4 ms·

Ahh, sigh. I was writing with ADHD in mind actually. Up to 10% children really do have ADHD which is a delay in the development of the frontal lobe. Such a del

Ahh, sigh. I was writing with ADHD in mind actually. Up to 10% children really do have ADHD which is a delay in the development of the frontal lobe. Such a delay seems "somewhat common" amongst humans. More than half catch up, leaving upto 5% of adults with some form of ADHD. ADHD is serious. It is a severe impairment to planning, self-management, emotional regulation, etc. You are likely to be impoverished without substantial resources to rely on (family, etc.). > are a bit worrying > it's not provided as a package of bio-psycho-social treatment. ADHD researchers (serious neuroscientists & clinical psychiatrists) have for DECADES tried "biosocial blah blah". It has failed. ADHD is not a failure of child training (ie., parents "Raising Their Child Right!!!"). Overwhelmingly the effective treatment for ADHD is pharmocological. At this point comments like yours, along with the media hysteria, are doing real harm to children actually getting treatment. The problem we have with ADHD is significant under treatment and under diagnosis. It turns out all those "useless" people joked about in human history have not just been failures of character: in need of "social" intervention. They have had a physical impairment, a delay in their brain's development. Not Fixable by a good beating, or whatever the touchy-feely equivalent is. The suggestion that a child with a broken leg not receive crutches would be absolutely outrageous. Or a person with cancer not receive a daily pill treatment. The very same outrage should be felt here in the suggestion that people with ADHD not receive medication vital to their ability to even pay attention to their lessons (goals, etc.). Vital to their ability to socailize (ie., control their frustation in ways that doesnt alientate other children). And therefore vital to their future success. Yes there does need to be a fundamental reorganization to western education systems to, from the ground up, be aware of how wide-spread developmental issues are -- and to build in fundamental support structures. However this isnt a "treatment" for ADHD. There is no cure. This is just bracing the crutches. Overwelmingly the research over the last 30 years has shown the only significant impact on ADHD is pharmocological.

xena 9y ago
Honestly I think about half the problem is that psychiatric illnesses don't make people bleed, so there's no way to universally tell something is wrong.
- mjburgess 9y ago
  The bane of society, I think, is mentally healthy people. They run politics but have absolutely no appreciation for what works for non-healthy people. Which is all the people who acutally rely on politics/society. I think conservatism as a personality is a symptom of good mental health: if you arent able to do something, its lazyness. So you must just need some motivation: either a beating or some money. etc. That's true if you're mentally healthy. If not then the ways you are failing arent even imaginable from the POV of mental health. And they are as communicable as cancer, or any physical illness. The last century is full of works by people who have recently taken acid telling everyone how "everything is now differnet" etc. How they couldnt even have imagined the things they took for granted in how their minds work were actually variable. Every mental illness is its own unique form of acid. And unless you've been on an acid trip, or are very well informed medically, you've no idea what it is like.
  - dec0dedab0de 9y ago
    I dont think any mentally healthy person would want to work in politics.
  - iamnothere 9y ago
    This is an interesting perspective. I would add that there may be multiple "healthy" modes of being human that are quite different, and some of these modes may be a small minority. In a small tribe these cognitive differences may have been valued (depending on the tribe of course!), but in our modern, highly systematized society these people are often considered a social "misfit" for being unable or unwilling to play along. For better or worse, the rules of society are designed by the neurotypical majority, who are often unable to see that the concept of "normal" is frequently just a fig leaf for the majority consensus. This can get wrapped up in politics through layers of metaphor but is rarely (if ever) engaged with directly in public debate.
    - mjburgess 9y ago
      > the rules of society are designed by the neurotypical majority That's another way of putting it. I'm not sure the majority are neurotypical however. I think, rather, "neurotypicality" is a background assumption of certain institutions because it's easier to design for an average even if it doesn't exist (no 1 human being is mean in every respect). However those who experience life-long mental health, and esp. for most of their childhood, I think are overwhelmingly "conservative" in their personalities. And I think these sort do tend to find themselves in more elite/visible positions. Political systems represent those who hold power. They do not represent a majority (power is the mechanism of representation, not mere existence). In democracies, there is more "tending towards the majority". But still, it is very much a symptom of who can be elected, who is elected, etc.
DanBC 9y ago
It's weird that you have such a strongly negative reaction to my post. Especially this bit: > > it's not provided as a package of bio-psycho-social treatment. > ADHD researchers (serious neuroscientists & clinical psychiatrists) have for DECADES tried "biosocial blah blah". Medication is the Bio bit. "Your children are not wilfully disobedient, please stop hitting them" is the psycho-social bit.
- mjburgess 9y ago
  I'm half reacting to a reading of your post that many readers will have, even if it's not one you intended. On the whole I appreciate you introducing the real prevalence of ADHD, etc. However the lack of engagement with the reality of treating ADHD and the implied "concerns" is a very easy prelude to a rant about middle class mothers, and the medical establishment. If I'm a little harsh to you, its only as a stand in for what your post would otherwise be used for: the occasional reader unthinkingly associating it with an attack on effective treatment.
taneq 9y ago
Your points about ADHD requiring a pharmacological approach reminds me of the discussion here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que... Specifically, that the only distinction between 'disease' and 'character flaw' which makes sense is that you can't fix someone's disease by yelling at them.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  > "...you can't fix someone's disease by yelling at them." Actually, I think if you believe in neuroplasticity (sp?) that might not be accurate. True, yelling might not be the best approach. But it can still work if applied the right way - to some extent.
wdewind 9y ago
I've read a lot of your posts on this thread and appreciate your perspective. I agree with a lot of it. Honest question for you though: isn't it a bit weird to label something as a disorder if 5-10% of the population has it? Isn't it just a fairly standard human existence then? I think that's where a lot of the discomfort comes from.
- maroonblazer 9y ago
  Not the parent, and I don't mean this sarcastically, but isn't that akin to saying "Only 5-10% of people fracture a bone, so why bother treating it. It's just a standard part of human existence."?
  - ed312 9y ago
    Also poor eyesight, color blindness, partial deafness, &c. The reality all of these diseases/disorders are readily and inexpensively treated and not an issue in modern society.
    - wdewind 9y ago
      There is a wide difference in the prevalence, severity of condition and extremity of treatment in some of these conditions. Poor eyesight afflicts a large portion of the population, but the severity of the issue and the extremity of the treatment are not high. It doesn't impact your ability to maintain social relationships, for instance, and the treatment is very well understood and has low/no side effects. Color blindness, partial deafness etc., are readily and inexpensively treated, but they do not afflict 5-10% of the young and healthy population. The issue comes in when we start saying 5-10% of the population has an extreme condition (ie: impacts ability to maintain work, social relationships etc.) with a relatively severe (ie: fairly large % of users experiencing side effects) treatment necessary. When you put that in the context of our massively volatile understanding of mental illness over the last 50 years, as well as the massive incentives for pharmaceutical companies to push a specific narrative, it is difficult for me not to see a red flag.

xena 9y ago

Honestly I think about half the problem is that psychiatric illnesses don't make people bleed, so there's no way to universally tell something is wrong.

mjburgess 9y ago
The bane of society, I think, is mentally healthy people. They run politics but have absolutely no appreciation for what works for non-healthy people. Which is all the people who acutally rely on politics/society. I think conservatism as a personality is a symptom of good mental health: if you arent able to do something, its lazyness. So you must just need some motivation: either a beating or some money. etc. That's true if you're mentally healthy. If not then the ways you are failing arent even imaginable from the POV of mental health. And they are as communicable as cancer, or any physical illness. The last century is full of works by people who have recently taken acid telling everyone how "everything is now differnet" etc. How they couldnt even have imagined the things they took for granted in how their minds work were actually variable. Every mental illness is its own unique form of acid. And unless you've been on an acid trip, or are very well informed medically, you've no idea what it is like.
- dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  I dont think any mentally healthy person would want to work in politics.
- iamnothere 9y ago
  This is an interesting perspective. I would add that there may be multiple "healthy" modes of being human that are quite different, and some of these modes may be a small minority. In a small tribe these cognitive differences may have been valued (depending on the tribe of course!), but in our modern, highly systematized society these people are often considered a social "misfit" for being unable or unwilling to play along. For better or worse, the rules of society are designed by the neurotypical majority, who are often unable to see that the concept of "normal" is frequently just a fig leaf for the majority consensus. This can get wrapped up in politics through layers of metaphor but is rarely (if ever) engaged with directly in public debate.
  - mjburgess 9y ago
    > the rules of society are designed by the neurotypical majority That's another way of putting it. I'm not sure the majority are neurotypical however. I think, rather, "neurotypicality" is a background assumption of certain institutions because it's easier to design for an average even if it doesn't exist (no 1 human being is mean in every respect). However those who experience life-long mental health, and esp. for most of their childhood, I think are overwhelmingly "conservative" in their personalities. And I think these sort do tend to find themselves in more elite/visible positions. Political systems represent those who hold power. They do not represent a majority (power is the mechanism of representation, not mere existence). In democracies, there is more "tending towards the majority". But still, it is very much a symptom of who can be elected, who is elected, etc.

DanBC 9y ago

It's weird that you have such a strongly negative reaction to my post. Especially this bit: > > it's not provided as a package of bio-psycho-social treatment. > ADHD researchers (serious neuroscientists & clinical psychiatrists) have for DECADES tried "biosocial blah blah". Medication is the Bio bit. "Your children are not wilfully disobedient, please stop hitting them" is the psycho-social bit.

mjburgess 9y ago
I'm half reacting to a reading of your post that many readers will have, even if it's not one you intended. On the whole I appreciate you introducing the real prevalence of ADHD, etc. However the lack of engagement with the reality of treating ADHD and the implied "concerns" is a very easy prelude to a rant about middle class mothers, and the medical establishment. If I'm a little harsh to you, its only as a stand in for what your post would otherwise be used for: the occasional reader unthinkingly associating it with an attack on effective treatment.

taneq 9y ago

Your points about ADHD requiring a pharmacological approach reminds me of the discussion here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_que... Specifically, that the only distinction between 'disease' and 'character flaw' which makes sense is that you can't fix someone's disease by yelling at them.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
> "...you can't fix someone's disease by yelling at them." Actually, I think if you believe in neuroplasticity (sp?) that might not be accurate. True, yelling might not be the best approach. But it can still work if applied the right way - to some extent.

wdewind 9y ago

I've read a lot of your posts on this thread and appreciate your perspective. I agree with a lot of it. Honest question for you though: isn't it a bit weird to label something as a disorder if 5-10% of the population has it? Isn't it just a fairly standard human existence then? I think that's where a lot of the discomfort comes from.

maroonblazer 9y ago
Not the parent, and I don't mean this sarcastically, but isn't that akin to saying "Only 5-10% of people fracture a bone, so why bother treating it. It's just a standard part of human existence."?
- ed312 9y ago
  Also poor eyesight, color blindness, partial deafness, &c. The reality all of these diseases/disorders are readily and inexpensively treated and not an issue in modern society.
  - wdewind 9y ago
    There is a wide difference in the prevalence, severity of condition and extremity of treatment in some of these conditions. Poor eyesight afflicts a large portion of the population, but the severity of the issue and the extremity of the treatment are not high. It doesn't impact your ability to maintain social relationships, for instance, and the treatment is very well understood and has low/no side effects. Color blindness, partial deafness etc., are readily and inexpensively treated, but they do not afflict 5-10% of the young and healthy population. The issue comes in when we start saying 5-10% of the population has an extreme condition (ie: impacts ability to maintain work, social relationships etc.) with a relatively severe (ie: fairly large % of users experiencing side effects) treatment necessary. When you put that in the context of our massively volatile understanding of mental illness over the last 50 years, as well as the massive incentives for pharmaceutical companies to push a specific narrative, it is difficult for me not to see a red flag.