Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reverse engineering my ADHD test

nullpt.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#231

Post by LocalPCGuy »

erlich wrote: post #222
LocalPCGuy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have your mind made up, so just gonna say that for anyone else reading this, this is not accurate or scientific information. Lacks an understanding of how the medication works, the differences in kinds of medications. The fact it used to be legal is not relevant. Misrepresents how ADHD is diagnosed, the criteria for it (by professionals), and even to a lesser extent the biomarkers statement.

Everything I have said is explained with citations here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9189308/

I skimmed over that paper, and may do a deeper dive later, although doesn't really seem worth it. I thought it was going to be a scientific study, but it reads more like a essay from two authors with a specific viewpoint trying to convince others, via slanted/biased text, that other text and language is baising an entire industry and population? I find that questionable at best.

And while the authors made a lot of claims, and cited some other studies, they don't really, IMO, prove their point in any scientifically valid way, or even as a solid, well-formed argument. Add in that the authors are sociologists, not neuroscientists or psychiatrists/psychologists, and it makes me question both their claims and understanding of the topic.

I did catch that one of their main points (that you mentioned as well) boils down to not having a physical test or clear biomarker. But that applies to nearly all psychiatric conditions. Saying the absence of those kinds of tests is the same as the absence of a real condition ignores the research that has been done demonstrating functional impairment (including twin studies, some indications of genetic heritability). The paper presents a specific sociological viewpoint, and that isn't the current scientific consensus.

Like I said, probably not gonna convince you, just dropping this for others that might see the essay link and think it might actually provide validity when it does not. That essay does not really make significant arguments against ADHD.

It does present good warnings to be aware of pressures that would distort diagnosis and I do think there is good reason to be cautious about over diagnosing, or diagnosing by unqualified personnel, both of which do happen of course. But the article goes too far beyond that.

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#232

Post by LocalPCGuy »

LocalPCGuy wrote: post #231
erlich wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I have said is explained with citations here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9189308/

I skimmed over that paper, and may do a deeper dive later, although doesn't really seem worth it. I thought it was going to be a scientific study, but it reads more like a essay from two authors with a specific viewpoint trying to convince others, via slanted/biased text, that other text and language is baising an entire industry and population? I find that questionable at best. And while the authors made a lot of cl…

Because others can say this much better and with better sources and citation than I can, both directly address many of the criticisms made in the essay shared and the faulty reasoning based on it.

International Consensus Statement on ADHD: https://www.russellbarkley.org/factsheets/Consensus2002.pdf

The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33549739/

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#233

Post by annzabelle »

pstuart wrote: post #211
annzabelle wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the non-medical options front, I will note that my lifelong hyperactive and neurotic tendencies dramatically improve with a 3-4 day a week distance running training regimen. I enjoy running enough, even though it is very difficult, that I've kept up with it for several years. I'm not as consistent about this, but I also found yoga classes to be a way to make mindfulness fun and easier. That's not to say I'm not on…

I wish I could run. I recognize that exercise is a foundational facet of health all the way around. I'm "blessed" with enough comorbidities that make that a challenge but I am going to get a personal trainer to help me work through that.

Good idea. Feel free to try different options until you find something that you genuinely want to stick with. Running is just what I like, but my understanding of the current research is that it's more important to do something you actually want to do consistently for years than to do the ideal workout for 6 months and then quit exercising entirely.

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#234

Post by annzabelle »

Herrum wrote: post #143
jaggederest wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exercise is one hell of a drug, to be honest. I suppose you shouldn't exercise for a few issues in particular, but in general, boy.

Jumping on this conversation a bit: I was recently diagnosed and am still very much in the "what helps?" and "what parts of my personality/habits are connected to this and which aren't?" stage. Do either of you by any chance know a healthy online space to discuss this with others?

I would recommend avoiding any subreddit related to ADHD.

I honestly would try to stick to materials written by mental health professionals and possibly talking to a therapist (your company might have an EAP that can help with this) over interacting with any online community I'm aware of on this matter.

I find online mental health communities tend to be "if I have a hammer, everything is a nail," and aren't open to other explanations for any traits or struggles. They also tend to suck in the people who aren't doing better with treatment, while the people who found systems that work for them leave for greener pastures. On the opposite side there are communities that are anti-psychiatry and refuse to consider medical treatments. In general these spaces tend to be very black and white.

I do like the Astral Codex Ten open threads as a space that's relatively neutral on the topic, though they lean very biohacker in a way that gets ahead of the science.

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#235

Post by Weryj »

psd1 wrote: post #142
Weryj wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mean from a nutritional standpoint, but a behavioural perspective. Smaller groups would have an higher percentage of responsibility per individual to be vigilant and proactive. It would make sense to me that evolutionary there would be different mental development paths depending on the requirements of their situation. This is coming from my understanding that ADHD is more prevalent in stressful upbringings.

If adhd is heritable, then the stressful upbringing could be symptomatic of the parent's condition instead of causal.

I agree, stress during pregnancy could also be a signal shared with the developing brain.

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#237

Post by erlich »

LocalPCGuy wrote: post #232
LocalPCGuy wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I skimmed over that paper, and may do a deeper dive later, although doesn't really seem worth it. I thought it was going to be a scientific study, but it reads more like a essay from two authors with a specific viewpoint trying to convince others, via slanted/biased text, that other text and language is baising an entire industry and population? I find that questionable at best. And while the authors made a lot of cl…

Because others can say this much better and with better sources and citation than I can, both directly address many of the criticisms made in the essay shared and the faulty reasoning based on it. International Consensus Statement on ADHD: https://www.russellbarkley.org/factsheets/Consensus2002.pdf The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder: https…

Why should 6 symptoms constitute ADHD while 5 don't?

The person with only 5 doesn't have it?

This is not science.

Change the diagnostic criteria to a blood test or brain scan and then we are in the realm of proper science. But until then the burden of proof should be on the ADHD community not on those trying to dispute it. It's like having to use proper science to disprove something that is not conclusively proved in science.

It's fine to publish all this science and evidence, but it all comes back to the diagnostic criteria which is so wishy washy. The diagnostic criteria has evolved from a completely arbitrary definition. There is no reason the DSM stuff should be used at all, and trying to find science to support a diagnostic criteria that was arbitrary to begin with is silly.

That's why, after all this, the main point I make is that the boundary between ADHD and non-ADHD is arbitrary and will always be and its more about having a disorder to point to to be able to prescribe stimulants to "people it would help".

Mark my words: there will never be a biomarker or test used to diagnose this condition because it would only reduce the number of people who can access treatment.

It's an elaborate exercise on how to be allowed to use a scheduled medication as treatment. If the government didn't ban drugs then all this ADHD diagnosis stuff wouldn't exist at all. It would be the reverse exercise: which people should not be allowed it because they abuse it and it negatively impacts them.

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#238

Post by thaumasiotes »

Weryj wrote: post #128
thaumasiotes wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’ve always thought, it’s not absurd to think there different development routes which the brain takes depending on the environment it develops in. What do you think nutritional stunting means? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunted_growth

I don’t mean from a nutritional standpoint, but a behavioural perspective. Smaller groups would have an higher percentage of responsibility per individual to be vigilant and proactive. It would make sense to me that evolutionary there would be different mental development paths depending on the requirements of their situation. This is coming from my understanding that ADHD is more prevalent in stressful upbringings.

> I don’t mean from a nutritional standpoint, but a behavioural perspective.

That would normally be called "learning". Also a pretty conventional idea.

With learning, though, you'd want to explain why something becomes immune to further learning at a certain point.

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#239

Post by bmacho »

wredcoll wrote: post #93
genxy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ADHD also evolutionary advantages, so there is unlikely to be a single gene that encodes for it.

Evo-psych is impossible to falsify.

Practically all statement outside of mathematics is a soft statement.

IMO "Humans do this because [made up scenarios how it helped them survive]" is trash in its own rights, and not because it is not falsifiable. Not useful, not insightful, not anything.

Re: Reverse engineering my ADHD test

#240

Post by Muromec »

mcmoor wrote: post #230
Muromec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't have to be ADHD, could be the *tism too. The tells are usually somewhat overlapping. In general, if you are in the industry, save yourself (and your kids) some trouble and get diagnosed before it becomes a problem. Add: I wonder why they don't just give people some ritalin and ask if they feel calmed down? Except the obvious reason of course

Yeah it feels like the diagnosis itself is useless, compared to just straight up trying some of those drugs and see how much you feel better. If none works, then no use in diagnosis.

Right? If the meds work, they work, I just want someone to control the side effects and help with sourcing and dosage. If they don't, I can't get disability or whatever work/military/wife-slavery exemption with that paper anyway.
Post reply on HN