Originally Posted by kaplods:
Ah, but functionality, developmental appropriateness, and disruptiveness are all, in part, culturally defined and therefore largely "in the eye of the beholder." After all, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and included in the early DSM editions. It was considered dysfunctional, developmentally inappropriate and disruptive.

Also no disorder is considered to have absolutely no advantages. So a person diagnosed with or having symptoms of ADHD may have mixed experiences, both positive and negative. Even being a sociopath or psychopath has some advantages.

Many ADHD diagnosed children thrive in a homeschooling environment. Does homeschooling "cure" ADHD? Or is it more likely that the ADHD behavior was maladaptive, inappropriate, and disruptive only in a conventional school environment. If the learning environment were more flexible, it's likely fewer children would be diagnosed ADHD.

I would agree that I do not meet the diagnosis of ADHD, but I do know people who "grew out of the diagnosis" only because as an adult they had more control over their environment and choices.

I'm fascinated by this concept as well of certain disorders only being disorders because of the cultures we now find ourselves in. And when I was a kid, I was put into "gifted" class. And except for math, we didn't learn anything more advanced than my peers. They simply taught us using various teaching methods. Sometimes we read and wrote papers, sometimes we built things, sometimes we had round table discussions. I couldn't for the life of me figure out why the rest of the students in the school weren't being taught the way we were.

And as far as sociopaths go, I see it as an evolutionary alternative to normal social functioning. While most people are empathetic in order to live within our social species, sociopaths not only lack empathy, but they possess charm. They are predatory. I don't think this was an accident. I think it was selected for. And their numbers are the result of evolutionary equilibrium. You don't want too many predators. The system would fall apart.

We seem to like to point at people whose brains work differently and declare, "there is something wrong with you, we need to fix it." I think the milder forms of autism fall into this category too. Not everything that's different is broken.

Originally Posted by kaplods:
Ah, but functionality, developmental appropriateness, and disruptiveness are all, in part, culturally defined and therefore largely "in the eye of the beholder." After all, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and included in the early DSM editions. It was considered dysfunctional, developmentally inappropriate and disruptive.

Do you really think homosexuality, which, as far as I know, has no inherent disadvantages, is similar enough to warrant comparison to a condition that causes people who have to have immense difficulties in planning, following through on their plans, and focusing on themselves and others long enough to gain insight into motives and behaviors (things that are common in ADD/ADHD and seem likely to almost always be disadvantageous to me)? Other than offering evidence that psychiatry has historically had a relatively weak basis in actual science, what's the point?

Originally Posted by kaplods:
Also no disorder is considered to have absolutely no advantages. So a person diagnosed with or having symptoms of ADHD may have mixed experiences, both positive and negative. Even being a sociopath or psychopath has some advantages.

Quite probably, but if something is primarily disadvantageous, and it's disadvantageous to the extent that both statistical and anecdotal evidence indicate that ADD/ADHD is (and that my personal experience and observation leads me to believe it is), why pretend otherwise?

Originally Posted by kaplods:
Many ADHD diagnosed children thrive in a homeschooling environment. Does homeschooling "cure" ADHD? Or is it more likely that the ADHD behavior was maladaptive, inappropriate, and disruptive only in a conventional school environment. If the learning environment were more flexible, it's likely fewer children would be diagnosed ADHD.

"ADHD behaviors" can stem from a boatload of things. When the symptoms occur in more than one setting (as they are supposed to for a diagnosis of ADHD to be made), and especially when they are pervasive, pre-date enrollment in a school setting and cannot be explained by other factors (e.g., environment, abuse, brain injury, etc.), the argument that ADHD is a problem related to the (admittedly often counterproductive, even for "neurotypical" students) structure of most schools kind of falls apart. ADHD probably is relatively frequently misdiagnosed, and there's some evidence to support the claim. That doesn't mean that the disorder is simply the result of a culturally-specific set of behavioral standards. For kids (and adults) who actually do meet the clinical criteria ADHD, being able to function well in an environment that's been adapted to their needs doesn't mean they don't have a disorder. It just means that they're receiving the support they need to function. To imply otherwise is as ridiculous as saying that a paraplegic doesn't really have anything more than a situational problem just because he can get around just fine once he's got a wheelchair and is in an environment that's set up to accommodate its use (never mind the difficulties that can be involved in setting that up or the obstacles and expenses people can incur when they try to venture out into a world that can still be surprisingly unaccommodating to wheelchair users).

Originally Posted by kaplods:
I would agree that I do not meet the diagnosis of ADHD, but I do know people who "grew out of the diagnosis" only because as an adult they had more control over their environment and choices.

Yes, and I know people who couldn't function effectively in most/any settings at any age until they were diagnosed and treated for ADHD as adults.

Some people who are diagnosed with ADHD as children claim to have "outgrown" it. However, that doesn't really tell us much. They may have outgrown it. They may have been misdiagnosed. They may have a mild case that really doesn't give them problems if they don't actually try to do much with their lives. They may have it and have found careers or lifestyles that provide them with enough structure to function or enough freedom to do whatever they can focus on. They may have it but think it's normal to need to do heavy exercise for two hours every day and set a timer to go off every 15 minutes just to be able to focus on the daily tasks that need to get done. They may be completely delusional. They may....whatever. At any rate, if "outgrowing" a neurological condition like ADHD is not a natural, internal process like outgrowing a developmental stage, but rather a process of adapting one's environment and choices around pre-existing mental factors, then it sounds like they're not really undergoing a maturation process, but simply how to cope and compensate for whatever their problem actually is.

This sort of argument also doesn't deal well with the problem that there are a lot of people who continue to have ADHD into adulthood, and some who were not diagnosed or treated until they were adults. Some of these people function well, others don't. For the most part, they're no longer in school or subject to the environment created by parents and peers. They've had the chance to shape their environment and make choices that they think will help them, and they still experience substantial problems in many or most areas of their lives.

Sorry alaskanlaughter, I think we've hijacked your thread. :o

Originally Posted by JuvenileNarcissist:

Not everything that's different is broken.

YES!!!!! If I could stick this up on my wall, I would!

I work in the school system and I see SO MANY kids who struggle in an academic setting but function just fine in an open-ended after-school program where you learn through so many different methods.

And that's what I SO want parents to hear...Your kids AREN"T broken! A diagnosis, spec ed help, behavioral support, whatever they need to succeed does NOT mean they are broken in any way.

Originally Posted by theox:
Sorry alaskanlaughter, I think we've hijacked your thread. :o

No worries :) I love discussions like this, even if I don't agree with everyone. I find these topics fascinating. I will have to read the last posts when I get home.

Originally Posted by JuvenileNarcissist:
We seem to like to point at people whose brains work differently and declare, "there is something wrong with you, we need to fix it." I think the milder forms of autism fall into this category too. Not everything that's different is broken.

Very true. But if people have difficulty functioning (in life in general or in society in particular), it makes sense to try to do something about it. If the most efficient pathway to effective functioning/acceptance in your society runs through a doctor's office, why not take it? No matter how long it takes, it'll be a heck of a lot faster than waiting for society-at-large to become more empathetic and accommodating.

Originally Posted by theox:
Very true. But if people have difficulty functioning (in life in general or in society in particular), it makes sense to try to do something about it. If the most efficient pathway to effective functioning/acceptance in your society runs through a doctor's office, why not take it? No matter how long it takes, it'll be a heck of a lot faster than waiting for society-at-large to become more empathetic and accommodating.

People literally have said (and sadly, many continue to say) this is true for homosexuality as well. There are still crackpots (sorry, letting by biases show) arguing that sexual and gender orientation can and should be "fixed."

I use homosexuality as an example because it's culturally and histirically relevant, and there are many parallels both in how homosexuality was seen, diagnosed, treated, and hidden.

Really, it's only been in the last 40-50 years that our culture has begun to question the idea that ALL deviations need to be fixed (or hidden, if an attempt at fixing isn't possible or doesn't work). Even the concept of allowing people a choice in their treatments or choice to refuse treatment is a very new concept. Thirty years ago, you may not have been given a choice. Fifty years you almost certainly wouldn't have been given a choice, and sixty years ago, you could have been committed simply on a family member's request.

This isn't just about the often barbaric history of mental health treatment, it's also a reflection of how our culture has changed (and possibly might change in the future) in it's tolerance for deviancy.

As with most "non-typical" traits, ADHD traits fall on a spectum from "mildly odd" (little or no treatment or special treatment necessary) to "extremely and disturbingly freaky".

Are you an odd duck with people who like you (be they odd themselves or not) or do the villagers shun you or chase you with pitchforks?

Do you "get by" reasonably well, or do you have virtually no ability whatsoever to function or fit in?

Do you need or want to be "fixed."

These are all very complex social issues, and the answers have to be tailored to every single individual. The point at which one person will want or be persuaded into treatment is not going to be the same for every person.

There's been some research and education experts suggesting that the ADHD spectrum is actually an advantage for tech-based learning and functioning. Attention spans as a rule are getting shorter, as a result. And while there will always be people (on both extremes) who are unable to adapt, that in the future many of the people currently diagnosed with ADHD will have the advantage. In fact, it's possible that a new diagnostic term might be created for those who cannot adapt to the new norms. At which fewer ADHD cases will be identified and some of the people now considered "normal" might be deviant enough to warrant a "new" diagnosis.

I am not saying that diagnosis and treatment is wrong or unnecessary (far from it, actually). I'm just saying there is no easy, simple, quick way to determine who needs treatment and what the treatment needs to be. It ALL needs to be considered case-by-case and within as broad a context is possible.

Someone who has no need or desire for treatment today may be desperate for help in the future (even if the only thing that has changed is their environment or desire to function differently). And the reverse is just as true. An artist may have different needs than an accountant, and if someone would like to change careers from one to another, the may need a different skill or functioning set.

Context is everything. That fewer children are diagnosed with ADHD in more flexible learning environments does raise the possibility that ADHD (at least in the mild to moderate range) might be more an artifact of the current style of education and cultural standards for behavior than anything else.

I just believe treatment has to be considered carefully and the question asked whether treatment is focused on functioning, labeling or forcing people into a "normal" mold whether they like it or not.

I have ADD and OCD since as long as I can remember. Grade school was ****. Honestly it drives me insane (worry wart) but I don't know anything else...I just work around it and deal.

I can multi-task like a mofo and have always been considered an excellent employee at just about every job. I'm never late and never call in unless I am severely ill. I always wind up promoted to a supervisor or management position. I was offered manager at the salon I just started at in May but declined.

It was a negative in school but positive as an adult. My son now has the same struggle since 2nd grade. I feel bad for him but I know he will be ok in the long run.

In graduate school, I remember reading of research that found that medicating ADHD children had no effect on their school performance (grades), and the professor asked us to consider whether children were being medicated for the benefit of the child, or for the parents, teachers, and other students.

At the time I remember arguing that "fitting in" and "being less annoying" to parents, teachers, and peers might ultimately be in the child's best interest, but now I wonder.

Are we forcing square pegs into round holes, rather than allowing children to develop and learn in a way that utilizes and develops their natural skill set?


In the future, will we look back at some of the ADHD treatments as unnecessary (if not barbaric) as we now view the formerly common practice of forcing left-handed children to write with their right hand for the sake of making them "normal."

Again, I'm not saying medication is never justified. I just wonder how many cases, especially on the "borderline" would require medication if the school environment encouraged and appreciated and took advantage of more cognitive diversity.

An intelligent, resourceful and self-aware adult (with or without ADHD symptoms) can use their strengths and weaknesses to pursue a career and lifestyle that is compatible with their strengths, weaknesses and resources.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure our current educational system does enough to foster the needed types of intelligence, resourcefulness, and self-awareness in "non-typical" students.

Our current system teaches to the norm - the average. The further a child falls from average, the less his or her individual needs will be met. Children who need extra help get left behind, and children who are not challenged enough become bored and unmotivated. And children with different needs entirely are SOL.

Few years back the school nurse at the time used to argue that I NEED to put my son on medication. She'd say if he was a diabetic I wouldn't question insulin so why question ADHD meds. I wanted to tell her to go eff herself. None of her business. My son gets A's and B's so I didn't feel it was necessary and neither did his pediatrician. The school nurse was way out of line.

Since I am a step-mother, I never dealt with a young child. My step children were 9 and 11 when our lives joined. But my husband raised them and knows how kids are. Kids don't just sit still and say "Yes mam" and do everything you tell them to do. My grandson is 5. He has been in daycare since he was 3 months old. Around age 3 he started being the bad boy who would not do what the teacher said. My husband said he is just being a boy. He is very active, inquisitive and we think he is smart. (of course!) It got so bad at daycare that he started not wanted to go. It seemed that as soon as he got there they were ready for him to act up. One time he locked the bathroom door and would not open it when they told him to. Once he took the fire extinguisher down off the wall. Why was the fire extinguisher mounted so low that a 5 year old could reach it???? Finally the school suggested he be tested for ADHD. He was tested, and was found to be "borderline." My step son and wife said they will never medicate him. He is going for therapy. Fortunately they moved 20 miles away and he is now in a different daycare and things are a little better. Everyone is upset because he talks about monsters and zombies etc. They are blaming us, saying we let him watch things on TV. I have seen children's cartoon that have monsters and zombies!! I don't think it's really a big deal. They get upset that when they tell him to brush his teeth and go to bed he doesn't do it, and even after going to bed he keeps coming out of the room to see what they are doing. I think this is typical boy. I know there are some boys who are quieter and more serene, but my husband says his son was very active, and my grandson seems to be taking after his dad. My DIL came from a family of all girls. Dainty little ladies. So anyway, now they have held him back from kindergarten. He is upset that all the other 5 year olds went on to kindergarten and he is still in daycare with all the 4 year olds. I feel bad for him and feel that he is being labeled and this will follow him through grade school.

Whether it is correct or incorrect, there are students who do benefit from medication and counseling when it comes to ADHD. What I mean from benefit, however, is that they are more capable of functioning in the education environment that they are currently stuck with. It may not be right, but it is the current realty, and I have recommended students for testing due to the fact that I see them helplessly struggling. When a high school diploma is so necessary, it would seem criminal to me to not give a child every chance to succeed in the environment they may unfortunately be placed in. Then, teachers are legally forced to give that student proven accommodations that aid ADHD children in the classroom. I have a student currently who has been recommended for testing for years, but parental support is basically non-existent. I give the boy some of the same accommodations that my other ADHD students have, but I know most of his teachers do not. He is actually passing my class so far this year, compared to his 30 average in English the year before.

I don't see an end in sight to any of that really until student to teacher ratio becomes something reasonable again. I currently feel like I am on an assembly line. 150 students a day. They walk in my class for 45 minutes, they move out, and then the next set move in. You try to individualize instruction through differentiation, but there's really only so much that can be done, and unfortunately, it's not enough for anyone.

I don't usually get caught up in threads once they have posters creating a hot topic/controversial type debate but I do make an exception here,

Kaplods,

I don't agree with your labeling people as "mildly odd" to "extremely and disturbingly freaky"

Unless you are an expert in this field, which I never read that you are, it is inappropriate to label people that way. Who defines who is "normal?" I would be interested to know who defines normal and other variations from normal because everyone is a different, unique individual. We shouldn't have to worry that we are classified as an odd freak because we don't fit the mold.

Alaskanlaughter, I am also sorry that your post has been hijacked, I needed to say what I did though.

Originally Posted by seabiscuit:
I don't usually get caught up in threads once they have posters creating a hot topic/controversial type debate but I do make an exception here,

Kaplods,

I don't agree with your labeling people as "mildly odd" to "extremely and disturbingly freaky"

Unless you are an expert in this field, which I never read that you are, it is inappropriate to label people that way. Who defines who is "normal?" I would be interested to know who defines normal and other variations from normal because everyone is a different, unique individual. We shouldn't have to worry that we are classified as an odd freak because we don't fit the mold.

Alaskanlaughter, I am also sorry that your post has been hijacked, I needed to say what I did though.

Well I wouldn't use the term expert, especially since I haven't worked or taught in the field for about 15 years (though I try to stay current so that I could get back to work if my my health improves) - but actually yes, developmental psychology IS my field. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology with a strong emphasis on cognitive behavioral therapies and a master's degree in developmental psychology. Fifteen years ago, (after about 10 years in the field) I was working in an adolescent research program and teaching Psych and Developmental Education classes in a Community college and was intending to start work on my doctorate, when a strange assortment health problems disrupted those plans and eventually progressed to the point I could no longer work and had to apply for disability.

Of course, odd and freaky aren't clinical terms, and I was not using them to "label" anyone. I was directing the term at and for those of us who use the terms humorously to describe ourselves, and who do not consider the terms perjorative.

I'm extremely odd myself, and pretty darned freaky, even disturbingly so to some of my extremely conservative family. My friends are odd and freaky too (many of them, including my husband, are somewhat proud to use the "disturbingly strange" descriptor) and most of us are darned proud of the fact.

"Let your freak flag fly," is pretty much my personal motto.

As for "normal" whenever I've used the word, I've used it in the mathematical sense - that is referencing the average - that is the mean, mode, median - essentially the middle 50% of the population as plotted on the standard bell curve.

A synonym for "normal" as I used it would be "average" or "common."

Likewise I used "odd" and "freaky" only as opposites of that kind of normal. "Uncommon" or "different."

Personally, I'm more likely to use "normal" as a perjorative, because I consider "normal" pretty darned boring. Quite frankly, I think "normal" sucks donkey butt.

Kaplods,

I now see how you were attempting to use humor when describing traits such as odd or freaky, I think that caution should be taken when using those terms because many people may be offended if told that they were odd or freaky. I don't think many people would see that as a compliment, at least I wouldn't.

That's great that you are into psychology, it is a fascinating field.