I don't pretend to psychological babble talk.  When I took psychology at Duck U, there were the "Rat psychologists" and the "People psychologists".

One group was loosey goosey and had all sorts of theories (at that time Homosexuality was a mental disease of defect--took two separate votes a few years apart by the APA to change that 'diagnosis').  (Votes are how diagnosis standards are set.) 

The other group had replicable results to support their theories.  

Rat shrinks - One; People shrinks - Zero.
  
"Critics assert, for example, that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support; inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders; several sections contain poorly written, confusing, or contradictory information; and the psychiatric drug industry unduly influenced the manual's content."

"Of the DSM-5 task force members, 69% report having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, an increase from the 57% of DSM-IV task force members."