6 ms·

Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. The finding that I am referring to is an observational study. There might not have been a "co

Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. The finding that I am referring to is an observational study. There might not have been a "control group" with exactly zero time in school, but plenty of datapoints, and the "dosage effect" is undeniable. That is scientific enough. "Some argue [about cause of ADHD]" reveals that you just quote the scientific method if you want to argue a point, and don't really understand it. ADHD has been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in medicine. "Present evidence" includes ADHD being a consistent syndrome in Neuroanatomy, EEG, fMRI, genetic studies, and psychological testing. There are even successful treatments for it. The most important factor in ADHD is genetic, other factors include early injuries, environmental toxins, alcohol exposure in the womb, low birth weights - very clear evidence that there are causes for ADHD that a school system can't be changed to prevent. What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases?

lutusp 12y ago
> Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. In human studies, the absence of a control group invalidates the result. This is human studies 101. As to science meaning what I think it does: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science > That is scientific enough. Spoken like a true psychologist. Observational studies without an effort to craft a testable, falsifiable theory, an explanation, for the observations is not science. If this were not so, astrology would be a science. But since I can anticipate your reply, let me give you an example. Doctor Dubious invents a new treatment for the common cold. His treatment is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until the patient gets better. Sometimes the treatment takes a week, but it always works — the cold sufferer always recovers. So, why doesn't Doctor Dubious get a Nobel Prize for his breakthrough? The answer is that the procedure is only a description — shake the gourd, patient recovers — without an explanation, without a basis for actually learning anything or being truthful about the connection between cause and effect. It's the same with psychology. > What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases? One study with a control group and scientific discipline, would be worth thousands of typical psychology studies that don't try to move from description to testable, falsifiable explanation. As it happens, the NIMH has now accepted this view. In a recent policy change, the NIMH has ruled that the DSM, psychology and psychiatry's "bible", may no longer be accepted as the basis for scientific research proposals, on the ground that it has no scientific content: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-bible-anymore http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiat... But, since you think that the quantity of studies make up for their poor quality, will you also defend the many thousands of recovered memory cases on the same ground -- that, since there were so many of them, surely they must refer to something real? And that therefore Beth Rutherford really was raped by her father and forced to abort using a coat hanger -- until the day someone discovered she was a virgin? Or how about Asperger Syndrome? A few years ago it seemed like a real thing, with thousands of confirmed diagnoses (for those of you who think counting cases makes up for poor discipline). Now, because of indiscipline and widespread abuse, it's been voted out of the DSM and therapists are discouraged from using it. > There are even successful treatments for it. Yes, just as there is for the common cold -- see above. If you actually understood science you would realize that ADHD means precisely nothing until a cause is uncovered. > ADHD has been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in medicine. Compared to a microscope image of a pathogen, followed by development of a vaccine, which either succeeds or fails, in a properly designed study with a control group? ADHD is located in the vast terrain of unscientific psychology, grouped with things that are discussed but for which there is no solid evidence nor known cause. The NIMH has taken the first step by denying use of the DSM in scientific research. The next step will be advances in neuroscience and the eventual replacement of psychology with neuroscience. This doesn't say there's nothing to ADHD, or that a real cause might not eventually be uncovered. It says psychologists have no idea what they're talking about.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  Withholding school from children (in a developing country) in a long term experiment is completely unethical. You can't ruin a child's future just to make a point. Such an experiment should never be conducted. I think you should really research ADHD more thoroughly. I don't understand how you could be writing so much nonsense about it if you even took five Minutes to read the wikipedia article. ADHD medication has been tested in double blind studies in hundreds of thousands of cases, in dozens of seperate studies, for several different substances. It doesn't get any better. ADHD diagnosis in terms of questionnaires PREDICTS anatomical, physiological and psychological differences. It also predicts negative consequences: higher risk of depression, higher risk for delinquent behavior, low academic achievement (compared to IQ), lack of social skills etc. And many of these predicted (and well-observed) consequences can be prevented by medication and therapy. How much more "scientific" can it get? Insisting on ADHD not being a diagnoseable, treatable syndrom is almost as dangerous as saying "vaccines cause autism".
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Withholding school from children (in a developing country) in a long term experiment is completely unethical. Yes, I agree, and that is why the required science cannot be done -- the science you think exists in psychology. > I think you should really research ADHD more thoroughly. I have researched it, I know this topic much better than you do, and at present ADHD is firmly in the pseudoscience category. This is not to say it's not real, it is to say that no one has any idea what it is, and we cannot objectively diagnose it. This means it's open to various kinds of abuse, in particular if its diagnosis relies on self-reporting and questionnaires, the bane of modern psychology. > It doesn't get any better. Science is better. But to understand that, you would have to understand science. > ADHD diagnosis in terms of questionnaires PREDICTS anatomical, physiological and psychological differences. Questionnaires? Self-reporting? This is worse than I thought. You show me a microphotograph of a pathogen (or a distinctly abnormal group of brain cells, or a cluster of genetic defects, or anything objective at all) that causes ADHD, and I will grant that the required science has begun. Until then, an ADHD diagnosis depends on how a questionnaire is filled out, which means people can get the diagnosis if they want it and if they know what to say in the questionnaire (or the reverse, if that's their preference). > Insisting on ADHD not being a diagnoseable, treatable syndrom is almost as dangerous as saying "vaccines cause autism". You're obviously unaware that Thomas Insel, chairman of the NIMH, holds the same views on this topic that I do: Link: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better." Ten years ago I was having the same kinds of conversations about Asperger Syndrome. Now Asperger Syndrome is gone, discredited. Does this mean that ADHD is another phony condition? Not likely, but no one knows, because no one is doing the required science. I'll say it again for the record -- ADHD will become a real condition when we know what causes it, and not before. Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations. Psychology is stuck at the description stage, and has been for decades.

lutusp 12y ago

> Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. In human studies, the absence of a control group invalidates the result. This is human studies 101. As to science meaning what I think it does: http://arachnoid.com/building_science http://arachnoid.com/building_science > That is scientific enough. Spoken like a true psychologist. Observational studies without an effort to craft a testable, falsifiable theory, an explanation, for the observations is not science. If this were not so, astrology would be a science. But since I can anticipate your reply, let me give you an example. Doctor Dubious invents a new treatment for the common cold. His treatment is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until the patient gets better. Sometimes the treatment takes a week, but it always works — the cold sufferer always recovers. So, why doesn't Doctor Dubious get a Nobel Prize for his breakthrough? The answer is that the procedure is only a description — shake the gourd, patient recovers — without an explanation, without a basis for actually learning anything or being truthful about the connection between cause and effect. It's the same with psychology. > What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases? One study with a control group and scientific discipline, would be worth thousands of typical psychology studies that don't try to move from description to testable, falsifiable explanation. As it happens, the NIMH has now accepted this view. In a recent policy change, the NIMH has ruled that the DSM, psychology and psychiatry's "bible", may no longer be accepted as the basis for scientific research proposals, on the ground that it has no scientific content: http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiatry-bible-anymore http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/nimh-wont-follow-psychiat... But, since you think that the quantity of studies make up for their poor quality, will you also defend the many thousands of recovered memory cases on the same ground -- that, since there were so many of them, surely they must refer to something real? And that therefore Beth Rutherford really was raped by her father and forced to abort using a coat hanger -- until the day someone discovered she was a virgin? Or how about Asperger Syndrome? A few years ago it seemed like a real thing, with thousands of confirmed diagnoses (for those of you who think counting cases makes up for poor discipline). Now, because of indiscipline and widespread abuse, it's been voted out of the DSM and therapists are discouraged from using it. > There are even successful treatments for it. Yes, just as there is for the common cold -- see above. If you actually understood science you would realize that ADHD means precisely nothing until a cause is uncovered. > ADHD has been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in medicine. Compared to a microscope image of a pathogen, followed by development of a vaccine, which either succeeds or fails, in a properly designed study with a control group? ADHD is located in the vast terrain of unscientific psychology, grouped with things that are discussed but for which there is no solid evidence nor known cause. The NIMH has taken the first step by denying use of the DSM in scientific research. The next step will be advances in neuroscience and the eventual replacement of psychology with neuroscience. This doesn't say there's nothing to ADHD, or that a real cause might not eventually be uncovered. It says psychologists have no idea what they're talking about.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
Withholding school from children (in a developing country) in a long term experiment is completely unethical. You can't ruin a child's future just to make a point. Such an experiment should never be conducted. I think you should really research ADHD more thoroughly. I don't understand how you could be writing so much nonsense about it if you even took five Minutes to read the wikipedia article. ADHD medication has been tested in double blind studies in hundreds of thousands of cases, in dozens of seperate studies, for several different substances. It doesn't get any better. ADHD diagnosis in terms of questionnaires PREDICTS anatomical, physiological and psychological differences. It also predicts negative consequences: higher risk of depression, higher risk for delinquent behavior, low academic achievement (compared to IQ), lack of social skills etc. And many of these predicted (and well-observed) consequences can be prevented by medication and therapy. How much more "scientific" can it get? Insisting on ADHD not being a diagnoseable, treatable syndrom is almost as dangerous as saying "vaccines cause autism".
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Withholding school from children (in a developing country) in a long term experiment is completely unethical. Yes, I agree, and that is why the required science cannot be done -- the science you think exists in psychology. > I think you should really research ADHD more thoroughly. I have researched it, I know this topic much better than you do, and at present ADHD is firmly in the pseudoscience category. This is not to say it's not real, it is to say that no one has any idea what it is, and we cannot objectively diagnose it. This means it's open to various kinds of abuse, in particular if its diagnosis relies on self-reporting and questionnaires, the bane of modern psychology. > It doesn't get any better. Science is better. But to understand that, you would have to understand science. > ADHD diagnosis in terms of questionnaires PREDICTS anatomical, physiological and psychological differences. Questionnaires? Self-reporting? This is worse than I thought. You show me a microphotograph of a pathogen (or a distinctly abnormal group of brain cells, or a cluster of genetic defects, or anything objective at all) that causes ADHD, and I will grant that the required science has begun. Until then, an ADHD diagnosis depends on how a questionnaire is filled out, which means people can get the diagnosis if they want it and if they know what to say in the questionnaire (or the reverse, if that's their preference). > Insisting on ADHD not being a diagnoseable, treatable syndrom is almost as dangerous as saying "vaccines cause autism". You're obviously unaware that Thomas Insel, chairman of the NIMH, holds the same views on this topic that I do: Link: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia... Quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity." "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better." Ten years ago I was having the same kinds of conversations about Asperger Syndrome. Now Asperger Syndrome is gone, discredited. Does this mean that ADHD is another phony condition? Not likely, but no one knows, because no one is doing the required science. I'll say it again for the record -- ADHD will become a real condition when we know what causes it, and not before. Science requires testable, falsifiable explanations. Psychology is stuck at the description stage, and has been for decades.