Aside from similarities and differences in content, perhaps the major difference between our empirically derived classification system and that found in DSM-IV, which we believe may suggest a revision for DSM-V, is a shift from a symptom-counting to a prototype-matching approach. Several features of a prototype-matching approach are advantageous. For example, in our article we noted the psychometric problems with diagnosing a disorder with eight items and counting them, such as the inherent comorbidity that would be built into such a system. A conceptual and practical advantage of having clinicians consider the gestalt and make a rating of the extent to which a patient matches the prototype of a disorder is that it is easier, is faster, probably is much more reliable (something we are now exploring empirically), and permits diagnoses that are both dimensional (degree of match to the prototype) and categorical (based on a cutoff above which a rating can be considered above the threshold for categorical diagnosis of the disorder, e.g., a rating of 5 on a scale of 1 to 7). A prototype-matching approach also does not require that clinicians try to dichotomize symptoms (present/absent) that are, by their nature, actually continuous (e.g., grandiosity, emotional lability, lack of empathy, lack of insight, fear of betrayal by others, and preoccupation with being criticized by others).