I think we broadly agree.<p>What I&#x27;m pointing at is that the GAD criteria, as with the criteria for many diseases, is not, &quot;Hey patient, is this a problem for you?&quot; It&#x27;s a judgment by the clinician over whether the impairment is significant. That&#x27;s generally fine with wise clinical judgment and clear signals of illness. (E.g., there&#x27;s little dispute over whether a broken leg is a problem.) But I think there are issues when things are only a problem for other people, or only a problem because other people are different. There I think applying the disease model can be mixed, both helpful (when it allows addicts to get the support they need) and harmful (when different people are treated as broken).<p>See, for example, the literature on medicalization of deviance: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar?q=deviance+and+medicalization" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar?q=deviance+and+medicaliza...</a><p>This is especially problematic in the US because medicalization is not just socially convenient, but frequently profitable.<p>I also agree that people casually using diagnostic language is a problem. Indeed, I think it&#x27;s closely related to the problem that concerns me, where people take traits that are helpful in some contexts and harmful in others and declare them to be diseases.