5 ms·

Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

by gress 13y ago

epx 13y ago
Chebychev inequality!
joeyo 13y ago
I'm not sure if it's that black and white. Roughly 25% of deaths in the US are due to heart disease. Should we not intervene because heart disease is part of the normal range?
- gress 13y ago
  You're affirming the consequent.
- amirmc 13y ago
  I agree that it's probably not that black and white but a comparison with heart disease isn't a fair one. The grandparent post does make a point. If such a large proportion of the population has a 'condition' is it really a condition or perhaps just how we (as a species) are? Especially in the case of something that's psychiatric/psychological. For example, I've heard estimates that around 10% of the population is homosexual and for many years people wanted to 'fix' them. Around 10%-12% of people are left-handed and (I believe) that historically this was also something that people tried to 'fix'. I doubt many of us think twice about these anymore. To a sibling comment that suggested what if 1 in 5 boys were born deaf, I'd say that the world would be a vastly different place. So different that we may not even entertain such a question. If, instead, 1/5th of boys were beginning to be born deaf, there would be a medical emergency. Unfortunately, in the case of things like ADHD it's difficult to know if we've always been this way or if there's really been a change.
  - aianus 13y ago
    Being gay or left-handed doesn't inherently impact your quality of life. Not being able to concentrate on anything does. So even if it were part of the normal range we should work on fixing it, like we do for myopia.
    - amirmc 13y ago
      Being gay or left-handed doesn't inherently impact your quality of life. It does if everyone else is telling you that you're abnormal (and need to be 'fixed'). That was the point of using those examples. Not being able to concentrate on anything does. Only if society has defined as valuable the ability to do only one thing, without distraction, for whatever period of time. Therefore, anyone who cannot do this must be 'broken' somehow. So even if it were part of the normal range we should work on fixing it, like we do for myopia. The first part of your sentence doesn't make sense. If it's 'normal' then by definition it isn't broken (and therefore doesn't require fixing). For the myopia example, most people 'fix' it by wearing glasses or contacts, which are non-permanent and do not mess with brain chemistry. Indeed, some people I know with myopia only bother with glasses when driving and cope just fine without for the rest of the time. Of course, measuring the degree of myopia is very easy so drawing a line between 'has some difficulty' vs 'severely impaired' is a lot more clear cut. In one case, we can consider glasses as an augmentation to something that is normal, whereas in the other we've fixing something that's broken. I'm not suggesting that ADHD isn't a problem. Merely that we should exercise some caution before we label some things (people?) as broken, when perhaps they are not.
      - aianus 13y ago
        It does if everyone else is telling you that you're abnormal (and need to be 'fixed'). That was the point of using those examples. That's why I used the word 'inherently'. People telling you you're abnormal is not inherent to those conditions. Only if society has defined as valuable the ability to do only one thing, without distraction, for whatever period of time. Therefore, anyone who cannot do this must be 'broken' somehow. ADHD doesn't interfere with your life because other people are making fun of the fact you can't sit still. It interferes with your life because it's very difficult to be productive in any way if you can't concentrate for whatever period of time and being productive is what's valuable to society. I have mild myopia and I don't feel any resentment to my optometrist for labeling me broken. I'm just happy he augmented/fixed me so I can read signs at a distance. And unless/until we have proof that prescribing Adderall is so dangerous that it's not worth the gains, then I don't see a problem treating it the same as contact lenses. I'm not suggesting that ADHD isn't a problem. Merely that we should exercise some caution before we label some things (people?) as broken, when perhaps they are not. Well, clearly they thought they were broken somehow when they went to the doctor with concerns about their attention spans, no?
- pantalaimon 13y ago
  What is a normal death?
chimeracoder 13y ago
Would you say the same if 1 in 5 boys were born deaf?
- gress 13y ago
  Yes, unless there was evidence of a contemporary cause, in which case I'd investigate it. Have boys changed, or has society?
- harshreality 13y ago
  Can deafness be treated in any other way? What effort is being made to determine whether the etiology of ADHD is primarily biochemical (chemical/genetic), or primarily psychological (environmental/human-interaction)? Drugging to counteract ADHD symptoms makes sense only if it's the former.
  - torkins 13y ago
    So given that ADHD is, in actual fact, a neurobiological diagnosis, not a psychological diagnosis, then I guess you're stating your support for treating it with drugs?
    - harshreality 13y ago
      Neurobiological sounds like psychological to me. Unless you're saying doctors are measuring things like dopamine activity or doing brain MRIs to diagnose ADHD. There's no good evidence that ADHD is not the result of psychological conditioning. For that matter, even if you measured abnormal neurotransmitter activity or brain scans in suspected ADHD patients before diagnosing them, if you looked at animal psychology studies where pathological behavior has been induced by conditioning, I'd be surprised if there weren't abnormal brain scans and neurotransmitter activity there, too. The neurochemical/neurophysical measurements that might provide "evidence" of a non-psychological etiology are invalid if those physical aspects of the brain are themselves affected/modulated by neurological conditioning/development. If your solution to any problematic "neurobiological" symptom that responds well to a certain drug is to prescribe that drug, because if it responds to a drug it must be a chemical/genetic problem, then everyone will be on a drug eventually. Probably several.
rtpg 13y ago
three-quarters of Americans need vision correction, does that make it 'normal'?
- gress 13y ago
  Yes, and well understood. Do you understand ADHD?
  - rtpg 13y ago
    As someone who has gone through tests and been diagnosed with ADD, I think I understand the frustrations, and it definitely does not "feel" normal. Not being able to hold onto a thought for more than 3 minutes, or having to deal with potentially being distracted by every little thing that happens around me does not feel like the normal state of affairs. Trivial tasks can take me hours instead of minutes in some situations. Unfortunately I'm currently in a country that doesn't allow me to get medication for this (and previously I was in a country that believes that ADD/ADHD magically disappears when you turn 18), but I still have good memories of how much it helped me get through middle school and high school (I went from almost never finishing my math homework to being able to finish everything in class in only half the allotted time).
    - gress 13y ago
      For sure - there is a wide variety of human experience, and each of us understands our own. By understanding ADHD, I was talking about the causes and the nature, not the experience. If drugs are the only way someone like you can lead a happy life, then you should be able to use them.
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  We need vision correction to meet a universal standard of visual acuity in the modern world - so that we can all read the same road signs, etc. Normal vision could be interpreted as a range much larger than our arbitrary standard of "perfect", 20/20 vision.
jonah 13y ago
Did 1 in 5 have it 50 years ago? 100? 500? If not, why now?

Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

by gress 13y ago

Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

epx 13y ago

Chebychev inequality!

joeyo 13y ago

I'm not sure if it's that black and white. Roughly 25% of deaths in the US are due to heart disease. Should we not intervene because heart disease is part of the normal range?

gress 13y ago
You're affirming the consequent.
amirmc 13y ago
I agree that it's probably not that black and white but a comparison with heart disease isn't a fair one. The grandparent post does make a point. If such a large proportion of the population has a 'condition' is it really a condition or perhaps just how we (as a species) are? Especially in the case of something that's psychiatric/psychological. For example, I've heard estimates that around 10% of the population is homosexual and for many years people wanted to 'fix' them. Around 10%-12% of people are left-handed and (I believe) that historically this was also something that people tried to 'fix'. I doubt many of us think twice about these anymore. To a sibling comment that suggested what if 1 in 5 boys were born deaf, I'd say that the world would be a vastly different place. So different that we may not even entertain such a question. If, instead, 1/5th of boys were beginning to be born deaf, there would be a medical emergency. Unfortunately, in the case of things like ADHD it's difficult to know if we've always been this way or if there's really been a change.
- aianus 13y ago
  Being gay or left-handed doesn't inherently impact your quality of life. Not being able to concentrate on anything does. So even if it were part of the normal range we should work on fixing it, like we do for myopia.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    Being gay or left-handed doesn't inherently impact your quality of life. It does if everyone else is telling you that you're abnormal (and need to be 'fixed'). That was the point of using those examples. Not being able to concentrate on anything does. Only if society has defined as valuable the ability to do only one thing, without distraction, for whatever period of time. Therefore, anyone who cannot do this must be 'broken' somehow. So even if it were part of the normal range we should work on fixing it, like we do for myopia. The first part of your sentence doesn't make sense. If it's 'normal' then by definition it isn't broken (and therefore doesn't require fixing). For the myopia example, most people 'fix' it by wearing glasses or contacts, which are non-permanent and do not mess with brain chemistry. Indeed, some people I know with myopia only bother with glasses when driving and cope just fine without for the rest of the time. Of course, measuring the degree of myopia is very easy so drawing a line between 'has some difficulty' vs 'severely impaired' is a lot more clear cut. In one case, we can consider glasses as an augmentation to something that is normal, whereas in the other we've fixing something that's broken. I'm not suggesting that ADHD isn't a problem. Merely that we should exercise some caution before we label some things (people?) as broken, when perhaps they are not.
    - aianus 13y ago
      It does if everyone else is telling you that you're abnormal (and need to be 'fixed'). That was the point of using those examples. That's why I used the word 'inherently'. People telling you you're abnormal is not inherent to those conditions. Only if society has defined as valuable the ability to do only one thing, without distraction, for whatever period of time. Therefore, anyone who cannot do this must be 'broken' somehow. ADHD doesn't interfere with your life because other people are making fun of the fact you can't sit still. It interferes with your life because it's very difficult to be productive in any way if you can't concentrate for whatever period of time and being productive is what's valuable to society. I have mild myopia and I don't feel any resentment to my optometrist for labeling me broken. I'm just happy he augmented/fixed me so I can read signs at a distance. And unless/until we have proof that prescribing Adderall is so dangerous that it's not worth the gains, then I don't see a problem treating it the same as contact lenses. I'm not suggesting that ADHD isn't a problem. Merely that we should exercise some caution before we label some things (people?) as broken, when perhaps they are not. Well, clearly they thought they were broken somehow when they went to the doctor with concerns about their attention spans, no?
pantalaimon 13y ago
What is a normal death?

chimeracoder 13y ago

Would you say the same if 1 in 5 boys were born deaf?

gress 13y ago
Yes, unless there was evidence of a contemporary cause, in which case I'd investigate it. Have boys changed, or has society?
harshreality 13y ago
Can deafness be treated in any other way? What effort is being made to determine whether the etiology of ADHD is primarily biochemical (chemical/genetic), or primarily psychological (environmental/human-interaction)? Drugging to counteract ADHD symptoms makes sense only if it's the former.
- torkins 13y ago
  So given that ADHD is, in actual fact, a neurobiological diagnosis, not a psychological diagnosis, then I guess you're stating your support for treating it with drugs?
  - harshreality 13y ago
    Neurobiological sounds like psychological to me. Unless you're saying doctors are measuring things like dopamine activity or doing brain MRIs to diagnose ADHD. There's no good evidence that ADHD is not the result of psychological conditioning. For that matter, even if you measured abnormal neurotransmitter activity or brain scans in suspected ADHD patients before diagnosing them, if you looked at animal psychology studies where pathological behavior has been induced by conditioning, I'd be surprised if there weren't abnormal brain scans and neurotransmitter activity there, too. The neurochemical/neurophysical measurements that might provide "evidence" of a non-psychological etiology are invalid if those physical aspects of the brain are themselves affected/modulated by neurological conditioning/development. If your solution to any problematic "neurobiological" symptom that responds well to a certain drug is to prescribe that drug, because if it responds to a drug it must be a chemical/genetic problem, then everyone will be on a drug eventually. Probably several.

rtpg 13y ago

three-quarters of Americans need vision correction, does that make it 'normal'?

gress 13y ago
Yes, and well understood. Do you understand ADHD?
- rtpg 13y ago
  As someone who has gone through tests and been diagnosed with ADD, I think I understand the frustrations, and it definitely does not "feel" normal. Not being able to hold onto a thought for more than 3 minutes, or having to deal with potentially being distracted by every little thing that happens around me does not feel like the normal state of affairs. Trivial tasks can take me hours instead of minutes in some situations. Unfortunately I'm currently in a country that doesn't allow me to get medication for this (and previously I was in a country that believes that ADD/ADHD magically disappears when you turn 18), but I still have good memories of how much it helped me get through middle school and high school (I went from almost never finishing my math homework to being able to finish everything in class in only half the allotted time).
  - gress 13y ago
    For sure - there is a wide variety of human experience, and each of us understands our own. By understanding ADHD, I was talking about the causes and the nature, not the experience. If drugs are the only way someone like you can lead a happy life, then you should be able to use them.
nsxwolf 13y ago
We need vision correction to meet a universal standard of visual acuity in the modern world - so that we can all read the same road signs, etc. Normal vision could be interpreted as a range much larger than our arbitrary standard of "perfect", 20/20 vision.

jonah 13y ago

Did 1 in 5 have it 50 years ago? 100? 500? If not, why now?