But more than that what is the condition, if the only means we have of defining it is a subjective biased interpretation by an individual?
I am sure there are differences in brain chemistry that make one more stimulated, more long term goal oriented, and etc, but given the complexity of the human brain, and our lack of understanding/tools to measure, its not clear to me we should be so sure given any patients failure can be directly attributed to a singular condition.
This isn't to say that those conditions aren't precisely defined or that they aren't real, but they might be at least partially a product of our society.
Your skepticism about whether an issue "can be directly attributed to a singular condition" is just good medicine. As conditions are studied more, often it's discovered that it's actually a few different conditions that share some symptoms. Maybe all of these sometimes wishy-washy "we didn't have this when I was a kid" conditions are just medicine learning more about the mind.
Much of disorder is likely just maladaptive for, as uncle Ted put it, the post industrial revolution.
I think it's likely that as well as a healthy dose of "the world was way different when I was a kid, and didn't have as much of X, Y, Z, which contribute to the formation of maladaptive neurological patterns"
[1]: https://neurodivergentinsights.com/misdiagnosis-monday/adhd-...
This is something you only understand if you dealt with neurodivergent people. Suddenly it all makes sense, once you learn that their brains filter and process information in a somewhat different way, resulting in all kinds of different observable symptoms.
Testing someone in a completely artificial environment (sitting in an office during a diagnosis playing some tasks clicking on a computer screen) is hard for me to believe is exactly an accurate metric for revealing any of these things. Most especially, when a lot of people are actively seeking this diagnosis, and are motivated to alter their behavior to get the result they are looking for.
Im really curious how this company decided these tests are accurate at all. I assume they did some studies to find some variability in the test results and those who were already diagnosed and then determined those variability were indicative of ADHD. So what test is really doing IMO is just reinforcing the standard diagnostic criteria.
You are right that attention is a complex phenomenon, but keep in mind that people who evaluate ADHD are aware of the limitations -- that is why TOVA isn't typically the only mechanism used for diagnosis. ADHD evaluation often involves multiple sessions in which other possible explanations are ruled out or explored, along with questionnaires from friends and family who know the person -- incidentally some of the questions on the ones I collected from my friends/family were about my driving!
Even with this, there are still limitations, but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- the goal is to produce an actionable explanation that we can use to reduce suffering, and for many people this explanation does exactly that.
In any case, I still think of ADHD and a lot of psychiatric diagnoses as models. We try to make these models useful to relieve suffering. They are far from perfect, but it doesn't make sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater and discount the many people who have been helped
What am I missing?
>In any case, I still think of ADHD and a lot of psychiatric diagnoses as models. We try to make these models useful to relieve suffering. They are far from perfect, but it doesn't make sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater and discount the many people who have been helped
This is what it keeps getting down to every time I have this discussion. But I really feel like the discourse is hindering having an deeper understanding of the topic. The mental model and the resulting language, like people saying "I HAVE X,Y,Z" seems to be somewhat philosophically askew. Everything I read seems to point more to "X is a real objective thing, and were trying to find better ways of diagnosing it", rather than "X is what we call these assortment of symptoms alot of patients seem to exhibit which is helped by Y"
From a patient standpoint I think its a monumental difference with people saying things like "I am like Y because I HAVE X", as if X, what was the observed collection of (possibly unrelated) symptoms, now being a cause in itself.
