I've mentioned this before but there is no indication of adverse ADD symptoms in hunter gatherer peoples. In point of fact, the individuals who best fit the diagnostic criteria are often quite well off in those societies. With male mortality rates (due to warfare and murder) that approach 60 percent in the gentler groups it would seem that individuals with ADD wouldn't make it to respected positions if their ability to attend the important things in their environment were compromised.
You have mentioned this before and I can't relate to it, perhaps you have a link that can back up some of the claims? Did they actually do a field test to determine how ADHD hunters adapted within their society? How do they determine which tribal members have ADHD and which ones don't? How do they know that in this context, ADHD is not impairing?

I started a thread on how poor impulse control leads to certain behaviours.
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=305953#post30595

These behaviours mentioned below, typically describe children, yet we see many of the same traits in adults. You see these behaviours in any social situation. They are not limited to the school or the workplace.

The behaviours mentioned below, would be impairing to some degree in a hunter society. As Barkley has quipped, "the last person I want to go hunting with is an unmedicated person with ADHD". After looking at some of the behaviours there is some truth in what he states. Being in a hunting tribe is a social thing and statistically, ADHDers are impaired socially. If you don't believe me, just read some of the title of the threads currently on the board.

o intrusiveness
o impatience
o inappropriate behavior
o engagement in physically dangerous activities without
consideration of potential consequences
o often described as “ accident prone”, with a history of injuries
o tendency to become easily bored and seek external stimulation
o failure to apply past experiences to current situations, resulting in repetitive mistakes
o Because of inattentiveness, negativism, or resistance to the conditioning effects of reward or punishment, many ADHD children are difficult to socialize. They are described as obstinate, impervious, stubborn or negativistic
o Children with ADHD are easily excited and easily upset, and tend to react to situations in an exaggerated, disproportionate way, with dramatic (albeit usually short-lived) shifts in emotions
o They also tend to exhibit poor frustration tolerance (a “short fuse”)
o Children with ADHD tend to be intense, controlling, socially imperceptive and intolerant.
o They are often described as immature and in fact, often exhibit delayed social development.
o Chronically antagonistic interpersonal interactions can lead to social isolation, and later on, to depression and angry defiance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_theory

I believe this is the theory E-boy (and I) have referred to in several posts. The point of the theory is what brings many of us to the contextual disorder belief.

I have read the book and no, they did NOT do field tests on tribal peoples. Tribal peoples more than likely would not comply as the entire idea of testing would seem to them to be evidence of Wetiko in the scientists requesting the tests.

I would venture that some tribes have been observed. I would also venture that what was noticed was a continuous scanning of the surroundings (distractability), the ability to toally throw themselves into the hunt (hyperfocus), ability to change strategy quickly (impulsivity), independence (inability to follow directions/thinks for oneself), willingness to take risks in the face of danger (another impulsivity) and more no doubt, that would be considered to be ADHD behavior in this society.

When the survival of the tribe depends on these traits, there would be NO incidences of ADHD.

The problem with Barkley's little quip is easy to see...he is projecting himself as he knows himself into a society he was not raised in. I believe its pretty well known that people of different cultures tend to make blunders when venturing into "foreign" cultures...witness George W. Bush's recent error in Australia, for example.

This is about the perception of how much time has passed, not about being "less aware of the future". These things aren't related.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

More on time impairment and ADHD.
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=309

Foresight (predicting and planning for the future) will be deficient when inadequate working memory teams up with a poor ability to inhibit the present distractions. People with ADHD cannot keep the future in mind. They are prisoners of the present; the future catches them off guard. In fact, surprisingly poor foresight is perhaps the greatest difficulty in their lives.

Sense of time is an executive function that is usually extremely poor in ADHD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_theory

I believe this is the theory E-boy (and I) have referred to in several posts. The point of the theory is what brings many of us to the contextual disorder belief.


Yes, the hunter/farmer story. It makes for interesting reading but how do you go about showing that this concept has any merit? Where is the science(beef)? Is that all that there is to support the contexual theory of ADHD? :rolleyes:

Yes, the hunter/farmer story. It makes for interesting reading but how do you go about showing that this concept has any merit?

Well that is a good question probably the same way one would go about showing evidence that ADD wasn't an advantage 100,000 years ago. . . .

Although I know Barkley refutes the hunter / farmer thing. Barkley has publicly attacked Hartmann . . . .well this guy claimed he did any way. I do not want any one making the assumption I am accusing Barkley of any thing.

Some doctor guy that was at a CHADD convention (http://www.docdiller.com/article.php?sid=46)

***quote
Russell Barkley presented the opening keynote address. He continued his intellectual attack on Thom Hartmann and Peter Jensen, both of whom have written about the possible evolutionary advantages of ADHD in the past (hunters vs. farmers, alert warriors, etc.). Dr. Barkley strongly believes there is no evidence to support these theories and that they potentially harm present day ADHD sufferers in that they can wind up trivializing the disorder -- you cannot claim to benefit from ADHD and then want to call it a disorder. ***End Quote

Hartmann, Diller, Barkley apparently do not agree (hmm sounds familiar) :any way:

I believe it would be worth a quick mention that these studies are done in the context of looking at ADD as a condition and how to treat it in the present. Medical science is usually directed toward treating conditions in the context of the here and now. Unless you have some thing I have failed to read (which is a distinct possibility) most medical research is not looking for medical or mental problems experienced by man kind 100,000 years ago..(although some will speculate openly) Most medical researchers they have their hands full dealing with the medical / mental stuff presented today. . . . . . . .

Here is what Barkley said from the SF2K lecture about the hunter/farmer theory.
Here’s storytelling about AD/HD. AD/HD children are just leftover hunters from the Pleistocene era of human evolution and there’s really nothing wrong with them. They’re just the good old hunters from our caveman days being forced to live in a world of farmers and education. That is one view of AD/ HD that became very popular over the last decade and that is not a theory. That is a silly little idea for building self-esteem in AD/HD children, and I don’t happen to believe that you should be building self-esteem by lying to people, by practicing small deceits, by creating little stories about the origin of a disorder so that you can act as if it wasn’t a disorder. From that view, there’s nothing wrong with AD/HD. It’s the environment that’s the problem. AD/HD is just a mismatch between little hunters where hunting is no longer needed by the environment. Let me tell you something. The last person I ever want to go hunting with is an AD/HD individual off their medication.
...and that's what's wrong with a lot of "theory" that can't be falsified. It is not science but a "faith". It also tends to be story telling. By this Barkley means that the theory strings a bunch of unrelated facts together to create an explanation that can get pretty wacky at times. Unlike a true scientific theory, you can't make predictions from story telling. In science you can make predictions from a theory.

There can be a real grieving process that goes on when someone learns that there child has ADHD. Parents may have difficulty accepting the truth. Their first impulse may be to deny the loss. The grieving process can range from downplaying the loss, to blaming something as the cause of the disorder. For example, parents may blame, TV, food dye, teachers, sugar, street drugs, their friends, marriage break up, video games, lyrics to music, the morals of the times, and I could go on and on here. As in, "Chadd acts that way because his brain has been changed by videos". Such parents want an explanation and that's why the hunter/farmer theory has currency in contemporary society. It certainly doesn't have currency in the scientific community. They also look for cures because after all, this isn't a real disorder. It's the context, or whatever. He could pay attention or behave if he really tried. He is so smart, if only his teacher was more interesting. Thing is, ADHD is always there and as I have been arguing on this thread, it impairs on a number of different levels.

From Forum thread(McTavish23): 'Hunter/Gatherer ...'

Quote (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=252510&postcount=4) from forum member Carla B (also friend and co-author to and with Hartmann (I believe)).

He was (so far as I know) trying to find a metaphorical framework that helped people explain themselves to themselves and others. He was also intrigued by the possibility that the Hunter/Farmer metaphor could have some anthropological merit, but he never (so far as I know) insisted it was so in a literal sense. He just theorized and wondered out loud and others took up the wondering and mused along with him.

My interest here, is in the juxtaposition of Barkley and Hartmann ... and in making the point that Hartmann does not consider Barkley to be wrong, but that Barkley does consider Hartmann to be incorrect.
There is a common problem which we see here, and elsewhere.
Here and elsewhere, ADDers are often misunderstood by over literal translation of metaphor.
I believe that we are seeing this once again) in the Barkley/Hartmann exchange.
From this exchange and not knowing anything about either of these two people, I would expect Hartmann to be ADDer, and Barkley *not*.

The metaphor is a tremendously useful tool of communication.
It harnesses the power of pictures ('paints a thousand ...' ) and it seems as though an important ADDer/nonADDer divide exists in this domain - the ADDer who lives by versus the nonADDer who struggles by (the metaphor).

SB.

I happen to have the book sitting right on my desk...Good Morning from the US and Good Afternoon to you in the UK, SB ~waves across the waves~...Hartmann is, indeed, an ADDult. He does NOT contend that anyone use his theory as an excuse to avoid any treatment that would make ADD/Hunter-Brained life easier in the society in which they live. He offers an alternative to the esteem-crushing statement "you are broken, you are wired incorrectly, there is something wrong with you that needs to be fixed" for parents to offer children and to consider for themselves...simply this:

You are different from some people and will have to come up with alternatives in order to comply with the society framework presented to you.

I am ADD, and my children are as well. I can 100% verify that for me, it is insulting to be considered broken or ill, and would not, indeed constitutionally CAN NOT, offer insults to my children. There are, after all, so many others out there in RRReality who will be more than happy to do that to them, for many reasons, including the diagnosis of ADD.

This does not stop me from seeking treatment for myself or my children. I accept that my brain and my rrreality are not congruent with my society and in fact, I cannot transport myself back to my genetic roots. It would be folly to wish that I were able to go back to a time in history when the Celts waged war and lived tribal-fashion.

It is interesting to note that the Wikepedia link I provided earlier presented the assumption that the women would not be raised as Warriors in hunter societies, yet the Celts made a point of training ALL children to fight and hunt, in fact girls were trained by men and boys by women in order to eradicate any illusions of gender role typing.

I simply find it an interesting theory, especially in light of my ancestry which I just happen to know ;) since both my father's and mother's side of the family made it a point to teach my brother and I about it. We were NOT encouraged to ignore what made us who we are by birthright, we were encouraged to honor our bloodline by remembering where we came from while learning to live in the society we reside in.

In short we were offered both sides of the story, and expected to live in the present but it was never expected of us to pretend we were little clones of all the people around us. Clearly we have our own personal ancestry, and that is something I would not deny anyone.

I would not, having been raised in the USA from birth, ever go Hunting off my medication. I was not culturally raised a Warrior. The very idea would be ludicrous, counterproductive and possibly dangerous. I am willing to bet my ancestors had no trouble doing so however. The scientific evidence seem to point to a heritability factor regarding ADD, and to me, this Hunter theory in no way contradicts that evidence.

Wetiko does not run rampant in my family, not on either side. That's my rrreality.

The HUNTER hypothesis nicely dovetails with a great deal of existing work, I'm not even sure they were aware of in disciplines outside psychology. Before one throws out the baby with the bathwater it's worth giving the rather large body of other work a look.

The HUNTER hypothesis nicely dovetails with a great deal of existing work, I'm not even sure they were aware of in disciplines outside psychology. Before one throws out the baby with the bathwater it's worth giving the rather large body of other work a look.
What is there beyond coincidence? What are a few things that you could sink your teeth into and say, this hunter/farmer thing really might have merit? Where are there connections that can relate to the science that we know about ADHD? That would interest me.

From this exchange and not knowing anything about either of these two people, I would expect Hartmann to be ADDer, and Barkley *not*.


The metaphor is a tremendously useful tool of communication.
It harnesses the power of pictures ('paints a thousand ...' ) and it seems as though an important ADDer/nonADDer divide exists in this domain - the ADDer who lives by versus the nonADDer who struggles by (the metaphor).

Notwithstanding the possibility that Barkley could be ADHD, his trepidation in not wanting to go on that hunting expedition is a wonderful metaphor. :)

Frame it anyway that you like SB, but as one of the few regulars who actually works with ADHDers in it's most robust form, from my vantage point Barkley’s observations rings true like a bell. It doesn't matter to me as an ADHDer, or as a teacher, if he has the disorder. What matters is if he advances our understanding about the disorder in a scientific manner. I've just heard about too many miracle "cures", and left field explanations...to care about anything else.

Here is what Barkley said from the SF2K lecture about the hunter/farmer theory.

That is a silly little idea for building self-esteem in AD/HD children, and I don’t happen to believe that you should be building self-esteem by lying to people, by practicing small deceits, by creating little stories about the origin of a disorder so that you can act as if it wasn't’t a disorder.

Hmmmm he seems to be accusing Hartmann of lying while ignoring obvious evidence? Hartmann's title of his book "ADD a Different Perspective" just by looking at the title Hartmanns intention seems as obvious evidence to his intentions. Hartmann is presenting a different perspective that is it. I personally became very under impressed with Barkley because of his attack launched upon this Hartmann for a bloomin speculation . . . I was actaully already diagnosised when Hartmanns book came out. Yes I read it and found it to be an intersting speculation. I still recieved ADD treatment based on consertive medical science data of today (which was thought to be evalotionary even speculative in 1993 :p ).

I do not agree with the entire evolution thing period; however I am certainly capable of understanding that others do without the need to intellectually attack the other person. I can accept this particular perspective to the point of serious discussions. I am secure in my own point of view therefore I am able to tolerate others including Barkley's....Barkley has devoted an entire career to ADD . . . .his dissertation paper was about the effects of stimulant medication in the treatment of ADD in children, he won some kind of award. . . .

Here is his official site for all to access equally.
Barkley's Official WEB Site (http://www.russellbarkley.org/about-dr-barkley.htm )

***Quote
After serving in the United States Air Force Dr. Barkley obtained his Bachelor's Degree with Honors in Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1973. He then attended Bowling Green State University in Ohio where he received his Masters Degree in 1975 and his Ph.D. in 1977 in Clinical Psychology, receiving the Distinguished Dissertation Award for his research on the effects of medication on children with ADHD***End Quote

I have actaully been to his site and read his material.

It’s the environment that’s the problem. AD/HD is just a mismatch between little hunters where hunting is no longer needed by the environment. Let me tell you something. The last person I ever want to go hunting with is an AD/HD individual off their medication.

After some of his comments made publicaly about ADDErs :eek: probably a wise move in my opinion. However Hallowell and Ratey would more than likely be safe. This is my opinion just like the above is Barkley's. Afterall I was reared in the South where many own guns, live in the country side, and have undiagnosed ADD. I think I have probably been around more unmedicated ADDers with guns than Barkley. Oh I have been an unmedicated ADDer with a gun legally of coa rse (I forgot :o ). So far haven't shot any one; not even myself.
:cool:

The thing I see as really sad is for Barkley to have spent all those years researching ADD doing all these studies and give absolutely zero consideration as to how he presents his material. . . . .I see a smart man shooting himself in the foot(pun intended) with his inability to be sensitive to the very group he is trying to help . .. . .. . .. this in my opinion is a real tragedy.



to blaming something as the cause of the disorder

I see all one sided arguments especially those that disregard the individual as a person as blaming. Okay Hartmann may be seen as blaming society because our traits do not 'fit in'. Refusing to acknowledge that ADDers can indeed posses gifts would be blaming biology for all the bad traits ADD people have, coupled with the underpinnings of rendering the "disabled" incapable of growing and changing by removing what little self esteem they may have left.If I am born "inferior via biology" why bother trying to improve? (another un-answered question I have posted before)

Yea there is a physical reason behind my ADD but if I can't use it as an excuse for bad behavior then others should *not* be able to use it as an excuse to keep me locked in their disordered i.e. inferior category. .. . .ADD is a part of me the person. Trying to sort me from the ADD would be as tedious a process as trying to sort the various colors (shades of black)from pepper.


They also look for cures because after all, this isn't a real disorder. It's the context, or whatever. He could pay attention or behave if he really tried. He is so smart, if only his teacher was more interesting. Thing is, ADHD is always there and as I have been arguing on this thread, it impairs on a number of different levels.

No one is saying ADD does not cause problems in the lives of those of us who have it. Again a misunderstanding that seeing one morsel of positive is an effort to cover over all the negative. I fail to see the logic in this thinking period . . . :faint: It seems like most traits (ADD or other wise) would have capacities to be either good or bad depending on the individual their attitude and how the trait gets expressed. People without ADD have negative traits . . . . . every one does.

Even people with positive attitudes and approaches to their ADD are positive about where their weaknesses reside. I just posted an entire thread about my impairment even labeling it as my impairment!

There is a common problem which we see here, and elsewhere.
Here and elsewhere, ADDers are often misunderstood by over literal translation of metaphor.
I believe that we are seeing this once again) in the Barkley/Hartmann exchange.
From this exchange and not knowing anything about either of these two people, I would expect Hartmann to be ADDer, and Barkley *not*.

Good observation. I find a big gap between those professionals who share in our ADD traits and the ones who do not. I have a hard time being labeled socially inept because I am a part of a group by a person who is lacking in social graces. Evidence is before our eyes people compare these Barkley statements their tone and compassion with those of Hartmann or Hallowell. Knowledge can be learned but compassion comes from with in (IMHO)

Dr. Hallowell commantary (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-hallowell26feb26,0,390168.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary)

ADD's black box scare
***Quote
By Edward M. Hallowell, EDWARD M. HALLOWELL is the coauthor, with John J. Ratey, of "Driven to Distraction," "Delivered from Distraction" and other books about ADD.
February 26, 2006
One benefit to the anxiety that the FDA panel has caused is that such new approaches will get the attention they deserve. But the most important treatment needs no more study. It is the understanding that ADD can become a gift — if it is unwrapped properly.

People with ADD (as well as those with dyslexia, depression, bipolar disorder or anxiety disorders) usually have extraordinary talents that get buried under troubles and disappointments. The most powerful help is the identification and development of their strengths. I have seen this, more than any other intervention, transform patients' lives.

Therefore, every treatment for ADD should include a program aimed at identifying and promoting talents and interests, whatever they might be. Viewing ADD only as a disorder creates far worse disorders: shame, loss of hope and giving up on dreams. That's what really deserves a black box warning. ***End Quote

Bold and underlining mine. The underlined portion is like a well written version of my personal motto. I want to cram it into my signature which ironacally has to fit in a box that measures in pixels (can't escape irony :rolleyes: )

Burden of proof where does it rest it's weary soul? How about this question asked below?

Here is a fellow with a good question (http://www.dr-rick.com/add/addrpt.html)

***Quote
Part I: Why We're Here
If you include all the versions of ADD ("Attention Deficit Disorder"), the category includes about one out of every twenty people, or 5 percent of the population. This is interesting, because unhealthy variations are almost always less than 2 percent of the population.

When there are so many people in a minority, it has a purpose. Consider sickle-cell anemia, a curvature of red blood cells and certainly a serious challenge to afflicted Africans, again over five percent. So, why so many? It is better to be tired and anemic than to get malaria, especially in the days before modern medications. Since sickle-celled people do not get malaria, the affliction had a purpose. ***End Quote

Before one throws out the baby with the bathwater it's worth giving the rather large body of other work a look.

As usual E-Boy your ability to present your thoughts has me wanting to hear more. Your presentations are "proof" much lies within the writters tone and compasion. You always present a well formed non-attacking opinion with a wonderful attitude, Can I get you to PM me some of that ability? ;)

This sounds familiar?

Most importantly, this model tries to encourage adults with ADHD to develop a realistic appreciation of who they are at the present moment, considering both their strengths and weaknesses, so they can better begin to mindfully take responsibility for their lives.

:D

I do not agree with the entire evolution thing period; however I am certainly capable of understanding that others do without the need to intellectually attack the other person. I can accept this particular perspective to the point of serious discussions.
In the real world ideas are not sheltered because they need to be. An orphan concept without any support dies a cruel death. It's only in the land of ADDFville that all ideas are treated the same and merit doesn't enter the equation. Note that Barkley doesn't call Hartmann names, he challenges the assumptions.



The thing I see as really sad is for Barkley to have spent all those years researching ADD doing all these studies and give absolutely zero consideration as to how he presents his material. . . . .I see a smart man shooting himself in the foot(pun intended) with his inability to be sensitive to the very group he is trying to help . .. . .. . .. this in my opinion is a real tragedy.
His ideas don't need window dressing. Personally I think he is cheesed by all the carp ideas being peddled out there. He cuts to the quick and either you see truth or you don't. I do.




I see all one sided arguments especially those that disregard the individual as a person as blaming. Okay Hartmann may be seen as blaming society because our traits do not 'fit in'. Refusing to acknowledge that ADDers can indeed posses gifts would be blaming biology for all the bad traits ADD people have, coupled with the underpinnings of rendering the "disabled" incapable of growing and changing by removing what little self esteem they may have left.If I am born "inferior via biology" why bother trying to improve? (another un-answered question I have posted before)
Barkley is about scientific method. He is about evidence based best practice. He is about getting results. If self esteem classes were the answer to ADHD, he would be advocating self esteem classes for all.

So Meadd, here is the answer to your question finally. Okay Meadd, you are in a poker game with 6 other players, you hold a ace high. Now do you want someone to tell you that your ace is a gift or do you want someone tell you how to use what you got to it's best advantage? Barkley cuts through the carp and tells it like it is. I like that about him, he fillets that fish. :rolleyes:


Finally, this talk of metaphors...why introduced that change of perception now? "Context" or "evolution" at the time they were presented seemed to be very serious ideas which challenged current science based ideas about ADHD. There was no talk of metaphors then. After the fact, we are told that they are metaphors to expand our thought process...huh?

This is similar to the old argument of "Nature vs. Nurture" isn't it? How do you separate a genetic disorder like ADHD seems to be from the upbringing and experiences that accompany it?

It's not like juevenile diabetes where there is a clear cause and loss of function. That's easy to see where it begins and ends.

It's more like obesity. There's indications there is usually a genetic precursor to it passed down but how it manifests can be anything from a lifetime being chubby and having trouble losing weight to being morbidly obese and all the troubles that entails.

Genetics in ADHD cause us to be scattered and urge-oriented, looking out for number one (albeit poorly) and not being able to integrate fully into society. How we are raised makes a big difference. If you were raised in an authoritarian family where you are kept under a strong influence of discipline you may manifest ADHD differently than if you grew up in a freedom-oriented family where anything goes. I was leaning to the authoritarian somewhat and it did keep me from criminal acts but the ADHD left me unable to keep jobs, friends and love nonetheless.

Pure ADHD would only be seen if we were animals. The social upbringing makes it impossible - not to mention the comorbid disorders we all have as was previously brought up.

Just an interesting sidenote:

Seems there is virtually no incidences of ADHD in Japenese society, which has been a farming based society for over 6000 years....hmmmmmmm, interesting!

It's only in the land of ADDFville that all ideas are treated the same and merit doesn't enter the equation. Note that Barkley doesn't call Hartmann names, he challenges the assumptions.

Assumptions- - - they were speculations Hartmann's title indicates this out right. He wasn't claiming to be a research scientist; he was offering a different perspective. I think that is all Hartmann has said himself . . .to this day even.

Oh btw in the real world people are still allowed to speculate and disagree. Civilzed deabting in an actual real time ability that is governed by the many of the same rules of behavior as this site. Personal attacks in real time as well on most popular debate forums are seen as a sign the attacker is out of intellectual amminuation!

Some of the debate forums have what is called "open moderatoring" with moderators who are accusme to debating (i.e.staff will point out poor debating skills in the thread for all to see) Responses are a lot harsher than any thing you will see here believe me..Members warning points show up right next to the user name.

My point is ADDF rules and way of dealing with people is really compassionate and very fair thus derving respect (IMHO).~`~disagree-*imagine some one like me being turned loose with such an ability as open moderating :eek: *oh yea ADDville not such a bad place after all* ~`~ :D





His ideas don't need window dressing. Personally I think he is cheesed by all the carp ideas being peddled out there. He cuts to the quick and either you see truth or you don't. I do.

I have no doubt for one minute all involved see the truth from thier own perspective. . .this I have never refuted.

Claiming ADDers have poor social skills in a tactless manner is well I don't know how else to say this except
*ideas* :rolleyes:

What is referred to above as "window dressings" appears to resemble my meaning for tact. I am some one who has had to(some times still do) inform people of all sorts of things they are not going to like . . . . . .I do this professionally . . . . .Appraoch is important. Attempting some resembelance of verbal respect is a sigh to most that the speaker has compassion for thier listenrs as people..



If self esteem classes were the answer to ADHD, he would be advocating self esteem classes for all.

Self esteem is an issue for every one ADD or not .Shreading what little self esteem ADDers have in the name of science (or what ever) is not productive nor is it necessary-. :mad:

I do not respect liars got your self a point going on there. Flat out lying would be one of the few things worse than being in the health care proffesion while lacking any resmebelence of human compasion by mocking us as a group.

I have dealt with the real life results of people who were cared for by some one who had excellent procedude skills but not an ounce of "bed side manner".By the way is "bed side manner" (people skils) are a part of a heath care professionals over all "grade".

Barkely does claim to be a health care professional does he not?

I do not re-call Barkley's voice apparently he is a popular speaker according to his site, maybe his writting do not convey in a manner I can relate to but I may feel differently if I heard him speak. Some people speak better than they write he may be one, I will give a benefit of all doubt as well as being completely honest.




Okay Meadd, you are in a poker game with 6 other players, you hold a ace high. Now do you want someone to tell you that your ace is a gift or do you want someone tell you how to use what you got to it's best advantage? Barkley cuts through the carp and tells it like it is. I like that about him, he fillets that fish.

Well I wouldn't need some one to tell me to fold because I also happen to have a duce. What I am seeing is all the focus on the deficits without regard to assests. Using this metaphor I would not think some one who saw nothing but my low cards as being a good consultant as to how to "play my hand".


I simply think you do not see Barkley's comments as insulting and negative. This is way cool I am glad you find his work beneficial. He is quoted by professionals I do like which is where I first came into contact with his work.

It isn't his reseach I dis-like it is Barkley's crass appraoch that is all wrong for me. Again I see my ADD as being an inserpertable part of my over all being and people who can only see the negative while mocking the posative aspects as toxic to my person. . .

You apparently see ADD as seperate from your personhood so the same comments are seen as beneficial. In my opinion this is why there is a need for different perspectives and why the freedom of diversity is so important. . . diffiernt ways of seeing the same thing and/or saying the same things .increases the chances of connection amoung individulas.




Finally, this talk of metaphors...why introduced that change of perception now? "Context" or "evolution" at the time they were presented seemed to be very serious ideas which challenged current science based ideas about ADHD. There was no talk of metaphors then. After the fact, we are told that they are metaphors to expand our thought process...huh?

I have always seen Hartmann's persentations as metaphors even back in 1996. Seeing ADD traits as being made better or worse by the enviroment (contexual) is not the same thing to me as seeing them from an evolution perspective. This is why I specificially mentioned I do not believe in evolution in my previous post. To me Hartman's book has always been speclutive for reasons the guidelines prevent me from sharing. :foot:




Pure ADHD would only be seen if we were animals. The social upbringing makes it impossible - not to mention the comorbid disorders we all have as was previously brought up.

Well said! Thanks for reminding us what the topic is! :p Nope no ADD round here ;) !



Seems there is virtually no incidences of ADHD in Japenese society, which has been a farming based society for over 6000 years....

Now I gotta go meta search ADD in Japan- this may take all night. . . . . :faint: Oh well no one is twisting my arm now are they :o


:D

Just an interesting sidenote:

Seems there is virtually no incidences of ADHD in Japenese society, which has been a farming based society for over 6000 years....hmmmmmmm, interesting!


From Barkley's continuing ed webpage.

Ethnic/Cultural/National Issues

Early studies of the prevalence of hyperactivity, relying principally on teacher ratings, found significant disparities across four countries (United States, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand), ranging from 2% in girls and 9% in boys in the United States to 9% in girls and 22% in boys in New Zealand (Trites et al., 1979). Similarly, O’Leary, Vivian, and Nisi (1985) found rates of hyperactivity to be 3% in girls and 20% in boys in Italy using this same teacher rating scale and cutoff score. However, this may have resulted from the use of a threshold established on norms collected in the United States across these other countries, where the distributions were quite different from those found in the United States.

Later studies, especially those using DSM criteria, have found the disorder across numerous countries. Among a Japanese sample (Kanbayashi, Nakata, Fujii, Kita, & Wada, 1994) using parent ratings of items from DSM-III-R, a prevalence rate of 7.7% of the sample was found. Baumgaertel (1994) used teacher ratings of DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and DSM-IV symptom lists in a large sample of German elementary school children and found rates of 4.8% for ADHD-C, 3.9% for ADHD-PHI, and 9% for ADHD-PI subtypes based on DSM-IV. In India, among over 1,000 children screened at a pediatric clinic, 5.2% of children ages 3 to 4 years were found to have ADHD by DSM-III-R criteria, whereas the rate rose to over 29% for ages 11 to 12 years (Bhatia, Nigam, Bohra, & Malik, 1991). This was not a true epidemiological sample, however. Differences in prevalence across ages could simply reflect cohort effects—children are referred to this clinic for different reasons at different ages. Prevalence rates found in other countries more recently are:

* 3.8% among 2,290 Dutch 6-8 year olds using parent reported DSM criteria (Kroes et al., 2001);
* 5.3% among 2,936 Chinese 6-11 year olds falling to 3.9% for 1,694 12-16 year olds using teacher ratings (Liu et al., 2000) ;
* 5.8% among 1,013 Brazilian 12-14 year olds using teacher ratings;
* 20% of boys and 12% of girls 4-17 years of age in 504 children randomly sampled from 80,000 Colombian children using just DSM-IV symptom thresholds with parent ratings (Pineda et al., 1999);
* 14.9% of 1,110 primary school children randomly chosen from more than 31,000 in the United Arab Emirates using teacher ratings (Bu-Haroon, Eapen, & Bener, 1999);
* 19.8% of 600 10-12 year old Ukrainian children based on parent ratings of DSM-IV symptoms (Gadow, Nolan, et al., 2000).

Cultural differences in the interpretations given to symptoms of ADHD by teachers or parents and in expectations for child behavior undoubtedly exist and likely contributed to the higher rates of disorder found in some of these countries compared to North American rates. Also, most of these studies used teacher or parent ratings rather than clinical diagnostic criteria. As already noted above, prevalence rates of hyperactivity or ADHD are typically higher when simply a threshold on a rating scale is the only criterion for establishing a case of the disorder. Where clinical criteria are employed, rates are more conservative. Nevertheless, these studies show that hyperactivity or ADHD is present in all countries studied to date. Although it may not receive the same diagnostic label in each, the behavior pattern comprising the disorder appears to universal.

Differences among ethnic groups in rates of hyperactivity within the United States have been reported. Langsdorf, Anderson, Walchter, Madrigal, and Juarez (1979) reported that almost 25% of African-American children and 8% of Latino-Americans met a cutoff score on a teacher rating scale commonly used to define hyperactivity, whereas Ullmann (cited in O’Leary et al., 1985) reported rates of 24% for African-American children and 16% of white Americans on a teacher rating scale. Lambert et al. (1978) found higher rates of hyperactivity among African-American than white American children only when the teachers were the only ones reporting the diagnosis; Latino-American children were not found to differ from white American children in this respect. Such differences, however, may arise in part because of socioeconomic factors that are differentially associated with these ethnic groups in the United States. Such psychosocial factors are strongly correlated with aggression and conduct problems. As noted above, those factors no longer make a significant contribution to the prevalence of ADHD when comorbidity for other disorders is controlled (Szatmari, 1992). Doing the same within studies of ethnic differences might well reduce or eliminate these differences in prevalence among them. Thus, it would seem that ADHD arises in all ethnic groups studied so far. Whether the differences in prevalence across these ethnic groups are real or are a function of the source of information about the symptoms of ADHD and, possibly, socioeconomic factors remains to be determined.

No problem. I won't disagree.

This part of the conversation began with a study that concluded that a rapid propogation of a particular mutation was evidence that the traits the mutation is responsible for (which are ADHD traits) were adaptive.Good, then we were arguing the same point ;) Evolution's a tad picky, isn't it? I just killed a thread on another board by trying to explain roughly the same thing.

Diagnostic Criteria outside the U.S. are substantially different (one of the reasons cited for lower diagnosis rates in europe). Japan handles it's educational system substantial differently than we do.

For the record they also have a far higher child suicide rate.... (not getting into the right kindergarten is the end of the world for some of these kids). My point being is that their culture isn't much like ours. My father "highly structured ADD" would have been right at home there.

Also the Studies done for the DSM IV projected up to a ten percent "GLOBAL" incidence. IE they found it everywhere they bothered to look. Did they look in Japan? Heck if I know. :-)

I don't mind people throwing info like this out, but it's always good to have some idea if it's a "reasonable" question, or a suspect debating tactic someone has used. IE, some sort of backround information is useful if available.

I will say that when "expression" of ADD from father to son can be as different as it is with me and Dad in the same family in the same culture, that it might well be underdiagnosed or even unrecognized in some cultures.

Also Japan is big on keeping the "personal" personal. Mental illness is a bit more stigmatized there (A LOT MORE).

Well I wouldn't need some one to tell me to fold because I also happen to have a duce. What I am seeing is all the focus on the deficits without regard to assests. Using this metaphor I would not think some one who saw nothing but my low cards as being a good consultant as to how to "play my hand".


Well what I see are a number of people denying the deficits or spindrying them until we have a different piece of clothing. It's all the context, we are evolving ....Sometimes the zeal to put a positive spin on virtually every impairment leads to distortion of the truth. That, I will challenge, every time. If I heard more stuff like, "yes that is a big issue for ADHDers", perhaps I'd be saying more things like, "with time, this is less of an issue or this accommodation works well here" sort of stuff. Instead it's like fighting tooth and nail to assert even basic concepts about ADHD on this board.



Meadd,

Barkley, would never tell you to fold your cards. Ever. He'd tell you flat out that it's not a good hand, but then he would show you how to make the best of what you have. That's basically what we do in life isn't it? That is unless you have an impairment and the PC way is to not deal with it head on. My daughters know all about the disorder. We talk frankly about what is ADHD and what is not ADHD. They know I have the disorder and I relate my past experiences to them. There is support and we advocate as parents. My first daughter who wanted to quit school in grade 9 will be graduating shortly with an 80 average and is heading to University on a limited scolarship. I think that is the sort of parenting that Barkley would like to see.

I'm not suggesting we are "Evolving". I'm suggesting we have. All of us. Humanity. It's called normal nuerological variation. It's not suprising this comes with a varied package of "Deficits". I just think it's important to keep in mind how many of these "Deficits" are the result of crappy not fitting in childhoods (Anxiety, depression, and poor self esteem), and how many are an artifact of our culture (a rather arbitrary judge of value if ever there was one).

I know you didn't single me out, so don't get me wrong here. My argument isn't a non-sensical or wishful thinking one though. It doesn't deny our very real issues, it does however make a very sensible attempt at explaining their existence in a realistic and somewhat evidence supported manner.

Funny... I don't feel like I'm in the mushy middle here, but I am.... HONEST!

No really...

Ahem...

Scuro, I want to re-emphasize that I know you weren't singling me out in your post. Upon re-reading mine it came off as a bit defensive and directed at you, and it isn't meant that way. Your post, as many of them do, just got me thinking about my position on things. I don't always communicate well, especially on issues as complex as these.

As for looking at ADD in an animal for "Pure" ADHD I'd have to agree. Too bad it doesn't appear to be an easy thing to do. Maybe we could insert "equivalent" changes into the appropriate genes in an animal... The problem, of course would be that our frontal lobes are so much more complex and interconnected than most other animals, and play such a role in our behavior that even that wouldn't provide the best picture. It would probably end up looking more like Autism co-morbid with ADD. This isn't an insult to autistics, for the record. Austistics just happen to be humans with frontal lobe interconnectivity problems (at least some theorize this is the fundamental driver in autism symptomology. See Temple Grandin "thinking in Pictures" or "Animals in translation" for more on this).

Man brains sure are complex and interesting lumps of matter aren't they? Three pounds of matter capable of encompassing a universe of complexity. That's not as metaphorical as it sounds either. English as a language, for example (this is, incidentally, true of all known languages) has more possible grammatically correct sentences than there are particles in the known universe (speaking of a theoretical particle count, of course), and language function is only one of the combinatorial and recursive functions our lovely lumps of flesh can accomplish!

Oh, and Mr. Keats and his "unweaving the rainbow" can put that in his pipe and smoke it! So neener neener neener to him!

Good, then we were arguing the same point ;) Evolution's a tad picky, isn't it? I just killed a thread on another board by trying to explain roughly the same thing.People always look for simple explanations and usually can't figure out why it doesn't work.

Yes and no Barb. Parsimony and Occam's Razor are still very important principles. It's just that one has to really understand the questions before one starts throwing solid answers out.

While we are making real progress in this department and new disciplines and multi-disciplinary work are adding large amounts to the accumulated knowledge we do have, we still don't understand what all the data mean, and we generate more questions everytime (that, of course, is what makes it so darn interesting).

Of course, I'm proving your point with this post (as your "simple" answer, left a lot unsaid, and I am well aware that you simplified being just as well aware of the points I'm making here). I'm making my own as well though. Most of the ideas being floated around here are VAST oversimplifications of both the work on accumulating and interpreting the data that they are based on. That doesn't make them wrong, or "too pat". It's an honest attempt to make them meaningful to persons like me who aren't geneticists or statisticians. The down side, of course, is it also makes them ripe for misinterpretation and even misuse by some parties.

Yes and no Barb. Parsimony and Occam's Razor are still very important principles. It's just that one has to really understand the questions before one starts throwing solid answers out. Parsimony isn't really what I was referring to, though.

What I mean by "simple" is more dichotomous. People don't like grayness.

Parsimony does not mean black/white, but people continue to seek out single yes/no answers to questions that have much more complex inputs and outputs.


Most of the ideas being floated around here are VAST oversimplifications of both the work on accumulating and interpreting the data that they are based on. That doesn't make them wrong, or "too pat". It's an honest attempt to make them meaningful to persons like me who aren't geneticists or statisticians. The down side, of course, is it also makes them ripe for misinterpretation and even misuse by some parties.
Points taken, but I have to add that the simple theories are not just for the layperson; they are an attempt at order.

The difference is that last part; most scientists don't actually buy into the simplicity whereas most laypeople take the watered-down version and run.

Hartmann wrote 'The Edison Gene', 2003. I have it in my hands.

His intro starts with an earthquake in India and his sharing a train ride with some Indian business men and a physician. He asks if they are familiar with types of people who crave stimulation, lack focus, hop from career to career or relationship to relationship, but the whole time they remain creative and inventive? They, the Indian men all nodded and agreed that they know this type well. These are old Karmic souls, nearing enlightenment. The purpose of reincarnation is to eventually free oneself from worldly entanglements and desires.
The cultures are different, worlds are different. In one place holy, in the other mad.

In the book, he cites a lot more new literature to date [2003] that supports the connection between genetic variations and ADD. Moyzis did a NIMH study - 'we found a significant positive selection for the genetic variation associated with ADHD and novelty seeking behaviour in the human genome.'

Hartmann also uses the anthropological metaphor of 'hunter vs farmer' to help view ADD characteristics not as defects, but as a skill set. And that he's gotten a lot of feedback about how that metaphor has served them well.

He also included Barkley's opinion cited back on this thread in this book and he presents Barkley's ADHD as a disease position to Moyzis - which resulted in that big study.
The molecular data show that the creation of the 7R allele was an unusual,spontaneous mutation which became an advantage for humans.
Those without the 7R allele tested average/normal. Those with the 7R allele had results that were off the charts.
Perhaps the hunters of yesteryear have become today's inventors?

Hartmann even talks about outwardly hyperactive and inwardly daydreaming as similar.

Back to skill set. 'Now, Discover Your Strengths' - what a wonderful book. Inherent abiliities, natural talents.

I didn't find any cures here, other than a suggestion from moyzis that since there's positive selection going on here, and that the numbers are not small [of those showing these genes] and seem to be getting more prevalent, we should be acknowledging, nurturing and figuring out ways to educate and raise these children to reach their greatest potential.

So we, as a society, seem to have neglected this last part and what do we do with all of us now?

Granted Barb, but as for me? I live for the "gray areas". Wouldn't be much fun if it was all cut and dried now would it?

I very much doubt that we are going to come up with some catch all theory that simplifies everything in an intuition friendly way. Our brains are wired for dichotomous thinking and ways of taking shortcuts that will likely make the solutions we do come up with hard to grasp. In anycase, five million years, easy, of evolution along the hominid line alone is a lot of time for complexity of huge proportions and being as most of the machinery of real import for the phenomenon we're talking about was in place tens of millions of years prior to that, means we really have our work cut out for us.
:-) What a great adventure though, eh?

My eventual intent is to work in evolutionary psych, and extend my education to other disciplines as I go. The likelihood of me doing effective work in anyone discipline will be substantially reduced by this, but I think a "BIG PICTURE" perspective is worth it, especially based on the repeated and ongoing "synthesis" moments that disciplines have in the past undergone and are even now undergoing. E.O. Wilson Spells it out nicely in "Consilience". Is he right? In broad outline I think he is, but there's lots of room for specific variants of his ideas. Besides, right or wrong, the questions he poses are good ones and to be around to help answer them? To be among those asking new and perhaps even more interesting questions? Oh yeah, give me those "grey areas"! :-)

Oh about those "phenomenon" I mentioned. I'm talking about the basic machinery of mind not necessarily about ADD traits, lest I be misunderstood.

Originally quoted from Scuro by Meadd
"....to blaming something as the cause of the disorder....."
I gotta say Meadd, at a bare minimum, you really should quote the whole sentence of someone. When you take a segment only, appearances of intent don't look good.

I can't even identify where this posted partial thought came from, nor can I give this incomplete idea a context in my own mind!!!!!!!

I can't even ...#256
Firefox:
Control Key and F (for find) simultaneously.

There can be a real grieving process that goes on when someone learns that there child has ADHD. Parents may have difficulty accepting the truth. Their first impulse may be to deny the loss. The grieving process can range from downplaying the loss, to blaming something as the cause of the disorder.

I gotta say Meadd, at a bare minimum, you really should quote the whole sentence of someone. When you take a segment only, appearances of intent don't look good.

I can't even identify where this posted partial thought came from, nor can I give this incomplete idea a context in my own mind!!!!!!!

It's this one: http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=306241&postcount=256&highlight=to+blaming+something+as+the+cause+of+the +disorder

Edit: Sorry SB... I didn't notice the #256 in your post.... :o

what dose purger add adhd look like mmmm well what dose dyelixa look like the same as eveyone eles IN THE END WE NOT THE ONE WITH THE PORBLEM if though add adhd cos itss fair share but we are who we are dorm

Self esteem is an issue for every one ADD or not .Shreading what little self esteem ADDers have in the name of science (or what ever) is not productive nor is it necessary-. :mad:

Meaad,

It was just an example. :faint: Barkley never said that. It was a hypothetical example to show that if he felt something like self esteem classes had no benefit, he wouldn't endorse it...even if it was something that most people would think, common sense wise, to be beneficial.

Ya know Meadd, we don't mix well together. I seem to bring out the worst in you and I find myself responding you in a manner which I don't like. I guess we are pushing each other's buttons. As I suggested in a PM of about a week ago, we should stay off of each others threads. We become a side show and hijack the the continuity of the threads we both post on.

Even the most parsimonious explanation that best fits the data need not neccessarily be the right one. Assuming we're looking at the number of mutations required to produce a certain phenotype, the fact that the option that involves the smallest degree of change* will be the most probable doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

*I'm not going to say "number of mutations", since transitions differ from transversions and some stretches of DNA contain mutational hotspots, whereas others don't.


I very much doubt that we are going to come up with some catch all theory that simplifies everything in an intuition friendly way. Oh, but people come up with them all the time :) Well, hypotheses, anyway. I think part of the problem is that people try to anthropomorphise the evolutionary process, assuming there's a purpose behind every result. That, and failure to realise genes are first and foremost good for themselves. Our Professor jokingly announced "If I hear anyone saying evolution happens for the good of the species, I will shoot them ...for the good of the species!" when he was trying to drive that point home.

Speaking of which: Has anyone read "The extended phenotype" by Dawkins? I was skimming a recent paper by Barkley recently, and he made several references to the book. Doi: 10.1002/ajmg.b.30326
I'd probably better finish reading Ridley and Wilson before I pick up any more books though...

It was just an example. :faint: Barkley never said that. It was a hypothetical example to show that if he felt something like self esteem classes had no benefit, he wouldn't endorse it...even if it was something that most people would think, common sense wise, to be beneficial.

I think this is the root of the problem here. There is a domain split between research and therapy/treatment. Treatment/threrapy is all about utilizing any approprate method/resource in order to mitigate a problem, including positivity, which on the individual level (not making blanket statements about ADDers), cannot be denied to exist. Self esteem is usually a problem for those with ADD, more so than others, and could be used to be improved. Positivity helps this, and meadd823 sees Barkley as hurting this, but to me, it seems that Barkley's main role is information provider, not support provider, as he is obviously not very good at support. With that, I am not necessarily condoning nor disapproving of the information he provides... simply stating his functional role.

And given that (what HF said) isn't there then room for anyone to post here, since the topic is neither research nor therapy/treatment? :confused:

\
Scuro, I want to re-emphasize that I know you weren't singling me out in your post. Upon re-reading mine it came off as a bit defensive and directed at you, and it isn't meant that way. Your post, as many of them do, just got me thinking about my position on things. I don't always communicate well, especially on issues as complex as these.

Actually the word "evolving" was referring to another theory that reputedly explains ADHD. It didn't refer to your posts. :p

Your ideas also make me think. You may have noticed that sometimes I take some time to respond. I do this with complex ideas. I just let them "simmer" in my mind for a few days. I'll be in the car on the way to work, or doing house work and the idea will come back to me. Then I start thinking "Was I wrong...or did I just not communicate the concept well enough"? If I am wrong I just let it go but if I think I didn't state it clearly enough, you may get a response days later. :)

And given that (what HF said) isn't there then room for anyone to post here, since the topic is neither research nor therapy/treatment? :confused:

Okay, so what I wrote wasn't exactly about what pure ADHD is.... :) I was responding to a rabbit trail.... Will you forgive me?

Okay, so what I wrote wasn't exactly about what pure ADHD is.... :) I was responding to a rabbit trail.... Will you forgive me?Nuttin' to forgive as far as I know Mr Ewing :) I seem to be following the same rabbit trail myself!

Hartmann wrote 'The Edison Gene', 2003. I have it in my hands.


...In the book, he cites a lot more new literature to date [2003] that supports the connection between genetic variations and ADD. Moyzis did a NIMH study - 'we found a significant positive selection for the genetic variation associated with ADHD and novelty seeking behaviour in the human genome.'

Hartmann also uses the anthropological metaphor of 'hunter vs farmer' to help view ADD characteristics not as defects, but as a skill set. And that he's gotten a lot of feedback about how that metaphor has served them well.

He also included Barkley's opinion cited back on this thread in this book and he presents Barkley's ADHD as a disease position to Moyzis - which resulted in that big study.
The molecular data show that the creation of the 7R allele was an unusual,spontaneous mutation which became an advantage for humans.
Those without the 7R allele tested average/normal. Those with the 7R allele had results that were off the charts.
Perhaps the hunters of yesteryear have become today's inventors?


Thought I would dig a bit here.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/1/309
Evidence of positive selection acting at the human dopamine receptor D4 gene locus
Yuan-Chun Ding*,dagger , Han-Chang Chi*, Deborah L. Grady*, Atsuyuki MorishimaDagger , Judith R. KiddDagger , Kenneth K. KiddDagger , Pamela Flodman§, M. Anne Spence§, Sabrina Schuck¶, James M. Swanson¶, Ya-Ping Zhangdagger , and Robert K. Moyzis*,¶,||

* Department of Biological Chemistry, College of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697; dagger Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Evolution, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650223, China; Dagger Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520; § Department of Pediatrics, Medical Center, University of California, Orange, CA 92868; and ¶ Child Development Center, University of California, Irvine, CA 92715

Edited by Henry C. Harpending, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, and approved October 25, 2001 (received for review August 31, 2001)

Associations have been reported of the seven-repeat (7R) allele of the human dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene with both attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the personality trait of novelty seeking. This polymorphism occurs in a 48-bp tandem repeat in the coding region of DRD4, with the most common allele containing four repeats (4R) and rarer variants containing 2-11. Here we show by DNA resequencing/haplotyping of 600 DRD4 alleles, representing a worldwide population sample, that the origin of 2R-6R alleles can be explained by simple one-step recombination/mutation events. In contrast, the 7R allele is not simply related to the other common alleles, differing by greater than six recombinations/mutations. Strong linkage disequilibrium was found between the 7R allele and surrounding DRD4 polymorphisms, suggesting that this allele is at least 5-10-fold "younger" than the common 4R allele. Based on an observed bias toward nonsynonymous amino acid changes, the unusual DNA sequence organization, and the strong linkage disequilibrium surrounding the DRD4 7R allele, we propose that this allele originated as a rare mutational event that nevertheless increased to high frequency in human populations by positive selection.


http://www.springerlink.com/(54frao55jjyhqdip2x4uiyyy)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,9,16;journal,24,408;linkingpublicatio nresults,1:101493,1

Association of dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in a high-risk community sample: a longitudinal study from birth to 11 years of age

M. El-Faddagh1, M. Laucht1, A. Maras1, L. Vöhringer1 and M. H. Schmidt1
(1) Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Germany

Received: 4 August 2003 Accepted: 27 August 2003 Published online: 4 February 2004
Summary. Background: In recent years, a growing number of studies has focused on the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) as mediating the susceptibility to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). While their results are contradictory, the reason for this inconsistency remains as yet unclear.
Method: The present study sought to examine the association between ADHD and the DRD4 exon III polymorphism during child development using longitudinal data from a high-risk community sample (n=265, 129 females, 126 males) who have been followed from birth to 11 years of age.
Results: Higher rates of ADHD were observed in boys with the 7 repeat allele of exon III than in boys with other alleles at the ages of 4 1/2 (Fisherrsquos exact test, p=.061), 8 (p=.026), and 11 years (p=.005). Boys with this allele also exhibited higher rates of persistent disorder (p=.024). In girls, a trend towards an association (p=.055) with the 7 repeat allele emerged only at preschool age.
Conclusions: These findings provide additional evidence for the role of the dopamine D4 receptor in ADHD during the course of child development.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=172190
Abstract

Strong adaptationists would explain complex organic designs as specific adaptations to particular ancestral environments. Weak adaptationists don't assume that complex organic functioning represents evolutionary design in the sense of niche-specific adaptation. For some domain-specific competencies (folkbiology) strong adaptationism is useful, not necessary. With group-level belief systems (religion), strong adaptationism can become spurious pseudo-adaptationism. In other cases (language), weak adaptationism proves productive.

I totally grasped it..being of the 'mind', that is. (0:

Thank you.

Nova

I'm sorry...but I'm usually really pretty 'chipper' when I come on here..but I had to log off here, after reading that post, when you originally posted it... Scuro..

Not saying you wrote it, yourself...I realize you only 'quoted' it- but I was upset and depressed after reading it, nonetheless.

Just wanted you know how I felt.


I don't 'sugarcoat' my disorders...I know, all too well, how they make me feel...
More than you'll ever realize on any give day....


Nova

...Not saying you wrote it, yourself...I realize you only 'quoted' it- but I was upset and depressed after reading it, nonetheless.

Just wanted you know how I felt.

I don't 'sugarcoat' my disorders...I know, all too well, how they make me feel...
More than you'll ever realize on any give day....


This quote of Barkley's in reference to the hunter/farmer theory? From my vantage point it's a valid point to be making. The question begs to be asked, is the hunter farmer theory really nothing more then the worst kind of pop psychology? The PC kind that ignores the scientific literature and in doing so wallpapers over the truth? My previous post links to studies related to the issue.

Here’s storytelling about AD/HD. AD/HD children are just leftover hunters from the Pleistocene era of human evolution and there’s really nothing wrong with them. They’re just the good old hunters from our caveman days being forced to live in a world of farmers and education. That is one view of AD/ HD that became very popular over the last decade and that is not a theory. That is a silly little idea for building self-esteem in AD/HD children, and I don’t happen to believe that you should be building self-esteem by lying to people, by practicing small deceits, by creating little stories about the origin of a disorder so that you can act as if it wasn’t a disorder. From that view, there’s nothing wrong with AD/HD. It’s the environment that’s the problem. AD/HD is just a mismatch between little hunters where hunting is no longer needed by the environment. Let me tell you something. The last person I ever want to go hunting with is an AD/HD individual off their medication.

Do whatever you have to do.



I have nothing left.


Nova

Really thought you were referring to another post or had misread that one. It's snarky but I'm truly sorry if it offended. :o

I'm sorry...but I'm usually really pretty 'chipper' when I come on here..but I had to log off here, after reading that post, when you originally posted it... Scuro..

Not saying you wrote it, yourself...I realize you only 'quoted' it- but I was upset and depressed after reading it, nonetheless.

Just wanted you know how I felt.


I don't 'sugarcoat' my disorders...I know, all too well, how they make me feel...
More than you'll ever realize on any give day....


NovaI am sorry you felt so bad you had to log off Nova :( I value your posts.

I don't "sugarcoat" things either, especially when it comes to my children. I try to hand them the truth at a level they are able to comprehend. Of course I have been guilty of this:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y92/kzrainbow/messin.gif

::shrugs::

The "truth" has so many variable meanings...my personal perception of the truth involving this thread was to speculate how "pure ADHD" might possibly appear. As it stands, I can conclude that nobody currently has an example of "pure ADHD" to offer, and that being said, I think I have said enough.

The truth is I am done with this thread too. I was enjoying it for a while but I am no longer enjoying it, so I'll find ya somewhere else Nova. Peace.

Crazy

Speaking of which: Has anyone read "The extended phenotype" by Dawkins? It's in my VERY large stack, but I haven't opened it yet.

I gotta say Meadd, at a bare minimum, you really should quote the whole sentence of someone. When you take a segment only, appearances of intent don't look good.
I can't even identify where this posted partial thought came from, nor can I give this incomplete idea a context in my own mind!!!!!!!

My apologies I normally remember what I have posted recently, on the rare occasion I am a bit foggy like when I am involved in multiple complex threads or different forums, I will review my last post before going to the responses. I made the error in thinking every one else did the same. I cut out the parts that were merely examples of this concept for brevity. No malice intent.


#256
Firefox:
Control Key and F (for find) simultaneously.

Thank you SB!




what dose purger add adhd look like mmmm well what dose dyelixa look like the same as eveyone eles IN THE END WE NOT THE ONE WITH THE PORBLEM if though add adhd cos itss fair share but we are who we are dorm

I agree with you Dorm we are who we are ADD dyslexia are a part of us person. Being different and having ADD and dyslexia comes with a cost . I especially agree that how people treat us is NOT our problem it is theirs! Thank you ! ;)




Ya know Meadd, we don't mix well together. I seem to bring out the worst in you and I find myself responding you in a manner which I don't like. I guess we are pushing each other's buttons. As I suggested in a PM of about a week ago, we should stay off of each others threads. We become a side show and hijack the the continuity of the threads we both post on.

Maybe people enjoy the diversity of our opinions because we are often at the opposite end of the spectrum this leaves so much room in the “in between”. Now that you mention it our exchanges do seem in encourage participation from others. The threads we are both on do tend to become active . . . I always saw this as a good thing myself. . . your presence doesn’t bother me in the least. As I have said before in response to your PMs I do not necessarily understand your point of view I accept you as you are.


You can choose to see things however you wish. I see ideas presented that I do not agree I am presenting my opinion that is all. This is a discussion taking place in open forum. I am a member here and I am allowed to share my ideas as long as they remain within ADDF guidelines. If you dislike the manner in which you respond to me I am truly sorry but I fail to see where your behavior has any thing to do with me.


I understand first hand how much of a challenge self regulation can be I have to do plenty of editing myself some times to ensure my responses are within guidelines and appropriate. When I dis-like my presentation I strive to change my perspective and attitude (thus my approach) I have discovered I have little power to change others attempting to do so merely cause frustration within my self. I accept people as they are plain and simple. Even when others decide to project their anger upon me to the point of being ugly and hurtful they in no way have to power to choose my emotions nor does their inappropriate behavior negate my responsibility (or ability) to control my own.




I think this is the root of the problem here. There is a domain split between research and therapy/treatment

Correct, very correct!
As a member of the health care profession who has to apply the latest research findings to actual “people” application this is an understatement!




Treatment/threrapy is all about utilizing any approprate method/resource in order to mitigate a problem, including positivity, which on the individual level (not making blanket statements about ADDers), cannot be denied to exist. Self esteem is usually a problem for those with ADD, more so than others, and could be used to be improved.

Another direct hit made by Highfunctioning! Every one’s approach needs to be tailored to that person and some find straight information useful apparently. It has been my experience that many people with ADD spend a life time watching others breeze through stuff we have go to drastic and exhausting measures to accomplish this can leave one feeling inferior, hopeless and worthless.




Positivity helps this, and meadd823 sees Barkley as hurting this, but to me, it seems that Barkley's main role is information provider, not support provider, as he is obviously not very good at support.

In some ways yes his presentation seem to reinforce the hopeless worthless and inferior feelings already present when many of us first begin treatment for ADD. The continued daily struggle for “normalcy” of function can still create a sense of inferiority even years later. For those who have gone through this phase and reached the side of acceptance Barkley can think what he wants however seeing the presentation of his information unduly reinforce the feelings of inferior ignites a spark of resistance and quickly spreads into a burring desire to challenge his lack of compassion.

My contingency has never been his research or his findings but his lack of compassion and respect for ADD people as a group via his off the cuff comments sprinkled thought out his presentations. His popularity leads me to believe his approach is useful to others. Again not the source of my contingency.



A repeat of a repeat of a still unanswered question:
Refusing to acknowledge that ADDers can indeed posses gifts would be blaming biology for all the bad traits ADD people have, coupled with the underpinnings of rendering the "disabled" incapable of growing and changing by removing what little self esteem they may have left. If I am born "inferior via biology" why bother trying to improve? (another un-answered question I have posted before)

Barkley’s presentation are un-necessarily hurtful to many of the people here I call friends, so I debate (a hobby I enjoy) against the “ADDers are inferior people” notions because I do not like to see people hurt more in a place they come to for support.

I'm sorry...but I'm usually really pretty 'chipper' when I come on here..but I had to log off here, after reading that post, when you originally posted it... Scuro..

Not saying you wrote it, yourself...I realize you only 'quoted' it- but I was upset and depressed after reading it, nonetheless.

Just wanted you know how I felt.

Do whatever you have to do.


I have nothing left.


I rest my case . . . . . .


Conclusion:There is no such thing as pure ADD too much emotion involved in being different because of the ADD.

The truth is I am done with this thread too. I was enjoying it for a while but I am no longer enjoying it, so I'll find ya somewhere else Nova. Peace.

I think I shall leave myself and catch up with my friends who have apparently moved onto other threads. ~~~~meadd823 wiggles wiggles wigglies away~~~

No I haven't but I have read interesting items by E.O. Wilson in which "Selfish Genes" may well allow for some level of indirect group selection (as with the social insects. Although it's still selection at the level of the individual organism and it's genes when it comes right down to it.).

Last Dawkin's book I read was "Unweaving the rainbow". Good stuff that. You should give Ernst Mayr a whirl if you're partial to evolutionary theory. He taught the best and brightest in the field in evolutionary biology (apparently to include to one degree or another Stephen Jay Gould (who liked to make some decidedly un-darwinian exceptions to his rules when it came to humanity and human nature, but was otherwise a real standup guy), and Jared Diamond).

E.O. Wilson, as mentioned above earlier, Jared Diamond and some others do a VERY good job of staying abreast of other disciplines. I find the areas the converge in quite fascinating, but Barb (bless her heart, and I mean this in all seriousness Barb, no sarcasm) reminded me in a timely fashion of the confirmation bias earlier in these postings. Several articles and examples of it later I'm still optimistic in my views (I find available evidence suggestive of a more positive interpretation of ADD, and further find this to be more likely in view of the rest of what I know about biology. A view that does not in any way discount that ADD in modern society sucks goat butt(A highly technical sailor term slightly edited for content there)), but a good deal more cautious.

I also note that Barb doesn't seem to necessarily disagree with me as she appears to be a bit more "Neutral". I can respect that. I'm prepared to take the news if it turns out I'm "BROKEN". I just don't honestly believe I am.

E.O. Wilson, as mentioned above earlier, Jared Diamond and some others do a VERY good job of staying abreast of other disciplines. One thing that makes some of the UC's stand out (at least the Southern California UCs: San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara) is their TRULY interdisciplinary approach. The collaborations between departments and subfields is amazing. (I said that because Diamond is at UCLA.)

This is the direction many are trying to take science and it's got some momentum. The NSF-IGERT (National Science Foundation - Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training) program is starting its 9th year in the fall, supporting PhD students doing interdisciplinary work.



I also note that Barb doesn't seem to necessarily disagree with me as she appears to be a bit more "Neutral". I can respect that. I'm prepared to take the news if it turns out I'm "BROKEN". I just don't honestly believe I am.Oh, my opinion is that ADD = CRAPPY, but the definition of "broken" is a difficult one. I mean, when you break a pencil it's difficult to write with it, but you can still stick it in your hair to hold up a bun.

The question of whether or not something is "broken" isn't answerable. NOTHING is context-free.

Now, whether or not I believe that its abundance is adaptive is another issue. I'm not even certain that the impact of environmental factors is only 15% as suggested by research. I'm not saying the research is flawed, but I think there are many factors that haven't been considered.

Not to get too technical, but if there are factors in the environment that are fairly universal, but that interact with biological predispositions, the interaction might produce enough variance to see the biology, but the stable enviornmental factor doesn't produce enough variance to show up. This would produce results that look like main effects of biology when, in fact, the interaction is important.

Bottom lines (IMO):



ADD is, by definition, impairing.
ADD, for some, can be an advantage for some tasks in some situations.
ADD, like everything else, involves both biological and environmental factors.
ADD cannot be caused by "evolution" because evolution doesn't work that way. Its cause is genetic variation that involves mutations (not just one, btw). It's possible that the particular set of alleles spread because it was more advantageous in a previous environment than in today's, but it's also possible that it simply continued because it was not enough of a disadvantage to be selected out.
ADD symptoms are greatly affected by biological processes like fluctuations in hormones and other neurotransmitters. The symptoms will likely follow a curvilinear (u-shaped) pattern, particularly in women. They will be particularly bad when schoolwork becomes high in cognitive load (around 2nd grade, give or take a year), get better as one learns to cope, and then get worse late in adulthood (middle age or later, when hormone levels fluctuate, like menopause).
ADD is a functional difference, not a structural one. This means it is much more easily treated than many other disorders (like personality disorders or mental retardation). It also means that one could avoid impairment altogether if one chooses to engage in career & leisure activities that don't require tasks that one is impaired in. It would be difficult for most of us, however. Everything I love involves my prefrontal cortex.

Have you read that they are considering redifining the "Must have at least two major life areas Impaired" part of the criteria for ADD in the DSM-V?

I have no idea what the consensus on this idea is, so I can't speak for whether it's controversial or not (although I suspect it is, and I figure the odds of it happening at 50/50 at the Absolute best), but it would effectively change the idea of ADD being impairing by defininition. ADD as a phenomena has been called everything from minimal brain damage to... Well, ADD. With each step in understanding the nature of ADD name changes occur. What's next?

... and like E-boy ...... E.O. Wilson ... Jared Diamond and some others do a VERY good job of staying abreast of other disciplines ... ... 'Systems' thinkers including the father of Systems Anthropology understand the need for multi-disciplinary thinking ... How very ADD!!! ... and ... ... with each step in understanding the nature of ADD name changes occur. What's next? ... ... Well since #1 + #1 == #2 ... how about???

~The winner~
Originally Posted by Jenni4476
Maybe we should call it...Inability to Look at Details Independently of the Big Picture Syndrome. (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=254190&postcount=113)
And for dessert ... ... ...

Originally Posted by ...?...
So when Pia mentions she wants to immerse herself in 'Systems (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257215&postcount=91) Biology', or Tom points us to Weinberg's text on 'Systems (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257215&postcount=91) Theory', or my attraction for 'Systems (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257215&postcount=91) Analysis', not to mention the frequent clashes between the top-downs and bottom-ups ...in all out gang warfare... well it kinda' makes sense.


SB.

Where did the word broken come from? Here is the old building a strawman up to knock it down tactic once more. That is, one must change a complex concept into something that is simple and distorted, before one can take it down. Do a search of all my posts, you will never find me using the word broken in reference to ADHD.

What is pure ADHD?->poor impulse control in all of it's yummy flavours.

Ahhh to be an ADHDer in an ADHD community..gotta love it! :p Pay attention, we should get some "impulse control" posts shortly. :D

You can choose to see things however you wish. I see ideas presented that I do not agree I am presenting my opinion that is all. This is a discussion taking place in open forum. I am a member here and I am allowed to share my ideas as long as they remain within ADDF guidelines. If you dislike the manner in which you respond to me I am truly sorry but I fail to see where your behavior has any thing to do with me.

I understand first hand how much of a challenge self regulation can be I have to do plenty of editing myself some times to ensure my responses are within guidelines and appropriate. When I dis-like my presentation I strive to change my perspective and attitude (thus my approach) I have discovered I have little power to change others attempting to do so merely cause frustration within my self. I accept people as they are plain and simple. Even when others decide to project their anger upon me to the point of being ugly and hurtful they in no way have to power to choose my emotions nor does their inappropriate behavior negate my responsibility (or ability) to control my own.

Well said. Everyone here has the right to an opinion, no matter how it is derived. Differring in opinions doesn't require disrespect. It is usually clear when someone is giving their thoughts on a totally different level. When someone states something that is *very obviously* (note the phrase *very obviously*) factually incorrect as if it were fact, such as stating that ADHD is fake, then that is grounds for correction. In other cases, though, there is no need to force beliefs on each other, even if such beliefs are scientifically derived.

The ADDF guidelines does have sections relating to this, fortunately:


* While forums are meant for debate, flaming or forcing your opinions on other members without regard to their feelings is uncalled for. This does not mean that you can't post sensitive issues or get into heated debates; it just means you have to use some common sense and courtesy when posting your opinions/views/debates. People intentionally posting to create flame wars will be dealt with by the moderators or administrators through warnings and bans as they see fit.


* Spamming is considered repeating your comments unnecessarily, mean spirited criticism, and repetitive arguments. If you make posts that are obviously just to get your post count up to get another title, your post count may be reduced.

This hasn't been a big problem here in this thread, but to have a thread that isn't big enough for two particular users is usually an indicator that this is going on. It's one thing to have a strong opinion and reveal it in an impulsive manner, but doing it repeatedly and consistently is not acceptable.

My contingency has never been his research or his findings but his lack of compassion and respect for ADD people as a group via his off the cuff comments sprinkled thought out his presentations. His popularity leads me to believe his approach is useful to others. Again not the source of my contingency.

Like his statement of ADDers being of "Lowered Intelligence"? First, it's perfectly acceptable to state that IQ scores may be lowered on average between ADDers and Neurotypicals. However, IQ is only a test, and there are factors affecting the score -- other than intelligence (and that's even defining intelligence as IQ (not test score though))! And someone like Barkley is perfectly capable of realizing this and his mistake. I think we can say the same thing about trying to measure creativity objectively. It's [sort of] a useful model, but it's not perfect or universally accepted, which needs to be made clear, not simply ignored because it makes one argument look more convincing. I'm sure there are many other examples of this, but this is the one that came to mind. To state "Lowered Intelligence" as opposed to "Lower IQ score on average" isn't stating the truth vs. window dressings. The former is literally an insult in my opinion and the latter is probably the truth (because it's only a test... and we're known to make more errors).

If it were only about the way he said it, it's not. A rare few have made that distiniction. Really, that complaint is just one of several ways his research and opinions get "strawmaned".

So no one disagreed that ADHD is an multiflaovoured genetic impairment of impulse control. Great! :) Barkley would find that defintion most acceptable. ;)

..."strawmaned" ...Hmmm ... Truss B, ADD's bald lion in a toupé
... yowzer ... that so works ... :-) ...
'Trousers' Truss* ...
... would find that defintion most acceptable.

Please put your hands together for ... Dr débâcle* ...
{polite applause}

Yo yo yo ADDalots ... your King* salutes you ... ADD's toupé toting lion. Me ... your King ... I come offering support.

...SB...

****... trouser truss - 'support but not the sort you'll ever thneed' ... ****

Scuro, being that many of the posts in here aren't meant to point by point address each other I don't think any "Strawmanning" is going on.

Point: You have repeatedly emphasized the Deficits of function that commonly occur with ADD. Point: You seem to lean heavily in the direction of ADD being a problem independent of any environmental context (IE a solid disability and not a case of a different set of pros and cons). Taken together one could easily believe you view having it as a real problem and most folks equate that to mean "Broken" whether you actually said as much or not. Add to this the fact that between press reports that seem to be informed by scientology more than fact, horror stories about meds and "illusory disorders", and a good many clinicians, teachers, etc taking the opposite side and calling them "broken" many folks with ADD have an understandable sensitivity to labling and will far more likely to view the above connections I posited in the way I posited them.

Personally, based on what I understand of your arguments, you are simply being skeptical of what's not hard and fast proof, as yet and in addition don't appreciate misinformation being promulgated in some quarters (particularly the press where they deny it outright, or in some feel good help books that discuss ADD as if it's the best thing since sliced bread) that ADD doesn't have it's down side (IE that the deficits aren't real.).

For my part, I don't believe anyone here can fault you for your skeptical approach, and I VERY much doubt anyone here, myself to be enthusiastically included doubts that the deficits that go with ADD are very much real.

I don't share the depth of your skepticism as there is a great deal of significant evidence, to me and to many of the people actually studying such phenomena, suggesting that a great deal of the problem with ADD and anxiety disorders both are "contextual/environmental" issues. This in no way denies that the way the world is now that people with ADD often have very big functional issues. Nor does it suggest the world is likely to change for our benefit any time soon. Behavioral therapy, medication, and life style modification are still our best bets for managing as best we can, and many of us may never find a niche we fit well in. The co-morbid conditions we suffer from are real, the risk of chemical dependence is real, the higher mortality and injury rates are all depressingly real.

I just don't find it being a contextual issue to be all that difficult to believe, especially with what I've learned from all manner of other counter-intuitive examples of similar issues from the adaptive value of the sickle cell trait, to T-sachs syndrome even having adaptive value. ADD is more subtle and far more complex than both, but there are tell tale signs highly suggestive of adaptive value in our hunter gatherer past. Lack of biological noise that typically accompanies genetic insults (IE it's a mutant variant that's propogated through generations and isn't the result of genetic damage to the individual in most every case they've looked at. Insults to DNA typically produce shot gun damage that generally includes wide spread morphological abnormalities as well as functional ones (like webbed digits, extra digits, asymetrical limbs and the like)). It's incidence in the population strongly suggests it's propogating rapidly (and the age of at least the two gene variants known to have anything to do with it suggest it's more stable than a "nuetral" mutation would be and thus propogating because of adaptive value and not due to the bottlenecking and associated inbreeding of our species alone), or at least that it was in recent human natural history. Given enough time of society staying static in it's current formatt, ADD might well get bred out of the population (due to it not being such a great thing in a lot of ways in this enviroment).

I'm once again repeating myself though. Not because I'm trying to argue more with you, but just so you see why, I believe what I do. I think we agree on more than we disagree on, and I believe I understand your point of view. I think you're attitude is reasonable, if a bit depressing (hey, the truth may not end up being pretty right? That's just being honest), and I have no problem with the position you've taken.

I made this post to SPELL OUT what I think you're saying in contrast to what I'm saying so that you can see what I'm getting from your posts. If I've got this wrong, I want to know because I'm golden for misunderstanding, or getting who posted what confused. If I've got it right I'm hoping you are also understanding where I'm coming from and that I do, in fact, agree with you on a great deal. I'm just a bit more optimistic leaning in some ways. Regardless, of which of us is right, our opinions still share the idea of the deficits being real (regardless of the difference in our reasons for thinking they exist), of treatment being necessary (lifestyle modification at the minimum), and of honest acurrate information about these things being available and fighting misinformation for the protection and advocacy of those of us who suffer from ADD and related issues. I hope you can see that neither my ideas on this or yours in anyway detract from those issues or their need to be addressed.

someday i will read all 11 pages of this topic...someday...

when you do, I would really appreciate a cliffs notes version, okay? thank you in advance.

Question: What does "pure" ADHD look like?

We can't answer this question, because the term "ADHD" and what it stands for is not really "pure". It's a diagnostic definition of symptoms that help medical professionals diagnose someone that is currently impaired in some way.

I think the original reason this thread was posted was to answer the question "what are the characteristics of someone with the tendency or possiblity to develop the ADHD diagnosis".

Since the ADHD diagnosis can be contextual, remove all external factors from this person. This would be impossible to really do. This person would be allowed to act they wanted to without anyone trying to correct/change this person. Just let the person "be themselves".

What characteristics might remain:


hyperactivity
inattentiveness
inability to focus (executive functions)
abilty to hyperfocus (executive functions)
talkative
reserved
need for less sleep (than average)
need for more sleep (than average)
impulsive
In my opinion, all of the other charateristics are by products of context or other external factors.

Question: What does "pure" ADHD look like?
Find an ADDer without disorder and look very closely at the ADDerfreak.

Contextual disorder (CD) blurs the notion of ADD (A).

An individual may or not develop ADD.
An ADDer may or may not exhibit disorder (contextual)

That's pretty much the order of presentation.

Factors are responsible for initial development of ADD, and also for initial development of contextual disorder.

Factors leading to A are different from factors leading to CD.
Factors for A and for CD must be either environmental or genetic.

Factors leading to CD are (predominantly) environmental or contextual.

Current thinking suggests ADD is of predominantly genetic (heritable) ætiology (with minor env contribution) ... however, I would like to suggest that the opposite of the {sorts of environmental factor} which lead to the development of CD in ADDer, are responsible for the development of ADD (initially). And that ADD is not observedly familial through genetic transmission, but is observedly familial through shared familial environment.
Switch the variance components for env and gene from current thinking 0.1:0.9 (respectively) to 0.9(e):0.1(g) ... and I think we're approaching a more realistic attribution of 'blame' ...:-)...

Before throwing this idea out, can I simply ask why this idea is difficult to (~even~) consider (for most) ... ... ... (~not accept~) (...merely consider...)?
---Is it because the scientific establishment state that ADD is a genetically inherited condition? (... and they must be correct ...)
----Is it because if we see ADD (read CD instead of ADD here) as environmental ... then there's a solution which we can attain ... but which will require much more effort than popping a pill (...and how deep and convoluted will the rabbit warren of environmental change extend...?...)
-----Is it because it's nice to absolve oneself of all 'blame' for ADD ... by stating 'it's all in my genes' (and therefore not my (or the) fault (of my relatives), by proxy).

------These initial three answers which popped to mind, are not tenable as justification for sweeping *that* basic question to one side *without* proper consideration.------

The observation that anxiety, depression - classical 'apparent' disordered->->->-(use of ' ' to indicate that anxiety and depression may prove to be physiologically important and not pathophysiological reactions in the context** of ADDer to contextual (semantically different from immediately previous 'context'**) challenge) The observation that anxiety, depression - classical 'apparent' disordered->->->-function track so closely with ADD, has caused ADD to be synonymous (falsely) ... virtually indistinguishable from the mélange of {ADD and contextual disorder} (perhaps biased away from ADD (pure form) ... in favour of {CD cocktail}). The water is muddied (yet further) by the medical establishment characterizing ADD (diagnostic criteria DSM-IV) ... as ... (exactly) this mélange.

In a sense, then, ADHD courtesy of DSM-IV is a disorder, but since ADHD courtesy of DSM-IV is actually ADHD-CD(x) ... wouldn't it be correct to describe ADHDmedical definition == ADHD-CD(x) == disorder?
Noting that ADHD =is/not= ADHDmedical definition.

In truth - without a disorder model for ADD --- we'd never have been allowed to take chemicals such as the amphetamines ... and we wouldn't have received so much press coverage ... and yet, all of this aside ... we are now in the privileged position of knowing that->->->-ADD is here for good (and will only increase in prevalence --- ...?how quickly?... would, of course, be a question which can only, may only properly be addressed to the 'environment' (the important question here though is ... what does the 'environment' mean in this context ?...:-)...?...:-)...? ), knowing that->->->-ADD can be recognized (...or diagnosed, if you prefer...) ... knowing that->->->-ADD has sufficient therapeutic intervention (... in dexedrine (the first ADD med) and derivatives ...) ... and I can't imagine anybody attempting to pull it from the market (Canadian adderall blips notwithstanding) ... and so perhaps now ... it's important that we address the real question of defining ...?the fundamental nature of ADD?...

So ... back to the question ... though impossible with the current medical definition for ADD ... pure ADD can only be seen in the non-disordered (not disordered through environment or context) (not disordered at all) ADDer ... ... ...?how about?the zanymad endearing flipped out Professor (who's gone and lost his glasses again) ... and is sitting on a cucumber sandwich whilst wondering why nobody has come into quantum lab on Sunday ... right there in 'madzany' is all we need ... a deeper study, extracting the true commonalities within this stereotype will reveal 'pure ADD' ... in the myriad splendour of its most showy finery.
And just one more time ... yes ... I do ... I know so, so ... sooo many ... but to one side ... and take a look around the forum->->->- ... put thoughts of 'biased' population to one side (biased, yes ... but, I believe (quite strongly), biased in quite the opposite manner to the spirit underlying usage when these comments are made here) ... and around our forum->->->-... and you'll see what I mean.
There are more freakin' acadæmentedfreaks on this site than on any of the many others (non-ADD) which I visit ... and, moreover ... regardless of whether the label of academic has been obtained through degree ... there are a very large number -here- who *are* academics->->->- ...(more academic than many academics I know ... ->->->-academics in all but a printout of slightly thicker than average A4 (bearing one's name and a couple of other smallish words).

And tracyhaddb (moderator in training) ... Dr T. [M.I.T]. ... you are exposed ... :-) ...

SB.

An individual may or not develop ADD.
An ADDer may or may not exhibit disorder (contextual)This all depends on how effective the individual is at building coping mechanisms.

Current thinking suggests ADD is of predominantly genetic (heritable) ætiology (with minor env contribution) ... however, I would like to suggest that the opposite of the {sorts of environmental factor} which lead to the development of CD in ADDer, are responsible for the development of ADD (initially).
Some studies have shown that individuals may be born with a "predisposition" for being diagnosed with ADHD. Context and environment may trigger this "predisposition".

"predisposition"An epigenetic predisposition would look very much like a genetic predisposition; indistinguishable, in fact.
There's a poetic justice in epigenetics too ... the progeny in a line of some positive characteristic ... each one gifted with a little extra, as we descend that genealogical line.
I favour this model ... though think that it'll be quite some time before any data is available to provide any support for it.
Epigenetic modification of DNA isn't (yet) at the level of throughput of study that genetic modification definition is (currently) ... will be soon though ...
still ... though ... favour a model for ADD (pure) in which *some* component of environment -grossly- counterbalances the combined effects of epigenetics and genetics ... in leading to ADD appearing on stage ... the 'theatre of consciousness' ... playing for one life-time only ... you ... your life ... you as actor on a stage ... within your head ... rrreality as the theatre of consciousness and ADD as all of the nouns ... including the nouns which the verbs will choose to juggle ... ... ... :-) ... ... ...

match ... fuse ... dynamite ... with (epi-)genetics as match?

SB.

This conversation seem to be taking a more interesting turn for the better.

Hope no one minds one more voice to the mix of ADD tricks.

I think the original reason this thread was posted was to answer the question "what are the characteristics of someone with the tendency or possiblity to develop the ADHD diagnosis".

I would never perpose to speak for Scuro however I was under the impression that this was an off-shoot from a discussion in the executive function thread. I kept "raising cane" because a lot of the studies that were being used to show "disfunctions" in ADD children and how they compaired to "normals" used children with comorbids like ODD and conduct disorder. I did not see how these children who had co-morbid behaviors could possible be a true representation of kids who just had ADD.

There was some discussion about being able to adjust to variables or some some thing I lost track when I went on a quest to discover salt water itches when it dries on my skin. Besides I have live with a child who had ADD with a co-morbid ODD I experienced no such thing as adjustment . . .

I am just making a guess here though.



Is it because the scientific establishment state that ADD is a genetically inherited condition? (... and they must be correct ...)

Questioning happen to be my speciality. :confused:

Well although I do not necessarily swallow every thing shooting from the mouth of "main stream" I will admit they have some pretty convincing evidence that leads me to believe that at least the "predisposition" for ADD is genetic.I mean have they not done studies of identical twins reared apart and came up with a pretty hefty correlation despite the different environments throught out child rearing.

I guess the twin thing does not take into account massive variations when it comes to how "genetics" interacts with the "environment" I mean it seems like genetic and environment are interactive, Wouldn't these two be inseparably intertwined?

'environment' (the important question here though is ... what does the 'environment' mean in this context ?...:-)...?...:-)...? ),

Besides according to my mom, who was a non-smoker, non drinker or taker of drugs I was wiggly in the womb.Unless the womb is the environment in which you are speaking.




...?the fundamental nature of ADD?...

I think this is like a most execellent question!



ADD as all of the nouns ... including the nouns which the verbs will choose to juggle ... ... ... :-) ... ... ...


epigenetics and genetics + meta search engines = much reading to choose from - - -keeps me lost for hours. :D

Just not lost enough to prevent me from finding my way back here to bother you guys. . . .browser histroy :o


Interscience wiley place (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/101526004/PDFSTART)
It is in PDF format-thought I would warn ya.

These are many but not all the questions to be addressed. I do not think we have gotten there yet but I do not really know. I thought I asked a lot of questions jeez . . . . . . :eyebrow:

***quote
Table 1 Major Epidemiological Questions Regarding
Sources of Population Variance in Psychological Traits

A. Environmental sources of variance
1. To what extent is the trait influenced by environmental
factors?
2. What kind of environmental action is involved?
a. Is it prenatal, nutritional, or hormonal?
b. Is it postnatal, physical, or social?
c. Is it shared or idiosyncratic?
d. Are there maternal and/or paternal effects?
e. Are there sibling interaction effects?
3. Are there gender effects?
4. Is transmission horizontal (e.g., among peers) and/or
vertical (e.g., parent to child)?

B. Genetic sources of variance
1. To what extent is the trait influenced by genetic factors?

2. What kind of gene action is involved?
a. Additive?
b. Dominant?
c. Epistatic?
3. How many loci are involved?
4. Is there sex-limitation or sex-linkage?
5. Are chromosomal effects involved?

C. To what extent is the variation due to chance, or to
chaotic processes approximating chance?

D. Joint genetic and environmental influences
1. Are there any genetic  environmental interactions?
2. Are there gene-environment correlations?
a. Passive?
b. Evocative?
c. Active?

E. Developmental influences including aging
1. Do different genes come into play during development?
2. Do different environmental influences come into
play during development?
3. Does the variance due to various categories of influence
change over time?

F. Assortative mating
1. Is assortative mating, if present, due to active phenotypic
assortment or social homogamy?
2. Are there sex differences in mate preference for the
trait?

G. Selection
1. What sort of selective factors were at work during
the original evolution of the trait?
2. Are there current selective factors at work?
3. Is the trait an adaptation?
6 Bouchard and McGue
***End quote

Okay and some where in this 45 page paper I scanned through, I read that each trait of a disorder has to be studied individuality . . . okay and how many traits does ADD have I forget . . . :p

***quote
Good scientific practice,
however, requires that the assumption be repeatedly
tested for each trait under investigation and particular
findings that depend on the assumption be replicated
in designs that do not make the assumption. Large
studies with multiple kinships can specifically test
such assumptions.
The applicability of the equal environmental similarity
To date, these
efforts have not produced confirmed and replicable
findings
***End quote


Okay back to multiple guess. . . . . . . . . . . . . . :faint:

He also included Barkley's opinion cited back on this thread in this book and he presents Barkley's ADHD as a disease position to Moyzis - which resulted in that big study.
The molecular data show that the creation of the 7R allele was an unusual,spontaneous mutation which became an advantage for humans.
Those without the 7R allele tested average/normal. Those with the 7R allele had results that were off the charts.

EEe. . . . . .placing feet in mouth and shoes on hands (how is that for a visual) . . ;) . . .counting backwards from 100 by sevens . . . .threes . . .okay so I will have some numbers left over!

AND now for the rest of the story . . . :cool:


quote from same source as prevous post . . . interscience wiley some pl