Pages

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1 A Mom Anon  Sun, May 19, 2013 11:51:41am

I fought all through elementary and middle school to keep my son off medication.(He has Asperger’s or PDD-NOS, depending on which doctor you ask) His pediatrician actually agreed with me. The school system did not. His elementary school principal began every conversation I had with her with “Now what medicines is he on again?” knowing full damned well he wasn’t on anything and wasn’t going to be. I finally went over her head and told the Superintendent’s office that if they could prove to me, via PET scans, neurological and neuro/psychological testing at their expense that the drugs would work without any doubts at all THEN we’d go ahead and try the meds. As you might guess, that stopped those not so subtle “hints”.

I had to do the same thing again when he entered middle school. Adults seem to often forget what it’s like to be a kid and that it’s ok to be a kid. Maybe if a kid has a short attention span at school(or at home)it might be a reflection of what the adults are doing more than the kid.

2 SteveMcGazi  Sun, May 19, 2013 12:07:43pm

Just as couple of thoughts. First, ritalin and adderol are prescribed for ADHD but are often abused, especially by school aged children and their “supportive” parents.
Second, I really can’t go with you with that Wired piece. It sounds great to say that nature picks diversity, but does it actually hold water? Diversity is actually only a fringe occurence in nature. Most extemes don’t survive and mate. Only a select few actually survive to procreate. It’s not just humans that pick standardization. Most critters that select mates select ideal types, not different or eccentric mates. Further, it can be argued that it is not diversity that protects species that reside further down the food chain, but numbers. Diversity protects against unknown risks, like financial market fluctuations. Most threats in nature are predictable. For example, diversity does not protect zebras from predators. The zebras who have phenotypes at the margins of the herd are usually the first to die. What protects zebras (and herring, and plankton) is numbers. There is survival in numbers, not diversity.
The writer of the Wired piece injects his own Prejudice into the work, “I like eccentricity and eccentrics.” Then, without any connecting arguments he tries to follow that with “Nature abhors homogeneity and simply adores eccentric diversity. We should celebrate the fact that most humans are at least somewhat eccentric and accept ourselves as we are, warts and all. Human difference was never meant to be reducible to an exhaustive list of diagnoses drawn carelessly from a psychiatric manual.”
Perhaps the author is discussing that nature “prefers” (as if nature were somehow animate) diversity of species. That may well work for an ecosystem, but human beings by themselves are not an ecosystem.
I can’t tell what this writer is trying to achieve. At one point he compares Big Pharma to Big Tobacco, and I don’t think that’s supportable. At least not the way he does it, simply by declaring it so. I also get the impression that this writer thinks syndromes like ADHD are effectively no big deal. I know a family with a member with ADHD, and it is a BFD.
I wouldn’t say that phsychiatrists are trying to make big pharma happy by writing scripts to help people with problems. In all likelihood, they are trying to help patients. Psychiatric and psychological issues are difficult to manage. Just because some jackwad writer in some ivory tower vomits up some bullshit platitudes does not justify at all the idea that we have to fight back against big pharma. I wonder if he keeps his kids up to date with their immunizations.

3 Three Chord Monty  Sun, May 19, 2013 12:20:04pm

This is just one of the issues he has written about with regards to the DSM-5. Here’s another, where he details the action the APA threatened against a blogger, who happens to be a friend of mine.

Now that we have “Somatic Symptom Disorder,” virtually anyone can be diagnosed with a psychiatric illness on the basis of very, very little. Several items that have now been published can be argued with individually; as a whole, the changes brought to this volume strike me as being, at the least, overzealous. And this observation is in no way comparable to ‘big pharma is evil’ agitprop.

psychologytoday.com

4 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Sun, May 19, 2013 5:43:36pm

We are no longer in an environment similar to the one we evolved in, yet our intellectual and emotional systems are basically the same as they were 100,000 years ago. The ridiculous use of the naturalistic fallacy by the author is little more than a red herring and a bit of a straw man when you consider the purpose behind the categorization of emotional/behavioural states.

The categorization isn’t intended to tell us there is something wrong with us, it’s intended to provide guidelines for treatment of emotional states that have given segments of the population difficulties in social interactions. Yes, categories can be used to marginalize groups of people, but it can also enable the use of effective strategies quickly and reliably.

If a person has a range of personality traits that fit into one of the categories, and the categories are usually a range of behaviours that overlap with other categories, there exist a number of validated procedures associated with the category that can make that person’s life more enjoyable.

Both ADHD and autism are real, they aren’t an invention nor the manifestation of big phama’s greed. There are however, a number of non-drug cognitive retraining methods that help high functioning autistic and Aspergers kids deal with the stresses of interacting with people not affected by the syndrome. Drugs should only be used as a scaffold for the assembly of effective coping mechanisms.

Society is as it is, it doesn’t like differences in its members and while changes in attitude occur they are very slow. If ADHD and autistic kids are having trouble dealing with stress, then it is much quicker and effective to deal with the autism/ADHD in a specific individual than to wait until society changes how it interacts with them. Suggesting that we abandon these kids to their own resources just about guarantees we end up with a subsection of society unable to function at their best.

The same can be said for other emotional disorders like clinical depression.

Going back to the good old days is going back to the victimization, abuse and ostracization of a small but significant number of people. Remember that we evolved from species that killed oddball offspring.

5 jonhendry  Sun, May 19, 2013 7:04:08pm

The key point isn’t whether a person is ‘eccentric’, it’s whether they encounter significant difficulties due to their ‘eccentricities’.

If a person’s eccentricities and quirks are causing them, say, to fail everything they set out to accomplish, both assigned tasks from school or work, and self-directed goals - that’s a problem with deep, long-lasting effects on a person.

If a person is able to function well, because their issues are minor, or because they are so talented in an area unaffected, or because they have the financial ability to hire assistance, then “eccentricity” is fine.

Don’t romanticize it, though, and consign the former group of people to lifetime problems.

6 The_Mess  Mon, May 20, 2013 12:34:01am

re: #4 Walking Spanish Down the Hall:

We are no longer in an environment similar to the one we evolved in, yet our intellectual and emotional systems are basically the same as they were 100,000 years ago. The ridiculous use of the naturalistic fallacy by the author is little more than a red herring and a bit of a straw man when you consider the purpose behind the categorization of emotional/behavioural states.

Ah, no.

Basically, human populations are still under constant selection pressures from the basic strong selection against lethal phenotypes that cause miscarriages, to pre-reproductive age early death. Then there’s selection via infectious diseases, to the more minor ones that stem from the fitness increases due to long-life (extra resources/care for grand-kids). Of which there’s quite a few bits of published research available.

Cognitive functions have probably experienced a variety of selection pressures from increasing population density, as we’ve needed to deal with more contact with other humans, and all the associated cultural developments (agriculture, religion, trade, conflict). To more modern pressures like general reading and maths. The main problem though is that we don’t have a good understanding of the genes involved in human cognition, leading to a lack of statistical tools with which to ferret out the nice hard empirical evidence. And so while it is attractive to immediately assume the hull hypothesis of “no evolution”, a decent level of knowledge about evolution quickly leads to basic awareness of potential, realistic selection pressures acting on human populations.

However, I don’t have the specific background to ferret out the literature on this and no longer have full access to literature stuck behind pay-walls (plus depression makes for “fun”), so much to my annoyance I can’t back this hypothesising up to the level I’d like.

Anyhow, furthermore, selection pressures, if not strong enough or competing pressures are present, can easily lead to a wide degree of variation being maintained within a population, as can genetic drift. For example, most people can easily grok 3 or more levels of co-operation, i.e. my tribe, your tribe + the other coalition against those guys, and yet there’s still plenty who can only grasp one or two at most. And are resistant to basic game theory logic about the advantages of wider co-operation and stick to plain old nepotism.

And lastly, rate of evolution is dependant firstly on the visibility of phenotype to selection, followed by on selection strength, population size, genetic variation, mutation rate, rate of reproduction and breeding systems. Which skipping the maths (for which there is much, fairly basic though), generally large populations are more resilient to low selection pressures, but prone to high variation and some genetic drift, though under strong selection pressures will swiftly adapt (or go extinct). While smaller populations can rapidly gain or loose alleles by genetic drift or even small selection pressures, especially if isolated, allowing for rather rapid rates of evolution.

Although usually population size and genetic variation is expressed as “effective population size” in the literature and in calculating effects of selection and drift.

*cough*

And ah, +1 to the rest of your post though, albeit this hatchling has found anti-depressants key to managing their depression, but does not like them being used as the sole treatment

7 Three Chord Monty  Mon, May 20, 2013 1:25:41am

This might be a better read…

Consider these new additions to the DSM:

* Suppose the love of your life died suddenly just two short weeks ago and you are still feeling sad, have less interest in things, don’t have much appetite or energy and can’t sleep well. Yesterday this was consistent with perfectly normal grief. Today you fully qualify for the DSM 5 diagnosis of major depressive disorder.

* Suppose you are 70 years old and, like me, are having trouble recalling how the movie ended last night, or finding your car in the parking lot, or remembering the names or placing the faces of new acquaintances. Last night, we were just old geezers. Today, DSM 5 has graduated us up to mild neurocognitive disorder.

* Suppose you have a cancer and worry that each headache may represent its having spread to your brain. Yesterday, this was completely understandable — today you have DSM 5 somatic symptom disorder.

* Temper tantrums used to be an annoying, but accepted and expected, part of childhood development. Now they have morphed into DSM 5 disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

nypost.com

8 Gus  Mon, May 20, 2013 5:46:38am

…The crux of the issue is that medical records weren’t used and no patients were directly examined. The method was to call parents and ask them questions about their children

Science!


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 149 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1