Just a gifted child or ADHD?

[Barliman]

Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu

What bothers me though is that you speak of an "obsession with measuring things". The ability to quantify something, to measure and falsify it, is the heart of science. The alternative isn't unknown truth, unmeasureable science, it's blind faith. You might as well be rolling the dice and hoping you get it right. I'll rather stick to science.

It is a perception I have of current trends in neuroscience- that any mention of "Mind" and the consequences of thought is taboo- because the scientists who concern themselves with such things cannot arrive at a formula to measure thought. So everything is put down as pathways and circuits. However- the victims of the Third Reich (for instance) had good reason to believe in the power of ideas.

The real problem I have with this is the fact that these supposedly objective scientists avoid commenting on a substantial body of evidence that points to at least some of the changes being observed in functional brain imaging as representing states of mind and not permanent pathologies. Then there is the fact that the proposed changes are not reproducible except on a population basis.

Certainly the scientists have glossed over the apparent acceleration in the instance of ADHD, Tourettes, and autism. This is a highly significant failing in the light of very substantial social changes in the last 30 years that have produced substantial increase in stress levels and disruption of extended families in those societies where the changes are greatest.

So I'm not against science, so much as I am against accepting that what is done as research reasonably reflects more than the enthusiasms of the researchers ( who are a very self selected group ) and the priorities of the funding bodies- which are essentaily to generate new patents.

I guess talking of an "obsession with measuring things" does not quite hit the mark I was aiming at.

[Barliman]

Oh, and "flow" was a term that a Western psychologist coined some years ago to describe a state essemtially of being fully intgrated in the moment- essentailly the same state as described in Taoism or in Zen Buddhism.
A classic example there woud be the quote from "Zen and The Art of Skiing" ....... "No Snow, NoSkier, Only Skiing"-- the moment of complete absorbtion in the task of the moment- when that sense of a watcher in the back of ones head< overseeing everything you do, disappears.

from WIkipedia:
In his seminal work, 'Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience', (Mihaly) Csíkszentmihályi outlines his theory that people are most happy when they are in a state of flow— a state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand and the situation. The idea of flow is identical to the feeling of being in the zone or in the groove. The flow state is an optimal state of intrinsic motivation, where the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing. This is a feeling everyone has at times, characterized by a feeling of great absorption, engagement, fulfillment, and skill—and during which temporal concerns (time, food, ego-self, etc.) are typically ignored.^[6]
In an interview with Wired magazine, Csíkszentmihályi described flow as "being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost."^[7]

[mctavish23]

The Range of IQ scores associated with ADHD literally runs the gamut from Mild MR to

Very Superior and beyond.

Using the now mandated DSM IV TR symptom list as the focal point, IQ is not a factor in

an evidence based diagnosis of ADHD.

With that in mind,the genetic contribution for ADHD is 97%.

That's greater than human height (81%) or IQ (55%).

If you're speaking strictly of a DSM IV TR diagnosis of Autism, one of the distinguishing

characteristics is low IQ ( often within the Mild MR Range).

For Atypical/High Functioning, Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Asperger's Disorder,

you immediately rule out low IQ.

However, that doesn't automatically imply high IQ either; just higher than Autisitic.

Hope that helps some.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

[Barliman]

Originally Posted by mctavish23

The Range of IQ scores associated with ADHD literally runs the gamut from Mild MR to

Very Superior and beyond.

Using the now mandated DSM IV TR symptom list as the focal point, IQ is not a factor in

an evidence based diagnosis of ADHD.

With that in mind,the genetic contribution for ADHD is 97%.

That's greater than human height (81%) or IQ (55%).

If you're speaking strictly of a DSM IV TR diagnosis of Autism, one of the distinguishing

characteristics is low IQ ( often within the Mild MR Range).

For Atypical/High Functioning, Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Asperger's Disorder,

you immediately rule out low IQ.

However, that doesn't automatically imply high IQ either; just higher than Autisitic.

Hope that helps some.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Hi Robert,
the figure you quote for the heritability of ADHD is at the high end of a range quoted by Rosemary Tannock in a study in 1998.

A more recent review is this one - which suggests a heritability index of 0.76:




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1
(The genetics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Coghill D, Banaschewski T.
Centre for Neuroscience, Division of Medical Sciences, University of Dundee, Centre for Child Health, 19 Dudhope Terrace, Dundee, DD3 6HH, UK. d.r.coghill@dundee.ac.uk)


I attended a day seminar by Rosemary Tannock in September and she is now suggesting that the original figures were flawed- and that the true heritability index will be closer to 0.64- 0.67.
cheers

Andrew

[mctavish23]

Thanks for the update.

Im in the midst of reading Barkley's newest book, but I appreciate that feedback.

Either way, it's clearly genetic.

I also appreciate the references, as I always like to read as much as possible.

Thanks again.

tc

Robert

[Barliman]

Originally Posted by mctavish23

Thanks for the update.

Im in the midst of reading Barkley's newest book, but I appreciate that feedback.

Either way, it's clearly genetic.

I also appreciate the references, as I always like to read as much as possible.

Thanks again.

tc

Robert

In the consensus statement Barkely emphasises a biopsychosocial causation.
IE- The genetics may be necessary but not sufficient.
It is important not to be too reductionist here.
Hence my previous questions about other phenotypes associated with the postulated genotype(s).
cheers
Andrew