More kids being alternatively schooled

348 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 12:51
revol68 wrote:
Of course ADHD will have a genetic component in so much as people have differing central nervous systems and sensitivities (though these are bound up in the environment), and yes it is real in that it's a diagnosis put on real behaviour, it is however a social construct and one that arose with the rapid medicalisation of personality traits that don't sit well with the needs of capitalist society. To claim that simply some kids are just 'misdiagnosed' is on a par with the niave belief that social darwinism arose and was perpuated simply as 'bad science', rather the parameters of it's diagnosis are socially contested, which is exactly why doctors from different countries vary greatly in their diagnosis rates.

Bloody hell, amazing.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Mar 2 2008 13:03

Social and cultural factors effect diagnosis of everything, whats your point revol?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 2 2008 13:20
Quote:
Social and cultural factors effect diagnosis of everything, whats your point revol?

And the marketing of drugs and the pockets of psychologists will also factor in. That's his point also I believe (if not, well then I am making it now).

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 13:25

Of course they factor in, and no one is saying that many healthy but exuberant children are not unwarrantedly diagnosed with ADHD. What is contentious is revol's claim that ADHD itself is merely a social construct, a capitalist-orientated medicalisation of normal, non-pathological behaviour. In this the clinical and psychological evidence is against him.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Mar 2 2008 13:44

So in a communist society kids would be allowed to run around the clasroom?

I think the symptoms of ADHD would cause problems in any society. its just that in the past, and in some cultures now I would imagine, sufferers weren't helped and were left to try to deal with it on their own, leaving them vulnerable to all sorts of social problems.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Mar 2 2008 13:48
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
DSM-IV Criteria for ADHD
I. Either A or B:

1.

Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention have been present for at least 6 months to a point that is disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level:

Inattention

1.

Often does not give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities.
2.

Often has trouble keeping attention on tasks or play activities.
3.

Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
4.

Often does not follow instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions).
5.

Often has trouble organizing activities.
6.

Often avoids, dislikes, or doesn't want to do things that take a lot of mental effort for a long period of time (such as schoolwork or homework).
7.

Often loses things needed for tasks and activities (e.g. toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools).
8.

Is often easily distracted.
9.

Is often forgetful in daily activities.

2.

Six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have been present for at least 6 months to an extent that is disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level:

Hyperactivity

1.

Often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.
2.

Often gets up from seat when remaining in seat is expected.
3.

Often runs about or climbs when and where it is not appropriate (adolescents or adults may feel very restless).
4.

Often has trouble playing or enjoying leisure activities quietly.
5.

Is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor".
6.

Often talks excessively.

Impulsivity

1.

Often blurts out answers before questions have been finished.
2.

Often has trouble waiting one's turn.
3.

Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games).

2.

Some symptoms that cause impairment were present before age 7 years.
3.

Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more settings (e.g. at school/work and at home).
4.

There must be clear evidence of significant impairment in social, school, or work functioning.
5.

The symptoms do not happen only during the course of a Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, or other Psychotic Disorder. The symptoms are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g. Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality Disorder).

Seriously what a fucking laugh!

I'm ADHD positive to fuck!

You can't diagnose yourself revol.
A psychologist observes the child at school and home, and decides whether they fit these criteria. A diagnosis won't be given unless the behaviours are 'disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level'.
Psychologists have to be trained to use the DSM, they apply it more stringently than someone who hasn't. If self-diagnosis using the dsm was valid then I'd have loads and loads of mental disorders!

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 13:50
revol68 wrote:
Anna wrote:
Of course they factor in, and no one is saying that many healthy but exuberant children are not unwarrantedly diagnosed with ADHD. What is contentious is revol's claim that ADHD itself is merely a social construct, a capitalist-orientated medicalisation of normal, non-pathological behaviour. In this the clinical and psychological evidence is against him.

ADHD is a social construct, there is no 'merely' about it, it rose with the growing medicalisation of a wide variety of behaviours and emotions and this way of explaining and dealing with 'problematic' behaviour in individualised pathological terms fits well with the atomisation of capitalism.

Now the various behaviours and even neurological states that ADHD relates to are real, to what extent they are problematic and detrimental to the individuals quality of life etc is socially mediated, as can be seen by the fact that diagnosis rates can flucuiate so greatly, something one wouldn't expect if the criteria is as tight and rigourous as Anna claims.

Oh btw Anna do you think Drapetomania is mostly genetic?

Revol, you realise that you're basically just repeating the pop-adaptationist 'theory' that we all agreed was rot - ie/ that ADHD is just a certain type of behaviour that was normal or adaptive in the past, but that now is being wrongly seen as pathological because it appears maladaptive in the context of capitalist ideology.
Inconsistent or what?

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 13:53

Oh and I never claimed that criteria for diagnosing ADHD were 'tight or rigorous' at all, please stop attributing things to me which I haven't said. If anything, I think that the criteria are not tight / rigorous enough, and more research needs to be done on the actual physiological basis of ADHD so it can be better diagnosed.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Mar 2 2008 14:00

Your argument was that the criteria could be applied to anyone, I replied that a psychologist wouldn't apply them to anyone because of the way they use the DSM.

EDIT: Revol you sound like a scientologist.

You make a good point about how homosexuality used to be in the DSM, no ones ever used that in an anti-psychiatry argument before. roll eyes

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Mar 2 2008 14:04
revol68 wrote:

I'm not saying shit like that, I'm saying that ADHD is a label applied to behaviour that doesn't fit the requirements of modern society. I don't think it's some adaption or non adaption, I don't think it's fucking genetic, I'm saying it's a bullshit catch all diagnosis that medicalises children for not knuckling down or being able to cope with the school or certain family environments.

If its not genetic, and capitalist society discourages it, then why does this behaviour occur? You know of a psychological theory that could explain it ?

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Mar 2 2008 14:22

ADHD causes a lot of problems for people that have it. Next you'll be saying that cripples are only 'disabled by society'.

To clarify, with my last post i wasn't saying that a behaviour has to be either genetic or encouraged by society. I was saying that those were two theories that you had ruled out and I wondered what your actual explanation for it was, having ruled those 2 out. For example one could explain deciding to shoplift in terms of a result of a cognitive process which recognises desire for an item and the lack of money to buy it (I'm making this up).

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Mar 2 2008 14:25

Often does not follow instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behaviour

So its not about not wnating to do your homework is it, its about not being able to.

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 14:54
revol68 wrote:
And you really have missed the point on this, whether or not they are strict or loose in their assesment of behaviour has absolutely no effect on whether or not ADHD is an actual real brain disorder and not simply the medicalisation of behaviour that doesn't fit with what is deemed requirement in given cultures and societies.

And you seem to have really missed the point that all the clinical and psychological evidence suggests ADHD is an actual real brain disorder and not simply the medicalisation of behaviour that doesn't fit in with modern society. In fact the evidence suggests that modern society is actually much more suited to people with ADHD than that of the past. Now, for the third time:

Quote:
Clinical experience shows that the extreme described today as ADHD does exhibit certain signs of pathology.
...
Actually everywhere we look we find difficulties: in motor coordination, in keeping balance, in right-left orientation etc. There are neuropsychological diagnostic schemes in use to measure this. For many of these children walking along a narrow path or throwing and catching something presents an insurmountable difficulty. They are far more prone to accidents and more frequently subject to medical care than other children. Moreover, they exhibit difficulties in articulation as much as in expression and communication - for these problems diagnostic schemes have also been developed.
...
Clinical experience clearly supports the idea that we are dealing not only with an end section of a continuum, but with something "more", i.e. a certain pathology the cause of which may be looked for in a mild damage of the brain, in genetically conditioned peculiar functioning of the brain, in short somewhere in deep biological structures.
...
True, the world is full of "lively" and "highly active" children, inattentive children, or children precipitous in their reactions. We can come across them at every step. That is a different story, though. Anyone who has seen these children and ADHD children will never lump them together. The parents often say that their child cannot concentrate on "anything for a moment". But when we ask how long the child manages to play with something, how long he or she can manage to listen to a story or watch TV, we can see the difference at once. In one child it is a matter of seconds, in another it is half an hour, an hour or even longer. At school, even normal "highly active" children may be a problem, but we have different recommendations, different advice, different protective and supportive measures for them than for children with MBD or ADHD.
...
ADHD is an acceptable adaptive behavior today, whereas in prehistory it was entirely non-adaptive.

If you want to make your 'social construct' hypothesis appear plausible, you will have to explain all this evidence and not merely ignore it.

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 15:20
revol68 wrote:
saying it repeatedly doesn't count as evidence Anna.

I got it from a scientific paper, and you will have to address it if you want to be taken seriously.

Quote:
This implies a diagnosis of much more severe than that in the DSM-IV, much more. Also as a scientist you should be very wary of claims like that in bold.

Yeah the diagnosis is much more severe, but surely you (who think ADHD is way over-diagnosed, as do I) would agree that that is a good thing.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Mar 2 2008 15:22

Dude all those race science lads were just "doing science wrong".
It was nothing do to with vast overhauls in society weeding out their vomitous "science" - rather it was the algorithmic scientific method which saw them off wink

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 15:33
revol68 wrote:
But seriously Anna let us know when they've proved that ADHD behaviour is caused by a brain disorder,

It definitely seems to be - did you read the Goldstein article Jess posted? Maybe it is the result of something going wrong in brain development, resulting in the impairment of many brain functions. I'm not an expert, so I don't know specifics, but it does seem to be a real pathology. There are things you need to explain if you are to show that it is not a brain disorder - slow reflexes, poor motor control, language impairment etc.

Quote:
and then when you are at that you can explain what constitutes a brain disorder and what a disorder is in general. I look forward to finding out what this commonality that people with ADHD all share is,

The way I see it, there are two alternative hypotheses:
1) ADHD is the false medicalisation of some subset of normal behaviour that doesn't seem to fit in with modern society for whatever reason. This implies that the behaviour presented no disadvantage throughout our evolutionary history, and is only now being seen as something problematic.
2) ADHD (when properly diagnosed) is a real brain disorder that has been maladaptive through all our evolutionary history.
You seem to be going for the first hypothesis which, as the papers me and Jess have linked to show, directly conflicts with the available evidence.

Quote:
though considering the diagnosis is based entirely on behaviour I don't expect them to find one anytime soon.

This is why the paper I posted stressed that the diagnosis needs to be based much more on etiology than behaviour. Why don't you start actually engaging with the cold, hard facts that people present?

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 15:42
revol68 wrote:
Anna because something is said in a OMG SUPER SCIENCE!111!! paper doesn't constitute evidence for ffs, there are thousands of 'scientific papers' out there contradicting each other, seems to me your idea of 'scientific evidence' is things said by 'scientists'.

Evidence in favour of a specific hypothesis is facts that support that hypothesis. The paper I linked to presented a lot of facts supporting its hypothesis, which therefore constitute evidence in favour of its hypothesis. If you want to show the hypothesis to be wrong, you will either have to show the facts to be wrong, or explain them by some other hypothesis.

The fact that you haven't even attempted to do so but have resorted to lame excuses like that scientific papers may contradict eachother (implying there is no picking between them by weighing up the evidence, which is what I am suggesting we do here) seems telling.

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 20:06

Eh what the hell are you talking about revol. I've said in practically every post that I think ADHD is a real brain disorder but it is massively over-diagnosed so most people who supposedly have it are just a bit over-exuberant / whatever. But that in no way means that ADHD when properly diagnosed, doesn't exist.
So now, you cede this, yet repeat my point and act as if it somehow goes against what I've been saying all along. Well we seem to be on the same page at least now, wheesh.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Mar 2 2008 20:17
Anna wrote:
wheesh.

I'm saying.

Anna's picture
Anna
Offline
Joined: 13-11-07
Mar 2 2008 20:34

Again:

"As a term, ADHD is a relatively recent coinage which replaced the previous MBD or minimal brain dysfunction (see footnote) It has its advocates, but also many critics, myself included, who point out its disadvantages. To begin with, ADHD, as in fact any descriptive or symptomatic diagnosis, essentially says nothing more than what can be seen at first glance. The International Classification, in order to distinguish a normal condition from a pathological one, then must look for criteria that would express that only a certain, especially marked type of behavior deserves this particular diagnostic label. It is necessary to section off one extreme (oddly enough not the other one) from some kind of continuum. But why section off anything at all in the first place if a certain behavioral trait represents a continuum distributed in the population according to the Gaussian curve? The point is that things are somewhat different! Clinical experience shows that the extreme described today as ADHD does exhibit certain signs of pathology.
I still believe that the term MBD was factual, pertinent and practical, although it of course could not entirely avoid the difficulties of delimiting (still normal) function and (no longer normal) dysfunction. There will always be fuzzy borderlines. However the term MBD was definitely much easier to use when presenting arguments in front of the lay public (i.e. even teachers). It made it possible to explain that we are dealing with a special (unusual, peculiar) function of the brain, for which neither school nor the parents or the child alone were responsible, and so there is no use blaming anyone, but instead we have to look for help together.
Over a time things have cleared up due to using (as I believe) the clinical finding, including psychological tests, as a starting point and due to taking account of etiology and not only external manifestations. In clinical practice all these cases of encephalopathy, dysfunction and ADHD obviously look different from what they appear to be at the taxonomist's table."

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Mar 2 2008 21:10

That is uncalled for. cry

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Mar 2 2008 22:58

Nah he sounds nothing like them.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Mar 2 2008 23:19

Revol just likes to argue, likes to get the last word. Even when he has a point, fuck even when we're actually agreeing, he's annoying like when he was a prick to LW last week. I've had like a thousand arguments with him at stupid hours in stupid places.
Remember that time you were here last year Jack when he knew less about Marx than you? That was cool.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Mar 2 2008 23:45

I agreed but he was an arse about it

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 3 2008 00:47
xConorx wrote:
Remember that time you were here last year Jack when he knew less about Marx than you? That was cool.

Is that when Jack used the phrase that you used when you did your (uncanniliy accurate) impression of Jack?

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 3 2008 00:55
revol68 wrote:
the button wrote:
xConorx wrote:
Remember that time you were here last year Jack when he knew less about Marx than you? That was cool.

Is that when Jack used the phrase that you used when you did your (uncanniliy accurate) impression of Jack?

Yep! grin

I think that deserves a change of tagline.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 3 2008 01:09

Flipping is the truth of fucking, as Hegel might have said.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Mar 3 2008 01:17

Well I was there, and I have made the impression my own.
As far as I'm concerned, Jack didn't saying "fucking".

"JESUS CHRIST JOHN HAVE YOU ACTUALLY EVEN READ ANY MARX?!"
He also said "you're sooo full of shit" a few times
All this at about 4am in his grubby little pit wink

I'm happy to do my impressions at a cost of 50p donations to Just Books at the Dublin Bookfair. You get your money's worth.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 3 2008 01:19
xConorx wrote:
Well I was there, and I have made the impression my own.
As far as I'm concerned, Jack didn't saying "fucking".

"JESUS CHRIST JOHN HAVE YOU ACTUALLY EVEN READ ANY MARX?!"
He also said "you're sooo full of shit" a few times
All this at about 4am in his grubby little pit wink

I'm happy to do my impressions at a cost of 50p donations to Just Books at the Dublin Bookfair. You get your money's worth.

Any impression of Jack that includes no fucking has got to be more accurate, tbh.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Mar 3 2008 12:25
Jack wrote:
My place wasn't grubby, you spastic.

Not your place Revol's you bellend - it was this time last year when we sat up while you and Revol were just arguing at each other and I just wanted to go to bed.