8 ms·

ADHD is a cultural representation. Its not an actual condition. If you believe in the Religion of DSM, then you've got a problem: you live in a box. Not ever

ADHD is a cultural representation. Its not an actual condition. If you believe in the Religion of DSM, then you've got a problem: you live in a box. Not everyone on planet Earth actually considers that attention-deficiency requires drugging and dependency on industrialized pharmaceutical dealers. Its probably part of the "American supremacy" package, though - which is not necessarily only a US infliction, but more of a "Western" one. If you look beyond the West, you might find that its not as big a cultural problem as those who control your mind would have you believe ...

cloverich 11y ago
> ADHD is a cultural representation...Not everyone on planet Earth actually considers that attention-deficiency requires drugging and dependency on industrialized pharmaceutical dealers. Attention and focus are physical processes your brain executes to function normally. There is certainly a cultural aspect to the definition of normal, but its not a completely subjective interpretation as you're implying. Nor is over diagnosis synonymous with (the ailments) existence (i.e. it being over-diagnosed does not mean it does not exist). In the same way that lack of sleep can reduce your ability to focus, there are other physical processes that can go awry, and treatment (such as pharmaceutical intervention) can and does help people. As an interesting aside, sleep apnea is sometimes mis-diagnosed as ADHD (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808754 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808754)
- fit2rule 11y ago
  >> not a completely subjective interpretation as you're implying. Really? I think that all cultures are subjective by definition. So I can't agree with you, simply. Ask the French if they have an ADHD problem ..
derefr 11y ago
This bullshit has got to stop. Let me explain neurochemical imbalances generally, once and for all. Your brain is a machine to enact your choices. "You" are a small part of your brain; the executive center that makes moral judgements about potential courses of action and makes plans to get what you want. Your brain has reference ranges of neurochemicals. When it is within those ranges, you have a full spectrum of choice available to you, with no particular physiological bias toward one choice over another. A healthy brain enacts "your" whims at precisely the weightings you give them. You have all the options. When one of your neurochemicals falls out of the reference range, your brain enacts your choices in a biased manner. Your options become impaired. You no longer have the freedom to do exactly what you want. In clinical depression, choices that would lead to positively-charged emotional stimuli (going out for a walk instead of laying on your bed doing nothing, for example) are down-weighted. Your brain is taking away "your" choice about whether to enjoy something. In social anxiety, choices that would lead to socially-complex interactions (seeing friends; taking university courses; working in a job involving customer service) are down-weighted. "You" might enjoy doing these things, but your brain won't let you do them. In ADHD, choices that would lead to short-term effort but only long-term reward (practicing an instrument, for example) are down-weighted. "You" want to learn to play the piano? Too bad; your brain doesn't. These are not facets of personality. These are impairments in your available choices, just as much as missing a leg impairs your ability to choose to go dancing or being nearsighted impairs your ability to choose to sit at the back of a classroom. And like the physical impairments, they have prosthetics—drugs that return your brain to the reference ranges of these neurochemicals. Like any prosthetic, the point of them is to give you back the options that having the impairment takes away. Anti-depressants let you choose to go do something fun. You don't have to. You can stay in. But the choice is no longer being made for you, by your brain. Anxiolytics let you choose to socialize. You don't have to. You can be an introvert. But now you don't have to worry about someone making a demand of you based on an expectation that all the options are equally easy. ADHD medication lets you choose to work on a task with no short-term reward. You can still play video games or goof off, but now you can also start—and finish—writing a book. You no longer have to select from the subset of hobbies and jobs your brain is willing to put up with.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > Let me explain neurochemical imbalances generally, once and for all. You know that the neurochemical explanation for depression is mostly bullshit, right? Note that I'm not saying that meds don't work, but there's a reason why first line treatment for depression or for anxiety disorders in the UK is not meds but is a (more expensive) talking therapy: the evidence is stronger. EDIT: also, stop feeding the fucking troll.
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    I don't think derefr is going to be convinced by your - or my - argument. The drug that changes their mind hasn't been patented yet.
  - no_psuedo_bs 11y ago
    No, the evidence is not "stronger" for the efficacy of psychotherapy over medication in moderate to severe depression. Nor is it "stronger" for mild depression - they appear to be about as efficacious. And no, the "neurochemical" explanation for depression isn't bullshit. But please do enlighten us with your own scientific theory on what scientific process other than chemicals underlies phenomenon like mood, motivation, focus, etc. Stop peddling psuedoscience.
  - derefr 11y ago
    No, the serotonin insufficiency explanation for depression is mostly bullshit. Here is exactly the link for you: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/05/chemical-imbalance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/05/chemical-imbalance/ (and a sequel: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/18/polemical-imbalance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/18/polemical-imbalance/) > but there's a reason why first line treatment for depression or for anxiety disorders in the UK is not meds but is a (more expensive) talking therapy It's not actually that the evidence is stronger (as in, there is more supporting evidence) but rather that the evidence suggests the effect size is stronger. Talk therapy is a really good way to treat anxiety in particular. It's a good prosthetic! I'm not arguing that there's a 1:1 mapping of neurochemicals to disorders; in fact, that's almost certainly the opposite of the case, and one of the main reasons drugs don't seem to beat placebo is that there are bimodal distributions where a given drug will only work on the subset of people with a given symptom where that symptom is caused by that particular chemical imbalance. Sometimes what clinical depression needs is a dopaminergic (e.g. Wellbutrin). Sometimes what social anxiety needs is an SNRI. It's all a mess. But that doesn't mean that it's not all chemicals, and that there isn't a combination of chemicals that wouldn't put things right in proper dosages. Neurotransmitters are how your brain does multicast electrochemical signalling; any message that's not just a local one between two synapses is travelling via a neurotransmitter. (I apologize for feeding the troll; I just wanted to write that post above for a long time, and figured this would be a good time to do it. To said troll: I will note that I'm not arguing for the pharmaceutical industry as it stands. My own personal desire is to figure out a set of non-invasive tests that can measure effective "executive weight normalization" on various axes the way dual-N-back measures effective IQ, and then give people a "chemistry kit" of various -ergics, reuptake inhibitors, and inhibitors, and let them do their own science.)
no_psuedo_bs 11y ago
Kindly take your pseudoscience to CrystalsRUS.com

cloverich 11y ago

> ADHD is a cultural representation...Not everyone on planet Earth actually considers that attention-deficiency requires drugging and dependency on industrialized pharmaceutical dealers. Attention and focus are physical processes your brain executes to function normally. There is certainly a cultural aspect to the definition of normal, but its not a completely subjective interpretation as you're implying. Nor is over diagnosis synonymous with (the ailments) existence (i.e. it being over-diagnosed does not mean it does not exist). In the same way that lack of sleep can reduce your ability to focus, there are other physical processes that can go awry, and treatment (such as pharmaceutical intervention) can and does help people. As an interesting aside, sleep apnea is sometimes mis-diagnosed as ADHD (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808754 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21808754)

fit2rule 11y ago
>> not a completely subjective interpretation as you're implying. Really? I think that all cultures are subjective by definition. So I can't agree with you, simply. Ask the French if they have an ADHD problem ..

derefr 11y ago

This bullshit has got to stop. Let me explain neurochemical imbalances generally, once and for all. Your brain is a machine to enact your choices. "You" are a small part of your brain; the executive center that makes moral judgements about potential courses of action and makes plans to get what you want. Your brain has reference ranges of neurochemicals. When it is within those ranges, you have a full spectrum of choice available to you, with no particular physiological bias toward one choice over another. A healthy brain enacts "your" whims at precisely the weightings you give them. You have all the options. When one of your neurochemicals falls out of the reference range, your brain enacts your choices in a biased manner. Your options become impaired. You no longer have the freedom to do exactly what you want. In clinical depression, choices that would lead to positively-charged emotional stimuli (going out for a walk instead of laying on your bed doing nothing, for example) are down-weighted. Your brain is taking away "your" choice about whether to enjoy something. In social anxiety, choices that would lead to socially-complex interactions (seeing friends; taking university courses; working in a job involving customer service) are down-weighted. "You" might enjoy doing these things, but your brain won't let you do them. In ADHD, choices that would lead to short-term effort but only long-term reward (practicing an instrument, for example) are down-weighted. "You" want to learn to play the piano? Too bad; your brain doesn't. These are not facets of personality. These are impairments in your available choices, just as much as missing a leg impairs your ability to choose to go dancing or being nearsighted impairs your ability to choose to sit at the back of a classroom. And like the physical impairments, they have prosthetics—drugs that return your brain to the reference ranges of these neurochemicals. Like any prosthetic, the point of them is to give you back the options that having the impairment takes away. Anti-depressants let you choose to go do something fun. You don't have to. You can stay in. But the choice is no longer being made for you, by your brain. Anxiolytics let you choose to socialize. You don't have to. You can be an introvert. But now you don't have to worry about someone making a demand of you based on an expectation that all the options are equally easy. ADHD medication lets you choose to work on a task with no short-term reward. You can still play video games or goof off, but now you can also start—and finish—writing a book. You no longer have to select from the subset of hobbies and jobs your brain is willing to put up with.

DanBC 11y ago
> Let me explain neurochemical imbalances generally, once and for all. You know that the neurochemical explanation for depression is mostly bullshit, right? Note that I'm not saying that meds don't work, but there's a reason why first line treatment for depression or for anxiety disorders in the UK is not meds but is a (more expensive) talking therapy: the evidence is stronger. EDIT: also, stop feeding the fucking troll.
- fit2rule 11y ago
  I don't think derefr is going to be convinced by your - or my - argument. The drug that changes their mind hasn't been patented yet.
- no_psuedo_bs 11y ago
  No, the evidence is not "stronger" for the efficacy of psychotherapy over medication in moderate to severe depression. Nor is it "stronger" for mild depression - they appear to be about as efficacious. And no, the "neurochemical" explanation for depression isn't bullshit. But please do enlighten us with your own scientific theory on what scientific process other than chemicals underlies phenomenon like mood, motivation, focus, etc. Stop peddling psuedoscience.
- derefr 11y ago
  No, the serotonin insufficiency explanation for depression is mostly bullshit. Here is exactly the link for you: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/05/chemical-imbalance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/05/chemical-imbalance/ (and a sequel: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/18/polemical-imbalance/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/18/polemical-imbalance/) > but there's a reason why first line treatment for depression or for anxiety disorders in the UK is not meds but is a (more expensive) talking therapy It's not actually that the evidence is stronger (as in, there is more supporting evidence) but rather that the evidence suggests the effect size is stronger. Talk therapy is a really good way to treat anxiety in particular. It's a good prosthetic! I'm not arguing that there's a 1:1 mapping of neurochemicals to disorders; in fact, that's almost certainly the opposite of the case, and one of the main reasons drugs don't seem to beat placebo is that there are bimodal distributions where a given drug will only work on the subset of people with a given symptom where that symptom is caused by that particular chemical imbalance. Sometimes what clinical depression needs is a dopaminergic (e.g. Wellbutrin). Sometimes what social anxiety needs is an SNRI. It's all a mess. But that doesn't mean that it's not all chemicals, and that there isn't a combination of chemicals that wouldn't put things right in proper dosages. Neurotransmitters are how your brain does multicast electrochemical signalling; any message that's not just a local one between two synapses is travelling via a neurotransmitter. (I apologize for feeding the troll; I just wanted to write that post above for a long time, and figured this would be a good time to do it. To said troll: I will note that I'm not arguing for the pharmaceutical industry as it stands. My own personal desire is to figure out a set of non-invasive tests that can measure effective "executive weight normalization" on various axes the way dual-N-back measures effective IQ, and then give people a "chemistry kit" of various -ergics, reuptake inhibitors, and inhibitors, and let them do their own science.)

no_psuedo_bs 11y ago

Kindly take your pseudoscience to CrystalsRUS.com