Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
Possibly adding fuel to that fire: Unscrupulous quacks (and maybe otherwise legitimate doctors) hoping to make a quick buck off the hysteria.RandFan said:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
No, that is fine. I'm perfectly fine with skepticism. I fancy myself a skeptic so no problems. It is very healthy. Eos beat me to the punch. At the moment there is no blood test for autism. Yet it is real and thinking that an autistic is simply counter to social norms is rather silly.stamenflicker said:
I don't think this follows nor have you made a case that it does.
As to the rest of your post. You make some valid points but I would only agree with some of them and even then conditionally. Yes, you raise potential problems but then many treatments come with side effects or negative aspects. You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water (sorry for the metaphor I'll try hard not to mix them and keept them to a minimum). ADD and ADHD is arguably diagnosed too often and I would agree the desire to treat children with chemicals is a bit too knee jerk.
As to a comparison to genocide I don't buy it at all. I don't agree with your conclusions that we are creating all of these problems and I doubt that you can document this. Though I would be happy to consider the research.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Forgive me Flick but I'm confused. If we are talking about treatment of ADD/ADHD via medicine then we are talking the realm of psychiatry and not psychology.stamenflicker said:
I'm not sure your statistics prove what you think they prove. I would be a bit more careful to make such casual assumptions about rise in crime and therapy. Further I think you need to demonstrate this rise in crime and the associated demographics. You have a long way to go before you can so easily make that leap.
stamenflicker
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 869
RandFan,
There are exceptions. I mentioned schizophrenia as one, I'd chalk autism up as another, having met only one Terets you might get me to agree to that one. As two the hundreds of conditions in the DSM, nah.
I'm open to say maybe we haven't created them... but if they didn't come from us, where did they come from? Consider Fugue States 100 years ago, or hysteria 150 years ago... all "diagnosis" of human behavior that appeared for a while and disappeared. Once diagnosed the further diagnosis of these "conditions" skyrocketed amonst the population.
Now in 2005, no one gets diagnosed with Fugue-- no person that I'm aware of in probably 50 years. The same is true for hysteria. So again, if we aren't creating these conditions, we need to explain who or what is, and we need to explain how an illness of the brain can exist, but then not exist. Cancer doesn't appear and disappear, but certain mental "conditions" do.
Beyond that, we need to explain why this is a US phenonmenon, not a global one. If 90% of all the Ritalin in the world is consumed by Americans, well I think that's pretty telling. And it tells much more than the reality that we can afford it, when other affluent nations consume 1/4 the amount per capita.
15% of our nation's boys ages 8-14 have been prescribed Ritalin. Something else is going on here, and its not the magical birth of a new "disorder." It is adult projection, in Freudian terms.
There are many other ways to make the case, but those materials are out there for anyone interested.
Or maybe I'm saying there really is no baby in the bathwater.
Well I mentioned it only as a possiblity. What is a fact is that in spite of the efforts of this wayward science we call psychology / psychiatry, children are getting worse not better. Sure there are success stories, but I liken them to a person putting their finger in a dike to hold back water. At what point do you find a "scientist" willing to hike up stream and see where all this water is coming from? Especially when they can profit greatly from teaching people finger plugging techniques.
Depends on your State, but sure. Drug companies have pushed in the last two years to allow psychologists the ability to prescribe Ritalin and other drugs... wonder why.
Even so, its more damning because psychiatrists with their medical training should know better than to be assuming leisons on the brains of our youth. I've talked with many of these folks. Their opinion is that it must be a "real" disease because drugs work on it... well torture works too (so does beer or pot), but that doesn't make the product anything other than a manipulation of the real human condition.
Rather than try to understand what it is that makes a child anxious, or noisy, or depressed, society would rather drug the alpha-males and artists (and some others) right out of the pack... I just have a serious problem with that. I realize it is a radical position.
Flick
There are exceptions. I mentioned schizophrenia as one, I'd chalk autism up as another, having met only one Terets you might get me to agree to that one. As two the hundreds of conditions in the DSM, nah.
I'm open to say maybe we haven't created them... but if they didn't come from us, where did they come from? Consider Fugue States 100 years ago, or hysteria 150 years ago... all "diagnosis" of human behavior that appeared for a while and disappeared. Once diagnosed the further diagnosis of these "conditions" skyrocketed amonst the population.
Now in 2005, no one gets diagnosed with Fugue-- no person that I'm aware of in probably 50 years. The same is true for hysteria. So again, if we aren't creating these conditions, we need to explain who or what is, and we need to explain how an illness of the brain can exist, but then not exist. Cancer doesn't appear and disappear, but certain mental "conditions" do.
Beyond that, we need to explain why this is a US phenonmenon, not a global one. If 90% of all the Ritalin in the world is consumed by Americans, well I think that's pretty telling. And it tells much more than the reality that we can afford it, when other affluent nations consume 1/4 the amount per capita.
15% of our nation's boys ages 8-14 have been prescribed Ritalin. Something else is going on here, and its not the magical birth of a new "disorder." It is adult projection, in Freudian terms.
There are many other ways to make the case, but those materials are out there for anyone interested.
Or maybe I'm saying there really is no baby in the bathwater.
Well I mentioned it only as a possiblity. What is a fact is that in spite of the efforts of this wayward science we call psychology / psychiatry, children are getting worse not better. Sure there are success stories, but I liken them to a person putting their finger in a dike to hold back water. At what point do you find a "scientist" willing to hike up stream and see where all this water is coming from? Especially when they can profit greatly from teaching people finger plugging techniques.
Depends on your State, but sure. Drug companies have pushed in the last two years to allow psychologists the ability to prescribe Ritalin and other drugs... wonder why.
Even so, its more damning because psychiatrists with their medical training should know better than to be assuming leisons on the brains of our youth. I've talked with many of these folks. Their opinion is that it must be a "real" disease because drugs work on it... well torture works too (so does beer or pot), but that doesn't make the product anything other than a manipulation of the real human condition.
Rather than try to understand what it is that makes a child anxious, or noisy, or depressed, society would rather drug the alpha-males and artists (and some others) right out of the pack... I just have a serious problem with that. I realize it is a radical position.
Flick
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
And maybe there isn't but then why should we treat schizophrenics or autistics different? Maybe they are normal and we are the ones with problems.stamenflicker said:
I really don't understand your point. We observe a behavior and you say the behavior itself is not important. Yet you agree that "some" behaviors are worthy of drawing conclusions.
I have already agreed that there very well could be many instances that are misdiagnosed.
Your point that this isn't a global problem is not proven. Again, I agree that the degree of the problem is not represented but then I don't agree that there really are all of the ADD ADHD cases. That is not at all my point.
Again, this is not proven. You are making unsubstantiated claims. Please tell us your basis for this and not just the questions you posed earlier. By all means be skeptical of ADD ADHD but understand I am very skeptical of your claim.
And again, maybe we just need to understand Autistics and Schizophrenics.
I agree with you to a point but find it rather premature to just dismiss ADD ADHD. Hell, let's just dismiss Autism and Schizophrenia, why not?
My god.
All this and just after I did a post-grad unit on behavioural management, with assignments on (as far as I can see, despite Stamenflicker's statements) the very real cases of ADHD and Autism! As an educator (secondary - have taught for seven years and currently doing a Masters of Education in Special Needs education and a Masters of Education in Critical Thinking) and as a person who has a family member that was diagnosed as autistic... well, I'm going to have to ask for clarification on the following points:
1) How is psychology an 'art' not a 'science'?
2) Why do you consider the DSM as 'a book of magic, not science'?
3) Your statement:
"15% of our nation's boys ages 8-14 have been prescribed Ritalin. Something else is going on here, and its not the magical birth of a new "disorder." It is adult projection, in Freudian terms.
There are many other ways to make the case, but those materials are out there for anyone interested."
Where?
4) "Even so, its more damning because psychiatrists with their medical training should know better than to be assuming leisons on the brains of our youth. I've talked with many of these folks. Their opinion is that it must be a "real" disease because drugs work on it... well torture works too (so does beer or pot), but that doesn't make the product anything other than a manipulation of the real human condition."
Who and in what circumstances did you speak to these 'folks'?
Sorry - despite your statement: "I'm not going to detail my experience with this population because it is extensive, crossing psychological and educational lines"... I think you're going to have to...
5) 'Well I mentioned it only as a possiblity. What is a fact is that in spite of the efforts of this wayward science we call psychology / psychiatry, children are getting worse not better. Sure there are success stories, but I liken them to a person putting their finger in a dike to hold back water. At what point do you find a "scientist" willing to hike up stream and see where all this water is coming from? Especially when they can profit greatly from teaching people finger plugging techniques.'
I'm a little lost with that paragraph - have you failed to find professionals who analyse ADHD or autism correctly (and what constitutes as "correct", in your experience, exactly?) and how exactly are people profiting from mental health related drug promotion as opposed to being just helped?
6) "I wonder how it is that now, with our "improved" powers of scientific and pyschological observation, juvenile crime has increased 15 fold?
I wonder how it is that now, with our "improved" powers of scientific and pyschological observation, juvenile suicide has quadrupled?
We aren't making these problems you speak of go away with current pyschological theory... in fact, an argument can be made that we're making them worse. I have neither the time nor the energy at the moment to outline how that may be true, I can only point you to the above readings."
I wasn't sure if there were meant to be hyperlinks for the two opening sentences above; they were underlined... and thus when you say 'I can only point you to the above readings' I was wondering if you meant to link to 'readings' when you did this.... and what those 'readings' were?
Because you're citing stats when you do this, but you're not giving any foundation for them - unless there are links missing?
7) "I know many of these professionals. I've worked with them closely. I'm married to one too."
Could you clarify what you mean by 'professional'? Professional as in... medical doctors? A PhD? In what, exactly? I guess I'm repeating the 'what's your experience' question again!
8) "Consider: For every 1 crime committed against adults in this country, there are 3 times as many crimes committed against children. For every 1 crime against adults that goes unpunished, there are 10 times as many unpunished crimes against children.
The disorders of children, save perhaps schizophrenia in older teens and mental retardation, is almost always 99% of the time the result of adult projection."
Where do you get these figures from? Are you saying that schizophrenia in older teens and mental retardation are the only genuine disorders afflicting children?
9) This had me at a loss - why are you citing the following books as authorities on the subect of... is it ADHD? Or just mental health in general? Sorry, I got a little lost here.
Thomas Szasz "Insanity, its scope and consequences;" Ian Hacking's "Mad Travelers;" and CS Lewis "The Abolition of Man" as a few good reads to begin thinking outside the mainstream on the subject.
And why are they 'outside the mainstream' and 'a good read' on these subjects? Perhaps someone else out there can help with this too, because I'm only familiar with Lewis' works... is there a certain thematic similarity between them all? I will find out for myself immediately, of course - this intrigues me.
"Trust me on this one"? I think more information is needed.
In fact, it is demanded - as there's a lot here I'm seriously questioning, just like the others.
Edited to clarify a few errant quote marks.
All this and just after I did a post-grad unit on behavioural management, with assignments on (as far as I can see, despite Stamenflicker's statements) the very real cases of ADHD and Autism! As an educator (secondary - have taught for seven years and currently doing a Masters of Education in Special Needs education and a Masters of Education in Critical Thinking) and as a person who has a family member that was diagnosed as autistic... well, I'm going to have to ask for clarification on the following points:
1) How is psychology an 'art' not a 'science'?
2) Why do you consider the DSM as 'a book of magic, not science'?
3) Your statement:
"15% of our nation's boys ages 8-14 have been prescribed Ritalin. Something else is going on here, and its not the magical birth of a new "disorder." It is adult projection, in Freudian terms.
There are many other ways to make the case, but those materials are out there for anyone interested."
Where?
4) "Even so, its more damning because psychiatrists with their medical training should know better than to be assuming leisons on the brains of our youth. I've talked with many of these folks. Their opinion is that it must be a "real" disease because drugs work on it... well torture works too (so does beer or pot), but that doesn't make the product anything other than a manipulation of the real human condition."
Who and in what circumstances did you speak to these 'folks'?
Sorry - despite your statement: "I'm not going to detail my experience with this population because it is extensive, crossing psychological and educational lines"... I think you're going to have to...
5) 'Well I mentioned it only as a possiblity. What is a fact is that in spite of the efforts of this wayward science we call psychology / psychiatry, children are getting worse not better. Sure there are success stories, but I liken them to a person putting their finger in a dike to hold back water. At what point do you find a "scientist" willing to hike up stream and see where all this water is coming from? Especially when they can profit greatly from teaching people finger plugging techniques.'
I'm a little lost with that paragraph - have you failed to find professionals who analyse ADHD or autism correctly (and what constitutes as "correct", in your experience, exactly?) and how exactly are people profiting from mental health related drug promotion as opposed to being just helped?
6) "I wonder how it is that now, with our "improved" powers of scientific and pyschological observation, juvenile crime has increased 15 fold?
I wonder how it is that now, with our "improved" powers of scientific and pyschological observation, juvenile suicide has quadrupled?
We aren't making these problems you speak of go away with current pyschological theory... in fact, an argument can be made that we're making them worse. I have neither the time nor the energy at the moment to outline how that may be true, I can only point you to the above readings."
I wasn't sure if there were meant to be hyperlinks for the two opening sentences above; they were underlined... and thus when you say 'I can only point you to the above readings' I was wondering if you meant to link to 'readings' when you did this.... and what those 'readings' were?
Because you're citing stats when you do this, but you're not giving any foundation for them - unless there are links missing?
7) "I know many of these professionals. I've worked with them closely. I'm married to one too."
Could you clarify what you mean by 'professional'? Professional as in... medical doctors? A PhD? In what, exactly? I guess I'm repeating the 'what's your experience' question again!
8) "Consider: For every 1 crime committed against adults in this country, there are 3 times as many crimes committed against children. For every 1 crime against adults that goes unpunished, there are 10 times as many unpunished crimes against children.
The disorders of children, save perhaps schizophrenia in older teens and mental retardation, is almost always 99% of the time the result of adult projection."
Where do you get these figures from? Are you saying that schizophrenia in older teens and mental retardation are the only genuine disorders afflicting children?
9) This had me at a loss - why are you citing the following books as authorities on the subect of... is it ADHD? Or just mental health in general? Sorry, I got a little lost here.
Thomas Szasz "Insanity, its scope and consequences;" Ian Hacking's "Mad Travelers;" and CS Lewis "The Abolition of Man" as a few good reads to begin thinking outside the mainstream on the subject.
And why are they 'outside the mainstream' and 'a good read' on these subjects? Perhaps someone else out there can help with this too, because I'm only familiar with Lewis' works... is there a certain thematic similarity between them all? I will find out for myself immediately, of course - this intrigues me.
"Trust me on this one"? I think more information is needed.
In fact, it is demanded - as there's a lot here I'm seriously questioning, just like the others.Edited to clarify a few errant quote marks.
stamenflicker
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 869
Randfan,
Because these are nuerological conditions that explain more than just a personality or behavior trend. They often accompany a wide variety of other bodily functions which include motor skills, (such as tics), reflexs (such as pupils responding to light, etc.)... and they extend beyond personality and behavior alone covering "medical" conditions which if noted in an otherwise healthy person would give cause for alarm.
Well this is for Kilness too then, and this was just a "brief" ten minute search:
Ineffectiveness of prescription drugs:
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/06/09.php
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_26464.html
US Crime rates:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
England suicide rates timeline:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/64/FIG1
Australia suicide chart:
https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/171_3_020899/cantor/cantor.html#fig1-8
US suicide chart:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#046
You can see the spike in both suicide and violence capped off in the mid 90's, but even at the cap the rates are 300-400% higher than in 1960. I'm still looking for a cooresponding chart in the per capita increase of counseling professions, I'm certain its close. Not to say for certain that one has caused the other, but rather to demonstrate that the net effect is near zero.
Kilness,
I've not the time to address everything in your post, but I appreciate your questions. I again refer you to books that probably were not introduced to you in your studies. I believe they'll help a lot, and I'd begin with philosopher Ian Hacking's books: Mad Travellers (on Fugue states) and Rewriting the Soul (on multiple personality disorder), both of which were psychological "crazes" that waxed and weaned (sp.?). Then I'd move to Szasz, "Insanity its Scope and Consequences" or maybe a handful of other books I could recommend.
I'm shouldn't have to bother with my experiences, because they are irrelevant, just read the ADD consensus statement and see it for yourself:
http://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998AttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder110html.htm
I've not spoken much of autism, its not my area. As to a "correct" diagnosis, I don't believe in one. There is only the behavior to consider in issues involving behavior or personality, not a magical disorder which we name and thereby feel better by naming it.
Flick
Because these are nuerological conditions that explain more than just a personality or behavior trend. They often accompany a wide variety of other bodily functions which include motor skills, (such as tics), reflexs (such as pupils responding to light, etc.)... and they extend beyond personality and behavior alone covering "medical" conditions which if noted in an otherwise healthy person would give cause for alarm.
Well this is for Kilness too then, and this was just a "brief" ten minute search:
Ineffectiveness of prescription drugs:
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/06/09.php
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_26464.html
US Crime rates:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
England suicide rates timeline:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/176/1/64/FIG1
Australia suicide chart:
https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/171_3_020899/cantor/cantor.html#fig1-8
US suicide chart:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#046
You can see the spike in both suicide and violence capped off in the mid 90's, but even at the cap the rates are 300-400% higher than in 1960. I'm still looking for a cooresponding chart in the per capita increase of counseling professions, I'm certain its close. Not to say for certain that one has caused the other, but rather to demonstrate that the net effect is near zero.
Kilness,
I've not the time to address everything in your post, but I appreciate your questions. I again refer you to books that probably were not introduced to you in your studies. I believe they'll help a lot, and I'd begin with philosopher Ian Hacking's books: Mad Travellers (on Fugue states) and Rewriting the Soul (on multiple personality disorder), both of which were psychological "crazes" that waxed and weaned (sp.?). Then I'd move to Szasz, "Insanity its Scope and Consequences" or maybe a handful of other books I could recommend.
I'm shouldn't have to bother with my experiences, because they are irrelevant, just read the ADD consensus statement and see it for yourself:
http://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998AttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder110html.htm
I've not spoken much of autism, its not my area. As to a "correct" diagnosis, I don't believe in one. There is only the behavior to consider in issues involving behavior or personality, not a magical disorder which we name and thereby feel better by naming it.
Flick
The name is : Kiless.
"Well this is for Kilness too then, and this was just a "brief" ten minute search"
Feel free to do more and post it later, because I don't see an answer in what you have given to me... but I can wait!
New questions:
1) Where is the correlation? I don't see any between 'ineffectiveness of prescription drugs' and 'crime rates'. So far it's stats and more stats...
2) "I've not the time to address everything in your post, but I appreciate your questions. I again refer you to books that probably were not introduced to you in your studies. I believe they'll help a lot, and I'd begin with philosopher Ian Hacking's books: Mad Travellers (on Fugue states) and Rewriting the Soul (on multiple personality disorder), both of which were psychological "crazes" that waxed and weaned (sp.?). Then I'd move to Szasz, "Insanity its Scope and Consequences" or maybe a handful of other books I could recommend.'
Well, when you do have time, feel free to do more because I'd like to know:
- What made these 'psychological "crazes"' wane, as you put it?
- What was the challenge against them and why do you consider such challenges (if that is the correct term) wrong?
And as you said - other books you'd recommend? Feel free to take time to cite, I'm a busy person too and I understand!
And yeah, there were a lot of questions... but they should be addressed.
Qualifications, again, are a necessity in this matter. I do suggest you address this, because you're just claiming authority and not backing it up!
I'd like to refer to your link to the NIH report now:
1) It's a 1998 report... got anything more recent?
2) QUOTE 'Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist, there is evidence supporting the validity of the disorder.'
Sure, they then go on with 'further research is needed' and I'd agree with that... but this isn't supporting your case so far... they're saying it's VALID!!
3) QUOTE: 'Because of the lack of consistent improvement beyond the core symptoms and the paucity of long-term studies (beyond 14 months), there is a need for longer term studies with drugs and behavioral modalities and their combination. Although trials are under way, conclusive recommendations concerning treatment for the long term cannot be made presently.'
(my emphasis)
Again, not supporting your case...!
4)QUOTE: "These problems point to the need for improved assessment, treatment, and followup of patients with ADHD. A more consistent set of diagnostic procedures and practice guidelines is of utmost importance. Furthermore, the lack of insurance coverage preventing the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of ADHD and the lack of integration with educational services are substantial barriers and represent considerable long-term costs for society."
(I'd agree with that - it's tough on everyone. And improvement should always be a goal.)
"Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains largely speculative. Consequently, we have no documented strategies for the prevention of ADHD."
Okay... but how does this support your case? What about the treatment? I shall read further, certainly...
*******
I'm out of time at the moment, but I'll continue reading it... at the moment, stamenflicker - this isn't doing anything for you.
I'd suggest you start finding sections from it that do support what you're saying, because so far it's a link with no benefit to your argument whatsoever!
I've got my study notes at home - I'll refer to them when I get there as the basis for my statements on the matter, where I'll cite at length because I'll have more time.
"Well this is for Kilness too then, and this was just a "brief" ten minute search"
Feel free to do more and post it later, because I don't see an answer in what you have given to me... but I can wait!
New questions:
1) Where is the correlation? I don't see any between 'ineffectiveness of prescription drugs' and 'crime rates'. So far it's stats and more stats...
2) "I've not the time to address everything in your post, but I appreciate your questions. I again refer you to books that probably were not introduced to you in your studies. I believe they'll help a lot, and I'd begin with philosopher Ian Hacking's books: Mad Travellers (on Fugue states) and Rewriting the Soul (on multiple personality disorder), both of which were psychological "crazes" that waxed and weaned (sp.?). Then I'd move to Szasz, "Insanity its Scope and Consequences" or maybe a handful of other books I could recommend.'
Well, when you do have time, feel free to do more because I'd like to know:
- What made these 'psychological "crazes"' wane, as you put it?
- What was the challenge against them and why do you consider such challenges (if that is the correct term) wrong?
And as you said - other books you'd recommend? Feel free to take time to cite, I'm a busy person too and I understand!
And yeah, there were a lot of questions... but they should be addressed.
Qualifications, again, are a necessity in this matter. I do suggest you address this, because you're just claiming authority and not backing it up!
I'd like to refer to your link to the NIH report now:
1) It's a 1998 report... got anything more recent?
2) QUOTE 'Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist, there is evidence supporting the validity of the disorder.'
Sure, they then go on with 'further research is needed' and I'd agree with that... but this isn't supporting your case so far... they're saying it's VALID!!
3) QUOTE: 'Because of the lack of consistent improvement beyond the core symptoms and the paucity of long-term studies (beyond 14 months), there is a need for longer term studies with drugs and behavioral modalities and their combination. Although trials are under way, conclusive recommendations concerning treatment for the long term cannot be made presently.'
(my emphasis)
Again, not supporting your case...!
4)QUOTE: "These problems point to the need for improved assessment, treatment, and followup of patients with ADHD. A more consistent set of diagnostic procedures and practice guidelines is of utmost importance. Furthermore, the lack of insurance coverage preventing the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of ADHD and the lack of integration with educational services are substantial barriers and represent considerable long-term costs for society."
(I'd agree with that - it's tough on everyone. And improvement should always be a goal.)
"Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains largely speculative. Consequently, we have no documented strategies for the prevention of ADHD."
Okay... but how does this support your case? What about the treatment? I shall read further, certainly...
*******
I'm out of time at the moment, but I'll continue reading it... at the moment, stamenflicker - this isn't doing anything for you.
I'd suggest you start finding sections from it that do support what you're saying, because so far it's a link with no benefit to your argument whatsoever!
I've got my study notes at home - I'll refer to them when I get there as the basis for my statements on the matter, where I'll cite at length because I'll have more time.
Flick, as soon as I read your first post, I knew it would not be long until Szaz was mentioned. 
Strange thing is, the two battling sides here do each have their points, and are not (as they might think) mutually exclusive.
Of course the diagnoses, and even the disorders, are a social construction, in the sense that (with or without a specific blood test for it) we define a syndrome by a collection of symptoms, and given the inevitable variability among population members, the definitions of these diseases must be flexible. The DSM gives a list of symptoms, and any two individuals with ADD may exhibit vastly different manifestations of those symptoms. (Some, though not all, Behavior Modification therapists, as a response to this, advocate an avoidance of labels of any sort whatsoever, relying on a functional analysis of the behaviors to guide treatment. Others, pragmatically, note the usefulness of a system of labels, if only to facilitate third-party payment....)
But...so what? The same can be said for almost any illness! (And we need not limit ourselves to "mental illness", either; relying on symptoms for a diagnosis means that we will have both "false alarms" and "misses" for many diagnostic categories.) I am reminded of a Saturday Night Live sketch for a simple blood test (4 vials, if I am not mistaken, then a 2-hour wait while the test works) to determine if you have a headache. "Headaches" are socially constructed, too, but that does not mean there is not some real thing there for us to construct our social concept around!
It has been a few years since I looked at the behavioral literature on ADD/ADHD, but at the time I did last look, there was remarkable benefit (remember, these were published case studies--but there is certainly a case to be made that there is a bias in publication toward publishing positive results) to treatments which were based on the assumption that environmental control would be sufficient to reduce symptoms. To my thinking, this is a good thing, whether or not the drug treatments work. I don't think we should remove arrows from our quill based on prejudice toward the theoretical stance of the particular intervention.
For myself...I think there is definitely something there. But I also think that we overuse the label, and that can have harmful effects. (At least one study found that volunteers helping a child with homework gave up--or allowed the child to give up--more quickly when the child was labeled ADD. I am at home now, so I don't have the citation in front of me.) And I smile just a bit at my friend Eos's comment "[t]here is no way to misdiagnose these kids if a proper diagnosis has taken place." Are these kids scotsmen in disguise?
I am not at all opposed to medication for ADD/ADHD. In fact, based (inordinately) on the experience of one student of mine who was diagnosed as ADHD only after she was already in college, and who finally tried meds after avoiding them for at least 2 years after diagnosis, I am quite in favor of appropriate use of meds. They can make a world of difference. But recall that environmental treatments (behavior modification, typically) work even when the disorder has an organic cause. (Here, because I am more familiar with the literature, I point to the Cordelia de Lange and the Lesch-Nyhan syndromes, where severe self-injurious behavior results from an amino acid deficiency. Even though there is a specific organic disorder here, behavior modification is a successful treatment.)
Strange thing is, the two battling sides here do each have their points, and are not (as they might think) mutually exclusive.
Of course the diagnoses, and even the disorders, are a social construction, in the sense that (with or without a specific blood test for it) we define a syndrome by a collection of symptoms, and given the inevitable variability among population members, the definitions of these diseases must be flexible. The DSM gives a list of symptoms, and any two individuals with ADD may exhibit vastly different manifestations of those symptoms. (Some, though not all, Behavior Modification therapists, as a response to this, advocate an avoidance of labels of any sort whatsoever, relying on a functional analysis of the behaviors to guide treatment. Others, pragmatically, note the usefulness of a system of labels, if only to facilitate third-party payment....)
But...so what? The same can be said for almost any illness! (And we need not limit ourselves to "mental illness", either; relying on symptoms for a diagnosis means that we will have both "false alarms" and "misses" for many diagnostic categories.) I am reminded of a Saturday Night Live sketch for a simple blood test (4 vials, if I am not mistaken, then a 2-hour wait while the test works) to determine if you have a headache. "Headaches" are socially constructed, too, but that does not mean there is not some real thing there for us to construct our social concept around!
It has been a few years since I looked at the behavioral literature on ADD/ADHD, but at the time I did last look, there was remarkable benefit (remember, these were published case studies--but there is certainly a case to be made that there is a bias in publication toward publishing positive results) to treatments which were based on the assumption that environmental control would be sufficient to reduce symptoms. To my thinking, this is a good thing, whether or not the drug treatments work. I don't think we should remove arrows from our quill based on prejudice toward the theoretical stance of the particular intervention.
For myself...I think there is definitely something there. But I also think that we overuse the label, and that can have harmful effects. (At least one study found that volunteers helping a child with homework gave up--or allowed the child to give up--more quickly when the child was labeled ADD. I am at home now, so I don't have the citation in front of me.) And I smile just a bit at my friend Eos's comment "[t]here is no way to misdiagnose these kids if a proper diagnosis has taken place." Are these kids scotsmen in disguise?
I am not at all opposed to medication for ADD/ADHD. In fact, based (inordinately) on the experience of one student of mine who was diagnosed as ADHD only after she was already in college, and who finally tried meds after avoiding them for at least 2 years after diagnosis, I am quite in favor of appropriate use of meds. They can make a world of difference. But recall that environmental treatments (behavior modification, typically) work even when the disorder has an organic cause. (Here, because I am more familiar with the literature, I point to the Cordelia de Lange and the Lesch-Nyhan syndromes, where severe self-injurious behavior results from an amino acid deficiency. Even though there is a specific organic disorder here, behavior modification is a successful treatment.)
stamenflicker
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 869
Kiless,
My apologies.
Look I'm the first one in the room to agree with Mark Twain, that "figures lie and liars figure." So, you make what you want of the numbers, and I'm fine with just knowing my assumption is a better one. Why should I not put the reverse to you and ask what coorelation can you show between the presence of prescription drugs and crime or suicide reduction? My point was that on its best day, psychology and psychiatry can only claim a minimal benefit in helping people with just about any social problem-- depression, suicide, crime-- you pick the stat and then you take your library card and do the research, I've little interest in that I've seen enough and read enough to conclude. The net effect (by that I mean on society itself, ie. total amount of counseling hours per capita over time /// verses /// total increase of crime, suicide, prescription meds) is at best zero, and at worse, well taking us the wrong direction. If you don't want to accept that, I'm no worse for wear.
The invisible pink unicorn? Or a change in a social vector that created the mythological disease? Who can know.... look at both of Hacking's books, they are excellent and in my estimation no one in the helping professions can afford to not read them, so I encourage you to check them out as time allows.
I'll try to work you up a list this weekend. Maybe my top ten on this subject?
I'm sure I could find something, althuogh most stats run anywhere from 3-5 years behind in my experience. But of what use? Even if rates have declined since 1998, they in no way have come close to a 300% decrease.
And maybe further research is needed to demonstrate that all gays have bad wiring? Of course its valid to them, they are the very ones who profit from it, as well as recommend the drugs, drug treatments, drug types, and drug rehabs (methadone). Have you seen the statitics showing the correlation between Ritalin use and later drug use? I will try to find those for you. Again, look at the list of people who say its valid... do they have anything at all it common?
More magical talk from the forest fairies. It doesn't work. They're just trying to find a way to make the numbers more real by changing the variables.
Quite the contrary friend, its done it for me. It's just not doing anything for you.
Let me give you a final analogy to express my views:
If Ford cars or Chevy trucks demonstrated an overall 300-400% increase in mechanical problems from 1960-2000, who in their right mind would think the solution was hiring more mechanics to repair them?
Flick
My apologies.
Look I'm the first one in the room to agree with Mark Twain, that "figures lie and liars figure." So, you make what you want of the numbers, and I'm fine with just knowing my assumption is a better one. Why should I not put the reverse to you and ask what coorelation can you show between the presence of prescription drugs and crime or suicide reduction? My point was that on its best day, psychology and psychiatry can only claim a minimal benefit in helping people with just about any social problem-- depression, suicide, crime-- you pick the stat and then you take your library card and do the research, I've little interest in that I've seen enough and read enough to conclude. The net effect (by that I mean on society itself, ie. total amount of counseling hours per capita over time /// verses /// total increase of crime, suicide, prescription meds) is at best zero, and at worse, well taking us the wrong direction. If you don't want to accept that, I'm no worse for wear.
The invisible pink unicorn? Or a change in a social vector that created the mythological disease? Who can know.... look at both of Hacking's books, they are excellent and in my estimation no one in the helping professions can afford to not read them, so I encourage you to check them out as time allows.
I'll try to work you up a list this weekend. Maybe my top ten on this subject?
I'm sure I could find something, althuogh most stats run anywhere from 3-5 years behind in my experience. But of what use? Even if rates have declined since 1998, they in no way have come close to a 300% decrease.
And maybe further research is needed to demonstrate that all gays have bad wiring? Of course its valid to them, they are the very ones who profit from it, as well as recommend the drugs, drug treatments, drug types, and drug rehabs (methadone). Have you seen the statitics showing the correlation between Ritalin use and later drug use? I will try to find those for you. Again, look at the list of people who say its valid... do they have anything at all it common?
More magical talk from the forest fairies. It doesn't work. They're just trying to find a way to make the numbers more real by changing the variables.
Quite the contrary friend, its done it for me. It's just not doing anything for you.
Let me give you a final analogy to express my views:
If Ford cars or Chevy trucks demonstrated an overall 300-400% increase in mechanical problems from 1960-2000, who in their right mind would think the solution was hiring more mechanics to repair them?
Flick
stamenflicker
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 869
Merc,
I agree we never take an arrow from the quill, but shouldn't we pick a sharper one? And what if our diagnosis themselves are generating the conditions? I'm sure you probably don't think that's possible, but there is evidence to at least suggest the possibility-- and this possibility is true for everything from child abuse to genocide to SIDS to nuclear terrorism. It's the core of the genuine skeptic to question what is socially constructed, how is it constructed via mass media; and if it is perchance real what elements of it feed a deeper seated (and more controllable) social construction by those in power.
Flick
I agree we never take an arrow from the quill, but shouldn't we pick a sharper one? And what if our diagnosis themselves are generating the conditions? I'm sure you probably don't think that's possible, but there is evidence to at least suggest the possibility-- and this possibility is true for everything from child abuse to genocide to SIDS to nuclear terrorism. It's the core of the genuine skeptic to question what is socially constructed, how is it constructed via mass media; and if it is perchance real what elements of it feed a deeper seated (and more controllable) social construction by those in power.
Flick
Of course there is a large literature on the effect of diagnostic labels on how we treat the individuals so labeled. I thought I had mentioned that in my first post--if I did, it got lost. I am merely saying that the two sides arguing in this thread are not mutually exclusive. An effect of labeling does not eliminate the possibility of an organic cause, nor vice versa. Supporting one position is not an attack on the other, nor does attacking one position support the other.stamenflicker said:
One of my colleagues was involved in the "daycare debate", and noticed that it differed from country to country. In the US, the question was "is daycare bad for kids?", whereas in Italy, the question was "given that daycare is needed, how can we make it the best thing for kids?" We tend to take an adversarial stance when examining problems in the US (or maybe it just seems that way to me), when perhaps we should simply be trying to see, no matter what the theoretical underpinnings, how we can best help those with ADD/ADHD.
LOL - just as an aside, I realise now that I've come across you before, stamenflicker... where you misspelt my name in exactly the same fashion, which was why I never found your response. When I search for people's responses to my posts, I use the correct spelling for my name!
I quite liked your summation about Flew, back then - '...he is more likely through reason and logic to say, "I'm right, you are wrong and here is why I think so."
And that, ironically, is what I'm about to do here.
Hope I don't make any spelling errors - it's 11.16pm.
What a terrible thing to say! Is this the skeptics board? And then you do virtually the same again here:
and
Oh, my husband would like to state that he believes he came up with the 'IPU' phrase which apparently has become the latest JREF 'meme'... although I'm of the opinion he's rather horrified by your reasoning in your posts too, but I don't think he'll contribute here... anyway, that's rather irrelevant:
Sure, I will. But I have my doubts. Serious ones. But then, I doubt Mercutio as well (no blurry photo of his messy faculty desk or irritating habit of saying 'I am right' makes him totally convincing, IMHO, so I continue to read his posts to see what he argues and have read two books he has cited) and although I make an effort to understand where he's coming from, I don't see why I can't do the same for anyone else... but so far, your posts give me absolutely nothing beyond what appears to be unfounded 'conspiracy-theory' atttudes towards the drug manufacturing industry and the medical profession!
This lumping psychology/psychiatry habit bewilders me too... but perhaps that's addressed in an earlier question I made, in regards to the 'art' comment you make that appears to apply to both.
But yes - top ten stamenflicker booklist would be good. I might only manage the first five though, mind, but only due to limited access. I have three university libraries within easy driving distance; at least one should provide me with several of the texts you will be / are citing. CS Lewis texts out here seems to mostly appear in the fiction section, I note... Whatever happened to the Screwtape Letters, did they ever reprint that? Anyway, I'll try.
Interesting analogy... and not a very good one. Why? Because at least in studying ADHD (quoting Merc here) - 'we should... be trying to see, no matter what the theoretical underpinnings, how we can best help those with ADD/ADHD.' I see no such 'help' required for those people who are homosexual. Maybe we disagree on that point? Maybe another thread is required for that.
Ah, here's the 'conspiracy theory' part I mentioned:
Yes, I'd like to see the correlation. I'd like to see more evidence for many of my earlier unanswered questions. I have the time to wait, so that's okay.
'List of people and things in common'... they're all stakeholders?
No - I need more. In fact, I'd say anyone reading this thread deserves more to consider your arguments valid.
This is.... so absurd... sorry, I just can't comment on it without becoming insulting, I fear! I might have to come back to it after some sleep and clarify, if needed.
*Snorfle* - sorry, but I just thought of half a dozen analogies, none of which are appropriate but all are rather filthy in construct... let's just say... you've got to work beyond self-pleasure? Particularly with such an important topic! Imagine if I did this for the variety of other threads on the JREF board! How flamed would I be? Guts for garters, I'd imagine...
Hell, man, I'd say at least a professional mechanic has a bloomin' IDEA about what they could contribute to the fault and certainly give proper feedback to the manufacturer?
You a 'mechanic' by trade, BTW? Because so far I'm seeing nothing that convinces me in the slightest.
Maybe your booklist will help. But so far, you're doing little but harm your own cause.
Really - please answer some of the earlier questions? This ivory tower thing is getting dull and I think I may just bow out with a 'doesn't answer questions, has nothing worthwhile to contribute overall, not worth wasting effort on' conclusion.
And I hate that. Especially when you just learned to spell my name right and all....
I quite liked your summation about Flew, back then - '...he is more likely through reason and logic to say, "I'm right, you are wrong and here is why I think so."
And that, ironically, is what I'm about to do here.
Hope I don't make any spelling errors - it's 11.16pm.
stamenflicker said:
What a terrible thing to say! Is this the skeptics board?
And then you do virtually the same again here:stamenflicker said:
and
stamenflicker said:
Oh, my husband would like to state that he believes he came up with the 'IPU' phrase which apparently has become the latest JREF 'meme'... although I'm of the opinion he's rather horrified by your reasoning in your posts too, but I don't think he'll contribute here... anyway, that's rather irrelevant:
stamenflicker said:
Sure, I will. But I have my doubts. Serious ones. But then, I doubt Mercutio as well (no blurry photo of his messy faculty desk or irritating habit of saying 'I am right' makes him totally convincing, IMHO, so I continue to read his posts to see what he argues and have read two books he has cited) and although I make an effort to understand where he's coming from, I don't see why I can't do the same for anyone else... but so far, your posts give me absolutely nothing beyond what appears to be unfounded 'conspiracy-theory' atttudes towards the drug manufacturing industry and the medical profession!
This lumping psychology/psychiatry habit bewilders me too... but perhaps that's addressed in an earlier question I made, in regards to the 'art' comment you make that appears to apply to both.
But yes - top ten stamenflicker booklist would be good. I might only manage the first five though, mind, but only due to limited access. I have three university libraries within easy driving distance; at least one should provide me with several of the texts you will be / are citing. CS Lewis texts out here seems to mostly appear in the fiction section, I note... Whatever happened to the Screwtape Letters, did they ever reprint that? Anyway, I'll try.
stamenflicker said:
Interesting analogy... and not a very good one. Why? Because at least in studying ADHD (quoting Merc here) - 'we should... be trying to see, no matter what the theoretical underpinnings, how we can best help those with ADD/ADHD.' I see no such 'help' required for those people who are homosexual. Maybe we disagree on that point? Maybe another thread is required for that.
Ah, here's the 'conspiracy theory' part I mentioned:
stamenflicker said:
Yes, I'd like to see the correlation. I'd like to see more evidence for many of my earlier unanswered questions. I have the time to wait, so that's okay.
'List of people and things in common'... they're all stakeholders?
No - I need more. In fact, I'd say anyone reading this thread deserves more to consider your arguments valid.
stamenflicker said:
This is.... so absurd... sorry, I just can't comment on it without becoming insulting, I fear!
I might have to come back to it after some sleep and clarify, if needed.stamenflicker said:
*Snorfle* - sorry, but I just thought of half a dozen analogies, none of which are appropriate but all are rather filthy in construct... let's just say... you've got to work beyond self-pleasure?
Particularly with such an important topic! Imagine if I did this for the variety of other threads on the JREF board! How flamed would I be? Guts for garters, I'd imagine... stamenflicker said:
Hell, man, I'd say at least a professional mechanic has a bloomin' IDEA about what they could contribute to the fault and certainly give proper feedback to the manufacturer?
You a 'mechanic' by trade, BTW? Because so far I'm seeing nothing that convinces me in the slightest.
Maybe your booklist will help. But so far, you're doing little but harm your own cause.
Really - please answer some of the earlier questions? This ivory tower thing is getting dull and I think I may just bow out with a 'doesn't answer questions, has nothing worthwhile to contribute overall, not worth wasting effort on' conclusion.
And I hate that. Especially when you just learned to spell my name right and all....
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
stamenflicker said:
Having read this post from the beginning, including all of your somewhat rambling posts, I see no reason to place any trust whatsoever in your opinion. You claim to have some level of expertise on this topic but decline to detail what that may be. Your misspelling of Tourettes (as Terrets) in one post does not instill a lot of confidence in your background education on this topic. You blithely state that you are "having fun" with this topic which is, frankly, an insult to those of us who have to cope full time with a child who cannot function in school and social situations due to an inability to apply proper attention at crucial times. There is no room for "fun" when the current and future mental and emotional stability of your child is at stake.
Our daughter was born to a woman who was addicted to heroin and drank heavily throughout her pregnancy. Our daughter's diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (FAS/NAS) is a fact. With your claimed extensive backgound on this topic you no doubt know that the brain damage connected to FAS is often physically observable and measurable and is in no way a social construction. She was in hospital for 7 weeks following her birth on a reduced morphine protocol to wean her off the heroin that she became addicted to in-utero. Among the recognized symptoms of such children are measurably higher levels of activity compared to a baseline of unaffected children, and markedly shorter attention spans. These symptoms are easily observable in our daughter - the analogy of a hummingbird flitting around our house is quite appropriate.
The effects of these symptoms, or disorders, in our daughter are serious and they are real. Un-treated, they could have serious effects on her and us personally, and could be to the detriment of society in general. She has difficulty making and keeping friends because of her "flighty" nature. Other children think she is not interested in them or their activities because of her tendecy to become distracted. She does not learn as quickly as her peers in school due to her inability to concemtrate. If a young child is ignored and left behind by her peers due to these disabilities, she is likely to become a "social outcast" as an adult complete with the potential costs to society from depression, welfare ,crime, drug use, prison and suicide. We are not prepared to sit back and let this happen based on your assurances of "trust me, her problems do not really exist".
We are fortunate to have good supports in place for our daughter through government programs, access to qualified and knowledgeable medical professionals, and an extensive supportive and understanding family. We are by no means "hung-up" on labels and acronyms (such as ADD or ADHD) but if a label is what we need to get suitable help for our daughter, then we are all for them! FWIW, we have so far avoided using any drugs in our therapies, with the exception of low dose melatonin to help her sleep at night, but we recognise that this might be a necessary course of treatment in the future and are not averse to drug therapy if and when it becomes necessary.
Unless you have something positive to contribute towards enabling our FAS, NAS, ADD, ADHD daughter to become a happy child and a contributing member of society I suggest you stop insulting us with your biased and unfounded opinions. Go have your "fun" at someone else's expense.
Dougguy, thanks for your input. I'm not a parent myself but as a teacher who works with students that range across the spectrum of abilities, I have quite a lot of sympathy for what many families have to deal with. 'Fun' isn't the right word, no... Having a kid overall is fun, yes, but there's many things that aren't a joking matter and this is one of them. Hope my attitude in these posts haven't rubbed you up the wrong way either; I know I'm becoming more incredulous with every post and that's when I start getting daft and dirty with my rebuttals.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Hi, Kiless,
I have no problem with any of your posts in this thread. you have made some good points and appear to me to have a much better understanding of the topic than stamenflicker. My objection to stamenflicker is that he/she appears to view this as a purely academic debate for his/her own somewhat uninfomed personal entertainment, and not as a real problem that people have to deal with on a daily basis. As far as I am concerned stamenfilcker and Iamme can take their acronyms and their uninformed opinions and "stick em where the sun don't shine". The important thing is that there is a credible body of research that provides recognition of my daughter's problem and therapies that provide considerable assistance to help her live as normal a life as possible. It is just a nuisance that in addition to helping our daughter live with her limitations, it is also necessary to try and educate the ignorant people who try to tell us that her problems do not exist
As you no doubt realize, we went into this adoption with our eyes wide open. With my wife's pediatric nursing background and the training and resources avalable to us as foster parents we were (almost) fully prepared to deal with our daughter's problems and we are convinced that we are the right people to raise her and help her. It is, in fact, a LOT of fun having her around. She is a cheerful and bright child who is very intelligent in so many ways. We love her dearly and have never for one moment regretted adopting her.
I have no problem with any of your posts in this thread. you have made some good points and appear to me to have a much better understanding of the topic than stamenflicker. My objection to stamenflicker is that he/she appears to view this as a purely academic debate for his/her own somewhat uninfomed personal entertainment, and not as a real problem that people have to deal with on a daily basis. As far as I am concerned stamenfilcker and Iamme can take their acronyms and their uninformed opinions and "stick em where the sun don't shine". The important thing is that there is a credible body of research that provides recognition of my daughter's problem and therapies that provide considerable assistance to help her live as normal a life as possible. It is just a nuisance that in addition to helping our daughter live with her limitations, it is also necessary to try and educate the ignorant people who try to tell us that her problems do not exist
As you no doubt realize, we went into this adoption with our eyes wide open. With my wife's pediatric nursing background and the training and resources avalable to us as foster parents we were (almost) fully prepared to deal with our daughter's problems and we are convinced that we are the right people to raise her and help her. It is, in fact, a LOT of fun having her around. She is a cheerful and bright child who is very intelligent in so many ways. We love her dearly and have never for one moment regretted adopting her.
I can't believe I've totally overlooked this thread. Must be my new glasses...or absence of them...or something.
Kiless and Merc, you've addressed Flick's comments rather nicely. I don't want to be covering any ground already argued here, and so while I've had a brief read through the posts I might be repeating what's already been said. I think I see what Flick is trying to get at, and where the concept falls down.
ASD and it's associated conditions are very real. To refrain from classifying a set of behaviours takes away tools society can utilise to assist people who might otherwise find difficulty in accessing the rights we all take for granted. Indeed, while such tools are often abused, it's a greater abuse to simply wipe away a set of parameters because some people don't see how they can be distinguished as a disease in their own right.
Firstly, some definitions. Disease in this case is any set of conditions which impedes the normal functioning of an organism. I'll set 'normal' here as the expectations post-industrial society has for any one of its community members.
We do all exist on a scale of variation. ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorders, which covers - amongst other things - developmental disorders such as ADD and ADHD) is an example of a spectrum of behaviour which makes it difficult for an individual to socially interact in ways we find simple. It is as much a variation as a person's tendency to cry more in soppy movies; it has genetic foundations influenced by environmental conditioning. We could classify a whole range of variations as we have done with ASD. However, the usefulness of doing this then has to be questioned.
How to diagnose such a condition is tricky, of course. Unlike a bacterial infection, there is no proof positive we can utilise to say a person can be classified as being influenced by such biological conditions. Surveys and questionairres have their faults and personal opinion relies on subjective observations. But agian this does not discount the fact that there exists a set of biologically-influenced behaviours common to a large number of individuals.
The question of how we should address this is a seperate matter. Drugs, changing environments, education... all have pro's and con's, and I'd be happy to share my opinion on each.
However it's simply ignorance of classification to suggest that conditions classified within ASD do not exist as they are simply human traits.
Athon
Kiless and Merc, you've addressed Flick's comments rather nicely. I don't want to be covering any ground already argued here, and so while I've had a brief read through the posts I might be repeating what's already been said. I think I see what Flick is trying to get at, and where the concept falls down.
ASD and it's associated conditions are very real. To refrain from classifying a set of behaviours takes away tools society can utilise to assist people who might otherwise find difficulty in accessing the rights we all take for granted. Indeed, while such tools are often abused, it's a greater abuse to simply wipe away a set of parameters because some people don't see how they can be distinguished as a disease in their own right.
Firstly, some definitions. Disease in this case is any set of conditions which impedes the normal functioning of an organism. I'll set 'normal' here as the expectations post-industrial society has for any one of its community members.
We do all exist on a scale of variation. ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorders, which covers - amongst other things - developmental disorders such as ADD and ADHD) is an example of a spectrum of behaviour which makes it difficult for an individual to socially interact in ways we find simple. It is as much a variation as a person's tendency to cry more in soppy movies; it has genetic foundations influenced by environmental conditioning. We could classify a whole range of variations as we have done with ASD. However, the usefulness of doing this then has to be questioned.
How to diagnose such a condition is tricky, of course. Unlike a bacterial infection, there is no proof positive we can utilise to say a person can be classified as being influenced by such biological conditions. Surveys and questionairres have their faults and personal opinion relies on subjective observations. But agian this does not discount the fact that there exists a set of biologically-influenced behaviours common to a large number of individuals.
The question of how we should address this is a seperate matter. Drugs, changing environments, education... all have pro's and con's, and I'd be happy to share my opinion on each.
However it's simply ignorance of classification to suggest that conditions classified within ASD do not exist as they are simply human traits.
Athon
NeilC
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,347
There are a fair few psychiatrists and educators etc who don't believe that ADD and ADHD are discrete biological diseases but merely a function of a somewhat arbirary definition and diagnoses. Certainly people are successfully treated using exactly the same methods as used on simply badly behaved kids.
It is rather odd how it seemed to crop up in the USA - a country with a culture of MTV and videogames, no exercise and a me-me-me philosophy. And then it spread to the most US influenced European countries first. And odd that so many people seem to have it at a time when juvenille behaviour is at it's worst. Convenient that it removes responsibility from a generation of parents who don't want any.
People who have kids diagnosed with ADD really want to believe it too so are highly insulted by any suggestion it's not biological.
If it isn't a real, discrete disease then it would have been invented anyway IMO.
I am not convinced by the evidence that it is a specific disease.
It's like depression. Nobody makes bad decisions or tries to hold together conflicting beliefs. They are not slothful or misanthropic - they are CHEMICALLY depressed. Hey, we can prove it because they have less serotonin. Well, prove it if we ignore any question of cause and effect .
It is rather odd how it seemed to crop up in the USA - a country with a culture of MTV and videogames, no exercise and a me-me-me philosophy. And then it spread to the most US influenced European countries first. And odd that so many people seem to have it at a time when juvenille behaviour is at it's worst. Convenient that it removes responsibility from a generation of parents who don't want any.
People who have kids diagnosed with ADD really want to believe it too so are highly insulted by any suggestion it's not biological.
If it isn't a real, discrete disease then it would have been invented anyway IMO.
I am not convinced by the evidence that it is a specific disease.
It's like depression. Nobody makes bad decisions or tries to hold together conflicting beliefs. They are not slothful or misanthropic - they are CHEMICALLY depressed. Hey, we can prove it because they have less serotonin. Well, prove it if we ignore any question of cause and effect .