House of Eratosthenes

We very often fail to express skeptical thoughts about things richly deserving of skeptical thought, through our failure to give those things names. The reverse is true as well: A lot of the things that are frequently on the receiving end of mindless criticism, are derogatorily named, when there exists little rational cause for them to be named at all, let alone criticized. “Unfettered capitalism” would be tops on that list. “Climate change” would be a close second. If it’s climate, don’t we expect it to change? If it’s the free-trade brand of capitalism, isn’t it impossible for it to be unfettered? Whoever loses out, should be in a position to do some fettering. Patriarchy. Heteronormativity. Hyper-nationalism. Jingoism. Such terms exist, not because of any pre-existing need to describe something, but because of a need someone had to destroy something.

Most of the time I make up words, this is the reason why: Something, somewhere, is getting away with becoming mainstream just because nobody’s calling out its toxicities or deficiencies, and they’re not calling it out because there’s no name for whatever it is.

We need a name to describe pointlessly elaborate explanations for undesirable situations. We already have a rule that says people should make the effort to avoid them, it’s called Occam’s Razor. Example: Last night I saw a light in the sky that is unlike any I have ever seen. The most alluring explanation that can be found for this, would be that I saw an aircraft engineered and sent over here by an extraterrestrial intelligence. That would likely mean, though, that someone had achieved interstellar travel, which must mean waiting some extraordinary length of time for a journey to be completed or else achieving FTL (faster than light) velocity. The simpler explanation is the less exciting one, that I’ve witnessed a light show that is outside of my previous experience. Fireflies, swamp gas, or if you really want to get unhinged, some experimental craft being fiddled around with by the Air Force. But there exist among us many who will irrationally leap to the little-green-men theory.

And here, I must focus my misgivings upon parents of small children, and the mental/behavioral-health practitioners who enable them. We need a word to describe this phobia they have against the simpler explanation to be supplied with regard to undesirable behavior — which, I notice, would involve some work for the parents. Example: It is work for the parents to counsel the child “We are expected to abide by certain behavioral customs at the dinner table, such as not telling our invited guests to go fuck themselves in the ear.” Simple explanation: Johnny needed to be told this. Work: Make the lesson stick. This may involve a confrontation if Johnny thinks it’s acceptable behavior to tell people to go fuck themselves at the dinner table. It may involve an assertion of the protocol that the parents are right and Johnny needs to change his mindset.

A lot of parents aren’t up to the challenge, so we have Tourettes, ADHD, and all sorts of codswallop like that. We do have the controversies over whether these are real or imagined maladies, but I notice those discussions often get sidetracked into exchanges about the maladies themselves, to wit: “I knew someone who knew someone whose kid had hardcore Tourettes, and it was freaky, he did…[insert long windy paragraph about what the freaky kid did]…and if you haven’t been around someone like that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Which is the purest kind of abject nonsense, of course. You don’t need to have met that other kid to be able to say something about “Johnny.”

The point is, the issue is not the learning-disability or maturity-deficiency itself. The issue is, what are you concluding about the boy’s genetics/environment, and what evidence has been brought to your attention — or anybody else’s — to provide rational support for what you are concluding. We seem to be living in an age in which, for reasons not fully explored or defined, our current prevailing cultural sensibilities are stuck in a belief that parenting needs to be zero-effort. I’m really not sure where we got this. It seems to have snuck up behind us and caught us all in a big net when we weren’t looking. But these “diagnoses” of learning disabilities are based not so much on scientific thinking, or even on scientific knowledge, but more on a logical contortion of our reasoning skills, toward the end of finding support for a conclusion that would demand as little as possible effort out of the parents, particularly in the realm of having unpleasant confrontational conversations with their kids.

So everyone & his dog seems to have a learning disability that explains what the kid’s doing that he isn’t supposed to be doing.

Left unexplained, is: This is driving a statistical skyrocketing of the so-called “diagnoses”; a lot of people are supposed to be super-duper concerned about that, but not nearly enough to ask some questions or re-think anything.

Regarding ADHD, etc…..

I used to date a junior college teacher who said (I paraphrase): “They can sit still and play World of Warcraft or Xbox Live for 15 hours straight, but ask them to take one 45-minute quiz in class and they need a special desk, a proctor, a coach, a copy of your class notes, and extra time. Because of ‘learning disabilities.'”

That about covers it, i think.
- Severian | 10/17/2011 @ 20:18
I used to date a junior college teacher who said (I paraphrase)…

Sev, perhaps I can provide a bit of clarification.

I was diagnosed with ADD back in 1982, before it was popular or trendy or whatever you wish to call it. It’s become fashionable on the Right these days to question the existence of this disorder, or to suggest that parents and school administrators and behavioral counselors and psychiatrists and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny all want to drug some kid (read “boy”) simply for engaging in normal behavior. Mike Adams, normally one of my favorite columnists, floats this same theory from time to time. I’ve asked him a couple of times now if this is what he really means to suggest – that the condition is phony and those who treat it, charlatans – and he never responds to the question…which is interesting. I may have even asked Morgan this and not gotten a straight answer out of him, either.

Whenever I hear someone suggest that the disorder isn’t real, I want to smack them in the head. Such asserters have no idea what it’s like to sit in class and have your mind wander off every minute or two, and not even realize it until it suddenly dawns on you that you’ve missed the last couple minutes of the professor’s lecture. To not be able to read a textbook (or perhaps any book) for the same reason. To have enormous difficulty focusing on any task which is essential but not particularly interesting.

Your colleague/date made this observation because of a common misconception about ADD and ADHD. The problem isn’t really a deficit of attention – in fact maybe it’s time they started calling it something else. The problem has more to do with the inability to screen out distractions – ADD sufferers pay attention to *everything,* instead of just to whatever task is at hand.

One of the key symptoms of the disorder, ironically, is “hyperfocus.” When presented with something that’s actually interesting to the suffer – such as a game of World of Warcraft – the sufferer focuses on it to the point of actually resenting distraction and interruption. Believe me, it was intensely frustrating to me in college to be unable to pay a dime’s worth of attention to a calculus lecture, but have no problem playing Quake II for 10 hours straight, and actually resent being bothered by the telephone, household members, or even the need to eat or go to the bathroom.

As for the drugs, all I can tell you is that some of them do actually help. Some people, again, dismiss the idea of brain chemicals out-of-balance as poppycock, but the drugs purport to restore this, and sometimes they ease the symptoms. (And it seems unlikely these drugs would have received FDA approval, without the usual clinical trials to screen out placebo effects.)

I know, I know…I wouldn’t believe it either…but I’ve lived it. And I can tell you it is maddening to hear someone imply that I’m imagining my condition or to suggest that the problem is entirely related to “lack of discipline.”
- cylarz | 10/18/2011 @ 18:55
Can’t speak for Mike Adams, but I’m not offering a straight answer because it’s off-topic. A discussion of whether a diagnosis has been rendered on a specific child without due diligence, shouldn’t morph into a discussion about whether the disability is non-existent or not. How do we get from one to the other? It’s a complete red herring.
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2011 @ 19:09
A lot of parents aren’t up to the challenge, so we have Tourettes, ADHD, and all sorts of codswallop like that.

Your use of the word “codswallop” suggests you think the disorder isn’t real. You then offer us this gem:

We do have the controversies over whether these are real or imagined maladies, but I notice those discussions often get sidetracked into exchanges about the maladies themselves, to wit…

At the risk of sounding childish, Morgan…you started it. I was merely responding that I’ve become irritated with those who think ADD is a product of the psychiatric profession / educational establishment / parental laziness…and not a real, treatable medical condition.

Especially glaring was this:
“I knew someone who knew someone whose kid had hardcore Tourettes, and it was freaky, he did…[insert long windy paragraph about what the freaky kid did]…and if you haven’t been around someone like that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

It’s interesting that you quote this, then go right on to say whatever it was you were saying. It’s like someone saying, “Yeah, yeah, I know – ‘Apollo 11 brought back moon rocks and three astronauts offered credible testimony about the Moon’s composition.’ But as I was saying, the thing is made of green cheese, and any effort to debunk that claim is a red herring.” (Frankly it reminds me of my boss – he’ll sit there and listen to pertinent facts which have a huge bearing on some situation, then proceed to hand down his decision as if he hadn’t heard a word that was said.)
- cylarz | 10/18/2011 @ 19:15
Cylarz,

apologies — I was being flippant.

On the other hand, I didn’t say the diagnosis isn’t “real;” I implied — which I think is indisputable — that it’s waaaay overdiagnosed, largely on the insistence of parents and/or students who simply don’t want to deal with the very real traumas of socialization.

[Believe me, I’ve seen folks with honest-to-gosh ADD; you don’t have to convince me that it’s a serious problem for those who have it].

My complaint– which I fully admit could have/ should have been stated better — is with folks who insist that every single bump in life’s rocky road is a “syndrome” requiring “treatment,” which invariably means me going way out of my way to accommodate stuff that in olden days would be treated with a swift kick in the pants.

Chances are, if you can bear down enough to play WoW for days on end, you can take a 45-minute language arts quiz. You don’t have ADHD; you have “I don’t feel like doing my homework”-itis. Similarly, if you can hold it together long enough to host a LARP discussion board and meet your clan for a three-day battle royale, you don’t have Asperger’s Syndrome, you have “I don’t want to socialize and prefer to live in a fantasy realm of my own devising” syndrome.

All of which are perfectly legit, feelings-wise — who wants to do homework or hang out with the knuckleheads that populate junior high schools? — but the net effect is that it trivializes real problems, while fueling the cynicism of insensitive jerks like me. 🙂
- Severian | 10/18/2011 @ 20:13
I didn’t write clearly, or you don’t want to read what I’m writing. Probably a combination of the two.

First question I have is: If we get into it about you…or about some third-party kid who’s a “borderline” case, where there’s ample evidence to suggest he’s got a handicap and then there’s ample evidence that he doesn’t. How does the extreme case even enter into it? Here we are talking about this maybe-so-maybe-not kid, and suddenly we’re supposed to ponder these anecdotes about Rain Man. That’s what I mean by red herring. Why would Rain Man even get brought up?

Second question: How come the other side doesn’t benefit from the “I’ve got an anecdote that proves it exists, therefore it deserves the benefit of the doubt” argument? In other words…we KNOW there are mothers who don’t want to confront their kids, and are doping them up so that it’s easier to do the discipline. We know the medication, in some cases, is being abused and the diagnosis is a false one. We know this. Isn’t it just as fair to say “Sometimes it’s overdiagnosed, so let’s give serious consideration to the possibility that’s the case here”…as…”Sometimes it’s real, so let’s seriously consider that’s the case here.” It’s the same logic, just being applied in the opposite direction. So how come one argument flies and the other one doesn’t?
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2011 @ 20:33
Well spoken, Sev. My beef wasn’t with you, as I see quite clearly what you’re trying to say. I responded to your post to clear up what I saw as a bit of misinformation, nothing more.

And I’m not even particularly sure it was with Morgan, since he refuses to answer my question, apparently believing it to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. My beef *is* with those who would look me in the eye and tell me, “There’s nothing wrong with you that a trip through USMC boot camp wouldn’t fix.” If only it were that simple.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter if anyone thinks the disorder is indeed make-believe: there’s 30 years of research done, some of which can be uncovered with a simple Google search. Thanks for weighing-in.
- cylarz | 10/18/2011 @ 20:34
and then there’s ample evidence that he doesn’t.

What exactly, would this “evidence” consist of, hypothetically? It’s not a TB test or an exam looking for signs of STDs. Either a child exhibits some of the ADD symptoms, or he doesn’t. The kid is evaluated by an experienced mental health professional and put on medication as appropriate. It’s the same as diagnosing someone with autism or Asperger’s or irrational phobias or social anxiety disorder. (Or do you doubt them, too? Are they overdiagnosed, as well?)

Here we are talking about this maybe-so-maybe-not kid, and suddenly we’re supposed to ponder these anecdotes about Rain Man.

You’ve never provided an ounce of writing to suggest you believe “Rain Man” is an honest-to-goodness case of ADD, for one, so that leads me to suspect you think there is no Rain Man, much less a Rain Man-lite. That’s why we’re pondering the anecdotes. On the contrary, every time you’ve pontificated on the subject, it’s to say the same thing you’ve said here tonight: Parents and school administrators are lazy, the mental health profession is out to make a quick buck, the whole thing’s a racket. Tell me I’m wrong about you and that I’ve reached a hasty conclusion.

If I may be so bold, Morgan, I think you’re backtracking. You’ve gone out on a limb in what you believed was a safe environment, and unexpectedly someone came along and said, “Hey, waitaminnit there, buddy. I’ve been diagnosed myself and have been living with the disorder for almost thirty years. I’m a bit skeptical of any claim that it’s not real.” And now you simply do not know how to respond. (For the record, my dad has it even worse than I do, and its not a stretch to suggest the disorder is hereditary.)

I’ll now add to that: I’m also skeptical of the claim it’s overdiagnosed. You say it is…based on what? Your opinion that little boys need to be allowed to be little boys…even when they’re disrupting classes, flunking out of school, getting into fights on the playground, disrespecting teachers and other authority figures? Besides, there are problem children who happen to be girls, and some of them have been likewise diagnosed.

Maybe the kid isn’t just acting up, maybe it isn’t just too much sugar or too much Grand Theft Auto. Maybe he’s got something really wrong with him, and maybe he ought to be evaluated by a licensed medical professional who can draw on decades of research done on children like this. And maybe he ought to be put on medication, especially if other children like him have been helped by the drugs. I just don’t see where you have any business making such any such claim of overdiagnosis, at least credibly. Where are your credentials?

In other words…we KNOW there are mothers who don’t want to confront their kids, and are doping them up so that it’s easier to do the discipline. We know the medication, in some cases, is being abused and the diagnosis is a false one. We know this.

We? Know? There’s no “we” and there’s no “know.” “We know” no such things. You’re welcome to make all the assertions you like, but don’t expect me to find them convincing.

Isn’t it just as fair to say “Sometimes it’s overdiagnosed, so let’s give serious consideration to the possibility that’s the case here”…as…”Sometimes it’s real, so let’s seriously consider that’s the case here.”

Again…based on WHAT? You’re welcome to your opinion, but what are you trying to say? That society is being drugged and feminized and taken over by our nanny state overlords who think they know best? Fine, say that. Just don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
- cylarz | 10/18/2011 @ 20:56
Now correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t I opine at great length in this post about extravagant explanations versus simple ones, Occam’s Razor, and all that. This is what I mean by me writing stuff and you not wanting to pick up on the point. The kid is showing these difficulties…Severian has offered it to be an indisputable point that the overdiagnosis is a problem, I don’t see you taking issue with that…so it should be quite clearly established that we’ve got an extravagant explanation, that the kid’s brain isn’t wired right, and a simple one. That being, the kid simply hasn’t been walked through the steps, doesn’t envision success through this effort, hasn’t been motivated to.

How come, as a matter of routine, we leap to the extravagant explanation?

Honestly Cylarz, the way it looks to me is: The first few cases, there’s a whole lot of frustrated hamster-wheel spinning as the kid is repeatedly backed into a corner, to show some skills he simply doesn’t have, like a one-legged man kicking a butt. Okay, so there’s a diagnosis. Maybe it’s legitimate. But then — and this is where our disagreement takes place — these other kids that come along later, they’re just diagnosed the same way, without the hamster-wheel spinning first. No attempt is made to go through the hard knocks first. Very much like turning the ignition key a couple times, and then pronouncing the car must need a new engine. You’re not trying to tell me you can’t see the flaw in that reasoning?

We’re talking about the potential of a person here, over an entire lifetime. Lots of engines being pulled out when the ignition doesn’t turn over after a couple of cranks…and I see this pattern setting in, when if I merely challenge the diagnosis, en masse or in a few isolated cases, it doesn’t matter, I run into people who are arguing the matter the way you’re arguing it, emotionally. As if the refusal to even consider the possibility of overdiagnosis, is supposed to prove something. I also can’t help noticing it’s a central pillar to this counter-argument that it’s hard for certain people to concentrate on things. Well yeah — I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, if the trends in behavioral health science were advanced just a few years or if I was born a little bit later, I could easily have been diagnosed with all kinds of stuff. They call ADD the “CEO’s disability,” don’t they? All right…these kids being put on this medication, are they then being given the encouragement to explore entrepreneurial/leadership career avenues? And if not, why not? See, you start asking these questions which are only reasonable, it starts to look more and more like parents just looking for a quick fix. Not saying that’s the way it is in all cases, I’m saying it’s a mistake to consider the elaborate explanations first.

That’s just accepted as common sense in all other pursuits. Why not here?
- mkfreeberg | 10/18/2011 @ 21:10

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

DJEver Notice? LXVIIIMonday, October 17th, 2011

DJEver Notice? LXVIII
Monday, October 17th, 2011