While examining mental issues, the initial step is to characterize what we mean by abnormal. How would we confirm that something isn't right mentally with an individual? What comprises as irregular? It's not as simple an as individuals would think. Some may state, "Well, that individual is odd." Being "odd" could imply that their conduct or believing is uncommon; out of the measurable standard. Be that as it may, shouldn't something be said about individuals who have high knowledge or are masterfully skilled? Those attributes aren't measurably regular yet we wouldn't call savvy or masterful individuals irregular. Thus, I believe a clinical psychologist should define what is abnormal. Through their training and professional activities clinical psychologist become very familiar with the different kinds of abnormal behaviors. I think that the reason for pharmaceutical companies and the government trying to influence the definition of abnormality is not to seek profit but to increase the public’s awareness of a disease or abnormality. This can be both good and bad depending on their true intentions “corporate profit”.

Furthermore, Clients do profit by a proper analysis since they are getting a conventional determination on the abnormality and the treatment. Having the option to standardize the clients in various groups with a label could be valuable to both the client and the therapist. Recognizing the client from the rest of the world may not generally have a positive result. For instance, it is harming to the clients if this got out and could endanger their professions. Appointing a DSM conclusion is gainful such that a client doesn't have to guess what is wrong with them. For instance, there are numerous others experiencing precisely the same thing. DSM could give simplicity to the mind of a client, as they would have an idea of what is wrong with them. This will keep a ton of the mystery out. For instance, as a customer being analyzed diminishes the pressure of what could not be right. This would give the impact of peace at mind. As a clinical therapist I would discover both conventional findings and DSM useful. Formal judgments would assist me with characterizing the customer as an individual not all in all, since each individual is extraordinary. It would assist me with characterizing the right issue. DSM sorts the customer to fit into one issue. DSM would profit me by showing the enthusiastic, conduct, and mental dysfunctions.