That position assumes the moral neutrality of providing drugs for children when dealing with normative concerns. What I need is a good deal of evidence to demonstrate that such drugging is warranted.
My concern is not so much over medicating (although I’m not nearly as polarized as you - ritalin worked for me and I think I turned out OK), but over the existence of AD(H)D. To deny it without sufficient evidence could be dangerous to the child. I’ll consider you redeemed if your denial is merely over the classification of AD(H)D as a disease/disorder.
To accept it as existing without sufficient evidence is dangerous to the child, IMHO. To society as a whole, in fact. There is a huge financial incentive to create fake diseases out of normative conditions, which will then be over-prescribed. This comes at the expense of treating real diseases and disorders. Bad news all the way down.
There’s no evidence of the existence of AD(H)D… riiight.
Since when was the last time that giving the kid a good whooping got his grades up? That’s what we would resort to if we denied the existence of AD(H)D. The kid’s acting up, he’s not paying attention, he needs to be disciplined. He’s not getting enough of it at home, I guess. Oh, it won’t do any damage to his self-esteem. It won’t make him feel like a failure. Just look at all the other kids: they get the right amount of discipline at home, and they’re turning out all right. Let’s not even try any other approaches. Let’s just assume this is exactly what the kid needs. Why explore other avenues - like a different teaching environment, like extra-curricular activities - when we “know” the kid is normal and just needs the same style of parenting or environment as all the other kids. Right, not dangerous at all.
Placing the blame on parents or the child himself is not only harmful but very insulting to those who have the condition (myself included). If you think that my problems in school or work were my own fault or that of my parents, then you fall into the “arrogant bastard” chapter of my book. Accusing the child of just not trying hard enough is the whole reason children with AD(H)D end up with low self-esteem and become rebellious. If you only knew how hard I’ve tried, how much I’ve struggled, only recent gaining the skills required to work competently in my job environment. You don’t know shit about what it is to have AD(H)D.
As far as I’m concerned, you have nothing but unsubstantiated opinion. I don’t advocate accepting blindly some unproven assumption, but you seem to think that the lack of evidence is evidence of a lack. You’re the one making the claim here - that AD(H)D doesn’t exist - and I’m pointing out that such a claim, if taken seriously by the medical profession and education system, is, because of the lack of evidence, dangerous. If I were you, I’d adopt more of an inquiring attitude - wanting to find out if there’s any evidence for or against it - rather than rashly assuming AD(H)D doesn’t exist. For my own part, I highly doubt there is no evidence for its existence (I believe it has been proven to be genetic to a certain degree) foremost because I have the condition, and there’s no way my struggles with it are solely due to laziness or lack of discipline. Though the hyperactive component is no longer with me, it was clearly there even before I was 1 (do you chalk that up to parenting/environment?). Hyperactivity so happens to be an aspect of temperament and energy level, which are known to be highly biological/genetic at their base. You can attempt to prove me wrong by linking me to any sources you have. Particularly, I’d like to see where you got the idea that ritalin shrinks the right frontal lobe and that it helps children improve their school work regardless of whether they have AD(H)D or not.
Xunzian, Gib,
From what I can tell, you both agree that the well-being of children (people, society, etc.) is the central issue here:
And haven’t we already agreed to say that AD(H)D exists? Here:
Call it whatever you want, but we all agree on this, right? So the real disagreement is about the best strategy for people to cope with this particular cognitive disadvantage:
For some people, this may work. But of course the success of this strategy depends on the severity of a person’s inability to control attention. I think Xunzian is right that “there is a huge financial incentive to create fake diseases out of normative conditions” and that medicine is over-prescribed in general, but just because the financial incentive to over-prescribe exists doesn’t mean that it is always wrong to prescribe medicine.
Given the nature of stimulants, they will increase the grades of both those diagnosed with ADD and the control group not diagnosed with ADD – or even another control group which has been identified as not having ADD! So you haven’t provided any evidence here.
shrugs I can be an arrogant bastard sometimes, it is true. It happens. As for self-esteem issues, high self-esteem qua high self-esteem is not merely meaningless .pdf] but is actually a very negative thing.
A better approach might be for people on the low end of the attention spectrum (for whatever reason) to pursue career opportunities in areas better suited to their talents. Since these jobs also tend to require lower education levels, there is also a low-to-nonexistent barrier of entry into these fields. To me that seems a far better approach than drugging them until the conform to a societal norm not in keeping with their nature.
And that still assumes that nature and not nurture is the dominant force here.
I have researched the topic. I can go more in depth on the subject with you if you’d like. As for the “making-the-claim” game, this is a pretty classic example of why it doesn’t work in philosophical discussions. Both sides can assert that the other is “making a claim” that requires “evidence”. A good example would be Atheism vs. Christianity (or theism) debates where both sides pass the potato of obligation to the other side.
As for evidence, I already have provided some links in this thread. You haven’t, you’ve offered anecdotal evidence. But we can delve more deeply into it.
While there are plenty of studies showing disparities of diagnosis across various socioeconomic lines (1, 2, 3) in the US, given the broken nature of the US Healthcare system those finding can be explained away by an advocate of ADD. However, an economic gradient of diagnosis also exists in countries with functioning Healthcare systems, such as Canada (4). This economic gradient doesn’t just exist on an individual basis either, ADHD prevalence is also tied to a country’s per capita GDP (5).
So, there are the profit driven trends I’ve been talking about all coupled with a paucity of data regarding the actual “disorder” being “treated” (discussed earlier).
That means I have both criticized the orthodoxy you are defending as well as provided a new model whereby the old phenomenon can be understood. I have an open mind, but I haven’t seen anything to change my mind. Nor has anything been provided.
Edit:
Re: Fuse,
I agree that medication is a good thing. I hope I haven’t presented myself as arguing anything to the contrary. But treatment of normative conditions using drugs is less “medicine” and more of a recreational/lifestyle choice that oughtn’t be demanded of children. Like the booze model I presented earlier, it creates the desired outcome but I don’t think anyone would defend it as “good”. Why should it be different with stimulants?
I don’t understand what you mean by “treatment of normative conditions.” Isn’t our diagnosis of poor eyesight a “normative condition” that we treat with enhancements? With poor eyesight, one is pretty much required in our society to get glasses or contacts or surgery. I think with poor control over attention we can all see that it is an obvious disadvantage that in some cases might best be medicated, but with AD(H)D (unlike poor eyesight) no one is required to take medication. I think we agree the danger is that parents might be too eager to turn to prescription drugs for their children and doctors too willing to sell it.
I have gathered that Zun is pretty adament about the non-existence of AD(H)D, which tells me the only way he can agree with the above is if one’s placement on the gradient is due exclusively to environmental factors (like SES, parenting, home environment, etc.) or that the child is willfully being non-attentive or disruptive.
Evidence of what? I was demonstrating the absurdity of your approach.
So if we foster a positive self-image in children with AD(H)D, they’re going to turn into violent criminals… riiiight.
I don’t get it, Xun, are you open to the possibility it could be nature? Even if it’s partially nature (it’s never totally nature), that means AD(H)D is a condition/disposition, which is what I thought you were denying (not just that it was a disease/disorder).
And BTW, would you say that those jobs held by the likes of Einstein, Thomas Edison, Robin Williams, Howie Mandel, Crag Furgison, and other accomplished figures “require lower education levels” and have “a low-to-nonexistent barrier of entry”? Or are you just being an arrogant bastard again? I’ll tell you one thing - when I worked while going to school in various “low education” jobs (construction, labor, gas stations), that’s when my AD(H)D conflicted the most with my work environment. The times when it conflicts the least are when I’m doing academic work - like when I was in university - and as it happens, in my current job (web development & graphic design - pretty low education there, eh?), I seem to fit it quite well.
You obviously have no clue how the game is played. The proverbial potato is passed around but only because many people don’t know how it’s played. The burden of proof is not on a philosophical position - it’s on a person, the one who made the first claim. Any claim made as a response does not inheret the burden. You first made the claim that AD(H)D doesn’t exist. I demand evidence before I buy into that. I claim it’s dangerous to buy into that without such evidence.
Oh please. Those articles? Sorry, Zun, but I hold to a higher standard of evidence than that. For all I know, those articles are the most unreputable there are on the subject. The author sounds like he’s just spewing off his own biased opinion. Furthermore, the inherent proposals are profoundly incoherent. How can one possibly know there are absolutely no physical difference between those with AD(H)D and those without, particularly when there’s evidence of a genetic component. The brain is just too complex an organ to know each and every of its details, which one would have to know before making the claim that there are no difference whatsoever. No differences discovered yet, I can appreciate, but no differences conclusively? That reeks of falsehood.
I could care less if you don’t believe AD(H)D exists. What bothers me is the implication that follows: that it’s either my or my parent’s fault.
I don’t see anything surprising there. I would expect for there to be disparaties along socioeconomic lines for most disorders. This could mean a couple things: 1) that socioeconomic condition affect AD(H)D prevalence (i.e. there’s a nurture component to it) or 2) that socioeconomic conditions affect a doctor’s likelihood to diagnose AD(H)D (and in all probability, it’s both).
I am open to the possibility but I haven’t seen any evidence that would suggest that ADD is due to anything other than normal variation of attention span in the population (and hence not a disorder in need to treatment). To that I am attaching the value claim that pharmacological enforcement of the norm is morally repugnant. Furthermore, I believe that those at ends on a Gaussian curve of endowment can, through cultivation, bring themselves more in line with the mean should they choose or more ideally find suitable employment and excellence in a field where their outlier-nature is beneficial as opposed to detrimental.
As for the people you’ve listed, two of the last three dropped out of High School – so, yes, I’d argue that such fields do have a low educational barrier for entry. As for Einstein and Edison, I am deeply suspicious of postmortem diagnosis from a distance. It is usually coupled with an agenda.
As for career path, you see. You navigated a path until you found a niche where you could thrive. A good friend of mine did the same and found that he fit best as a carpenter and horticulturist. Same diagnosis, different strengths, different paths. What does drugging up children have to do with it?
You’ve rejected my evidence with an appeal to incredulity. I can provide more, if you’d like. But will that be similarly rejected?
Do you think AD(H)D is due to normal variation in the same way as intelligence or temperament? Do you understand the difference I’m point out between a disorder/disease and a condition/disposition? The former is, by definition, something in need of fixing, whereas the latter no more needs to be fixed as hair color or height. Hair color or height are what I’d call a condition/disposition. One can be said to be under the condition of having red hair or predisposed to being able to reach things on tall shelves because of height - but nothing about this implies the need for treatment, especially drug treatment. What makes them conditions/dispositions is that they are, to a large extent, rooted in something innate (i.e. biological/genetic) (in the case of hair color, I’d say totally innate). AD(H)D, I’m inclined to say, is like this. It is, to a certain extent, innate. It’s got a nature component to it, though mixed in with some nurture as well. So although parenting and self-discipline on the part of the child may play somewhat of a role, I find it hard to believe we can completely rule out a natural/innate disposition towards hyperactivity and inattentiveness. To concede this by no means entails that drug therapy is the only avenue to persue - if therapy is needed at all.
If we could only see eye-to-eye on this, I would have no qualms with your position (though I’d still think it was a little too polarized for my tastes).
Depends. My mind is not a slave to authority, and as of late I’ve been skeptical of any publication claiming to be an authoritative source (particularly when the subject is controversial; like global warming, like medicating AD(H)D), but I’d certainly be more persuaded if the source was more reputable (though I’d still need some means to determine its reputability - which is the real trick).
Let’s say that one’s attention span is something like height. There is a strong nature component, the nature component serves to limit the maximum potential. But there is also a strong nurture component. Diet plays an incredibly important role in the final height a person attains. So through good parenting, a taller child can be cultivated even if the parents themselves are somewhat short. If the children do end up being below average height, should we force them to wear stilts?
As for not trusting authority, you have no problem trusting authorities that ADD exists and that you ought be medicated for it. The selection bias to your skepticism is astounding. That is, of course, normally the way that skeptical arguments work. The “skeptic” applies their approach only to things they don’t like/don’t agree with. Since no system of knowledge is complete, the skeptic is then able to emerge victorious. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: skepticism needs to be used as a shield, not a sword. We need to be skeptical of concepts that we already hold and have expertise in. Expertise is another important factor. People with little knowledge in any given field tend to vastly overrate their competence in that field. That is because they lack the insight necessary to actually evaluate their own performance. This dovetails with the mis-applied skeptical approach and results in a very nasty intransigence. Rather the opposite of what one would hope such a process would achieve, don’t you agree?
Right! And I would add that it isn’t solely the parent’s responsibility - at least, feeding the child proper nutrition is not their only responsibility. For instance, say the kid dreams of being a basketball player. In addition to feeding the child right, the parent’s might want to search for a short-person-league (analoguous to searching for schools catering to the AD(H)D learning style). But to expect the parents to rear a child so as to grow up to at least average height, especially if we’re assuming height to be highly nature, is a tall order indeed and places undeserved pressure on the parent.
No, and quit implying that I’m advocating drug therapy. I already made it clear I’m not married to that position (I’m just not as polarized as you), to wit my analogy to the short-person-basketball-league.
I didn’t say I based my position on authority. I base it mainly on my own experiences as a person diagnosed with AD(H)D. My struggles in school and work I take as testaments that there is something different about me, something that is not my own doing. I was even skeptical that I have AD(H)D for the longest time (I still am to a certain degree), due mainly to the fact that I’m not really hyperactive, and that my problem doesn’t seem to stem from a lack of attention as much as from poor memory and a different style of thinking (which would understandably come off as a lack of attention). This is true of me now, but less so of when I was a kid. But consulting with other people who were diagnoses with AD(H)D, I found that many suffered the same struggles in school and work as I did, and reading through the criteria for such a diagnosis in adults, I found that I fit the bill (the criteria is different for adults than for children). You can call the latter trusting in authority, but I call it self-diagnosis.
But more to the point, my skepticism over so-called scientific articles is more a statement of how little I would be surprised if it turned out to be fraudulent. It is not a statement that I always take the opposing position as that taken by said article. Keeping in mind that there’s a lot of bunk out there, driven to publication by alterior motives, and that I never know when I’ve come across them, I still exercise a certain degree of choice. That is to say, I will choose to buy into some articles sometimes and not at other times. This is not to say my choice is completely arbitrary or that I believe whatever sounds good to me. I believe, primarily, based on what makes sense in terms of logic, common sense, and my own life experiences (all the while keeping in mind that it could be wrong). So if I come across a journal article that claims that no physical differences exist between AD(H)D people and those without it, I’ll be very skeptical because such a claim clashes with every fibre of common sense in my body and every bit of life experience I have gained as someone with AD(H)D.
And please, Xun, quit putting words in my mouth: I’m not debating whether drug therapy is the right course of action or not, I’m debating the existence of AD(H)D as a condition/disposition (not a disease/disorder).
No, nothing to be ashamed of, at all 
For one thing… I know I have much higher expectations from life than most, and I’m not happy unless they are met - well… it gives me something to do and keeps me out of trouble.