The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power.
You think you have an ADHD epidemic on your hand? Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions.
> The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power.
That may be true, but it omits a control group -- a comparison with people who don't attend school. It therefore lacks a scientific basis for comparison. Therefore it's not a "case against abandoning conventional schooling", it is a case where meaningful science is required to inform public policy.
> Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions.
Some argue that the ADHD epidemic results from the very unnatural conditions in schools, conditions that are barely tolerable to otherwise normal children, and the ADHD diagnosis unjustly shifts responsibility from the oppressive school and educational system to the children.
I'm certainly not saying this is the only explanation, just that no clear conclusion can be made on present evidence.
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?
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:
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.
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".
> 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:
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.
>I have researched it, I know this topic much better than you do, and at present ADHD is firmly in the pseudoscience category.
You refuse all the decades and heaps of evidence by some summary hand-waving over what science is supposed to be. The idea, that double blind trials are required to call anything science is ridiculous, and you prove it by not admitting any double-blind trials as evidence in favor of the existence of ADHD...
Your rant about the DSM is completely off topic. Which might be explainable by your obvious complete lack of medical training, and arguably little understanding about scientific methods in general. Otherwise I just can't explain why you want to prove the non-existence of ADHD by saying that some diagnostic manual (which isn't the only way or manual to diagnose ADHD, btw) is not useful in medical research. You don't even acknowledge the difference between medical research and medical practice.
There is a course by coursera called "Pay attention: ADHD through the lifetime". This course offers a thorough examination about diagnostic criteria, symptoms, neuroanatomy and treatment. ADHD is a physical thing that can be shown physically.
If you were inclined to listen to scientific evidence, you could go to google scholar and read any of the dozens of double-blind studies where children are diagnosed with ADHD, get treatment, and improve in several objective and subjective measures.
But, probably, while thousands of real scientists aggree on the validity of these studies, you will probably find some reason, why this evidence is not clear enough to draw conclusions you donb't like.
"DSM contains conditions which don't have physical/physiological manifestations" is not proof for ADHD not existing. For one thing, because these physical and physiological features have been well studied...
> You refuse all the decades and heaps of evidence by some summary hand-waving over what science is supposed to be.
Yes -- myself and the NIMH. We're on the same wavelength. You need to learn this topic, find out what's going on in your own field. Your ignorance is embarrassing. And there is no "science is supposed to be" trope -- science has been clearly defined in the law, laws meant to keep Creationism out of public school classrooms, laws with requirements psychology cannot meet.
> Your rant about the DSM is completely off topic.
Say what? The DSM is the source for information about ADHD. NO DSM, no ADHD. This was true about Asperger's as well, until it became too embarrassing and was removed from the new edition of the DSM. Asperger's has recently been discarded by being removed from the DSM.
> I just can't explain why you want to prove the non-existence of ADHD ...
What the fuck are you talking about? I never said ADHD is not real, I said it's not science, and until it is, the NIMH will refuse to accept it or allow funds to be disseminated to study it. Those are the facts.
Prove me wrong -- locate where I claimed that ADHD isn't real. In other words, imitate a scientist and locate some evidence for your false claims.
It's not as though ADHD information is difficult to locate:
Title: "Problems of Overdiagnosis and Overprescribing in ADHD"
Quote: "Doubt and confusion as to where this disorder fits into the general spectrum of illness further feeds the general perception that ADHD is a socially constructed disorder rather than a valid neurobiological disorder. -- With the production of more stimulants every year, worries about the increased availability of stimulants for abuse and diversion rise as well. Rising production rates are cited as proof of stimulant overprescribing by physicians and indirect evidence of the overdiagnosis of ADHD among children."
I emphasize the above doesn't constitute science evidence for or against anything, only that your claim that ADHD is a solidly established disorder backed by reliable research is, simply put, a lie.
> If you were inclined to listen to scientific evidence ...
There is no scientific evidence, and it's time for your to learn something about science. This is why the NIMH has decided to reject the DSM -- it's become an embarrassment.
> ... you will probably find some reason, why this evidence is not clear enough to draw conclusions you donb't like.
AS does the NIMH, and for excellent reasons -- scientifically clueless people like you who take positions out of ignorance.
Prove me wrong. Name the property that all scientific findings and theories must possess to be regarded as science (a property included in the laws that define science). It can be expressed in a single word, and it's something psychological research lacks in droves.
> "DSM contains conditions which don't have physical/physiological manifestations" is not proof for ADHD not existing.
And? I never claimed anywhere that ADHD doesn't exist. I do say that, until we know what it is, we cannot meaningfully treat it. And the above quotation from the literature fully supports my position.
Now stop lying. ADHD is neither true nor false, it's in limbo because there is no science being done.
> For one thing, because these physical and physiological features have been well studied...
So your claim is that if something is well studied, then ipso facto it must be real. If that were true, it would make astrology real -- it's certainly been well studied.
I think I have to give up on you. You are refusing double-blind studies as evidence. You are misrepresenting NIMH's stance on DSM because you don't know the difference between diagnostics and research. You are quoting minority opinions as proven fact, without actual proof, of course.
> Doubt and confusion as to where this disorder fits into the general spectrum of illness further feeds the general perception that ADHD is a socially constructed disorder rather than a valid neurobiological disorder.
This is actually exactly what I am talking about. The article worries not about ADHD overdiagnosis, but about the public perception of overdiagnosis - while the author is pretty clear that it is a valid neurobiological disorder, and that there is no evidence for overprescription.
> You are refusing double-blind studies as evidence.
You are lying -- there are no double-blind scientific studies of ADHD, one, because they would be unethical as you pointed out earlier, and two, without knowing the cause of ADHD, no such studies are even possible.
> You are misrepresenting NIMH's stance on DSM
YOU ARE LYING. I quoted the NIMH directly and linked to their decision. The DSM will no longer be accepted as the basis for scientific research, because it only lists symptoms, not causes -- required for science. Read it again:
NIMH Director Insel is a "minority opinion"? Which planet are you visiting from? Insel and his predecessor Steven Hyman at the NIMH, and Allen Frances, editor of DSM-IV, and many others, all agree that psychiatry and psychology are in deep trouble with respect to the issue of science and evidence, and all agree that the DSM needs to be abandoned.
> while the author is pretty clear that it is a valid neurobiological disorder,
You just quoted an article that says the opposite. You are lying about the words in front of your face. Also, since the cause is unknown, anyone claiming that it's a valid disorder is contributing to folk tales instead of science.
Again, for the record, this is not to say there's no ADHD, only that there's no science for or against.
> Are you a scientist? I sure hope not...
The sure sign of someone who doesn't know how to participate in a debate about issues.
I'm sure ADHD can be diagnosed, and that it has a genetic component, and that it can be mitigated with drugs. But I've got to believe that calling it a 'disorder' is socially constructed. Is red hair a disorder?
ADHD has plusses and minuses, especially in milder forms. It can be harnessed for good. In our school systems ADHD can be dysfunctional. But an alternative to drug therapy is to school differently.
You think you have an ADHD epidemic on your hand? Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions.