Printable View
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
What he should have said was "a pattern of [pervasive] disruptive and/or antisocial behavior"Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
cool story bro. thankfully, if it wasn't for aimless' displayed understanding english, Id have to go into context about pecking order, boredom, and pushing boundaries. cause you're still confusing children being children with brats and lack of discipline.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
and aimless beats me to the punch.
I might suggest that Rand *and I* conceive and use the term "brat" with the idea that it has rather less weight behind it than you do. Brat is shorthand for "I can't believe s/he just did (that annoying thing)" or "that kid is aggravating me." To you it seems to mean "there is something wrong with her/him." I think your version is ridiculous. More or less all children are going to be brats at points, just like more or less all adults are going to be jerks sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm going to go with google (badly behaved child) and urbandictionary (spoiled, obnoxious or troublesome) on this one. Brat isn't a shortterm status, sure children can act like brats, just like adults can act like jerks. But, as Aimless had to very carefully explain, being a brat (or a jerk) is a long term pattern of how one is.
Now if we're done with circlejerking over what brat means, can we get back to the best ways and times to properly ID and treat children with possible disorders before it ends up scarring for life? Cause I sure don't see how labeling it as bullshit is going to help those december suffers, or the janurary ones who may not be misdiagnosed.
No it is not.
I'm going to go with Google and say that a brat is a badly behaved child, or urban dictionary and say that being a brat is acting spoiler, obnoxious or troublesome :bulb:
It is a short-term status of how one is acting. Like acting like a jerk, its not how one is. Although one could regularly act that way, I'm perfectly content to say that a kid screaming in a supermarket aisle because his parents won't buy him sweets is a brat. I'm quite content to think "won't that brat shut up" even if I've never seen that kid before or again.
A good upbringing.Quote:
Now if we're done with circlejerking over what brat means, can we get back to the best ways and times to properly ID and treat children with possible disorders before it ends up scarring for life?
UD never uses the word acting, but I did highlight the important tenses for the words that do appear. Past tense in the definitions, suggesting a pattern or history, and your tense which suggest something in the now.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
yes, a good upbringing is a proper medical response to a possible developmental and psychiatric disorder :bulb:Quote:
A good upbringing.
You sound like one of those Christian parents who thinks Jesus camp fixes gayness.
Better than placating children with drugs because they're acting like children. Speaking of which, I oppose the notion of kindergarteners having any form of sex or marriage whether straight or gay too. Because they're children.
Quite content for adults to be popping ritalin like its candy.
and ... we're back to you confusing diagnosing with medicating :(
But hey, since that 12 year old acts like a 6 year old (children acting like children), it must a problem with the upbringing.
I'm only replying because you quoted me....but dude, seriously, hasn't it occurred to you that long-term studies take decades, and during that time other variables could be added, but can't be incorporated into the original study?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That's part of the "problem" with fast-moving and ever-changing technology, and studying or understanding the affects on very young children. Contrary to what you know now, because it seems commonplace, but childhood development as neurological, genetic, environmental, chemical, nutritional, cognitive, cultural, or behavioral....really IS a new thing.
I watched "too much" tv when I was young, especially on cartoon Saturdays. Back then, in the dinosaur age, we only had a tiny black and white set, with 3 channels, and cartoon Saturday was over by 11am or noon. Fairly quickly, we had color tv, and 6 or 9 channels! Cartoon Saturday could last from breakfast to supper time, and all the kids wanted to watch the shows....and would "play" at houses where the tv had no limits or absent parents. You see where I'm going with this....
Before we knew it, cable tv hit the scene, and VCRs too. Those without cable would pay friends to record MTV before video rentals were available. The rapid explosion of entertainment technology during my formative years was pretty amazing, in retrospect. I remember the time when movie studios and theatres were sweating bullets, because people could watch/tape/rent at home. That was also the nexus of Disney, moving from cartoon Saturday and Mickey Mouse, to making full length feature movies...using Mickey. At first, it was a clever attempt to appeal to the parent first, and then the child. FANTASIA is a great example. But it didn't take long for Disney to figure out that what kids want would drive what parents buy....and the theme park was born.
Sorry for the 'round about tangent, but maybe the same concept applies. Parents still want to give kids what they want, perhaps even spoil them....but it's defined by the movie or gaming industries hawking their products, or using the world wide WEB. Parents have even been convinced that their toddlers aren't getting the most of their formative years without computer screens, but have no idea how moderate or manage it, either.
It bothers me to see little kids watching movies in the car, or wearing ear "plugs" for sound. It's sad when those little kids say their field trip or family vacation meant watching Men In Black (or some other movie) until they got to "that place". :(
Wow last time I thought of someone as a jerk I really thought that they were predominantly jerky, that's why I applied that general term to them :bulb:
Er, do you actually know what happens when you give eg. ritalin to a child who does not have ADHD? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And yes, that is a trick question.
Rand, what do you think of a kid screaming in the supermarket who wants his dad's iPad or iPhone, instead of "sweets"?
Apple fanboy, worse than brat :downcast:
The drug is addictive and has potential for abuse as well as many side effects:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikifist
I don't normally get involved in why the brat is screaming in the supermarket, just wish they'd shut up.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If you give a person who doesn't have ADHD Ritalin the most likely outcome will not be "placation" it will most likely instead result in the opposite of placation.
I hope you've shared this with your bride-to-be, in case she wants children. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
We both want children eventually. Doesn't mean I need to hear someone else's screaming brats while I'm shopping.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And if I say someone is an asshole I think all they're literally composed of is anus. Give me a break. If you didn't want this circlejerk maybe you shouldn't have reached out for a feel in the first place. That's an example of you being a jerk and now this is an example of me being a jerk reactivelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer