>> so, i want to thank, well, gideon for coming out tonight. blue rider press which has taken a huge risk by being so supportive of an author that it has made me question myself loving, which is, you know, it remains to be seen if it will survive. [inaudible] >> estimate to continue to be able to write. >> thank you for being here. gary just flew in from portland. >> and boy are my arms tired. >> after having been on tour for the last two weeks. so he has done a lot of these things. so, i guess we are going to talk for 20 or 25 minutes. navy -- we will open up the

questions "vote -- so dairy's book is about the making of the fifth revision of the dsm which comes out on wednesday, right? and so i guess my first question is, your book came out two weeks ago and it has received pretty much uniformly positive reviews, and everyone has been piling on to the dsm. the question is, who might defend the dsm, why is no one defended, and what does it mean that you cannot find anyone who will defend it? >> support dsm. i've been feeling sorry for them for two years. so, they're are two answers to that question. why won't anyone defend the dsm? first of all, it is because

people who produce the dsm, frankly, don't have the chops to defend it. you need to have a fairly sophisticated grasp of post-modern philosophies to defend the book full of signifiers that don't have the signified. and the simi petitions seem to have gone -- >> out there for one minute. explain that to everyone. >> really? >> you have been writing about this for years. >> i've never said that. so -- >> what does it mean that it is full of signifiers? >> what that means is that the mental disorders that are listed, which are the mental disorders that drugs are aimed at, researchers are supposed to be tied to, the mental disorders that you have, people see a therapist, the mental disorders that you're a psychiatrist is supposedly treating when they give you drugs and someone, those mental disorders by everyone's understanding don't exist. there myths.

well, they call them constructs. but a construct is a mess -- myth. it is an idea that guides the way that we understand the world so one of the reasons that everybody is piling on right now is because opening it up to revision has opened up to the public the knowledge that psychiatrists have had for 30 years which is that the book is a book of constructs, not a book of real entities. and that, depending upon who you are, that news is either deeply embarrassing because you have state your entire profession on being able to say the you know what mental disorders are or it is an enormous opportunity. for someone like me is not a genetic to write a book. for somebody like the head of national institute of mental health who has never liked the dsm and would like to see it disappear, if it could, it was an opportunity to say, okay, we know this is true.

now these things don't exist and would like all of you researchers to come over to us. we're divorcing the dsm and leaving it for a and your -- younger, sexier lover. >> what are the attributes? >> well, the lover is called neuroscience, and it is this tremendous the tempting idea that we can decode human behavior and experience and consciousness and understand it in terms of narrow circuitry. and other reason that is a very tempting idea is because that would really on locked the keys to who we are. you would no longer have to worry that your understanding of human nature was controlled by politics or, you know, point of view or prejudice or desire or any of these things. it would just be as true as a colony of streptococcus bacteria under a microscope. that is the dream. it is quite a dream. i am not particularly fond of it. if, indeed, that was the case

then whenever there was suffering there would be a way to the code it, boil it down to those narrow circuits that cause it and presumably treated. that is the beauty part, at least if you're a drug company. >> so, all right. so then who -- all right. but at the same time the apa likes to say that -- well, actually medicine is not really medicine in the first place. >> and that is a totally fair point. this whole idea that a disease is a form of suffering that has a biochemical cause, this is a myth. this is another myth. this is a big myth, and this is a historical accident. it has to do with the discovery of the germ. the germ theory of medicine which came about 150 years ago and the idea that you could find the causes of suffering in, you know, sells or molecules of

whether the unit was. and when doctors were suddenly -- and it was sudden -- able to cure diseases that kill people routinely, you know, a strep throat killed children, syphilis affected maybe 40 percent of the people in europe at the turn of the 20th-century. when they were able to do that they were able to turn around -- they were able to enhance the power of madison. and this myth is that we can turn any kind of suffering and to that kind of illness. so when we see that -- when we say that such catchy cannot do that, dsm cannot find these targets, the fact is, they're is an awful lot of physical diseases that we cannot find the targets for either. as time goes on more and more of those illnesses become problematic. auto immune diseases is a really good example. we don't understand how happens.

madison functions on a bacteriological model, the germ theory. in fact, we have run out of diseases caused by germs. so when the american psychiatric association said that, they are not wrong. it is possible that psychiatry is actually on the leading edge, not lagging behind. they are actually dealing with the kinds of difficulties that have been much more complicated and will have to take into account many more things besides molecular activity inside the body like what goes on in society and how income is distributed and how people experience their lives. >> so one of their strategies than has been to say that what we used to use, roman numerals, now we're switching to eric, and this is so that we can be more like technology and have -- they have been saying that this is a living document. what does this mean? what does it mean for the credibility? >> nobody knows. i wish i could answer that question. lasted many times to many people

and i don't know. i mean, the idea is they will beta tested. with the problem with beta testing, anyone who has ever bought a brand new computer program, it is messy and unpredictable and actually turns the consumers, in this case people with mental disorders and to basically guinea pigs which has a whole different resonance when it comes to psychiatric and mental illness from one that has when it comes to a new application under telephone. >> was speaking of guinea pigs, one of my favorite parts of this book is that you, along the way, take part in the clinical trial to determine the new criteria. can you talk about what your experience was with your patience and going through the epa guidelines of how-to -- >> the epa conducted trials to roads test the ds -- dsm.

and they did that by, among other things, contacting clinicians and asking them to take patients to read new procedure by which their symptoms would be assessed. i signed up to be one of those conditions. on the same day that they told me from the press office that there would not talk to many more the people running of field trials told me i was accepted as a clinician. i may have something i can read about this. >> okay. good. let me see. >> so, let me read you a little bit about what it is like to have -- so, the idea was i would run someone i had never met before through these chemical trials, and what really struck me about it was the disconnect between this idea that someone was going to come into my office , a woman, her mental problems, suffering, and this

computer tests that i had to give her. i call her in the book cloudy a. she showed up on a rainy night 20 men slit for her first visit after three increasingly frenzied phone calls in which i assured her that her gps was correct about how to get from where she was to my building and one more issue $1 looking for my office which she did not fine until after another phone call i went out to major. she was easy enough to spot, a tiny woman frantically flitting from door-to-door like a lost stink about. when i found her she pressed her hands together under her chin and bowed slightly. my credibility as you grew evidently established simply by my knowing my way around the building. it was a gesture she repeated three or four times in the course of our visit, just after i made a comment. after she left that tried, but could not for the life america with these comments might have been irresponsible my memory got lost in the jumble of details

that poured out of her mouth at top speed, but more likely i have not said anything particularly insightful being too busy observing her distress and confusion, depression and anxiety and paranoia, fragmented stories of fraud love affairs of men and women in the way she flew from bed to bed like a hummingbird, searching for the next flower before she was even finished with the last. the most recent, man and she had after a flurry of texts and the males and aborted tests the company to a hotel room only to find his girlfriend already installed and for reasons she could not quite explain, but navy was a three martinis, went ahead with his suggested sexual encounter with a girlfriend. and her troubles at her graphic design job she was afraid she was about to lose our maybe she had lost already. she was too afraid to ask your boss with him she was having sex and was leaving the company. and if his replacement was gay.

she had somehow ended up with the boss's pet birds, three squawking cages full and need care and feeding beyond what she could get any longer and will she really wanted to know from me was what to do about the birds. being with her was like riding a raft through whitewater. i might be skeptical of the value of the dsm, but i was ready to try anything to channel this into an orderly stream of information, add diagnosis telegram the ability to communicate efficiently to least one clinician. so i was glad to offer her the opportunity to participate in the study and a free visit in return. and for reasons she never stated, but most likely at least in part because she did not know how to say no, she was glad to consent. [laughter] so we went through this thing. it took an hour and a half. i actually had to stop it because it was going on too long what happened is you fill this

thing out and push a button and it goes to the mother computer somewhere else. it comes back, you know, 63 on the scale, to on this and you're supposed to then follow up. everything needed to the following upon. the whole range of it. so i sort of quite. and then she asked me what her diagnosis was, which was a totally reasonable question. i had no idea. and even if i had irvine knew how to get this woman to parses for me, they're still lend 30 pages or so to get through, box after box to check about herself and her interpersonal function, her separation and security in depressive the camera negative aspect of the indus in addition, the types and facets and remains, hundreds of boxes, or so it seemed to know for recommend my final diagnosis. with the authority vested in me as a collaborating investigator the american psychiatric

association, determine which of the contracts that deserve neither damage to the denigration of worship that are not realistic can be measured that need to be taken seriously enough to warrant payment and may be around a medication, but not so seriously that anyone, which placeholder would join her height and blood pressure and child led ellises and surgeries' and all the other facts of which went to realize no matter what diagnose assess settled on i would not so much have tamed her rapids as funnel them into the diagnostic turbans, raw material for the apa profitable mills. [applause] >> so what was the result of a clinical trial? >> well, the result was that there were 5,000 of us collaborators. i watched a glorious -- on the train. whole new meaning to the were collaborators.

5,000 to begin with, but only 600 finished the trial. why? well, you just heard why. and it turned out when they finally unveiled the results at the meeting be a croupier annual meeting last year, the only thing they really wanted from us was to know whether or not we like doing it. it was a thumbs-up. it was like a facebook thing. this facebook have thumbs down? it doesn't even have it. that was the result. they also rent a clinical trials and academic medical centers which are much more serious and did have not just collaborators, but whatever the home dads are, you know, they were doing the diagnoses. they discovered that, in fact, the dsm five would not be a reliable document. they proved it. so the results were embarrassing i mean, at least if you were in

the american psychiatric association there were embarrassing. >> let me step back a minute and talk about reliability in general because the foundation of the modern dsm was with reliability. so how did this happen? >> here is what happened. in the 1960's and 70's site as a tree was once again -- said catcher you find that has said these crises of embarrassment. has been having an inferiority complex since 1880, and every time they have won it think the way to solve the problem is to make a better diagnostic. this is been going on for 140 years. these crises occur and they are the same. in the 1960's and 70's the crisis was caused when a few things happened, one of which was that of homosexuality was a disease up until three years of apa meetings were disrupted by gay activists and finally a bunch of psychiatrists came out as gay. so it force them to remove it

from the dsm. also, there were a couple of embarrassments with high-profile studies, one of which was called the rose in and study or say an insane places where a group of graduate students check themselves in the mental hospitals by going to the emergency room and saying, i'm hearing the word fed in my head and were admitted as schizophrenic. it took as many as 56 days to get them out, not that they were crazy after they get in there. finally there was a study is said that british doctors and american doctors were confronted with the same basis and were consistently come to a different diagnosis. british doctors would come to a diagnosis of manic depression and the american doctor schizophrenia. it was not something in the water supply that the training. turn that the psychiatrist could not agree on what mental illness a given person had and even when they could, they could not tell you whether or not it was really a mental illness. they decided that the way to

address this problem was to develop checklists of symptoms that constituted mental disorders. and that was to say, to make them reliable so that any two psychiatrists to look at the same list of symptoms and come to the same conclusion. that was what happened with a dsm three. it came on in 1980, and it was sort of reliable. the way they made sure it was reliable was that they cooked the books. they made it so it was really hard for 82 psychiatrists not to agree. preselected patients, used the structured interview that was bound to come to a certain conclusion and were able to do this -- by doing this they were able to make diagnoses more reliable and, in fact, they were. if you give somebody listed makes things more reliable. within never did and what they never said they did which is why we're having a problem we are

having, they never made them valid. they never said the major depressive disorder, symptoms of major depression, any five of them, you can be diagnosed. they never said how we knew the major depressive disorder was really a disorder, relieve disease. they have not to this day. and they have punted that question down the road. >> so occasionally you have managed to say something nice about psychiatry. >> and i won't do it again. >> summer you say that you think that as burgers was maybe the most successful disorder that psychiatrists minister and ventura. can you talk about what you meant by that? what has happened to ask burgers? >> us think about what it is. it is not this idea that suffering is caused by a biochemical imbalance. what a diseases is the suffering

that a society decides to devote resources to relieving. it is sort of the back door. okay. scientific, therefore there are no value judgments, therefore you deserve these resources. what happened with ask burgers come in 1994 the epa put it into the dsm fork. almost immediately some people call it an act -- epidemic. many people turned out to have qualified for the diagnosis and what happened then was that all of these people ended up with resources. they ended up with a community. they ended up with school resources. they ended up with maybe the most precious resource of all in our society, which is tolerance. suddenly there were not just these weird, or people anymore. they had an identity. well, it was, you know, no success goes on promised. it was so successful the became

another embarrassment. in this case the embarrassment was, look at all these people with aspergers disorder. york apologizing everyone it was normal. -- on sorry, everyone who is a little awkward. the real pressure was coming from the school system's which were paying for services. and other founders. the problem was, indeed, from the point of view of the apa it looked like the diagnosis was too easy to get. and so when it came time to revise the kef three day decided to kick it out. so as of wednesday all the people with -- aspergers will be cured because in the same way at all the gay people were cured in 1972. it is just deleted. no, the interesting thing about that story is that when the epa announced their intention to do this there were flooded with complaints from the people with

aspergers. they were surprised. the woman who ran the committee that decided this told me and she was surprised to hear that people have made it identity around aspergers disorder. there were surprised say here that they did not want to lose the identity. she was shocked. so the surprising part of that to me is that they did not understand that that is what psychiatric diagnosis does. they know that it makes stigma, it makes people feel bad about themselves, but they don't understand that they are constructing a identities, which is a sort of shocking blind spot >> so one of the things that this new dsm has done is tea medicalize the thing that maybe did have reason for existing or comforted things with that -- comforted people with its existence. obviously the other side is the

normal things, so what your favorite new disorders. >> my favorite new disorder has got to be -- well, the most serious one is this new one called destructive mood this regulation disorder which originally was going to be called the timber this regulation disorder but that word made people think that it would be applied to too many children who just had temper tantrums. rather than change the diagnosis, they change the name. everything else did the same. that disorder was invented in order to the solve a problem, and the problem was that too many kids were getting diagnosed with bipolar disorder and put that into a psychotic drugs. it's a terrible problem. and so what they did rather than to say, you cannot diagnose kids with bipolar disorder, which would have been simple, they created it do to agneses.

they created this new diagnosis that these children will not qualify for which to me is like the ladies lolling a spider to kill a fly. the only justification for it is that in the kids wanted the into a psychotic medication, but what people don't understand and what is really important to know is that most of the prescriptions for to psychiatric drugs in this country are written without a psychiatric diagnosis. three-quarters of the prescriptions for antidepressants are written without a diagnosis. more than half of the a the hd drugs britain without a diagnosis. there's nothing to stop the doctor and lots of reasons they do that. so many are written by family doctors. they don't have the wherewithal. they don't need to. another reason is because a lot of doctors don't want that psychiatric diagnosis to go into the patient's chart. and unless they are challenged, why are you prescribing separate say here, they're not going to provide a diagnosis.

so there is not really -- there is a disconnect when you talk brought in a position. there are two kinds going on. one is this one about identity, and that is what the dsm does. another one is this one about dragging the population, and that is only sort of and directly related to the dsm. the way it is related is psychiatry authority comes from the dsm, but the specific prescriptions don't. >> you write about how big farmer has been going back on the support of the apa. this is one of the reasons they have become so financially dependent on that dsm. >> yes. here is what has happened. the epa was embarrassed. they had to really take the money changers out of the temple in this case the pharmaceutical industry and the apa had ted create some distance because they were caught

. the child the bipolar thing was clearly a creation of the drug companies. for the most part there are conspiracies because you don't need them. you have capitalism. you out the conspiracy. maybe that's just a big conspiracy. in any event people sam aaron died. so they've made some distance there, but another part of the pharma psychiatric breakup is being fed by farmout. the pharmaceutical companies don't want anything to do with psychiatric drugs. there are new knows -- no new psychiatric drugs in the pipeline. they're walking away from it. and that is in part the faults of the dsm because the drug industry's forced to try to get their drugs approved for dsm disorders that don't exist. so when they go to get them approved, when they get to take them through the approval process that barely qualified not only because the drugs work

or don't work or also a drug that works for you won't work for me. it is also because they don't know what to measure it against. trying to measure against -- it's like looking for fathers of the magnet. there's a disconnect between the disorders in the drug companies, why should we continue to create drugs for diseases that don't exist, that you guys say don't exist? said they have gone out of the business. >> a different question now. one of the things that you talk about in an interview and writing since the book has come out is, you know, this is a book about the definition of disease and one of the things you have written about is that we as a society like to define sickness and in circular ways. the minute this somebody does something terrible we jump to call them sick. and you wrote some of -- i think this is in the context of faugh

you believe in evil and that you don't necessarily -- >> it makes me sound satanic. my deep belief in evil. >> can you talk about the difference between sickness and evil? >> one of the things that goes on, some academics and some they sit down and figure out what the idea of the good life is that is behind a dsm. there is one. i just don't a a have a basis. but what these diseases and disorders do is substitute for moral judgment. so you see that we -- this is not the fault of the aba. this sort of capitalize on it. they have this reflex. something bad happens u.s. in the person it is mentally ill. but technically it is not the case. i'm writing the book a lot about pedophilia. especially said.

is he just an opportunist that the question may have been fighting along. anytime someone does something that registers as bizarre beyond the pale that they are sick, and i myself believe the answer to that has got to be no, and i think our moral discourse has been deeply impoverished by this tendency to make diseases out of -- it is a pretty and fashionable world -- word, but evil. there is evil, i think. >> in a think maybe now we will turn to the audience. you guys would like to ask questions. ..

>> we are talking about how this is changing and the thing is that we have the ability to look at a country like turkey, right? well, it is not something that we want to make a big deal out of it until it goes one way or

the other. so it's pretty much been convenient for some. >> it is a good example. there is something out there called disease monitoring. and it serves the interests of a lot of people, including patients. >> if they can create this, they can make money off of it. my curiosities about this are about how do you deal with that? kids learn how to socialize and how can you say that you really can't? >> well, there are few things that are important about this. this is a really important question. one of the things that is true

is it over the last 30 years, the prevalence of mental disorder in the overall populations from the time of the beginning of this country has not really gone up except with one group, which is children. all of a sudden there is an awful lot of diagnosis of children. nobody really knows how to handle this. what is mental illness start and end? welcome the problem is what is the purpose of the diagnosis? so often, despite what i said about the disconnect, it is a reason for it a child -- it is not a reason for java be put on stimulants. i have a child. when he was nine or 10 years old, i heard from so many people that he should be on stimulants.

well, they never quite said adhd. they set about a course of stimulants so you can imagine if it gets to me how strong of a message that is. i finally said, okay, you're telling me that i'm destroying my child by not giving them stimulants. okay. so i go to the doctor, the family doctor, and he says okay here's a prescription for 10 milligrams of adderall. and i thought, okay. well, before i did this to him, i think i'm going to see what this is about myself. so i snorted it. [laughter] sumac i took it myself. at the time i we probably 50 or 60% more than he did. obviously not a big i at the time. he is now 6 feet tall. so i was absolutely shocked and

couldn't believe it. i'm an activist took it? it was appalling to me. so he didn't take it. so i'm telling you is because i think that they are giving about to casually. but the more important point is that once you start down that road, and this is why really hesitated, once you start down the road, there is no turning back. you have a kid with the developing brain and no idea what we've got of these drugs are. certainly with the antipsychotic drugs. to the extent this whole thing is being driven by the desire to manage drugs, i don't think it's such a good idea. this is part is what is going on with the backlash. it is also a backlash against recognition that there are too

many, especially children, we are giving them drugs and no one understands how they work in the long run. we have another question? >> in regards to the dream of neuroscience -- >> that sounds like a book that should be written. [laughter] >> in response to an essay, i read an essay that was very enlightening. >> what did he say? >> he defended the idea that mental illness as a physiological origin and is kind of off the cuff in a way. he says everyone who has had a drink knows that behavior has

its roots in a mental state. and it was kind of an interesting defense. i just want to ask you if that is the argument you have that? is there evidence that there is a physiological basis? >> that's not a terrible argument. taking drugs proves that brain chemistry is really important. so everyday i wake up and i thank god for my brain chemicals, because without them i assume the consciousness would be impossible. the thing that is missing and that hasn't been done convincingly and maybe never will, is explaining how green chemistry is both necessary and sufficient force unturned for experience. we know that it is sufficient. brain-damaged comest stroke, otr

brain activity that is adjusted -- before you go to a model of brain health and mental health, you either have to prove that, which i believe is impossible, or you have to say that i just do not know that. i will act like it's real. there is all of this huge moral philosophical scientific economic weight behind that assumption. i will assume that it's true, but manipulated truth that truths that i don't know that. so this or that i'm giving you, this drug will change change your brain chemistry. but i really don't know how and i really don't know why but i don't know along on what difference it makes. so the dream of neuroscience, i believe, it's a dream. it's a fantasy.

there is little he could come true. it could come true in the same way they came to that we think of ourselves as individual agents in the world, free and equal on stuff like that. historically we have changed our idea of who we are over the millennium. >> we could all make up this kind of stuff in that kind of world. this is where grateful for my mortality. [laughter] >> chalabi convinced? welcome i don't know that i could be convinced. when messed with, it really

changes things. >> okay. >> a hand in what must be attached to somebody. >> another question? >> yes. i tried to prove to the study of classification. let's say that it did not exist. there is some kind of medical therapy that includes drugs for people who are having trouble functioning.

because there are a lot of people, something they do not exist. >> what i got out of that question is in the absence of these labels, how would mental health, as we know it -- would be practice? does that sound fair? >> yes, like schizophrenia, people hearing voices, that is one thing that we are talking about people that are functioning in society and they have a range of behavioral problems that make it difficult for them.

>> the question is could we function without diagnosis. the answer is yes. in fact, the therapists function all the time without diagnosis. this is the real scandal, by the way. and i speak as a therapist. the only reason that most of us use it to get paid. and i didn't just -- it's not just me. i asked him directly, about how to use the dsa one practice. and he told me about the story of making a diagnosis. so the value is to have a common

language. but why does that kind of language have to be this lucky language of the dsm? it's like we can just communicate in english? i can't essay that you have a lot of fear, you have a lot of sadness, you're perfectly good words out there. so i do not think that the whole thing falls apart. the economics of it fall apart. i don't just mean the therapist, but i mean the way that research is funded, we would have to go to a completely different model. by the way, it's not going anywhere. it is becoming a necessary evil and then a book i referred to as a colonoscopy. one of the things you have to wonder what in order to go on. but what is really interesting about what is happening right

now with all of this piling on and talk about this is that there are no defenders. you have a situation. like when they finally figured out that planets don't really move in circles and if you look up in the sky and the stars not what it's supposed to be, well, that was just a story. but it's before copernicus comes along. so what do you do? welcome i just don't have the answer that question. one thing that could be done if you could make one arbitrary distinction between severe mental illness and all the rest of it. you could get the resources focused in this way. the pressure would be that is the medical stuff when it's obvious that there's an awful lot of homelessness and mistreatment and all sorts of other things that are not medical, strictly speaking, are

going to schizophrenia. at least they make that that distinction and focus the resources they had what that would mean is that their dislike me would have to detach ourselves from the medical model and make less money. but, you know, you can't -- you can't have it both ways. my mp3 less because i try not to use this method of getting people to pay me directly. but we just make less money and we have less prestige. but that might be okay. >> did you have something you wanted to say? >> cohead.

>> you're talking before about an unexpected consequence with patients. you think there is something analogous that happens? >> absolutely. one of the things that will happen is what a really popular diagnoses like major depressive disorder, it frames the way that you think about your patience. one of the things that happened in the last book that i wrote as i got diagnosed with major depressive disorder and i found that really powerful in terms of how i thought of myself or that it also started to train the way that i thought about people coming to see me. not always in a good way. it makes you -- it gives you too many preconceived ideas about a certain behavior or comment or whatever is about. now, do we have a second for us

read something else? >> just. >> this question has come up a few times. some of this is going to be precognitive. so what happens in therapy is that. then they forget about the rest of the book, getting paid $200 for a book, you should really use it more. [laughter] >> at the top of my list is major depressive disorder. and see why this is popular with clinicians and why claims examiners probably see it all the time. it sounds innocuous, which makes it go down easy with patients. and with employers and insurers can be put off by a more serious

sounding diagnosis and it offers all kinds of diagnostic flexibility. but it also has a special place in my heart because it was my own first diagnosis or at least the first one i knew about. i don't remember or imagine what i talked about. but i do remember that my father was paying for it is probably hoping that my self chosen circumstances were a symptom of something that could be cured. but it is being treated for as i discovered one day was an adjustment disorder. i guess the tag was right. i definitely wasn't adjusted. my therapist has passed judgment and i didn't think much of it at the time. but i do remember for the first

time i had been have been going to these weekly appointments in the doctor's office and having it be in a building that did not smell like alcohol and ordered its business seem related to the shops and pubs that i had suffered next door so that this court court stood out. but still the fact that a diagnosis was undeniable. i was cured eventually by a family to buy leaving me to find that he inherited from his mother. i live there and my cabin eventually bulldoze, it became necessary for me to talk about the many adjustments i have had to make. diagnosing people in order to secure income was one of the strangest. not only because it seemed insufficient, but the whole

procedure so banal and the conversation is actually occurring in my office. also because of the bad faith in the system. i didn't mind, looting against the system, sometimes taking up the book and reading the criteria and occasionally the fact that we were sharing this lie didn't make the business any less dishonest. i knew many with adjustment disorders and at which point the patient often goes on to something much worse, like major depressive disorder. i prefer not to mix things up a little but mostly i don't want to do business with insurance companies.

slander that giving people a break by steering clear of the whole unsavory business. it's ironic that system is dependent on this kind of dishonesty. but with any system guided by an invisible hand, the dsm, whatever its flaws, has proved to be a superb flavor. [applause] [applause] >> have time for one more question? >> i think so. >> okay. thank you so much. [applause] >> for more information, visit the author's website at gary greenberg.com. >> will 40 reading this summer? booktv wants to know.

>> there's a book that i was reading called yearning to be free and it is about the life and legacy of robert smalls. he was born in south carolina in 1839. he was born a slave. he died in 1915. the reason i have given to lectures on this is because i see what is happening today and

i see the cynicism is on the legislation is being somewhat reminiscent of what happened with robert smalls. in fact delivering the story to the longtime family members. they took from the confederacy the dominion forces. and he took that cash in with his freedom he became a delegate

the 1866 constitutional convention in south carolina that codified for the state the freedoms that have been granted with the emancipation proclamation and robert smalls, after he had been given his freedom, he became a member of congress and he was elected before i was elected in 1992. smalls was also a delegate to

the state constitution of 1895. and at that time all the rights and privileges, they were all taken away. and if you look there, if you look at what was taking place at guess there was a clear opportunity of the atmosphere that led to him in the reconstruction to the creation

and i often thought that he was serving us in the united states of america. if you look at what was going on up until 1895, not 20 or period, we saw the beginning of the end of citizenship for african-americans in this country. so at that time he died brokenhearted and financially not as well off as he once was. so i have spent a lot of time

with him talking about the history of this. if things can happen before, and it can happen again. and you see all of this speculation about what the supreme court is going to do. most experts think that that is about to become very significant. and programs, affirmative action, it simply means that you can take positive steps and you cannot be passive. you have to take positive steps

in order to overcome this within the nation. it's just not going to happen and if you bring this back, the is about to happen. i have spoke to legal scholars in this country and those like chief justice roberts who plan to be part of the movement. and i don't know if anything about it with the numbers. about twice of it runs elsewhere

in 70 or 72% in our society, thinking that the glass is full. the glass is maybe a little but more than half full. but there is still a lot of work to do. especially if you don't understand further. different people fail to recognize the history of our people. and i am trying to sound the alarm to make sure that people who have listened, just

reminding them with all of that with the stroke of a pen, it could be a tragedy as it once was. >> let us know what you are reading this summer. send us a tweet or send us an e-mail at booktv at c-span.org . >> here's a look at some books are being published this week. two parties in a funeral in the book by mark weaver matched this town. he provides an inside look at media and politics in washington dc. in the book wealth and power,

the authors present a history in wealth and power in china's march to the 21st century. and jfk's last 100 days. the transformation of a man and the emergence of a great president. and this journalist presents a series of interviews on what keeps america united in his book. the longest road. outlining 30 years of military aggression, taking on the country of iran. watch for the authors on booktv.org.