Article-Is Psychosocial treatment of ADHD is still relevant?".

[scuro]

Originally Posted by SB_UK

Emergent properties are essentially impossible to pre-predict; I have presented the idea incorporating mind as an emergent phenomenon {with other aspects of these ideas} at the University (Cambridge) to a crowd including comp neuroscientists - and the ideas were *not* challenged - barely an eyelid raised {in fact}. For the most part the reaction was - 'but that's obvious.'
There's a real problem here because I cannot explain the process of emergence - at the very interface between pre-emergent and post-emergence; that's one of the core properties of emergence.
If I can't explain the process by which the transition occurs - it's pointless for me to be asked to.

My previous two questions weren't answered - so here's another couple.

Question 1:
Do you believe the Barbyma-chosen quote {above}?
It's taken from a textbook on 'Nature/Nurture' - and is *nothing* to do with me - all bar the delightful auburn highlights and reddish streaks ... :-) ... 'would madam prefer it a little shorter?' ...

... if you do believe that the subject matter contained within the quote is ostensibly correct - then explain it away using an alternate argument to mine.
Explain it away without the use of the phenomenon of emergence.
It'll be tough though - the author even outright states 'emergence' in the piece.

Question 2:
Do you believe that emergent phenomena? emergence? exist?
Tams located a pretty decent piece on WikkiWikkiWaaaPaedia - a while back.
And I remember Stabile commenting on its accuracy - and so, if you like - that'd be a great place to start researching emergence.

***For my own benefit - why do you guys object to these ideas?***

So - of course ADD is real {in these ideas}; medication works {in these ideas} ; familial clustering is explained away {intrinsic to these ideas} ... but the bonus - we reconceptualize the mind - away from silly EFfology - and perform the unexpected of forging a path between the scientific method and other domains which were formally lumped within the metaphysical superset.
B-o-n-u-s!

SB.

By the way - all correct and from Tammy's post #31,#33 :
Not good - 'questioning whether psychosocial intervention will work' - is necessary - otherwise you are offering us no opportunity to dissent.

The reason for the appearance of genetics within this thread.

[/color][/color]~Yes~

[/color]~Miaowww~ [/color]... :-) ...

Inappropriate simplification of a problem.

~Yes~

~Yes~ and introducing neuroplasticity into this debate moves it on some.

To be clear - the argument of genetic, neurochemical is overly simplistic and only appealing because of its simplicity to conceptualize.
The idea of {genetics,neurochemical} subsetted within social, psychological and physical {biological {definition as above}} - is much more abstract - but *is* correct.

... :-) ... Heck ... :-) ...
- I've really done it now
p.s.
~Just~ in case you missed it.

SB.

This would an example of thread hijacking, where someone's posts are repeatedly and completely off topic. I can't say this anymore plainly without being rude.

Sometimes there is an agenda behind this, sometimes not. Either way, it is irritating for those who want to stick to the current discussion and see the proverbial air being let out of the balloon,...momentum is grinding to a halt. Start the new thread on emergent properties, we will respond. A moderator can even help you move posts from this thread to create a new thread.

[SB_UK]

... Just say 'no' to pokin' - put down yur poker - and step away from the pointy object ...

Do you want to make nonADDers ADD?
~or~
ADDers nonADD?

I suggest that we may diverge in our answers to this question.

If the contextual disorder which follows on from ADD is psychosocial in nature - then surely the contextual disorder which we mistake for ADD - would vanish in one of two situations - a world without ADD *and* a world with only ADD.

Since I am absolutely convinced that the condition which we define as ADD is an evolutionary adaptation to our changing context (noting that context is defined differently here - and relates more {in this latter case} to the information-rich environment within which we are immersed {rather than in the former - where it relates to large ADD spheres being forced into the nonADD world of small uniformly-sized neat - regular {ach! ~boring~} brown boxes} ... queue to the left and fill out the 10 page form in triplicate using black ink and capitals only {ach! ~boring~} brown boxes ... ... ... since I am absolutely convinced that the condition which we define as ADD is an evolutionary adaptation to our changing context - I would separate out 'psychosocial factors' here into - on the one hand -
the catalyst for ADD, and development of ADD
... and on the other hand ...
the development and maintenance of contextual disorder.

Using former {in this thread} definitions of biological - I am suggesting that the catalyst for ADD onset is biological, epigenetic (impossible to separate from genetic using current family-based genetic epidemiological methodologies)
~and~
that ADD then develops dependent on a supportive educational environment - so psychosocial intervention -here- relates to education ... however relating to the disorder - {the bit which we'd like to get rid of} - well again - psychosocial intervention plays its part - however, in this case - simply the behaviour of an ADDer in a nonADDer environment - being forced to do things which we know to be stupid - you know the deal - just as above - and *the cure*?
Working on it.
That doesn't mean that I'm trying to work out the cure for contextual disorder.
It means that I am working on the cure for ADD.
Right now - just as many of us are doing here on ADDF.
... ... ... And that cure is ... ... ...

Do you want to make nonADDers ADD?
~or~
ADDers nonADD?

I suggest that we may diverge in our answers to this question.

... if you get my drift ...


SB.

join SB's 'no' to pokin' ... :-) ... campaign.
All that's required - unrequited rampant overexuberant foaming ADD.

{{All~I~need ... :-) ... }++}++

[HighFunctioning]

Here we go again....

[Crazy~Feet]

Originally Posted by HighFunctioning

Here we go again....

No kidding do we HAVE to??

File me under "Dissenter" on this same thing going round and round and over and over again. I get enough of this in my daily life and come here to escape it.

[SB_UK]

I'd be keen to know why it happens?

SB.

Maybe as a precursor to killing it off.

[Hyperion]

In the hopes of nipping this in the bud (unlikely):

Emergent properties are essentially impossible to pre-predict; I have presented the idea incorporating mind as an emergent phenomenon {with other aspects of these ideas} at the University (Cambridge) to a crowd including comp neuroscientists - and the ideas were *not* challenged - barely an eyelid raised {in fact}. For the most part the reaction was - 'but that's obvious.'

Yes. No ****. Sorry for the profanity, but the researchers were right to find it passe. Of course there are emergent phenomena there, in the loosest definition that a lot of neurons can do a helluva lot more than a few neurons. The reason for the reaction was because it is fairly irrelevant. Again, we know that the psychological flows from the neurological, and that comparatively minor neurological changes will have profound, repeatable, and predictable effects on psychology. While psychological events can also alter neurology, this is a much more limited factor.

Emergent phenomena are completely irrelevant. This isn't a yes or no question, it's just simply irrelevant. We have perfectly good, well observed phenomena, there is no need to appeal to a g_d of the gaps except because it allows you to obfuscate the real issues.

Question 1:
Do you believe the Barbyma-chosen quote {above}?
It's taken from a textbook on 'Nature/Nurture' - and is *nothing* to do with me - all bar the delightful auburn highlights and reddish streaks ... :-) ... 'would madam prefer it a little shorter?' ...

I do not believe that this quote is in any way relevant to the discussion, and you have not explained its relevance to the discussion, or even its context. Therefore, it really matters not what I think of the quote. How do I know if I "believe" in it, as I don't know its context and I don't understand how it relates to this discussion. Let's focus on this discussion, and not on our "beliefs" about the writings of someone else in another thread on another subject.

Question 2:
Do you believe that emergent phenomena? emergence? exist?
Tams located a pretty decent piece on WikkiWikkiWaaaPaedia - a while back.
And I remember Stabile commenting on its accuracy - and so, if you like - that'd be a great place to start researching emergence.

Again, it's not relevant. It's also a nice rhetorical trick, because how I feel about emergence in general is not connected to how I feel about the relevance of emergence to this topic, and is still even less relevant to the issue of therapy and medication or medication alone. Somehow you have managed to read an entire thread that has discussed scientific studies like the MTA, that has looked at other writings of the original authors, that has discussed specific treatments and their effects on a specific disease, and managed to turn this into a referendum on metaphysical mental masturbation.

***For my own benefit - why do you guys object to these ideas?***

I don't object, but it's infuriating because you clearly should know better.

So - of course ADD is real {in these ideas}; medication works {in these ideas} ; familial clustering is explained away {intrinsic to these ideas} ... but the bonus - we reconceptualize the mind - away from silly EFfology - and perform the unexpected of forging a path between the scientific method and other domains which were formally lumped within the metaphysical superset.
B-o-n-u-s!

The scientific method has done quite well on its own, thank you very much.

Unless you're trying to argue that Lysenkoism is a good idea?

[SB_UK]

If the mind arises as the result of an emergent event.
And ADD and mind are inseparable (noting that EF is a 'model' of mind and Barkey and friends growl on about the EF deficits in ADD as being the ADDetiology).

Then wouldn't the following train of thought apply:
-brain composed of neurones
-mind develops post emergent event involving cortical neurones
-post-emergence ->- the post-emergent structure is understood on the higher and not the lower layer ->- property of emergence

->->-who studies the properties of an element through consideration of its subatomic structure?-<-<-

And so - yay! - can the train of thought above be broken at any of its various stages.
The article on nature/nurture is a recapitulation of all of these ideas - and is thereby relevant.

Disagree with the paragraph above - and you're disagreeing with some component of the abstract.
Of course - the authors may be wrong - just as I may be incorrect -however- it's important for me to demonstrate that the alternate take on ADD is not as way-out as it first appears.
Although it is way-different from the current model of ADD as pure disorder.

SB.

What evidence would you like by way of proof that ADD is closely co-incident with mind of man -?- And that mind of man is a separate sub-system which arose following an emergent event -?- That mind and hence ADD need be studied using the systems approach -?- And that of course - physical interventions work - but only because the subsystem receives input and produces output by relay back down onto the physical layer -?-

PHYSICAL LAYER (lower)
'key-oard' tapped - with the b letter missing.
LOGICAL LAYER (higher) - software running on a PHYSICAL LAYER (lower) - chip
PHYSICAL LAYER (lower)
spell-checker errors all over your monitor

If one needed to introduce the word key-oard into Word - one would cure this disorder by using a logical layer function of 'Add word to Word' - which would result in some change to the PHYSICAL LAYER (HDD). One would never try and add the word to the PHYSICAL LAYER (HDD) directly -that is- with a mini-wrench and soldering ion or magnet.

Undoubtedly you'll disagree - but I can only push on the argument if you tell me which part of the above section you do not agree with.

Are you not comfortable with the idea of ADD being a disorder of mind? I'm getting this feeling predominantly, because, my efforts to describe mind - its generation and functioning - appear to be being met with queries over 'relevance' to ADD.

SB.

[Hyperion]

who studies the properties of an element through consideration of its subatomic structure

Everyone. Number of protons in nucleus (subatomic structures) influences total positive charge. Positive charge influences number of electrons required to make element charge-neutral. Because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle (subatomic descriptions), we know that electrons must arrange themselves in certain patterns of energy levels because as fermions, they cannot share the same quantum state. These valence levels directly affect how many electrons the atom needs to absorb or eject (ionic bonding) or share (covalent bonding) when interacting with other atoms. This in turn directly effects the chemical interactions that we can observe at our level, such as why oxygen and nitrogen bind in pairs, and why O2 is reactive while N2 is fairly stable, why Helium and the other noble gasses are the most stable and rarely bond with anything else, why sodium and potassium ignite on contact with water, and the basics of why water is such a good solvent and how acids and bases work. Does this answer your question? Small actions influence big actions. It may not be directly obvious, but if you look at the system as a whole, you will see them. You were the one who chose this analogy, not I, so I can't claim that it necessarily holds true for neural systems, but perhaps this helps you understand how the parts affect the whole. Just as one proton can turn life-sustaining (for aerobes, anyways) oxygen into toxic chlorine, which can mean the difference between life and death for an animal that is trillions of times bigger, so can the difference of a few connections, or a change in the neural membrane structure, or the absence or abundance of key neurotransmitters drastically alter the functioning of the larger systems of the brain and the mind.

-however- it's important for me to demonstrate that the alternate take on ADD is not as way-out as it first appears.

Errrrm, actually....just a coaching tip, but you're making it appear far more way-out by bringing in metaphysical philosophy, trust me.

Are you not comfortable with the idea of ADD being a disorder of mind? I'm getting this feeling predominantly, because, my efforts to describe mind - its generation and functioning - appear to be being met with queries over 'relevance' to ADD.

Two distinct issues:

One is that I'm objecting more to your viewing of mind as separate from biology and biochemistry, which I feel is foolish. The mind does not exist without the biological structure. I also dislike the lack of respect for the scientific method, you're using way too much metaphysics, philosophy, and inappropriate analogy.

The second issue is relevance. I am not objecting to the relevance of the mind with regards to ADHD, but with the relevance of this metaphysical discussion to the question of different treatment types. I also am concerned over the relevance of posts from other topics which are taken out of context, as well as the relevance of questions which seek to beg (as in dodge) the questions that are at the heart of the thread.

Now, aside from appeals to inappropriate analogies to chemistry, physics, and computer science, do you have any evidence from biology, clinical psychology, psychiatry, neurology, etc to show that the mind is a completely separate construct from the brain? And I am still waiting for you to explain why my example of 5-HT2a agonists doesn't dispell your conjecture that the mind functions independently of its neurology. After all, if so-called emergent properties make minor neurological changes irrelevant to the psychosocial structures, then why do we see such enormous changes in psychosocial functioning occur with the administration of a tiny amount of a 5-HT2a agonist?

The point of the scientific method is confining inquiry to that which can be examined, experimented upon, and empirically confirmed or dispelled. This may not get you immediately from point A to point Z, but it gets you from A to B, and allows you to use B to find C, and so on and so forth. This allows one to carefully consider every step that leads to the final conclusion, rather than jumping directly there at the risk of considerable error.

[Crazy~Feet]

All the answers lie in the Ozone layer, but that's a LIE.

Sigh....

[SB_UK]

yupsy - nobody's interested in an adversarial discussion on this subject - from my own personal perspective - I do find it hard to understand why counter viewpoints can't be offered in the spirit of enquiry - to learn the other's perspective - rather than to steamroller the dissenter into one's personal subjective opinion.
I'll leave this thread alone - with the sole observation that all viewpoints are subjective.
And just as Bertrand Russell quips 'are you *sure* about that?'

SB.

[meadd823]

How about a new approach to these discussions

Maturity would be refreshing!

People see this issue different; and

Some how this diversity is such a surprise that it necessities the need to pitch a fit......

If diversity did not exist then there would be little need for a discussion


In my opinion as a peer we as adults should be secure enough in our own perspective to be able to tolerate some ones else respectful challenges.

I fail to see why some ones difference in perspective is cause for such negative emotional reaction,

This behavior is rather sad considering the age group participating in this discussion.

Now for the discusion:

psychosocial therapy’s benefits may not be tangible or even measurable by external observation. The benefit as given in mothers of ADD children feeling more positive and connected to their children after therapy (see initial article) would or could be externally measured how?? Is not the very premise of psychosocial therapy based upon internal experience of the individual ???

The very title of the thread opens up the topic of internal experience in my opinion. . . . please remember my opinion expressed in this post is that of a fellow member only. . . .

[SB_UK]

Originally Posted by meadd823

internal experience of the individual ???

Originally Posted by Nova,Sci Am {mind}

... from Nova's thread +/- 1/2 away from this guy...

The experiments we describe provide another puzzle for researchers who are seeking the neuronal basis of consciousness: the gamma oscillation that is closely associated with conscious perception does not just depend on external stimuli but also on the flexible inner dynamic of the brain. We theorize that neurons are constantly and actively predicting where the visual stimuli they expect will appear. Fries and other researchers have in fact measured the synchronization effect in the visual area of animals even before they were presented with an expected stimulus. Probably, brain regions such as the frontal cortex or the limbic system exercise influence over synchronization in the sensory areas.

Look - no

... flexible inner dynamic of the ...mind...

Look no words! SB.

[scuro]

Originally Posted by meadd823

How about a new approach to these discussions

Maturity would be refreshing!

Maturity 101 in a shared conversation
-Maturity in communication is making yourself aware about what the topic is. -If the conversation is interesting, listen some more and possibly interject.
-If the topic is boring, move on.
-Now if you are going to interject, try to add something to the conversation, other people really like that. It is these shared bon bons that make the conversation sparkle.
-Don't just put your two cents in, because at best people will end up ignoring you.
-Be knowledgeable about the topic if you are offering a countering viewpoint not held by many of the other conversationalists.
-Finally, relate your counter viewpoint to the topic at hand.

I fail to see why some ones difference in perspective is cause for such negative emotional reaction. This behavior is rather sad considering the age group participating in this discussion.

Consider this...you are at a party and you meet several interesting people. The conversation is lively and the topic interesting. Good ideas are being exchanged and then someone blurts out totally off topic and everyone stops to look. Some may respond, it's natural to do so. But gradually the conversation gets back on topic, but again the conversation is interrupted. Again this person is expounding on some totally irrelevant topic....

You can be polite about it, but how long does it take the average intelligent adult to get frustrated and go tell that person to go pi$$ off or to walk away? Frustration and anger are part of the human experience no matter what the age or intelligence. Some people display it, others bottle it in. What would you have us do? Walk away from every interesting conversation to be polite? That doesn't happen in the real world...thats some LaLa land politically correct world.

[meadd823]

Frustration and anger are part of the human experience no matter what the age or intelligence.

You are correct emotions do not mature however how they are expressed should.

Emotions even hostile ones can be channeled, in a productive direction. A lot of my research motivation is energy I derive from the emotion frustration.

Some people display it, others bottle it in. What would you have us do?

Handle the diversity or ignore it. You provided the answer to this question in your 101 mature post.

Don't just put your two cents in, because at best people will end up ignoring you.

In person one can not place a member of the conversation on ignore, that option is available here {well for most any way}

Walk away from every interesting conversation to be polite?

Or simply scroll through those parts you find to be redundant. This would be a nice option in the real world however it doesn’t exist.

That doesn't happen in the real world...thats some LaLa land politically correct world

This is above all a support forum,(NOT a debate forum) the rules are written to provide a safe place for ADD support. Not all on-line communities have the same atmosphere.

La La land politically correct world,
like subjectivity some times works in your favor.

An immediate example of this is:

In the real world what do you think would happen if you attempted to dictate to another male how he should express himself?

I have a feeling it would not be left up to moderators to handle!


Hope has helped.

Btw- Is there any way we can end the silly hostility and get back to the topic before I forget what it is. . . . . .

[scuro]

Btw- Is there any way we can end the silly hostility and get back to the topic before I forget what it is. . . . . .

The topic got killed off a long time ago. I was just doing a postmortem.

In the real world what do you think would happen if you attempted to dictate to another male how he should express himself?

I have a feeling it would not be left up to moderators to handle!

I didn't tell anyone what to do. I made suggestions on how to communicate in a group conversation and the points were not all specifically about any one thread or specific person. If someone gets in a huff about that, so be it. If that behaviour is really wrong, then make some new forum rule and I will abide by it.

Handle the diversity or ignore it.

Trolling describes some of those posts better then the word "diversity".

In person one can not place a member of the conversation on ignore, that option is available here {well for most any way}

Except your way, the thread still dies. Repetition, mutiple posts, pics, clutter, distraction, and above all nonending off topic musings...takes away from the conversation and kills it. You want the proof? Disect that thread post by post and watch the good posts slowly disappear. Cause and effect. If there is no rule for trolling, certainly you can allow some leeway for people to speak the truth.

This is above all a support forum,(NOT a debate forum) the rules are written to provide a safe place for ADD support. Not all on-line communities have the same atmosphere.

The banner states, the ultimate world online resource centre for ADHD. I see support here but I see no strategic focus on support on a global level. The message I get from the banner tells me that this is a place to share information and ideas. That is what that thread was originally about. Perhaps if greater effort was put into protecting ideas and information, we wouldn't be having this conversation.