatry with? In general, whatever the patient or non-medical-model client and expert practitioner agree to work with. If we force the world to use our own particular unique diverse mental healing technique of which we individually prefer, we are risking being just like the DSMists who typically value coercion. Perhaps there is no just one answer, and even if there is, it doesn’t matter if some do not believe it and practise a wrongheaded answer—coercing their ably considered decision makes us like such DSMists. Nothing stops me and anyone from earnestly trying to persuade other people from other opinions, and discussing with my or anyone’s important unique perspective; if we do not resort to the mark of unsophistication: coercion of the ably considering. The latter is how many DSMistic practitioners operate—my biggest objection, more than my epistemic criticisms of DSMism.