Did you know that something can still be a real disease and still be over diagnosed because of the medicalisation of perfectly normal behaviors?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Printable View
Did you know that something can still be a real disease and still be over diagnosed because of the medicalisation of perfectly normal behaviors?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you think medicalisation of perfectly normal behaviors could be something that is related to money? For example, when Internet began, internet people were just a bunch of loners and they even talked about addiction to Internet and that kind of things. Now that you have social networks, sometimes people talk online more than they do in the real world and they are not labeled as loners or addicted just because Facebook went IPO in the stock market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
So to me, medicalisation of perfectly normal behaviors is about money. If it delivers no profit, then medicalisation of perfectly normal behaviors takes place. If it delivers profit, those people are perfectly normal. Am I wrong?
The numbers for diagnosis in girls were 2.7% in december and 1.6, which raises the very interesting issue of relative age effects but doesn't say anything at all about which of those cases were appropriately diagnosed and which were not, never mind saying anything about whether or not ADHD "exists" at all. So one mark for effort, minus one mark for failed understanding. Nevertheless, I'm pleased to see someone with your religious beliefs acknowledge the existence and importance of relative age effects in school :oQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Not even.Quote:
Am I wrong?
Whether it's more prevalent because of screening, or that more kids are exhibiting problems with attention span, that's hard to tell. BTW, facebook is now working on how to get kids under 13 (with parental supervision) on their site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Yeah, there are plenty of educational apps for toddlers, but that won't help them learn to socialize with people, or how to control their impulses or tempers in public places. They shouldn't be used as a replacement for face-to-face interactions....or as a baby sitter. ;)
There is no replacement for a hug, a smile, a hand shake, what happens face to face. At least when you play videogames in single mode you know you are alone playing, just like when you watch TV. The ugly thing about facebook is that employers will know what employees did since they were kids... That is going to be ugly...Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
BBC calls it "sexual harassment", I call it "normal teenager hostility online".Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Sexual harassment in the world of video gaming
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18280000
I wonder how today's little kids will feel about their whole lives having been put on the internet, with pictures, by their own parents. :bulb:
I wonder how today's latch-key kids will feel about virtual home-monitoring, GPS tracking in their phones, and cars that can download travel history....for parental desire to know their every move. Lots of commercials selling these things to busy parents --- turn house lights on from the office, watch your kid enter the house after school (and see who's with them), interact with them via skype on the tv screen --- it's just like being there!. :(
I do not think kids may have any point of reference to judge and compare. But certainly those who live in the real world must be happier as long as their parents get along. I have found many people (young and adults) are in need of wisdom nowadays, the kind of wisdom that age brings.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
For example, if you want to help people, here you may find a good place to do it massively:
http://www.enotalone.com/forum/index.php
It is a good place to learn about people's problems and to suggest solutions.
It may be "normal" and still be harrassment. It's easy to say that bullying is "normal", but it's still bullying. Tragic though that sexual harrassment is normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ar81
Yes, hence the word mostly. The difference between mostly and always and the sole reason for the word being included is that it implies that sometimes it is a real disease. Though I'm not 100% convinced that it does, I suspect it does for a minority of cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Firstly and I know it wasn't you who said it, but the difference between 2.7% and 1.6% is not "within 1%" [or even 1.1%]. I hate it when people fail to understand basic mathematics. An increase from 1.6% of the population to 2.7% of the population is not an increase of 1.1%, it is an increase of 68.75% (1.1/1.6=68.75%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I am not sure where my religious beliefs [atheist, don't have any] fit in with this? We enforce arbirtrary rules on people then wonder why they act differently. If someone is over 1.5x more likely to be diagnosed based on date of birth then it does say that appropriate diagnoses are not occuring. The fact is that a difference in relative age is a real issue, but an alternative "disease" is being labelled on people. I hate the notion of labelling children as having some sort of mental illness when all they're doing is acting like children! Its offensive and lazy.
Given that it seems reasonable to assume well over one third of people born in December and diagnosed with the disease are misdiagnosed (had they been born weeks later they wouldn't have got that diagnosis) and given how many other causes of misdiagnosis there are, it seems reasonable to conclude that misdiagnosis is a major issue on this subject.
You think Skype etc are a bad thing to be sad about?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Amanda's parents live in Canada, we live in the UK. It'd be nice if Amanda could just go down the road and see them, like we can with my family, but she can't there's no alternative. We're going to Canada for Christmas this year to spend it with them, but it'll be over 2 years since she's seen them last face-to-face and 4 years since she's spent Christmas with them. Obviously its not the same as spending quality time in the flesh which would be preferable, but not always possible - I'm glad for her that Skype (and regular old phones) mean she can talk to them almost every day and see their faces regularly. That's not sad.
If you're referring to the published rebuttal, I think you're misunderstanding how the statistics were addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
but hey, you're starting to use the right numbers now :up: and we're moving away from the notion of it being bad parenting to children being children.
Still find it interesting that everyone is focusing on the video games debate and not the porn debate.
WHY NO PORN, PEOPLE?
I NEVER used the words bad parenting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
no, just brat, and the lack of discipline. Curious where you expect such traits to be picked up or squashed, if not the parents. Especially concerning the kindergarteners in the research you tried to cite.
I find the idea of ANY kindergarteners being diagnosed with a mental illness over this appalling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Kids can be brats. It's natural. Are you telling me you were never a brat as a child? Never knew any?
I'm still not sure you understand the differences, in this case, between
1. Having a diagnosis
2. Getting a diagnosis
3. The diagnosis being "real"
I do of course agree that it's not okay to diagnose kids so early with a psychiatric diagnosis, esp. if it leads to unhelpful or inappropriate medication, but at the same time I've seen enough fairly severe cases of neuropsychiatric disorders in young children to understand why they were diagnosed to begin with. A lot of kids are helped by being thoroughly investigated and getting diagnosed. Moving forward from this it would be helpful--in general, not just for diagnostics--if teachers and parents and society in general were more aware of the relative age effects that lead to them shafting many kids from the age of six due to overconfidence in their judgement and their ability to [appropriately] uphold the philosophy of meritocracy.
And, just so we're clear, these relative age effects can go both ways. It may be so that many of the youngest kids are overdiagnosed, but in theory it may also be the case that some of the older kids are being underdiagnosed because, compared to their younger and more disruptive classmates, they seem pretty normal. I don't really believe that to be the case (except possibly in the sense that diagnosis is delayed by a few years so that you can see what's what), but in principle. You see similar things in the case of mood disorders, eg. depressive disorders, where gender and age matter greatly for getting an appropriate diagnoses. Some people are overdiagnosed, but very many more are underdiagnosed.
Try reading what I actually said about parental monitoring/babysitting, without putting your spin on it. I've already said Skype etc is great for connecting with distant loved ones, especially military family.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The ADD or ADHD angle shouldn't be the main focus here. All kids can be over-stimulated by a bunch of things, and have negative reactions. The truth is....we don't know yet how The Information Age, "the internet" combined with "social media" and "video games", plus certain parenting styles will affect today's two-year olds...in the future.Quote:
I find the idea of ANY kindergarteners being diagnosed with a mental illness over this appalling.
Those who study childhood development and behavioral patterns have only recently warned parents about hours of TV watched, regardless of content. :bulb:
Minx if its possible for a child to be "normal" without being diagnosed with a mental illness and prescribed mind-altering drugs don't you think that's a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Secondly do you agree or not that some children developed faster and some slower than others? Given the relative age-effects are already affecting the mean results, isn't it possible too that rather than having ADHD some children are simply a bit behind their peers for whatever reason and given time and nurturing would develop.
Only recently? Been going on about that since I was born 30 years ago (turned out fine I think).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Look I'm only addressing your unsupported claim that "ADHD claims are mostly bullshit" and asserting that the info you've provided does not support that claim and certainly does not say anything conclusive about whether or not ADHD is "real". I know that ADHD has historically been overdiagnosed, esp. in places where the diagnosis can be made fairly informally and by non-specialists. Re. whether or not 1. diagnosis and 2. medication are "good" that depends entirely on the child's level of functioning before and after diagnosis and the instatement of therapeutic or supportive measures. I'm not inclined to judge the "goodness" of these things based purely on personal biases.
Whether you agree with the word mostly or not, you do agree do you not that a significant proportion of such diagnoses are bullshit right? Or "overdiagonosis" if the word bullshit is too strong for you.
Would you describe the failure to pick up a person who really does have ADHD as "bullshit"?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Would you also agree to describe the pulling of unsupported value-laden statements about these things [out of a receptacle or orifice of your choice] as "bullshit"? Ie. would you agree that your initial claim was bullshit? Or would you prefer "overstated"?
No. I would say its undiagnosed - big difference, bullshit means saying something which isn't true. Simply not saying something which is true isn't bullshit. If it was questioned whether someone who really did have it and they were told they didn't, then yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Can you provide evidence to demonstrate that there is an underlying body of mentally ill children who aren't getting diagnosed on this matter?
No, I would agree it is disputed. I believe I have provided enough evidence to show that on a balance of probabilities my claim is correct. You do not. I did not merely pull it out of my orifice but have seen plenty of evidence on this matter to convince me, some of which I have shared on this thread and much of which has been agreed does demonstrate overdiagnoses if not agreement on the extent of it. I am empirical by nature.Quote:
Would you also agree to describe the pulling of unsupported value-laden statements about these things [out of a receptacle or orifice of your choice] as "bullshit"? Ie. would you agree that your initial claim was bullshit? Or would you prefer "overstated"?
Higher prevalences of undetected ADHD compared to the general population, among certain groups of hard-up youths and adults (psychiatric outpatients, delinquents, convicted felons) as demonstrated by neuropsychiatric testing and reports of childhood behavior. As you say, there are great differences in maturity among kids in a class, but wrt ADHD this is esp. a diagnostic challenge with young children and more so when a detailed neuropsychiatric investigation is not possible (or sought). Most normal kids catch up within a few years, which would be a good reason for 1. waiting to diagnose and (if necessary and benefical) medicate and 2. periodic re-evaluation of both the diagnosis as well as the therapeutic and supportive measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No-one is disputing the claim of overdiagnosis; you'll note that what's being disputed are 1. your unsupported claim that most are falsely diagnosed and 2. what you imagine that unsupported claim says about those who may have undiagnosed ADHD. You're not empirical by nature, you're a fantasist by nature which is perhaps why you imagine yourself being empirical :bulb: moreover, being empirical does not make you immune to bias and madness. If it did then bias would not be a problem in science.Quote:
No, I would agree it is disputed. I believe I have provided enough evidence to show that on a balance of probabilities my claim is correct. You do not. I did not merely pull it out of my orifice but have seen plenty of evidence on this matter to convince me, some of which I have shared on this thread and much of which has been agreed does demonstrate overdiagnoses if not agreement on the extent of it. I am empirical by nature.
early diagnoses are extremely important in children. I think you're adding to your own confusion by believing that diagnoses = medicating. Kindergarteners are the cusp of what researchers say is the last year before their personalities become hardwired, and failing to correct or account for something like hyperactivity or attention disorders can put them at a disadvantage for decades to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
brats does not mean children act like children. brat would disruptive or antisocial behavior. acting out in public, or against an authority figure is very much something that parents are supposed to correct before children reach school age.
This is a tricky thing. There are indeed some extremely disruptive behaviors that are a part of normal development and that are viewed by many as failures of discipline and socialisation. Examples would be the outbursts of rage and the temper tantrums most of us have seen at the grocery store, on the bus etc :noob: of course it's usually not very difficult to separate those behaviors from abnormally disruptive behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Evidence please :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Funny, everyone I knew as a kid would at times act out in public, against authority, be disruptive or antisocial etc, some more than others. That is the reason we have things like Detention. This also has much more common causes in my mind like hunger, tiredness, getting spoilt or whatever than simply saying its due to brain chemistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I once got Detention for throwing a paper aeroplane in the chapel while the whole school was there and supposed to be praying. It was made from the prayer that had been handed to us on the way in. Did that mean I had ADHD for that little rebellion?
paper airplanes make a kid a brat? :bulb:
but hey, lets ignore the need for diagnoses!
It's not very difficult to find, you can google "adhd" and "prison" and "ncbi":Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.google.se/search?q=ADHD+prison+ncbi
And then:
http://www.google.se/search?q=ADHD+p...tpatients+ncbi
And then when you have the chance have a chat with a decent child psychiatry clinic, I imagine the NHS has one or two somewhere in England.
This is why there are guidelines and criteria that help differentiate normal tantrums from abnormal behavior.Quote:
Funny, everyone I knew as a kid would at times act out in public, against authority, be disruptive or antisocial etc, some more than others. That is the reason we have things like Detention. This also has much more common causes in my mind like hunger, tiredness, getting spoilt or whatever than simply saying its due to brain chemistry.
Do you know anyone who's been diagnosed with ADHD for throwing a paper airplane once? Did he get medicated? If so you can report the physician that made the diagnosis based on one reported incidence and he may have trouble hanging on to his license.Quote:
I once got Detention for throwing a paper aeroplane in the chapel while the whole school was there and supposed to be praying. It was made from the prayer that had been handed to us on the way in. Did that mean I had ADHD for that little rebellion?
Yes. Your words were "disruptive or antisocial", you don't think I was being disruptive or antisocial by doing that in my school's church? I was given detention for being disruptive so the teachers certainly thought so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer