They are useful if they are understood properly. For example different "similar" groups respond to different treatments differently. Social phobia responds very well to exposure therapy, anti-social personality disorder does not. If you are able to follow the distinctions you are able to leverage more effective treatments. I don't think they have any use outside of psychological treatment though.
This is a great video on a good way of breaking down how personality disorders in general are broken down and function and are separated.
https://youtu.be/4mgifm3ftl8
A diagnosis is literally just a heuristic category so they can do research on rough groupings of symptoms to evaluate how treatments impact them. That's it. To get a diagnosis is literally just a statement "my psychologist thinks my symptoms align with this group and that the treatments they found effective for those symptoms will be effective for mine."
The idea these things are identities or real categories is completely absurd and disconnected from why they actually exist. There is 0 basis to assume because two people have the same diagnosis they have the same underlying causes for what leads them to end up with that rough grouping of symptoms.
There may be some general similarities or correlations but again the whole point of these is literally just to establish heuristic groups so we can do research on how people respond to treatments. People allowing them or speaking in a way that makes them seem like more than that is extremely destructive.
a crumbling society is basically ideal for maximizing human stress and its various expressions ... or so dictated the deprecated term neurasthenia ... while many individuals are forced to deal with debilitating mental conditions , this situation is often incorrectly conflated with having experienced temporary behavioural breakdowns that later resolved (aka normal evolutionary response) ... this conflation wouldnt be such an issue if big pharma wasn't in the picture , overpathologization is definitely in somebodys best interests !
And it was literally just so they could skinnerbox people and sell skins. I still remember when if you wanted a skin you just downloaded it and could put it on your server and anyone who joined would download and use it.
People running their own stuff makes DLC/lootcrate/cosmetics unviable and I do think a huge part of the "server" finding stuff is to algorithmically put you in situations you are likely to win/lose at certain rates to keep you playing. Anything other than community servers as the primary avenue is a dark pattern.
You also lose out the path to getting into modding/3d modeling/programming/running servers that those modded servers were for lots of people including me.
If you have fun instagib servers that might detract from how many lootcrates people buy since they might just get curb stomped in it + it's just harder to track and measure the impact of changes when you are minmaxxing for monetary extraction when you have high variety of mods/servers. If you want to track and evaluate player behavior to manipulate it you need to control for as many variables as possible. These game companies are straight up evil.
On the other hand, during the anarchy years of bring-your-own-skins (and sprays), there was a lot of horrible shit out there — goatse was only the tip of the iceberg.
You ran your own server within your group of (probably Internet-) friends and policed and banned players doing that kind of crap. A lot of the potential offense was limited by the low resolution of sprays anyway.
