?? Do you know how much has changed since the nineties? There's ecological EF deficit tests now(barkley's). Yeah like one guy getting an odd diagnosis is enough

?? Do you know how much has changed since the nineties? There's ecological EF deficit tests now(barkley's). Yeah like one guy getting an odd diagnosis is enough for you to continue your opinion. This is just classical bayes rule dude, there will be a lot of false positives _no matter what_ unless the diagnosis rate is an absurdly high number. You're blaming other people for not knowing that's the way the numbers always come out? https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30002.6.shtml > Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are correct 99 percent of the time (in other words, if you have the disease, it shows that you do with 99 percent probability, and if you don't have the disease, it shows that you do not with 99 percent probability). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people.