[Big Mac]

I'm wondering if, in contemporary society, we take the great achievements we've made in computing technology for granted. The fact that we have such an abundance of (relatively) cheap, powerful and quality computing resources across the computing spectrum. If you've read folklore.org you've looked at the incredible things they were able to do with such primitive hardware, yet we seem to never really be satisfied. We seem to take for granted that the complex mixture of discreet technological parts of hardware and software combine so well and so transparently to give us so much productivity and power. Or am I just easily impressed?

[Laminar]

Yes.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Yes.

Darn, beat me to it.

-t

[Jan Van Boghout]

I'd say this is a sign of hugely successful technologies. We also take electricity, cars, and telephones for granted. It would be tiring to celebrate every time you plug something into a socket or step into your car

[Cipher13]

We take everything for granted, from socks to computers, deodorant to wheels. Everything contemporary is taken for granted, at any point in time [where it is contemporary].

It'll never be any other way.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

We take everything for granted, from socks to computers, deodorant to wheels. Everything contemporary is taken for granted, at any point in time [where it is contemporary].

It'll never be any other way.

Darn, beat me to it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Darn, beat me to it.

Darn, beat me to it.

[shifuimam]

I think we especially take the Internet for granted. Can you even remember life before Google? Facebook? YouTube? Things change so quickly, and once we are given a new technology, we find it hard to get along without it. How in the world did you find rare imports of your favorite groups before downloading music was in vogue? One of my favorite bands has three albums that were never even released in the United States...before the Internet, I'd never have known that music existed, let alone been able to listen to it.

I think it's kind of sad, actually. The technology revolution has resulted in some serious consequences. Kids seem to be getting dumber, obesity is more of a problem (When you play WoW for nine hours a day, you get fat. Just sayin'.), the average person's ability to communicate in person is stunted because they do all their communicating through texting and emails and Facebook and IM. Not to say that such communication is inherently bad, but it *can* have an adverse impact on things.

One of the things I realized is that after I got a cell phone, I quit memorizing people's phone numbers. I dated a guy who wouldn't use the phone book in his cell phone - it forced him to remember numbers, so that if he was without his phone, he could still make important calls. It's little stuff like that - and the bigger things, like increases in obesity and the epidemic of mostly false "disorders" like ADD - which, in my opinion, proves that our huge leaps in technology in even the last 20 years can be (and are) abused.

I think that worst of all, the technology boom has spoiled us to expect instant gratification in anything. It's not just about fast food anymore. We always want everything bigger, better, and most importantly, faster. Faster video downloads. Faster computers. Faster text messaging. Faster everything. The benefits of technology largely outweigh the negative impact, but that impact is still there...

[Big Mac]

Well said, shifuimam.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Well said, shifuimam.

If only I could live without the Internet...I'm such an e-hypocrite.

[Chuckit]

I guess I don't see the problem. The entire idea of advancement is that we then have a new tool to use. Human beings have always used technology to make up for our frailties — that's literally what we are designed for. The idea that this is a bad thing strikes me as romantic nonsense.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess I don't see the problem. The entire idea of advancement is that we then have a new tool to use. Human beings have always used technology to make up for our frailties — that's literally what we are designed for. The idea that this is a bad thing strikes me as romantic nonsense.

It's not *just* "a bad thing" - my point is that it CAN be very, very abused. Think about what life was like before mankind developed the first bomb, or the first gun. These things have been used beneficially - to stop a global war, or to hunt and kill animals for food before we had modern forms of animal production. But both can also be used in very bad ways - to threaten a country, to kill people, to needlessly murder...

While the Internet has yet to be the method used to actually take a life, it can be just as bad. I doubt we had these epidemics of morbid obesity and ADD/ADHD before the age of screen-based entertainment (which I realize goes outside the realm of just computing technology, but at this point, the two almost go hand-in-hand). The technology revolution has had some significant and great impacts on culture as a whole. I have Internet-based friends in five different countries all over the globe. I work daily with people literally on the other side of the planet without giving the significance of that ability a second thought.

But while technology has given us so much, it's also made us lazier, stupider, and more selfish. You can learn great things on the Internet - I've learned a lot through self-motivated research into a topic that has resulted in branching off from the Internet into reading books and whitepapers and watching documentaries on a subject. But you can't deny that our entertainment-on-a-screen culture has also made us stupider. The average American reads far less than decades past, because we have televisions and video games and movies and the Internet to occupy our free time. This has had a notable impact on most teenagers' ability to write coherently and spell properly and learn things like using context to define an unknown word. It's made us lazy and constantly demanding instant gratification. What we used to be willing to wait ten minutes for we now demand in forty-five seconds. It's made us fat. Obesity didn't happen often before humans were able to sit in front of a television or computer for sixteen hours a day staring at a screen and eating Ho-Hos and Cheetos nonstop.

Advancement does give us new tools to use - and abuse. Unlike things like nuclear weapons, though, computing technology is easily accessible to anyone and everyone, which makes its abuse far more widespread. It's the idea of taking responsibility for yourself and not letting it run (or ruin) your life that many people have forgotten.

[starman]

To make a quick point about instant gratification, that started before the 'net. Overnight couriers and MacConnection's "overnight for $3" deal is where we got spoiled.

Think of the telephone. The telephone of the 1940's was that era's "instant gratification". Even radio. You didn't have to wait for the newspaper anymore. People don't like waiting to know things. I don't. I mean, hell, we have Twitter now for God's sake. We can see what people are doing all over the world in an instant. It's cool, right? I think so. I use it myself. The thing is, do we NEED it? No, we don't, but it is wicked cool.

Let's see, life in the 70's and 80's. No internet, but BBS's. If I was stuck on a game, I was screwed. Now we look up strat guides. If I was stuck on a BASIC or C or Pascal project, where do you go? Maybe, MAYBE a magazine/book store that MIGHT have the book you're looking for that has your SPECIFIC problem listed in there.

Back then I had to order my laserdiscs over the phone. I knew the girl at Ken Crane's very well after a few months.

shifuimam makes a damn good point about person-to-person contact. I try to polish my social skills all the time. Going to the gym every day helps tremendously (and keeps the pounds off!). Could I live without the net for a year? Well, that would be hard to do considering that 1) I do a podcast, 2) the podcast is about a game that requires the 'net to play, and 3) I need a computer to take pictures which I send over the 'net.

But is the 'net BAD? It's only as bad as you let it be. Back in the day I'd be on the phone for hours. How different is it today? I talk to friends, but they're on the net. I'd PREFER to hear their voices, but unfortunately, people would rather now. In fact, there have been times when I'd ask "would you rather talk on Skype" and I'd get "no, I don't feel like talking". Social skills ftl. On the other hand, my friend Molly had a problem with her Mac the other day. We were twittering about it and instead I picked up the phone and called her because 1) it's easier and 2) giving instructions on how to fix a Mac is easier than posting Tweets about it. And yes, her Mac is fine now.

But remember, there were a large group of CB radio users before the 'net. I was one of them. It was that era's way of social communication. People seem to forget that. I met a few people back then. It was fun. The 'net isn't anything new as far as social networks go, but it is faster.

[iMOTOR]

I think another example of technology abuse is people who don't take responsibility for their actions, but rather blame technology for their f' ups. How many times have you been told by a company: "It's not our fault the computer decided to put false charges on your account".

Or that girl on the evening news the other day telling congress how evil computers are because hers "led her to a sexual predator". The problem isn't computers, the problem is perverts who prey on girls that have sh_t for brains.

[Kevin]

As a society as a whole? Sure. I surely don't. I remember when there was no internets. And computers weren't in every home.

And you had to walk uphill both ways just to log onto IRC.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

... girls that have sh_t for brains.

Holy redundancy Batman!

V

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR 

I think another example of technology abuse is people who don't take responsibility for their actions, but rather blame technology for their f' ups. How many times have you been told by a company: "It's not our fault the computer decided to put false charges on your account".

Or that girl on the evening news the other day telling congress how evil computers are because hers "led her to a sexual predator". The problem isn't computers, the problem is perverts who prey on girls that have sh_t for brains.

It's the new "Marilyn Manson made me do it."

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Jan Van Boghout 

It would be tiring to celebrate every time you plug something into a socket.

That just means it was done correctly.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

and the epidemic of mostly false "disorders" like ADD -

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I doubt we had these epidemics of ... ADD/ADHD before the age of screen-based entertainment

Not to derail, but I hope you're not one of those people who thinks "there's no such thing as ADHD." I will agree that it is way overdiagnosed in this day and age, but it DOES exist. It has to be properly diagnosed. And many kids are NOT properly diagnosed, which is the real problem.

[Doofy]

Since most of the companies I buy stuff off like to discontinue their products and replace them with something inferior (i.e. Jeeps without live axles, Apple keyboards) I don't tend to take anything for granted.

[theDreamer]

I think those who do not understand technology will always take it for granted, but those who are a bit more educated (still do sometimes) are more level headed and understand the work, time it takes to make this product and exactly what it was designed to do.

To many times I am in my office, they all know I love computers, technology, the whole nine yards, and will ask me why there computer does not do X thing...I look at them and just stare for awhile. They then respond with "What?" but they have no clue that what they want is not something a computer today is designed to do or any piece of technology they are using (printer, scanner, PHONES, portal hard drives, etc.)

[residentEvil]

i think there is close to 69% of the people on websites and forums who shouldn't be allowed to use computing technology. 99% here at those forum. you read the **** people post here? god damn ****ing morons.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

epidemic of mostly false "disorders" like ADD - which, in my opinion, proves that our huge leaps in technology in even the last 20 years can be (and are) abused.

I'd do a bit more studying about ADD before you call it false.

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Not to derail, but I hope you're not one of those people who thinks "there's no such thing as ADHD." I will agree that it is way overdiagnosed in this day and age, but it DOES exist. It has to be properly diagnosed. And many kids are NOT properly diagnosed, which is the real problem.

Exactly. Anyone that says ADD/ADHD doesn't exist hasn't done their homework.

[scaught]

No. These boxes do work for me, not the other way around. I don't bow to the SQL server at work, I make it my bitch.

[starman]

Funny, there was no ADD when I was a kid. Maybe this new "disease" is a product of too much hair spray from the 80's?

Oh yeah, we paid attention in class growing up, too. Without drugs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starman 

Funny, there was no ADD when I was a kid.

Oh there was. People just didn't understand it. Just like addiction is being treated like a disease because of new things they have found out about it. At one time there wasn't "name any mental disorder" when some random person was a kid. That didn't mean it didn't exist. They just had no term, or treatment of it. There are examples of kids throughout history that had ADHD/ADD symptoms. Thomas Edison was one of them. Which makes the "no one had ADD when I was a kid" argument a bad one. You can't have something that isn't understood yet. A lot of smart kids used to be abused and called "lazy" for things they could not help either.

Oh yeah, we paid attention in class growing up, too. Without drugs.

I bet not everyone payed attention during class.

But I am glad YOU could. My fiancé's son is a definite ADHD sufferer.


BTW

[starman]

I know many examples of kids misdiagnosed with ADD. Sorry, I don't believe it exists.

[theDreamer]

Originally Posted by starman 

I know many examples of kids misdiagnosed with ADD. Sorry, I don't believe it exists.

This is on a fine line now.
The parents are some what to blame because their child is to tough to handle so they pressure the doctor to diagnose ADD so the child will be given some drugs to calm him down.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by starman 

Funny, there was no ADD when I was a kid. Maybe this new "disease" is a product of too much hair spray from the 80's?

Oh yeah, we paid attention in class growing up, too. Without drugs.

When were you a kid?

ADD most certainly exists. There was a time when there was no medical treatment for it. The kids that had it when you were in school probably got labeled troublemakers and did poorly in school because either nobody could help them, or nobody bothered to. ADD has a long history over the past century, and has been called different things over the years, including "Defect of Moral Control" (1902), "Post-Encephalitic Behavior Disorder" (1922, apparently they thought that it was the result of brain damage from encephalitis), "Minimal Brain Dysfunction" (early 1960s), "Hyperkinetic Disorder of Childhood" (late 1960s). It wasn't until 1980 that "Attention Deficit Disorder" was described in the DSM III.

Ritalin was first used to treat hyperactivity in kids in 1956. It wouldn't be until 1996 that a second medication, Adderall, would be approved to treat it.

Today, we recognize ADD as due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. There are even new, non-stimulant medications available now to treat it, such as Strattera, which is not related in any way, shape, or form to stimulants.

So, ADD has been around for a long time, it's just been called something else.

Also, as I said before, it has to be PROPERLY diagnosed. It's a side effect of our "instant gratification" society that many children are improperly diagnosed, and there are all too many doctors willing to "cut corners" in the diagnosis process and prescribe medicine. Better to medicate than (gasp!) do a proper work up and find out what the real problem is. Or if there is even a problem at all.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by starman 

I know many examples of kids misdiagnosed with ADD.

Yes, but the fact that it is overdiagnosed DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST!

It is WAY overdiagnosed. BUT IT DOES EXIST. IT HAS TO BE ***DIAGNOSED PROPERLY***

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

This is on a fine line now.
The parents are some what to blame because their child is to tough to handle so they pressure the doctor to diagnose ADD so the child will be given some drugs to calm him down.

Not just the parents. The teachers, etc share in the blame.

Johnny or Susie acts out in school. Teacher presses parent to take them to "this ADD specialist she knows." That doctor is recommended because he doesn't follow the proper diagnostic workup, cuts corners, and immediately arrives at ADD. (Teacher doesn't know that and neither do the parents, and even the doctor himself might be deluded into thinking he's doing it correctly. Remember, this doctor may be teaching medical students, interns, and residents who then go on to think that they're doing it "properly.")

ADD doesn't have to be treated with medication, you know. It can be treated with psychotherapy. But that takes too long. It's easier to medicate them. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starman 

I know many examples of kids misdiagnosed with ADD. Sorry, I don't believe it exists.

Well you don't have to believe it exists for it to. I assure you.

Just because kids are misdiagnosed doesn't mean that there aren't kids that do have it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

ADD doesn't have to be treated with medication, you know. It can be treated with psychotherapy. But that takes too long. It's easier to medicate them. And yes, I'm being sarcastic.

yeah I think medication is the wrong way to go too. What basically is "wrong" with these people is, their brain doesn't work the way society has demanded people to react like, or to learn like.

We are slowly seeing that not everyone fits in the same mold that society is trying to cram them into.

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Yes, but the fact that it is overdiagnosed DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST!

It is WAY overdiagnosed. BUT IT DOES EXIST. IT HAS TO BE ***DIAGNOSED PROPERLY***

Whoa. Now that you say it in all caps and add fancy asterisks, it all makes sense!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by scaught 

Whoa. Now that you say it in all caps and add fancy asterisks, it all makes sense!

No, the fact that what he says is true is what makes sense.

[starman]

All caps? Charts and graphs? I'm convinced!

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by scaught 

Whoa. Now that you say it in all caps and add fancy asterisks, it all makes sense!

Well, no, but this is a topic that makes me mad sometimes. It's not nice to be told that the disorder you have "doesn't exist, and never did," when there is PLENTY of scientific evidence to show that it really does exist.

I wish they would do a study to see what the overdiagnosis rate is. Take a bunch of kids, all diagnosed as having ADD, and then going over their charts to see how the diagnosis was arrived at. And testing them with brain scans like what Kevin has posted, and see which kids truly have it and which ones don't.

I imagine it would be very eye-opening, but it probably won't get done because it's not "politically correct" at the current time.

Oh, and I'll let you in on a "secret," though I've revealed it here before. I have Adult ADD. I had it as a child, too. My mother tried me on Ritalin at age 5 at the suggestion a teacher. It turned me into a zombie. Within a couple weeks she had me off it and into therapy. I was a little disorganized throughout elementary school, and each year a teacher would plead with my mother to medicate me, but she held her ground. Things improved in middle school because now I was actually changing classes and getting a different teacher every hour. Held my attention better. I coped with ADD all through high school and college and medical school and the first two years of residency without medication. Then, in my third year of residency, my performance started slipping. One of my trainers recognized this, and urged me to see a psychiatrist. So I did, I had a few therapy sessions, and the therapist suggested I try a little medication. I first tried Strattera. Worked well, but side effects bothered me (hey, I'm male and we don't take much of a liking to what amounts to "chemical castration), so I stopped it. I went on low dose Adderall XR. Worked great. Got through the rest of residency. Started working in the "real world." Stopped the Adderall. Did well until my workload increased. Started lashing out at my staff. Decided to go back to psychiatrist. Now back on a little Adderall. Doing great.

There's a few new non-stimulant drugs in the pipeline, and as soon as one comes out that doesn't have the aforementioned undesired side effect, I'm all over that one. Adderall makes my mouth dry and I don't like that very much at all. I should mention that I still get some therapy, too, and I'm convinced that it allows me to take a much lower dose of medication than I'd otherwise need.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by starman 

All caps? Charts and graphs? I'm convinced!

Ok, so I over reacted. But you would too, if you had a real disorder and were repeatedly told by society that it "didn't really exist," even in the face of scientific evidence (which has only very recently surfaced) that it does.

It's only been in the last 7 years that science and technology and our understanding of the brain has progressed to the point where we can demonstrate that ADD is real. Look at my post above.

My position isn't that far off from yours, starman. The only difference is that I know that ADD is real and it exists. And it is WAY, WAY overdiagnosed.

[starman]

I'm confused. Is it overdiagnosed or is society saying it doesn't exist? We can't have both here.

I'm not saying that there isn't SOME kind of problem, but I think "ADD" is too general. I'd bet that in 10 years people will find that ADD ITSELF may not exist, but that there's something as yet undiscovered which could explain it more.

I'm just going by my experience pre-ADD phenomenon. Everyone wants to medicate their kids now because it's the easier solution. Thank God I don't do that to my kids.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by starman 

I'm confused. Is it overdiagnosed or is society saying it doesn't exist? We can't have both here.

I think many people in society are saying it doesn't exist because it's overdiagnosed. If you overdiagnose too many people, then people start to believe that it's not real. Like fibromyalgia, another overdiagnosed illness.

Originally Posted by starman

I'm not saying that there isn't SOME kind of problem, but I think "ADD" is too general. I'd bet that in 10 years people will find that ADD ITSELF may not exist, but that there's something as yet undiscovered which could explain it more.

The term ADD itself sounds general, but it's the best description we've got at this point in time. Look at my earlier post. The same disorder has been called Defect of Moral Control, Post-Encephalitic Behavior Disorder (apparently they thought that it was the result of brain damage from encephalitis), Minimal Brain Dysfunction, Hyperkinetic Disorder of Childhood, Attention Deficit Disorder, and now Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (subdivided into hyperactive-type and inattentive-type).

I expect, as our understanding improves, we will start calling it something else, and then something else, and then something else. Maybe we will find that hyperactive-predominant ADHD and inattentive-predominant ADHD are actually two separate disorders.

Incidentally, I have the "inattentive" type, predominantly. I didn't misbehave in school (the kindergarten teacher mistook normal 5 year old behavior for hyperactivity... she didn't have kids of her own), so had it not been for that, I could have been overlooked for longer, and maybe even held back a year or two.

Originally Posted by starman

I'm just going by my experience pre-ADD phenomenon.

I see two potential factors that could have influenced your experience. 1. It wasn't called ADD until 1980. 2. People weren't as aware of it then.

I believe it's become very popular because it's just another "label" that allows people to escape responsibility for their behavior.

"I'm not misbehaving, I have Oppositional Defiant Disorder. I can't help it."
"I'm not lazy, I have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I can't help it."
"It's not our fault Susie misbehaves, doesn't listen to us, is doing poorly in school, and doesn't pay attention. She has ADD. She can't help it."

BULLSH*T.

Originally Posted by starman

Everyone wants to medicate their kids now because it's the easier solution. Thank God I don't do that to my kids.

Yep. Don't get me wrong. Medications have their place, but they shouldn't be the only solution. It's like diet and exercise. You can lose weight just by dieting. You can lose weight just by exercising. Combine the two, and you can lose so much more than you could with either one by itself.

Medication works for ADD. So does psychotherapy. Combine the two, and it works so much better, and each allows the other to work better. You need less medication with therapy, and you need less therapy with medication.

The same is true of depression, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and any other psychiatric disorder. But who wants to pay for therapy when you can just "pop a pill?" That's also why people don't want to take responsibility for their weight. "Diet and exercise is too hard." They want a pill to make it go away instantly.

[starman]

I dunno. How many medications did you list above that didn't work?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by starman 

I dunno. How many medications did you list above that didn't work?

I didn't say they didn't work.

Ritalin works. Adderall works. Strattera works. Not all medicines work in all people and at this point we don't have any way of knowing before giving a medicine whether it will work without giving it to them. Take allergic rhinitis, for example. We have Claritin, Clarinex, Allegra, and Zyrtec. In some people Claritin doesn't work, but Zyrtec does. Some people can't take Zyrtec because it doesn't work for them, but Claritin and Allegra do. No different with the different pills available for ADD.

Ritalin worked for me, but I wasn't "me" any more. It produced the result that my kindergarten teacher wanted. Mom thankfully saw through that, and went a different route.

Strattera worked incredibly well for me, for the intended purpose. But if I'm going to take something to help my focus, I'm not going to trade it for the loss of other natural male body functions. Not to mention that because of the way it works, it takes about a month for the full effect to start, and because of that, it's "always on," even when I don't need it to be.

Adderall XR seems to fit the bill best for me at the moment, in terms of desired effect (better focus) and side effects (I'll accept dry mouth if it means I can focus better during the day). And by the end of the day, the effects have worn off, and I can spend my evenings, weekends, and vacations unmedicated, as it were.

Who knows? Maybe a medicine currently called "Compound X2TR375Z" being studied by MerxoSmithKlizer and won't be commercially available until 2015 will work even better.

But surely you agree with the comment about "labels" I made in the above post.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

And by the end of the day, the effects have worn off, and I can spend my evenings, weekends, and vacations unmedicated, as it were.

How does that work? Are you only unable to focus on things when you're doing something boring (work)? Do you not need to focus when you're on vacation or at home relaxing? How do you get your housework done if you aren't feeling the effects of the medication during the weekends?

Everyone - everyone I have ever met diagnosed with ADD/ADHD has had the "disorder" manifest itself extremely selectively - specifically, when they were doing something they didn't want to focus on, like schoolwork or preparing for a presentation at work or doing something incredibly boring, like catching up on work email.

I knew a kid in college who told me he had ADD. He was 26 at the time, and tried so hard to convince me that he "just couldn't concentrate" on his homework without the help of Adderall. He told me it was because of ADD that he was having such a hard time in calculus.

It wasn't. He spent sixteen hours a day or more playing Counter-Strike with his friends. He watched copious amounts of television, spent an inordinate amount of time playing console video games and surfing the Internet, and when he wasn't doing those things, he was playing CS. He told me that he was taking calculus again - for the fourth time - and if he failed again, he was dropping the Mechanical Engineering program and changing his major.

You know what happened? He manned the hell up, turned off the television, quit logging onto CS whenever he wasn't actively in class or entertaining himself with his computer and PS2, and he just made himself do his homework and study.

And he got an A. It had nothing to do with a selective so-called disorder that only seemed to manifest itself when he was in his most hated class. It had everything to do with a lack of maturity and self-discipline to just get the work done that might not necessarily be fun to do, but has to be done to make it in life.

I haven't seen any proof in any child I've known to be diagnosed with these disorders that they have a chemical, physiological problem that prevents them from focusing. I do, however, see all kinds of changes in cultural and societal norms that have caused children to become more and more incapable of focusing on something for more than five minutes if it doesn't directly benefit or entertain them.

Things like clinical depression and schizophrenia and PTSD manifest themselves at any time, regardless of how fun life may appear to be for that person. When I was depressed, it wasn't because my life sucked or because I wasn't having any fun or because there wasn't anyone around to make me happy. It was because my head was just messed up. I've never seen an ADD/ADHD kid have trouble focusing on something they enjoy (and not just passive entertainment like television or video games). How is it that kids who apparently have ADHD have been able to devour the Harry Potter series without a second thought, when most of the books in the series exceed seven hundred pages?

I'm not going to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are not some people who have trouble focusing all the time, when doing any activity. But just like most morbidly obese people don't have genetic or glandular problems that make them physiologically incapable of losing weight, 99.99% of people in the United States who are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD actually have a much simpler problem - immaturity and lack of self-control. Diagnosing it as a disorder does little more than excuse the inappropriate behavior(s), similarly to how most "personality disorders" in the DSM-IV do nothing more than give "sufferers" an excuse to be cruel, hateful, egotisical, or otherwise generally bad.

<edit>
In regards to the thermal brain scan image you've now posted twice:

Ok. So kids who claim to have ADD/ADHD have different brain activity. What is the environmental background of those children? How much television, video game, and computer screen time were they exposed to when they were infants and toddlers and in early grade school? What was their diet like? How much passive entertainment were they exposed to, vs. being forced into active self-entertainment, such as reading and playing pirates and ninjas with kids in their neighborhood?

My cousin starting using a computer regularly when he was all of five years old. His dad is the director of IT or something at WellPoint (formerly AUL), and he raised his son to be a computer geek. The problem is, his son was being exposed to close proximity with screens (CRTs in his eMac and his televisions) from a very early age...which is something that can have a negative impact on a developing brain. Which it did. The kid started having seizures frighteningly close together. His doctor quizzed the parents on the little boy's routines and habits, and after forcing them to keep their kid off the damn television and computer for more than half an hour day, the seizures stopped.

If ADD/ADHD were an actual clinical problem not caused by environmental factors, such as enormous amounts of sugar and chemical preservatives, or constant exposure to various forms of screen-based entertainment (which is passive and does not help the brain develop cognitive functions necessary from an early age), I doubt it would be selective. I doubt that Thomas Edison could have suffered from a non-selective physiological problem that caused him to be incapable to concentrate. If this were the case, he never should have been able to put in the sleepless nights and long hours required to, you know, develop the first lightbulb.
</edit>

[Kevin]

99.99% of people in the United States who are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD actually have a much simpler problem - immaturity and lack of self-control. Diagnosing it as a disorder does little more than excuse the inappropriate behavior(s), similarly to how most "personality disorders" in the DSM-IV do nothing more than give "sufferers" an excuse to be cruel, hateful, egotisical, or otherwise generally bad.

Citation needed.

Again, they have documented changes in the brain between someone with ADD and someone without.

I assure you if some of the people that claim that ADD, or ADHD doesn't exist, had to deal with with it for a week, would soon change their tune.

ADD/ADHD kid have trouble focusing on something they enjoy

And you wont. That doesn't mean that ADD or ADHD isn't real. That just means you don't know how it works.

Think of it this way. Your brain produces natural stimulants that keep the brain active. Say someone has a brain that doesn't have enough of these natural stimulants to keep it active. Therefore the brain would be in constant source of stimuli. Hence the hyper-activeness.

Anytime you can stimulate the brain, the person will have no problem paying attention.

When someone is doing something they ENJOY doing, their brain is getting stimulated, and therefore can do such project.

But what if you have to learn something you aren't interested in? Much harder because it doesn't stimulate your brain.

I've seen people fall asleep after taking doses of amphetamines that would keep a normal person up for days.

Why does this happen? The man made stimulants make up for what the ADD/ADHD brain lacks. Therefore the brain in no longer "racing" to find something to stimulate it. And it is in an relaxed mode.

It is also why very few people that actually have ADD/ADHD ever get addicted to the amphetamines in the way someone that didn't have add would.

People with ADHD/ADD usually are better at teaching themselves things, then having someone teach them also. Usually better at doing two things at once, than one thing at a time.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Citation needed.

I'm assuming you've heard of the term "saying something for effect"?

I don't have a scientific study that says that 99.999% of kids diagnosed with this stuff don't actually have a clinical problem. I'm saying that only a very very very minute percentage of people diagnosed with this problem actually have a problem beyond the need to grow up and quit watching so much TV.

When someone is doing something they ENJOY doing, their brain is getting stimulated, and therefore can do such project.

But what if you have to learn something you aren't interested in? Much harder because it doesn't stimulate your brain.

You do realize that this has been happening since the existence of mankind, right? We have to do sh!t we don't enjoy. I don't buy that some people are born with the inability to ever work on something they don't actively enjoy doing...

Therefore the brain in no longer "racing" to find something to stimulate it.

...which comes back to my point about the shift in our culture to the desire for immediate satisfaction in everything. I'm guessing that you won't find incidents of ADD or ADHD in Old Order Amish societies, where children don't have things like game boys and televisions and the internet to occupy their time at an age where they should be doing things to stimulate their brain during its most important developmental stages.

People can certainly develop the inability to work on something that doesn't provide instant gratification or extreme interest to the "sufferer". If you spend your childhood being able to be instantly interested and entertained by moving pictures on a screen, you're absolutely going to have a hard time concentrating in a boring lecture with a black-and-white powerpoint presentation about differential equations.

So perhaps I should change what I'm trying to get across: kids have a harder time now than ever before in focusing on things they don't enjoy. I don't believe that ADD/ADHD is something that is out of the control of parents to prevent from happening to small children. Every kid at my school who was diagnosed with ADD/ADHD came from a family that indulged them in entertainment. These kids had TVs in their rooms when they were small children. They were allowed to eat junk food whenever they wanted. They had DVD players in their minivans so they could be entertained on the drive from home to school. They were never without some form of passive, brain-deadening entertainment. In families where screen time was limited, reading was not only encouraged but required, and brain-stimulating and mind-developing activities like word and math games were the norm, the kids didn't have trouble focusing on things they didn't necessarily enjoy, because they had not been raised to expect stimulation and enjoyment out of every activity put before them.

Parents are no longer interested in taking active participation in the early development of their children. It's much easier to pop in a Wiggles or Teletubbies DVD when little Sara is throwing a tantrum than to discipline her and keep her from getting her way...which six years later results in it being much easier to shove an effing amphetamine down her throat every day instead of taking responsibility for your mistakes and picking up the pieces of your failures and errors as an ignorant parent.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You do realize that this has been happening since the existence of mankind, right?

I'm not sure that's really true. The kind of busy-work that makes up so much of our lives and almost entirely constitutes our school system is a fairly modern innovation.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

We have to do sh!t we don't enjoy. I don't buy that some people are born with the inability to ever work on something they don't actively enjoy doing...

Ignoring your hyperbole, I think it's almost a universal principle that people do much better work at things they're actively interested in — it's nearly tautological. It seems quite plausible to me that some people might be this way to a much higher degree than others.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

...which comes back to my point about the shift in our culture to the desire for immediate satisfaction in everything. I'm guessing that you won't find incidents of ADD or ADHD in Old Order Amish societies, where children don't have things like game boys and televisions and the internet to occupy their time at an age where they should be doing things to stimulate their brain during its most important developmental stages.

Yeah, and people never had mental disorders back in the old days either — they were just possessed by demons.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

These kids had TVs in their rooms when they were small children. They were allowed to eat junk food whenever they wanted. They had DVD players in their minivans so they could be entertained on the drive from home to school. They were never without some form of passive, brain-deadening entertainment. In families where screen time was limited, reading was not only encouraged but required, and brain-stimulating and mind-developing activities like word and math games were the norm, the kids didn't have trouble focusing on things they didn't necessarily enjoy, because they had not been raised to expect stimulation and enjoyment out of every activity put before them.

Oh, so this comes down to "My preferred forms of amusement are good and other people's aren't"? I know plenty of morons who read. I also know plenty of brilliant people who watch TV. There's no causal relationship there, and if you want to claim there is, you're going to have to prove it. (Also, what kind of family does math games? Seriously. I don't think that was ever common. Most adults can't even do math.)

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, and people never had mental disorders back in the old days either — they were just possessed by demons.

ADD isn't the same as multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia. At all. I actually do doubt that people in the dark ages suffered from the inability to concentrate on things they didn't enjoy, like mucking out stables or trying to deal with The Plague.

Oh, so this comes down to "My preferred forms of amusement are good and other people's aren't"? I know plenty of morons who read. I also know plenty of brilliant people who watch TV. There's no causal relationship there, and if you want to claim there is, you're going to have to prove it. (Also, what kind of family does math games? Seriously. I don't think that was ever common. Most adults can't even do math.)

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about adults. I'm not talking about grown people who may read but are stupid, or may watch five hours of television a night but are brilliant (although I doubt that incredibly smart people are going to waste their time on TV and passive entertainment when they could be actively learning things).

I'm talking about children. Toddlers. Young grade schoolers. Kids in this demographic are at an age where their brain is at its most fragile. The cognitive abilites you refine when you are in kindergarten and first grade can have a significant impact on you for the rest of your life. This is why children who are terribly abused from a very early age are much less likely to fully recover than a child who leads a normal life and is then randomly subjected to horrors when he's older - he may suffer from severe depression or PTSD, but he's able to perform basic functions like speaking, bathing himself, and holding a job of some kind.

A child's brain is still making significant developments at a very fast pace, much how a toddler outgrows her shoes within a matter of months. The kind of utterly mind-numbing, passive entertainment that is gained from staring at a screen watching television for several hours is not going to do anything in the way of developing the brain's critical thinking, cognition, and comprehension skills. Sure, you can learn a lot about sharks from a documentary on the Discovery Channel, but you can learn just as much by going to the library and learning how to research and find information instead of having it dropped directly into your lap without a lot of effort.

I fully believe that this cultural shift to providing passive entertainment to small children as a replacement for active parenting or brain-stimulating activities (which, in many cases, require a parent's active involvement in the activity) is a major cause of this explosion in children who are incapable of focusing on anything they don't find interesting - that is, anything that doesn't provide instant gratification, pleasure, or entertainment.

Things are much different for adults. Your basic brain functions are cemented and are there. With a six-year-old, however, the case is much, much different.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm assuming you've heard of the term "saying something for effect"?

Then it was just malarky then? Fine.

I don't have a scientific study that says that 99.999% of kids diagnosed with this stuff don't actually have a clinical problem.

Because it's not even close to those numbers I am betting. (Not that I would ever say, or claim to know.)

I'm saying that only a very very very minute percentage of people diagnosed with this problem actually have a problem beyond the need to grow up and quit watching so much TV.

Do you have any proof to back up your assertions other than "Just because this is what I believe" ? BTW my fiancé's 9 year old son never watches TV. If he does, it's on the weekends, and it's usually what me and her watch. He doesn't watch TV that well. Now, he can read a magazine or book while sitting in front of a TV superbly.

You do realize that this has been happening since the existence of mankind, right? We have to do sh!t we don't enjoy. I don't buy that some people are born with the inability to ever work on something they don't actively enjoy doing...

Regardless of you buying it or not. It happens. If the brain isn't stimulated it cannot concentrate. That is how it works. And we told you this wasn't something new. Yes we do stuff every day we don't enjoy. But some people have a HARDER TIME doing things that doesn't stimulate their brain than others because of their chemical make-up. This doesn't make them lazy. Actually calling them that is akin to calling someone that is blind "Lazy" because they can't see.

...which comes back to my point about the shift in our culture to the desire for immediate satisfaction in everything. I'm guessing that you won't find incidents of ADD or ADHD in Old Order Amish societies, where children don't have things like game boys and televisions and the internet to occupy their time at an age where they should be doing things to stimulate their brain during its most important developmental stages.

I bet you do. It's just blamed on other things. Or those people get banished. The Amish community has examples of all of mankinds ills. ADHD, ADD certainly shouldn't be any different.

People can certainly develop the inability to work on something that doesn't provide instant gratification or extreme interest to the "sufferer".

YES! People CAN train themselves to work around the problem. This doesn't get away from the problem, but it DOES help. I prefer this method over giving them medications.

If you spend your childhood being able to be instantly interested and entertained by moving pictures on a screen, you're absolutely going to have a hard time concentrating in a boring lecture with a black-and-white powerpoint presentation about differential equations.

If this was the case, all kids that watched TV like this would have ADD/ADHD qualities. The fact is, they don't. This is like blaming games for violence.

The fact that someone with ADHD can fall asleep on amphetamines should tell you something. (Unless you've never dealt with amphetamines then it wouldn't.

I assure you. You do no service to those that are effect daily by this disease. You surely don't make life any easier on them by saying they are pretending, or that it doesn't exist.

It's a frustrating life the way it is to deal with, without having people do that.

BTW it's just not kids that have it. You don't "Grow out of it" Those that do never had it in the first place.

I suggest you read

Is ADD/ADHD Real?

"Studies have shown that the physiology of those with ADD differs from that of those who do not have the disorder . The area of the brain that controls impulsiveness is smaller in those affected with ADD"

"PET scans reveal that boys with ADD have much higher levels of blood flow in their brains than their non-ADD peers when tasks involving thinking were being performed, and lower blood flow the rest of the time. Researchers found that children with ADD had considerably lower levels of key fatty acids, such as omega-3, in their bloodstream. This lack of fatty acids has been linked with memory loss, temper tantrums, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and learning difficulties."

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Then it was just malarky then? Fine.

Because it's not even close to those numbers I am betting. (Not that I would ever say, or claim to know.)

Now I know that you don't understand using such a phrase or sentence to emphasize a point. I won't do it when I'm responding directly to you, okay?

He doesn't watch TV that well. Now, he can read a magazine or book while sitting in front of a TV superbly.

Does he have just as easy a time reading without auditory stimulation in the background? Can he sit in a quiet room and read a real book for an hour or two without needing other stimulation?

I bet you do. It's just blamed on other things. Or those people get banished. The Amish community has examples of all of mankinds ills. ADHD, ADD certainly shouldn't be any different.

I tend to disagree, but I've already said my piece on that.

YES! People CAN train themselves to work around the problem. This doesn't get away from the problem, but it DOES help. I prefer this method over giving them medications.

The thing is, with disorders - not diseases, but disorders, even like PTSD and "personality disorders" - they are nearly entirely caused by environmental factors. A human who never experiences something traumatic will never experience PTSD. A person who is surrounded with loving, functional, happy relationships in his family and friends and romances will have a slim to none chance of developing sociopathy or borderline personality disorder. I don't believe for a minute that a child who is raised in an environment where television and passive entertainment are shunned and brain-developing active activities are encouraged (like reading complex books, self-motivated researching, playing with Legos, and going out in nature) is as likely to develop ADHD as a child who is raised in an environment where passive entertainment is seen as the acceptable norm, and instant gratification is indulged.

If this was the case, all kids that watched TV like this would have ADD/ADHD qualities. The fact is, they don't. This is like blaming games for violence.

Oh, come now. That's as naive as saying that every person who smokes a joint is going to turn to harder illegal drugs. I'm not stupid enough to make that blanket statement that all children who watch TV will inevitably be diagnosed with ADHD. I'm saying that our culture of passive entertainment and immediate satisfaction and instant gratification has had a marked impact on the ADHD epidemic.

I assure you. You do no service to those that are effect daily by this disease.

Please call it what it is - a disorder. It's not a disease. It's not a genetic or hereditary defect you are born with. It is not a virus or a bacterium. It is a disorder whose symptoms are developed through environmental factors, just like any other psychological "disorder".

I suggest you read

Is ADD/ADHD Real?

"Studies have shown that the physiology of those with ADD differs from that of those who do not have the disorder . The area of the brain that controls impulsiveness is smaller in those affected with ADD"

"PET scans reveal that boys with ADD have much higher levels of blood flow in their brains than their non-ADD peers when tasks involving thinking were being performed, and lower blood flow the rest of the time. Researchers found that children with ADD had considerably lower levels of key fatty acids, such as omega-3, in their bloodstream. This lack of fatty acids has been linked with memory loss, temper tantrums, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity, and learning difficulties."

I'll objectively read anything you throw at me, as long as you promise to objectively read at least one book that logically discredits the ADHD epidemic (and the amphetamines that are used to combat it) for every article or book you ask me to read. here are three to get you started.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'll objectively read anything you throw at me, as long as you promise to objectively read at least one book that logically discredits the ADHD epidemic (and the amphetamines that are used to combat it) for every article or book you ask me to read. here are three to get you started.

Have you read all three books yourself? Yes or no.