There's a widespread and far-reaching controversy in psychology and psychiatry: to diagnose or not to diagnose. Proponents of diagnosing cite the validity and reliability of personality patterns that contribute to chronic distress. And opponents note the stigma attached to the labels. But, there's a deeper question here: Beyond diagnosing, how honest should we be with people?

Fearing criticism of any sort, some seek out therapists who don't diagnose because the aversion to it signals the potential for loyalty and sympathy; some are looking for yes-men who will, by definition, find all the fault in anyone but the patient. It isn't just diagnosing that some are opposed to; it's any type of full-scale character assessment. In this case, the therapist, for his own reasons, colludes with the patient while both parties consider the therapist to be of superior moral standing. The result: The patient's relationships continue to suffer as he abandons one after the other, wondering why everyone is so terrible to him.

Yet, the therapist who vehemently diagnoses often carries biases similar to the public at large while tucked under the didactic blanket of intellectualism. Patients tend to complain about this therapist's moralizing tone and tendency to explain........

© Psychology Today