I don't know, the article topic was, "Readers discuss criticisms of how conditions are diagnosed."

I kind of agree with the person commenting on Dr. Pies, how learning who one is, the diagnosis disappears; I think this is because diagnosis is based on symptoms and you don't need the symptoms anymore when you can solve your life difficulties as they occur, which I think is what good therapy does.

As to how "conditions" are diagnosed, I think for many conditions, such as "anxiety" (which I was diagnoses with) and "depression", etc. there's no magic in the diagnosis because it's not very controversial; very few people argue with or are surprised when diagnosed "depressed" for example or told they have an anxiety disorder. It's when you get to the gray area dificulties like some forms of bipolar and personality disorders and developmental/growth disorders (ADD/ADHD come to mind) where there's a bit of leeway and uncertainty that matters and you start doing multiple diagnoses such that all you end up with is an organized muddle (presumably diagnoses help with how to start/approach treatment with the "worst" of a multiple diagnosed person's difficulties first and then on down the line).

But as diagnoses can only be about symptoms/observations from outside, not giving a name to them, just working on what one sees/agrees is the worst and trying to ameliorate that, could be effective, I don't know; I didn't work on my symptoms though, just myself (in 30 years worth of work) and my symptoms did the "disappear" act, making a diagnosis not important anymore.