Without some special knowledge, that quote by Brooks is merely an assertion that nicely squares with his fondness of the conservative. Publication of an opinion by an editorial writer for the NYT shouldn't be considered sufficient evidence of expertise.
What is it about the dsm-5 that is really eating at Brooks? I wish I could really know. Does he have meaningful objections or is Brooks merely lamenting the sorts of things that yield up the anathema to change that typify classical conservatism? Does Brooks really object to the possibility of increasing clinical sensitivity that generally typifies medical progress and leads to identification of new illnesses and the earlier recognition (and earlier treatment) of known disease processes?
Consider that in 2013 PTSD is one of the best known mental illnesses. Fifty years ago it didn't exist within psychiatry. Should it have remained unrecognized, unnamed and non-taxing on society's resources? Should understanding of PTSD ever have been allowed to advance so that it became an entire field of with multiple distinguishable mental illnesses and a new area of research? Should veterans, disaster victims, and the children of abuse just suck it up and act more like stout hearted conservatives whose perseverance and long suffering made America great?
It's curious to me that Brooks praises the palliative and ameliorative capacity of his 'heroes of uncertainty' yet disdains changes in the dsm-5 (and psychiatric practice) that would, for example, facilitate persons with life disrupting prolonged grief from getting insurance coverage for treatment. Let's be honest, the dsm's aren't just about diagnosing, they are also about defining illness and providing direction for decision making of insurance companies whose policies make that palliative and ameliorative care accessible.
= new reply since forum marked as read
