> The antidote to heterogeneity isn’t more categories, you freak. What this categorical approach misses is the potentially vibrant inner world of each person’s specific bio-psycho-social phenomenological cocktail of experience. If we actually want to tackle heterogeneity, we should look at what symptoms people are experiencing and meet them where they’re at.
yes indeed.
humans do not fit categories.
categories are crudely fit to humans.
This would be super refreshing if true, because it would mean I just need to learn skills. It's hard to figure out which skills or how to learn them though. Wonder if that's the disorder?
We probably all agree that it is bad to give kids pills to make them more quiet.
If you however have a young person that is honestly suffering from what they themself perceive as a “condition” and there is a stimulant that helps, why not apply this as a treatment?
We could stop calling it a Syndrom and just declare the people who benefit from the medication as lucky ones.
Well I don’t. Had the stuff prescribed as a kid, it did not help at all, turns out: I just was terminally bored at school.
Based on that I almost dissuaded friends to get their kid medicated, luckily they did follow the doctors recommendation. The child is much happier now and regained trust in his own self-efficacy.
Title is inaccurate because some people have terribly debilitating executive dysfunction and some people just don't. It doesn't matter what the real difference is between these people, some of them have a problem that the others do not.
The article argues that it's unfair to draw a hard, strict line somewhere that separates ADHD and non-ADHD. I argue that doesn't fucking matter because if you're anywhere near "potentially not having ADHD" then it's not nearly as important to get it diagnosed in the first place.
I get the sentiment, but the examples are bad. There is no "magical bar" that decides whether you have ADHD or not and it always needs to be cross checked with the wellbeing of the actual person. And much of the article is about bashing psychology which... I do resonate with, but I'd rather have more substance rather than reading accusations alone.
I know people with actual ADHD and some medication has helped them to function again and endure social exposure and even enjoy it. That doesn't change my impression that a vast amount of people see to identify with ADHD because it's currently a trend (remember the time when everybody thought they had OCD?).
Other than that, the field of psychology is constantly evolving.
I agree that "is the category real or not" is not as important as "are people helped by this."
And I'm increasingly of the opinion that on balance, people are not helped; I feel like concepts like ADHD, "neurodivergence," -- and even autism are terms whose present looseness cause more problems than they solve.
I wasn't sure how I felt about this article but I think the author sums it up really nicely.
> What actually separates “I lost my keys” from “I have ADHD” was never the presence of the behaviour. It’s the degree of impairment — how much it’s costing you, how often, for how long, etc.
ADHD can be a real dichotomy. On the one hand, yes you can be successful and holding down a good job. But you may be doing so by existing on the edge of burnout and questioning when everyone else figures out you are faking the competence they see in you.
But people often don't see the frustration, despair or how much work finding systems to work with or around your brain has gone into it too.
Sometimes, the most helpful part of diagnosis is that you can name the experience. Otherwise you end up concluding you're worse than everyone else.
17 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 39.5 ms ] threadyes indeed. humans do not fit categories. categories are crudely fit to humans.
We probably all agree that it is bad to give kids pills to make them more quiet.
If you however have a young person that is honestly suffering from what they themself perceive as a “condition” and there is a stimulant that helps, why not apply this as a treatment?
We could stop calling it a Syndrom and just declare the people who benefit from the medication as lucky ones.
Based on that I almost dissuaded friends to get their kid medicated, luckily they did follow the doctors recommendation. The child is much happier now and regained trust in his own self-efficacy.
The article argues that it's unfair to draw a hard, strict line somewhere that separates ADHD and non-ADHD. I argue that doesn't fucking matter because if you're anywhere near "potentially not having ADHD" then it's not nearly as important to get it diagnosed in the first place.
I know people with actual ADHD and some medication has helped them to function again and endure social exposure and even enjoy it. That doesn't change my impression that a vast amount of people see to identify with ADHD because it's currently a trend (remember the time when everybody thought they had OCD?).
Other than that, the field of psychology is constantly evolving.
stingy
And I'm increasingly of the opinion that on balance, people are not helped; I feel like concepts like ADHD, "neurodivergence," -- and even autism are terms whose present looseness cause more problems than they solve.
> What actually separates “I lost my keys” from “I have ADHD” was never the presence of the behaviour. It’s the degree of impairment — how much it’s costing you, how often, for how long, etc.
ADHD can be a real dichotomy. On the one hand, yes you can be successful and holding down a good job. But you may be doing so by existing on the edge of burnout and questioning when everyone else figures out you are faking the competence they see in you.
But people often don't see the frustration, despair or how much work finding systems to work with or around your brain has gone into it too.
Sometimes, the most helpful part of diagnosis is that you can name the experience. Otherwise you end up concluding you're worse than everyone else.