Live data from Hacker News

Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

npr.org

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#71
post #64
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very belittling to the amazing amount of research that goes into ADHD. Many studies have been done with regard to treatment and diagnosis, and at this point we are better able to treat ADHD than we are able to treat depression There might be a bit of an over-treatment culture (I'm not sure, though), but the science is extremely well developed and tested

Wait when did we get good at treating depression?

This is off of the top of my head, but something like 50% of people treated for depression show positive response for the treatment, and 20% achieve "full recovery" (still on meds but the symptoms linked to depression are basically gone while on meds). Meaning these people can move on with their lives not having to deal with this.

Medicated treatment for ADHD has hit even higher numbers. Something like 70% of patients respond positively to medication (sometimes takes a while to get the right medication though), and 45% achieve full recovery (that is to say, ADHD stops being an issue for them if they're on their meds).

I mentioned this because conventional wisdom is something like: "Yes, depression as a chemical imbalance is a thing that exists, and you can kind of do something with it through treatment." But a lot of people are also "ADHD might not even be a real thing and is a result of helicopter parenting and lazy kids". But the science is much further ahead on understanding ADHD and treating it on ADHD than depression.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#72
post #71
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait when did we get good at treating depression?

This is off of the top of my head, but something like 50% of people treated for depression show positive response for the treatment, and 20% achieve "full recovery" (still on meds but the symptoms linked to depression are basically gone while on meds). Meaning these people can move on with their lives not having to deal with this. Medicated treatment for ADHD has hit even higher numbers. Something like 70% of patient…

I consider it one of the great paradoxes of modern thought that the loudest proponents of evolutionary theory are often the loudest proponents/defenders of pharmaceutical-based treatment for mental illness.

So the logic is:

- evolution is this amazingly powerful process that has resulted in the development of a vast diversity of astonishingly sophisticated and beautiful species of plants and animals, with the most advanced observed to exist in the known universe being the human inhabitants of planet Earth. However...

- a significant portion of this most beautifully evolved and advanced species are unable to function successfully without the use of medication to alter the naturally evolved chemical activity of their brain.

Personally I believe the first statement too much to be able to accept the second.

That is: I believe that conditions like depression and ADHD have evolved for a reason, and to suppress them with chemicals rather than understanding the reasons for their existence and responding to those reasons is to devolve or suspend evolution.

Where the paradox becomes so profound and damaging is that the people who go to serious effort to understand these conditions and to develop and advocate non-pharmaceutical methods of treatment, are often condemned and mocked as un-scientific.

But mercifully the tides are changing, and I can see a time in the future, not all that far off, in which we look back on the practice of dealing with non-compliant kids by feeding them amphetamines as one to be viewed with great shame.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#73
post #25

With luck, they've been rendered sunken-cheeked speed freaks with no teeth. No one ever bothers to draw a line, and connect the dots between the ritalin trend of the 90's and the Faces Of Meth that cropped up just after the turn of the millenium.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11279597 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#74
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say strict but don't you really just mean threatening children with violence? The last time someone told me to stand still so they could hit me as hard as they could with a cane was when I was 7 or 8 years old. That's not education. Real educators, much like real democracy, do not rely on fear and violence to control others.

I definitely understand why using fear to control children is a bad thing, but as for violence, it's at the root of all power anyway. Whenever you impose a disciplinary sanction, it's implicit that if the sanction is not respected, it will be replaced by an alternative, at least as harsh sanction, and eventually the alternative sanction will be violent. Fear is clearly not a great way of controlling your children, bu…

> Fear is clearly not a great way of controlling your children, but no one does it in any other way. If instead of corporal punishment you discipline your child by revoking privileges, you're still using threats and fear. The alternative is to reason with your child, to present a convincing argument for why they should listen to you. But kids aren't (always) rational actors, so that doesn't always work.

The most effective method I know to get your desired behaviour out of anyone is to withdraw attention from bad behaviour until your child is ready to reason about why they did what they did. Give extra attention for good behaviour. So much bad behaviour is down to trying to get an adult to actually pay attention, and if you punish you give attention that reinforces that their bad behaviour works.

Incidentally, this works well with adults too - the next time a co-worker does something you don't like, turn your body away from them and minimize verbal interaction; the next time they do something you like, turn your torso to face them fully, give eye contact, and interact more - the way they interact with you will generally start changing fairly quickly.

With a small child, withdrawing your attention (looking away; not talking to them) for as little as 30 seconds has an incredibly strong effect (and you really should not do it very long, and you need to set clear expectations). When we did that with my son from around 2 years old, he would almost immediately get desperate to regain attention (he'd grab my head and try to force me to look at him and ask me to please look at him and talk to him) and would usually cave within about 10 seconds. Very rarely we'd have to extend it with a second 30 second period. Most of the time just telling him that if he doesn't stop we'd do this would be enough.

My son is 6 now, and we still do this. He's getting more sophisticated about trying to regain our attention, but still yields very quickly when we're firm about it. We're very clear about telling him exactly what we will be doing, why, and what he can do to stop it. Typically we'll tell him he's free to go sit and sulk somewhere, but we won't be talking to him for the next e.g. 10 minutes unless he apologises and talk to us about what he did.

Most importantly to me is that he understands what we do and why (because we always explain each step and why we do it), and he will think over and reason about what made him agry/upset and realise that most of the time the surface thing that set him off is not the real reason, and then we work with him on fixing the underlying problem.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#75
post #50
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a parent. I do work with kids in a limited capacity, as a volunteer. I obviously don't use any corporal discipline in that context, and if I had children of my own I wouldn't have the heart to hit them. I'm just interested in the theory of it; are we sure that corporal punishment isn't more effective in a practical utilitarian sense, and, if we are, what explains the difference. Jesus fucking christ no it isn…

Hang on, you're using violent in a strange and unusual way which makes your point confusing. > If you catch your 10 year old stealing, you're not going to put them in time out. Just checking, but are you saying you'd hit them? Why wouldn't you put them in time out? > If your eight year old beats some kid up, you're not going to put them in time out. Why not? > I would consider any form of corporal punishment too much…

> It's genuinely scary that you have any contact with children

Please stop posting personal attacks to Hacker News, regardless of how strongly you feel about a subject.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#76
Once upon a time no such reference letters existed, you had slow kids, fast kids and middle of the road kids. All of a sudden kids are getting the labels as if they belong on supermarket shelves. An old schooler would say there's a cure for that, either bad parenting, not eating the right foods or balanced diet, bad sleeping pattern. Or basically some parents just like to get extra government money to support their own needs. (I know a family that's done this - and it's disgusting) What's next?

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#77
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another, deliberately distasteful, one would be to incentivize reproducing to ensure one's family doesn't run afoul of the cutoffs.

That's Valentine's day, hence the September skew ...

Or move to the southern hemisphere where the school year matches the calendar year.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#78
post #75
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on, you're using violent in a strange and unusual way which makes your point confusing. > If you catch your 10 year old stealing, you're not going to put them in time out. Just checking, but are you saying you'd hit them? Why wouldn't you put them in time out? > If your eight year old beats some kid up, you're not going to put them in time out. Why not? > I would consider any form of corporal punishment too much…

> It's genuinely scary that you have any contact with children Please stop posting personal attacks to Hacker News, regardless of how strongly you feel about a subject.

Sorry adrusi and dang.

I'll stop posting to threads like these.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between the rigor of the question of whether ADHD is a real thing or that of ADHD diagnoses being reliable in practice. There are huge regional variations to rates of ADHD diagnosis. For example, it's 3.5x higher in North Carolina vs. Nevada. There doesn't seem to be any reason why this would be given that ADHD is believed to be almost entirely genetic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1964…

I had to take a long questionaire, a computer program testing focus/reactions, and a comprehensive IQ test before I was diagnosed with severe impairment from ADHD a year ago. In fact, I was originally diagnosed with ADHD after taking a comprehension IQ test to get accepted to kindergarten at a magnet school, but my parents figured it was just a phase and never did anything about it. It's frustrating to think about th…

My (UK) diagnosis was an endurance test. It took 2 years of consultations, appointments and referrals to get a diagnosis. Of course, this is the NHS so everything non-life threatening takes longer but if there was no impact day to day there would be no motivation for the many hoops and consultations. Due to the nature of the beast, many who do suffer could drop out of such a marathon because, for example, their referral form had fallen underneath a filing cabinet due to a chaotic office and thus forgotten about by both sides (happened to me - called up because after 3 months after prodding by my mrs. She was going insane).

Overdiagnosis is almost a cliché. This might happen in some places. There are just as many that the diagnosis is painful and thorough.

Re: Youngest Kids in Class at Higher Risk of ADHD Diagnosis

#80
post #67
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hang on, you're using violent in a strange and unusual way which makes your point confusing. > If you catch your 10 year old stealing, you're not going to put them in time out. Just checking, but are you saying you'd hit them? Why wouldn't you put them in time out? > If your eight year old beats some kid up, you're not going to put them in time out. Why not? > I would consider any form of corporal punishment too much…

You're not presenting any kind of defense for your claims. You're saying things like they're obvious truths, when they're obviously not for the sake of this discussion.

But so are you, and since the action you're proposing (violence against children) is a violation of that child's human rigts as defined in international agreements, and is illegal in several countries, and will draw attention from child protection in many others, you have a higher threshold.

No parenting expert recommends violence against the child - (although a few religious extremists claim to be parenting experts).

Note that any experts dealing with children whose behaviour is described as difficult or challenging will reject violence against that child - and it's that behaviour which you have said should be met with violence.

As one example of an evidence based programme (although the evidence is weak) you might wantto lok at Webster Stratton.

I'm presenting this as self-evident truth because the evidence is over-whelmingly against hitting children. You might think there's some debate to be had, but that's because you live in the US which is i) extraordinarily violent country, and ii) has religious extremists who promote violence against the child. The rest of the developed world had this debate in the 1980s and decided that hitting children needs to stop.

Post reply on HN