Q: What do Elephants, Rhinos, Hippos and Tapirs have in common with Dysfunction in Possessions ( DIP ) ?
A: Both were or are united by a bogus pseudo-scientific classification
Once upon a time, scientists were classifying these animals based on the common trait of them having a thick skin.
Thus, the order Pachydremata was created, to cover these rather unrelated animals, which was eventually abandoned as having no scienific validity.
Now, what about the current DSM-5 definition of "hoarding" ? Is there perhaps any similarity ?
"Hoarding" is pronounced, both in colloquial and clinical usages, for many different scenarios involving Dysfunction in Possessions, regardless of reasons for and patterns of acquiring / keeping, contents, intentionality, dynamics, principal and contributing factors - beyond generic, unqualified "perceived need" to acquire / keep, and "difficulty" discarding included in the definition, which can fit pretty much anything.
There can be zero common elements between two different cases, beyond the mechanical condition of Dysfunction in Possessions.
"Hoarding" is effectively an umbrella term covering many different kinds of scenarios, based solely on the mechanical outcome of Dysfunction in Possessions.
Exactly like "Pachydremata" - the only commonality is thick skin.
So, how can it be a valid clinical syndrome ?
If one suddenly gets a windfall of money / time, and is able to move in a space twice as big, with perfectly functioning facitlites, and organize one's possessions neatly, without discarding a single one - syndrome is suddenly "cured" ? By money / real estate ? Or created by a shortage in such ?
Somebody explain this to me.
In my non-clinical opinion, there is no syndrome - the definition and its usages are all bogus - and we should instead deal with specific, concrete factors using precise and well-targeted definitions.
It's like unifying different unrelated fatal illnesses and accidents, and calling it a "Compulsive Refusal To Live Syndrome". What, same outcome = valid syndrome, according to the same logic ? About the same amount of choice in the matter, too - nobody chose Dysfunction in Possessions or whatever involuntary factors that led to it.
What does this "Hoarding" syndrome have, beyond the outcome, once we dismiss bogus catch-all clauses ?