Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Normal kids=ADHD?
- Thread starter higgi
- Start date
I wonder what some unsuspecting female would think...
we need a Naughty smilie...
ya'know I think we killed this thread.
we need a Naughty smilie...
ya'know I think we killed this thread.
seems like your playing a devils advocate role in this debate which is totally fine... your point is very valid. I think some here were being a little sensitive because of some of the very insensitive generalizations that were being made earlier in the thread...
What does worry me about some of the fringe kids, and I think some doctors are taking this stance, that kids who are having problems now, even marginal ones, are worth treating because of the cumulative effects that they may suffer later on in life. A lack of concentration now, can, I understand, grow into a far worse problem later, but someone with more knowledge that what I've had time to read would have to substantiate that.
You're a scientist; let me shift languages for a moment.
The recent large number of diagnoses of ADHD are suggestive of being the result of fallacies of category errors (composition) combined with syllogistic errors (undistributed middle) and causal fallacies (complex cause and post hoc). Specifically, ADHD is defined as a disfunctional behavior that is qualitatively different from non-ADHD behavior and is believed to be a result of a failure of dopamine utilization within the brain. This legitimate qualitative distinction has been fallaciously broadened into a quantitative one, whereby individuals on the margin of normality as well as those well within the normal distribution curve are being included. Additionally, environmental causes are present in significant amounts that mimic the effects of the inherent physiological causes. In many cases, the physiological causes may be minor compared to the environmental causes, yet environmental causes are routinely ignored (uncontrolled) and all ADHD behavior is assumed to be a result of physiological cause if any amount is detected.
In English: There are some individuals who are mentally impaired due to a specific type of brain malfunction. This is called ADHD and it is a legitimate disfunction that may be appropriately treated with drugs. There are now many more individuals who, while they share some similarities with them, should not properly be labeled as disfunctional because their condition is well within the normal functional range.
Other than in extreme cases, I see no real rationale for drug treatment in very young children. At a certain age (say 10 or 11) I think a preliminary diagnosis would be a wise step to take, but I don't think drug treatment for ADHD needs to start before a child reaches high school age.
After all, though our knowledge of neurology has grown by leaps and bounds, we still don't know the actual mechanism for ADHD. Hell, we don't know for certain why treatments like Ritalin work. For all our knowledge, drug treatments for mental disorders (to borrow a metaphor from a former colleague) are much closer to hacksaws than scalpels.
But by high school age, when a little more development has taken place, where the stakes are higher in terms of their future, and where diagnosis is easier, I think ADHD kids will/do beneifit from pharmological treatment.
I don't really see how anyone can argue with that.
After all, though our knowledge of neurology has grown by leaps and bounds, we still don't know the actual mechanism for ADHD. Hell, we don't know for certain why treatments like Ritalin work. For all our knowledge, drug treatments for mental disorders (to borrow a metaphor from a former colleague) are much closer to hacksaws than scalpels.
But by high school age, when a little more development has taken place, where the stakes are higher in terms of their future, and where diagnosis is easier, I think ADHD kids will/do beneifit from pharmological treatment.
I don't really see how anyone can argue with that.
Geoff St. Germaine
Commercial User
- Aug 31, 2001
- 6,267
- 302
- Disclosures
- Owner - St. Germaine Guitars
You're a scientist; let me shift languages for a moment.
The recent large number of diagnoses of ADHD are suggestive of being the result of fallacies of category errors (composition) combined with syllogistic errors (undistributed middle) and causal fallacies (complex cause and post hoc). Specifically, ADHD is defined as a disfunctional behavior that is qualitatively different from non-ADHD behavior and is believed to be a result of a failure of dopamine utilization within the brain. This legitimate qualitative distinction has been fallaciously broadened into a quantitative one, whereby individuals on the margin of normality as well as those well within the normal distribution curve are being included. Additionally, environmental causes are present in significant amounts that mimic the effects of the inherent physiological causes. In many cases, the physiological causes may be minor compared to the environmental causes, yet environmental causes are routinely ignored (uncontrolled) and all ADHD behavior is assumed to be a result of physiological cause if any amount is detected.
In English: There are some individuals who are mentally impaired due to a specific type of brain malfunction. This is called ADHD and it is a legitimate disfunction that may be appropriately treated with drugs. There are now many more individuals who, while they share some similarities with them, should not properly be labeled as disfunctional because their condition is well within the normal functional range.
Your attempt at humour is unnecessary. I understood what you were saying... I simply asked what you are basing it on. There are many people who sometimes exhibit certain behaviours that could be taken to be symptoms of ADHD, I'll agree with that statement. My question is, how do you know that a lot of these people are being diagnosed with ADHD? Your claim above was that most people diagnosed with ADHD do not actually have it. What are you basing that on? I have personally known 3 people who were diagnosed with ADHD, one in high school, who a couple of times did not take his meds and it was very obvious, one in university, who failed out of engineering because of it and is now on meds and is currently in med school, and one person that I'm friends with now that I've discussed in previous posts. I have no basis for making a claim that either of them did not have ADHD. I have been so far unable to find any research to back up the claim that most people diagnosed with ADHD have been misdiagnosed.
Of course the diagnosis of ADHD in the US, or in certain parts of the US could be radically higher than what I've seen in Canada.
I agree 100% that lots of kids have problems exactly as described and it's vitally important to correct it. The area of dispute is how best to treat the problem. There are only 3 possible causes of ADHD:
1) Genetic only (an inherent physiological disfunction)
2) Environmental only (lack of proper motivation and cognitive stimulation)
3) A combination of both
I hold that there are relatively few #2 and even fewer #1, and I'm alarmed at the steady increase in number of those who affirm that #1 is the answer and who insist on ignoring what is likely the more significant factor in the vast majority of cases.
If you treat a problem that is 20% biological and 80% environmental as if it were 100% biological, then you obviously ignore fixing what's wrong with the environment.
Hhhhmmm. Well, I had some ideas for thinking slightly differently earlier in the thread but I'll word it differently...
Let's take your idea that all of us in some ways suffer from a lack of concentration etc. of which I somewhat agree, blah blah... lets take it as an assumption then that a massive, great deal of us in society treat our "ADD" with various stimulants and downers, alcohol, drugs, sex, work, violence, sports, money, and all their variations, of which there are hundreds.
What did we do to satisfy us before we had these other outlets? Bicycles, the park, GI Joe, bass? All these... and I still do. But when did I gain this need for a few beers, a bit of puff, a compulsion to work 'til late to get the extra bonus? I believe it may have been in my childhood... I also believe that it was an inherited need... I had my bass. I played classical guitar at 7, bass at 9 and at 39 I'm still playing the damn thing and others instruments for work, for too many hours and my wife goes crazy at me for doing it, for which I need other things to get my wifes voice outta my head, along with the tunes, the worries etc.... see where I'm going with this...? It's there.
But some kids don't have creative ADD, so it confuses them, it's wired wrong, it's hurting them, frustrating them, they can't find a direction, can't find anyone to believe in them, can't find anything to quiet their fears and worries. And the things society wants them to learn, they can't grasp and concentrate on. That's scary. It needs to be dealt with early before the fears and worries overcome the drive. IMO.
I know I didn't make too much sense here... thinking too fast, can't get it out right. Sorry.
Studies have conclusively shown ADHD to be heritable. The most convincing studies are those of adopted children. If ADHD was genetic in nature, these adopted children's incidence of ADHD would be strongly correlated with their biological parents. If ADHD was enviornmenally triggered, the correlation with their parents would be weak or non-existant. And every study I've read (along with normal familial studies and identical twin studies) have concluded a strong genetic basis for ADHD.
It has also been shown to be caused by other mechanisms common to other neurological disorders, namely damage to portions of the brain (in this case mainly the frontal lobe) from various causes.
I haven't seen any studies linking ADHD to enviornmental causes. And by enviornmental I mean behavioral/interaction based causes and not things like toxins in the child's home.
And my personal experience, having taught over 1200 students and interacted with around 1800 in the last seven years, is that the attitudes and policies of the parents had little bearing on the kids that were diagnosed as ADHD.
I agree that it is ridiculous that people see hyper young children and immediately assume they are ADHD. And I believe that we currently have a society that makes it harder for all kids to focus, as kids today have far too much instant gratification and far too many sources of entertainment and distraction. This obviously excacerbates the kids who have ADHD.
But I have yet to find (in my reading, or in my daily life) enviornmental causes for ADHD.
To me ADHD is for most people just another thing that's been lumped in with the "what's wrong with kids today" argument and dismissed as same. If I didn't have as much personal experience with it (or subsequently done as much research on it) I might feel the same way. But I certainly don't now.
It has also been shown to be caused by other mechanisms common to other neurological disorders, namely damage to portions of the brain (in this case mainly the frontal lobe) from various causes.
I haven't seen any studies linking ADHD to enviornmental causes. And by enviornmental I mean behavioral/interaction based causes and not things like toxins in the child's home.
And my personal experience, having taught over 1200 students and interacted with around 1800 in the last seven years, is that the attitudes and policies of the parents had little bearing on the kids that were diagnosed as ADHD.
I agree that it is ridiculous that people see hyper young children and immediately assume they are ADHD. And I believe that we currently have a society that makes it harder for all kids to focus, as kids today have far too much instant gratification and far too many sources of entertainment and distraction. This obviously excacerbates the kids who have ADHD.
But I have yet to find (in my reading, or in my daily life) enviornmental causes for ADHD.
To me ADHD is for most people just another thing that's been lumped in with the "what's wrong with kids today" argument and dismissed as same. If I didn't have as much personal experience with it (or subsequently done as much research on it) I might feel the same way. But I certainly don't now.
I was being 100% serious. I hope I addressed some of your questions in my most recent post.
To answer your specific question: "What is the evidence for my assertion that most people diagnosed with ADHD do not actually have it?" That type of question cannot be logically answered because it's nonfalsifyable. Those making the diagnoses of ADHD have defined the condition in ambiguous terms that make it impossible to quantify how many people have it. I can only do what I've done, and that is point out the fallacious nature of the broadening of the definition of the condition.
Think of it this way: I'm one of the approximately 10% of the population that's left handed. Like ADHD, my left handedness has both a genetic component and an environmental component. It also can cause me a certain amount of inconvenience living in a world that is designed for right handers. On top of that, being left handed means that my dominant brain hemisphere is opposite to what is dominant in right handers resulting in measurabley lower scores on tests that involve left brain dominant thinking that society values. And left handers have an increased risk of mental disorders, social dysfunction, accidents, and numerous other problems.
I could deal with this by thinking of my lefthandedness as a "handicap" or "dysfunction" as some people already do and try to work that angle to my advantage. What if society started a movement to get left handedness classified as a medical disorder? This isn't sarcasm, quite a few people actually do think this, and if there were a drug that could switch people from being left handed to right handed you could bet that such a movement would become widespread. I could then claim that I had a disorder that needed to be compensated for in school, at work, and in public and that any antisocial behavior I engage in that left handers are prone to (according to established scientific research) can be excused. And when someone challenges me to prove that my problems are actually caused by my disorder, I just have to say: 1) left handedness is a known factor in these problems 2) I've been tested to be left handed (right brain dominant) and therefore 3) it's up to you to provide evidence that my condition doesn't cause my problems.
For years, I went through life wondering why my father was constantly saying to me "Larry, keep your mind on what you're doing!" I couldn't concentrate in school and was a solid C student, yet I scored well above average on an IQ test. I started the school day with the best of intentions but within 30 minutes of the bell ringing I was daydreaming about something that was vastly more interesting to me and sometimes more complex than the curriculum. Band class was the glaring exception to this; there I was able to immerse myself in the music. Years passed, I wandered through my early 20's aimlessly, unable to focus on any one thing for long enough to make something of it, or myself. Fast forward 20 years. Now I'm 46 years old and, although I haven't been officially diagnosed, a few years ago I realized what my problem was all along: ADD.
I have learned ways to deal with it on my own, as I refuse to take drugs for something that IMO any adult can deal with, if: 1)they can admit they have a problem and 2)are willing to try to help themselves. A kid, however may not be able to figure ways to help themselves get past it and need their parent((S)) to help them. In extreme cases maybe drugs are necessary, but in most, I'd say not.
FWIW I'm doing a lot better now, improving one day at a time and have accomplished more in the past five years than in all the previous ones combined. BTW I don't have any kids so I can't speak for what parents should do, just relating my own experiences.
I have learned ways to deal with it on my own, as I refuse to take drugs for something that IMO any adult can deal with, if: 1)they can admit they have a problem and 2)are willing to try to help themselves. A kid, however may not be able to figure ways to help themselves get past it and need their parent((S)) to help them. In extreme cases maybe drugs are necessary, but in most, I'd say not.
FWIW I'm doing a lot better now, improving one day at a time and have accomplished more in the past five years than in all the previous ones combined. BTW I don't have any kids so I can't speak for what parents should do, just relating my own experiences.
Your example makes no sense to me. Your arguments in this thread thus far have been that (1) you believe ADHD to be overdiagnosed and that (2) you believe that ADHD has a large environmental component.
How is lefthandedness relateable in context of your arguements? It isn't as if more people are being called lefthanded than really are and lefthandedness is clearly genetic in nature and does not result from one's environment. There have been attempts in the past to try to "convert" lefties (my mom experienced this in school) but while you can force someone to use their non-dominant hand, and thus increase their dexterity with it, it doesn't change them from being innately left-handed. So your example seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur.
So unless I misunderstood your point, it appears in your last post, that you changed your argument completely to that of people using ADHD as an excuse for their own failings.
I'll say what I've already said. Pretty much everyone has something in the way of a limitation genetically, whether its a propensity for alcoholism or obesity or poor eyesight or being short. I look at ADHD the same way. There are ways to deal with it (including medication) just as there are ways to deal with the other disadvantages I listed. I don't agree with someone using any of them as a crutch or an excuse.
According to what you just wrote, you got nearly every bit of what I was trying to say, and it seems we even agree on much of it
I'm just going to chalk up the confusion to my usual looooooooong winded way of trying to explain anything.
Imagine a 9 year old boy in school. He exhibits some signs of ADHD, such as: fidgeting, inability to concentrate, frustration leading to occassional outbursts, and variable quality of school work. He is clinically tested, is found to have a definite, measurable physiological condition consistent with the medical definition of ADHD and is diagnosed as having the disorder.
Further imagine that this 9 year old boy lives at home with his divorced mother and her new husband and their 2 year old child. His mother is a "permissive" style parent, who lets him do what he wants to do unless he does something she really doesn't like, then she usually just yells at him and sometimes calls him names. She rarely praises him or rewards him for good work, but will inconsistently punish him for bad behavior, sometimes disproportionately. His father shows up maybe once a year for a few hours, just long enought to remind him that he used to have a father. His mother's new husband refuses to have anything to do with him and reminds him that he's not his son and tells him to go away whenever the boy seeks his attention. He spends most of his free time watching TV and playing video games and very little time outside. He exhibits signs of "acting up" consistent with children who are emotionally neglected, such as: outbursts of temper, inability to complete tasks, poor quality of school work and random incidents of disruption.
Now suppose on one particular day in school, this kid gets up out of his chair and throws his textbook across the room. Was it caused by the known condition of ADHD or was it caused by his "acting up" for attention that is known to result from living in an emotionally neglected environment?
You see the problem. There is an overlap of telltale behavior resulting from each of the two causes, one biological, the other environmental, and it's not reasonable to simply blame one cause and ignore the other, because it could be either, or both.
Incidently, this isn't a hypothetical example. This situation describes the boy who lived next door to me for eight years. He was put on Ritalin when he was 10, and he showed improvements in behavior in the areas of fidgeting and concentration, as well as a slight improvement in school work. His mother told everyone how she was so glad there was a drug that could calm him down but of course she did nothing to improve her own parenting. He eventually became violent toward other children and began to destroy private property. After he was arrested for trying to set his neighbor's house on fire, his mother gave him up to state custody, where he now lives in a group home at the age of 13.
Further imagine that this 9 year old boy lives at home with his divorced mother and her new husband and their 2 year old child. His mother is a "permissive" style parent, who lets him do what he wants to do unless he does something she really doesn't like, then she usually just yells at him and sometimes calls him names. She rarely praises him or rewards him for good work, but will inconsistently punish him for bad behavior, sometimes disproportionately. His father shows up maybe once a year for a few hours, just long enought to remind him that he used to have a father. His mother's new husband refuses to have anything to do with him and reminds him that he's not his son and tells him to go away whenever the boy seeks his attention. He spends most of his free time watching TV and playing video games and very little time outside. He exhibits signs of "acting up" consistent with children who are emotionally neglected, such as: outbursts of temper, inability to complete tasks, poor quality of school work and random incidents of disruption.
Now suppose on one particular day in school, this kid gets up out of his chair and throws his textbook across the room. Was it caused by the known condition of ADHD or was it caused by his "acting up" for attention that is known to result from living in an emotionally neglected environment?
You see the problem. There is an overlap of telltale behavior resulting from each of the two causes, one biological, the other environmental, and it's not reasonable to simply blame one cause and ignore the other, because it could be either, or both.
Incidently, this isn't a hypothetical example. This situation describes the boy who lived next door to me for eight years. He was put on Ritalin when he was 10, and he showed improvements in behavior in the areas of fidgeting and concentration, as well as a slight improvement in school work. His mother told everyone how she was so glad there was a drug that could calm him down but of course she did nothing to improve her own parenting. He eventually became violent toward other children and began to destroy private property. After he was arrested for trying to set his neighbor's house on fire, his mother gave him up to state custody, where he now lives in a group home at the age of 13.
Heartbreaking story, but I'm not sure what we are to learn from it. I don't see the connection between his untreated emotional neglect and and his successfully treated ADHD, as it relates to this thread. (Unless it's the David Beckham "I hurt my knee protecting my bad ankle" syndrome)
I also completely miss the connection with 'permissive' parenting (whatever that is), which perhaps might be the boogeyman you're after?
Basically, I think the US should require people to have a license before having children. There's so many terrible people out there who apparently have no business procreating.
