Psychology

[Lullaby Chainer]

Psychology is simply the study of behavior and the mind. Saying psychology sucks is like saying our behaviors and mind aren't worth investigating.

[Morality Games]

Secondly, yes, psychology sucks. the stages of development, its all fake, arbitrary and not scientific. The bacon guy really gets it. It comes from freud, and psychologist want to make you think it has changed so much, but ive taken over a dozen psychology and neurophysiology classes, and trust me, THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT HIM!

You must be taking a large number of classes closely relating to neurology then, since cognitive psychologists (dominant form of scientific psychology) take an incredibly dim view of Freud, and that is considered a well-established fact.

Humanistic psychologists (dominant form of humanitarian psychology) take a dim view of Freud too, although for different reasons -- less about application of the scientific method and more about de-emphasis on the strength of the conscious mind.

But psychology isn't my forte anyway -- I have studied it some, and it is useful, but I learn most of what I know about the mind through indirect means.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kite Since you seem to struggle with the interpretation of words, I will put this in simple terms. They did the testing on people that had the disorder in order to find out what caused it.

But they did testing on people they had already labeled as having the so-called disorder. They didn't test people they had not already labeled.

They found that the people that had ADHD have a lower level of dopamine in their brains than people that had normal mental health. You diagnose diseases through symptoms, you do blood tests to confirm.

Since symptoms can be the same for a variety of conditions, symptoms alone are not, in such cases, sufficient for diagnoses. There must also be objective diagnostic and/or laboratory testing.

This is very basic: Person exhibits the symptoms of Tuberculosis, the person has blood work done, the diagnosis is confirmed, and you treat it with TB meds.

See above. Symptoms are not always sufficient for a diagnosis.

This is another way of diagnosis: Person has symptoms of ADHD, you prescribe an ADHD med, and if the persons condition improves, it confirms the diagnosis.

Unacceptable and what pisses me off about the so-called "mental health profession." They do this whole damned "The medications work so this must be what causes the condition" thing that is just plain backwards!

I was born with brain cells with a genetic defect that cause them to not produce or absorb dopamine the way they are supposed to.

How do you know this? What genetic testing was done? How were they able to prove that it was a gene (or combination of genes) that specifically caused you to have this inability to properly produce or absorb dopamine?

Due to this inability to produce/absorb, there is a dopamine imbalance.

How did they initially determine how much dopamine was considered "balanced"?

The dopamine imbalance causes ADHD.

Again, where's the proof of this? Where is the diagnostic testing that shows an actual imbalance of dopamine and shows this imbalance actually causing the ADHD?

Therefore, since we are logically thinking human beings, the genetic defect led to the ADHD.

Wrong answer! The supposed genetic defect (that has not been proven) allegedly led to a dopamine imbalance. You don't get to jump from A to C without stopping at B. You might as well argue that the big bang billions of years ago led to the ADHD.

I honestly don't know how to explain it any more clearly to you, if you cant get it from this then you're hopeless.

And I don't know how to explain to you that in order for something to be "genetic" that something must be directly caused by the gene or combination of genes.

[Morality Games]

And I don't know how to explain to you that in order for something to be "genetic" that something must be directly caused by the gene or combination of genes.

A direct relation is not required so long as it can be strongly related to genes.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Morality Games A direct relation is not required so long as it can be strongly related to genes.

I don't accept "strongly related." Either it is or it isn't: there's no place for maybe/maybe not. "Strongly related" is nothing more than speculation.

[Charlatan]

Psychology is based on petterns in people, and these don't happen for no reason. There is a reason that one person doing something acts the same as another doing the same thing. In psychology people study what makes what happen, and that it happens for this or that reason. In studying a child psychologists can idnetify certain things in the child which may make up one or another side effect, and then they decide what things would happen in another. Guessing? This has been around for a long time, this guessing, and psychiatrists reccomend psychologists to analyse the behaviour of a person and then they have an idea about what is 'going on' in the child's head.

That they like this or that because of taste they have aquired, and that taste is completely dependant on their circumstance. If in the same circumstance we would all do and like the same things, as people are unique with their makeup, like with determinism. Now in finding patterns - with big pieces of the person, as some aspects of a person play a bigger role in their 'character' - they can identify with these patternsand relate them to people in a general manner. If determinism is to be believed, then we are made up of one percent this and two percent that, or whatever, and the big percentage points, things that affect the character to a bigger degree making them unique, actually makes them the same as the other people in these regards. Big pieces of character for example are having a parent around in the day, something the subconscious takes into account while the child is playing - for example - and affects their character while doing other things. So we are left with a child playing knowing the parent is there for them, adding security, or frustration, depending on how the parent reacts to them, and thier upbringing or character to that point. The psychologist could then think if the child is affected positively or negatively by the presence of the parent, and then think of ways the parent could make it a good relationship, by either being around more or less of the time, as growing children like to be accompanied and then get frustrated by their parents, usually. So then the psychologist can tell, depending on the age and previous child studies, that it is time for more or less relations between the two. This study is of a major factor in the child's makeup, so will affect them more than most other areas between the two.

If a parent is missing, then the psychologist can tell that that part of the child is missing, and in having no gaping holes in a complete person, we can say that it has been filled by another factor increasing in size to which the child pays more attension, as all people have the same amount of brain activity more or less, so they would be complete people, with their opinions and all that. This can all be told by a child study, where they take the child aside and see what they prefer to do or say in a given situation, and then they can tell the parents, or the person, what they are really doing with their time.

The science is more a study of the subcoscious than the consious, and all subconscious thoughts are based on survival or comfort seeking, as that is what they person really wants to do with their time. In identifying these as being things in the child's life, all reactions are the same because of this or that being the thing the child seeks, as we are geared to constantly seek survival or comfort. Even playing is seeking comfort because it makes the mind enjoy life, although in different forms for different people. Psychology isn't that specific as to what the child would prefer when it comes to what they would prefer to do, but the principles are the same throughout - that the child, or all people, seek the same things in life.

In giving up on life psychologists need to examine what factors play a role in the childs life, that some aspects of this survival and comfort seeking are not being filled by the other things in the person's life, that these things are coming together making the person see their targets as ureachable, and then the mind gets lethargic, that the person's subconscious is triggering bad symptoms because of the person's problems being far greater in their life than their sustaining factors. For example people in a bad area might see all the bad things around them and that becomes a part of their life, and being antisocial, they become antisocial as they cannot blank it out of their lives, so it becomes part of them, and being antisocial leads away from being a solid person, a person who is 'social', social in the sense that they get the good out of life. Strength comes from 'social' factors in the person's life, things that give survival and comfort to the mind, and with enough strength, the person can overcome the hardships their mind faces and take on the hard world.

So psychology works for me.

[Kite]

Quote by: Chancellor But they did testing on people they had already labeled as having the so-called disorder. They didn't test people they had not already labeled.

So according to your logic, we should either check random people for dopamine imbalance or systematically check everyone for a dopamine imbalance. Thats practical and financially sound.

Since symptoms can be the same for a variety of conditions, symptoms alone are not, in such cases, sufficient for diagnoses. There must also be objective diagnostic and/or laboratory testing.

There is, after you see possible symptoms, the blood work and lab testing is done to determine what is wrong. You don't just randomly test people.

See above. Symptoms are not always sufficient for a diagnosis.

So if I have a fever and a cough and a runny nose I don't have a cold? How do you diagnose without symptoms, it makes no sense at all.

Unacceptable and what pisses me off about the so-called "mental health profession." They do this whole damned "The medications work so this must be what causes the condition" thing that is just plain backwards!

What does it matter if its not by the book, it WORKS. Its a lot easier and cheaper than doing hours and hours of blood work and lab tests only to arrive at the same conclusion as you would from simply giving them the medication and seeing if it fixes the problem.

How do you know this? What genetic testing was done? How were they able to prove that it was a gene (or combination of genes) that specifically caused you to have this inability to properly produce or absorb dopamine?

Yes I must admit that there is no definitive proof that it is caused by a defective gene, but many other diseases are assumed to be caused by defective genes, and I don't see you questioning Lou Gherics disease or CP.

How did they initially determine how much dopamine was considered "balanced"?

Are you seriously asking this? They tested an amount of people that appeared to have an average mental health, took the amounts and made an average. People with ADHD have an amount below this average, therefore there is some kind of imbalance. My doctor explained it to me this way when I was young: Think of the brain cells as light switches, and the dopamine is what flips the switch. I don't have enough dopamine to flip the switch, so I need a way to make more, i.e. a stimulant.

Again, where's the proof of this? Where is the diagnostic testing that shows an actual imbalance of dopamine and shows this imbalance actually causing the ADHD?

Google it. There has been plenty of information provided, but you continually reject it because you don't like what it has to say, so you can go find your own information that is suitable to your tastes.

Wrong answer! The supposed genetic defect (that has not been proven) allegedly led to a dopamine imbalance. You don't get to jump from A to C without stopping at B. You might as well argue that the big bang billions of years ago led to the ADHD.

Alright, I will once again attempt to put it in very basic terms so that you might understand.

Genetic defect>Defective Brain Cells>Not enough dopamine distributed or absorbed by the defective brain cells>Dopamine imbalance>ADHD

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

And I don't know how to explain to you that in order for something to be "genetic" that something must be directly caused by the gene or combination of genes.

So sickle cell anemia isn't a real disease because the genetic defect doesn't lead directly to an inability to absorb oxygen into the bloodstream? Use your brain, if a genetic defect causes something not to work right, the source of the problem is the genetic defect. You don't 'catch' a dopamine imbalance, theres no other rational explanation for it other than theres something defective with the brain cells, i.e. a genetic defect.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kite So according to your logic, we should either check random people for dopamine imbalance or systematically check everyone for a dopamine imbalance. Thats practical and financially sound.

No, according to my logic you check the dopamine levels of people claiming to have certain symptoms before you diagnose ADHD.

There is, after you see possible symptoms, the blood work and lab testing is done to determine what is wrong. You don't just randomly test people.

And no responsible clinician would make a diagnosis based just on a person's subjective complaints. I never said "randomly test people" and if you're going to disagree with me you had better get it right!

So if I have a fever and a cough and a runny nose I don't have a cold? How do you diagnose without symptoms, it makes no sense at all.

Your questions show your piss-poor reading comprehension skills! Now, go back and read what I wrote and show me where I said "diagnose without symptoms." (By the way, there are conditions that are diagnosed without symptoms, e.g. HIV; in fact, I was just reading a doctor's report this morning where a person was found to have a form of cancer but had no symptoms: the cancer was discovered while she was undergonig an entirely unrelated procedure). Oh, and just because you have a fever, cough and runny nose does not necessarily mean you have a cold (adenoviruses). Such symptoms may be indicative of the flu, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinitis, sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, whooping cough, measles, mumps, mononucleosis, enteroviruses, pulmonary anthrax, etc.

What does it matter if its not by the book, it WORKS. Its a lot easier and cheaper than doing hours and hours of blood work and lab tests only to arrive at the same conclusion as you would from simply giving them the medication and seeing if it fixes the problem.

It matters for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is keeping people from becoming drug-dependent.

Yes I must admit that there is no definitive proof that it is caused by a defective gene, but many other diseases are assumed to be caused by defective genes, and I don't see you questioning Lou Gherics disease or CP.

Notice you said "assumed": this is exactly my objection. In this case, we're talking about a supposed "condition" that has become a fad in the government indoctrination centers. They're quick to label kids (especially boys) and to get them put on medication to make them more compliant.

Are you seriously asking this? They tested an amount of people that appeared to have an average mental health, took the amounts and made an average. People with ADHD have an amount below this average, therefore there is some kind of imbalance. My doctor explained it to me this way when I was young: Think of the brain cells as light switches, and the dopamine is what flips the switch. I don't have enough dopamine to flip the switch, so I need a way to make more, i.e. a stimulant.

So, in other words, they guessed: they don't really know how much constitutes a balance and how much an imbalance. Oh, and I'm well aware of how the process is said to work. What I'm challenging is the conclusion that is being drawn in the absence of definitive diagnostic testing on live human beings before making a diagnosis. In other words, if doctors are going to claim that ADHD is caused by a dopamine imbalance then they need to test a person for this imbalance before making the diagnosis.

Google it. There has been plenty of information provided, but you continually reject it because you don't like what it has to say, so you can go find your own information that is suitable to your tastes.

No, what I reject is the conclusion you are drawing from it.

Alright, I will once again attempt to put it in very basic terms so that you might understand.

Genetic defect>Defective Brain Cells>Not enough dopamine distributed or absorbed by the defective brain cells>Dopamine imbalance>ADHD

It doesn't get any simpler than that.[/quote]And you are clearly not getting it! Notice you're claiming it's "Genetic defect>Defective Brain Cells>Not enough dopamine distributed or absorbed by the defective brain cells>Dopamine imbalance>ADHD." This is not the gene causing the ADHD. It is not Genetic defect>ADHD. It is invalid to say that a gene is causing ADHD when the gene is really just causing something else, which causes something else, which then causes ADHD. Besides, here you're saying it's a genetic defect and not a gene itself. Thus, you cannot say that ADHD is "genetic" (caused by a gene). Even if you had Genetic defect>ADHD, all you could say was that it was caused by a genetic defect and not that it is "genetic" since it is not the gene itself causing the condition but, instead, a defect in the gene causing it.

So sickle cell anemia isn't a real disease because the genetic defect doesn't lead directly to an inability to absorb oxygen into the bloodstream?

There you go again showing piss-poor reading comprehension skills! If you're going to disagree with me you had better get it right. Not once did I ever say "There is no real disease if a genetic defect doesn't lead directly to..." But, to answer your stupid question (notice it's the question that is stupid, not the person who asked it), what it means is simply that sickle cell anemia would not be "genetic" (caused by a gene) but, instead, merely the result of a defect in the gene (in which case the cause would be in the defect, not in the gene itself).

Use your brain, if a genetic defect causes something not to work right, the source of the problem is the genetic defect. You don't 'catch' a dopamine imbalance, theres no other rational explanation for it other than theres something defective with the brain cells, i.e. a genetic defect.

You should use your brain and stop making assumptions! I don't want someone's damned guess work, I want absolute proof! There is no place for mere speculation here. In order to claim that something is "genetic," you must prove absolutely that there is a specific gene or combination of genes (and not "defects" in those genes) actually causing the particular disease or disorder. If you're going to say a particular disease or disorder is the result of a genetic defect, then you must show the defect actually causing it (and not merely causing something else that causes something else that causes something else that causes the disease or disorder). Until that can be done, I'm not buying into this "it's genetic" argument - and I damned well am not going to accept it for a "disorder" where the symptoms only appear selectively, i.e. when the person isn't doing something he's interested in or enjoys. I'm also not accepting the "it's genetic" argument for a "disorder" where the person with the supposed "disorder" responds well to structure and discipline. You aren't going to convince me that structure and discipline are somehow going to magically correct a "genetic" disorder.

[Kite]

Quote by: Chancellor No, according to my logic you check the dopamine levels of people claiming to have certain symptoms before you diagnose ADHD.

Thats not cost effective. Prescribing a pill and seeing if it fixes the problem is much cheaper than blood work.

And no responsible clinician would make a diagnosis based just on a person's subjective complaints. I never said "randomly test people" and if you're going to disagree with me you had better get it right!

Chancellor said:"But they did testing on people they had already labeled as having the so-called disorder. They didn't test people they had not already labeled."
Why would you test people that have not been labeled as having ADHD? What excuse would there be for just testing people that had no signs of the disorder? It STILL makes no sense at all.

Your questions show your piss-poor reading comprehension skills! Now, go back and read what I wrote and show me where I said "diagnose without symptoms."

Chancellor said:"See above. Symptoms are not always sufficient for a diagnosis." What is sufficient then? Try explaining what you actually mean instead of leaving cryptic one-line responses and perhaps people wouldn't 'misunderstand' you as often, although your accusations of people having 'piss poor' reading comprehension looks more like you leaving yourself room to backpeadal from your ridiculous assertions.

(By the way, there are conditions that are diagnosed without symptoms, e.g. HIV; in fact, I was just reading a doctor's report this morning where a person was found to have a form of cancer but had no symptoms: the cancer was discovered while she was undergonig an entirely unrelated procedure).

You cant diagnose HIV without a symptom. Symptoms of HIV include: Low T Cell count, and the presence of HIV antibodies. Those ARE symptoms, they are just not VISUAL symptoms. You can also have cancer for quite a long time before noticing any visible symptoms. This is the reason for many deaths from cancer, the fact that it wasn't noticed early enough. And gasp! You just said DIAGNOSE WITHOUT SYMPTOMS. You can't diagnose anything without symptoms, testing people based on nothing is just a waste of money and shooting in the dark.

Oh, and just because you have a fever, cough and runny nose does not necessarily mean you have a cold (adenoviruses). Such symptoms may be indicative of the flu, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinitis, sinusitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, whooping cough, measles, mumps, mononucleosis, enteroviruses, pulmonary anthrax, etc.

So what do you suggest? That we should go running to the ER every time we have a sniffle to see if its anthrax? People DO make assumptions, if we didn't we would go insane. But for some reason, you seem to equate assume with incorrect. Now who is reading into things?

It matters for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is keeping people from becoming drug-dependent.

Most people don't become drug dependent from a 2 week trial. You also seem to be one of those people that don't understand the difference between drug use and drug abuse.

Notice you said "assumed": this is exactly my objection. In this case, we're talking about a supposed "condition" that has become a fad in the government indoctrination centers. They're quick to label kids (especially boys) and to get them put on medication to make them more compliant.

Look buddy, no one likes school. The fact of the matter is, schools are there, and we have to go through them in order to succeed in our adult lives, at least in this particular society. Just because you don't like them doesn't change the fact that people DO have this problem, and some DO need medication. Yes, there are a good number of misdiagnoses, but that is true of ANY disease. Don't let your dislike of schools color your thinking when it comes to medical matters.

So, in other words, they guessed: they don't really know how much constitutes a balance and how much an imbalance. Oh, and I'm well aware of how the process is said to work. What I'm challenging is the conclusion that is being drawn in the absence of definitive diagnostic testing on live human beings before making a diagnosis. In other words, if doctors are going to claim that ADHD is caused by a dopamine imbalance then they need to test a person for this imbalance before making the diagnosis.

Now who has piss poor reading comprehension? I said they took people that don't have ADHD and people that did and compared their average dopamine levels, and they discovered that people with the symptoms of lack of focus and hyperactivity had a LOWER amount of dopamine. They linked that to the symptoms, and they administered a treatment, that is EFFECTIVE. And once again, you need to come back to the real world, where money is an object and hospitals and medical centers seldom have enough of it to waste on blood testing that would only confirm what is already known.

No, what I reject is the conclusion you are drawing from it.

Then I guess giving you data wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

And you are clearly not getting it! Notice you're claiming it's "Genetic defect>Defective Brain Cells>Not enough dopamine distributed or absorbed by the defective brain cells>Dopamine imbalance>ADHD." This is not the gene causing the ADHD. It is not Genetic defect>ADHD. It is invalid to say that a gene is causing ADHD when the gene is really just causing something else, which causes something else, which then causes ADHD. Besides, here you're saying it's a genetic defect and not a gene itself. Thus, you cannot say that ADHD is "genetic" (caused by a gene). Even if you had Genetic defect>ADHD, all you could say was that it was caused by a genetic defect and not that it is "genetic" since it is not the gene itself causing the condition but, instead, a defect in the gene causing it.

Then where the hell do you think it comes from? Do you think that people just magically get inadequate amounts of dopamine in their brains? Do you think that the Dopamine Fairy takes it out of the brains of naughty children that want to conform? No, the genetic defect does not lead directly to poor concentration, but the effects of the defect lead to low dopamine, which in turn leads to poor concentration, which is a symptom of ADHD. Its called a chain of events, something that I could easily understand in the fifth grade, and something that you continue to not understand.

There you go again showing piss-poor reading comprehension skills! If you're going to disagree with me you had better get it right. Not once did I ever say "There is no real disease if a genetic defect doesn't lead directly to..." But, to answer your stupid question (notice it's the question that is stupid, not the person who asked it), what it means is simply that sickle cell anemia would not be "genetic" (caused by a gene) but, instead, merely the result of a defect in the gene (in which case the cause would be in the defect, not in the gene itself).

Show me where in the dictionary it says Defective Gene. Its not one word with its own separate definition. Just because a gene is defective doesn't mean its no longer a gene. The disease is caused by genetics, bad genetics. Ask any doctor, although I guess since he went to a school and made an effort to educate himself you'd discount his opinion. Apparently YOU are the one that didn't pay attention to reading comprehension in school. I guess you were too busy complaining about how unfair it was that you didn't get to play with your toys and being angry at schools instead of LEARNING.

You should use your brain and stop making assumptions! I don't want someone's damned guess work, I want absolute proof! There is no place for mere speculation here. In order to claim that something is "genetic," you must prove absolutely that there is a specific gene or combination of genes (and not "defects" in those genes) actually causing the particular disease or disorder. If you're going to say a particular disease or disorder is the result of a genetic defect, then you must show the defect actually causing it (and not merely causing something else that causes something else that causes something else that causes the disease or disorder). Until that can be done, I'm not buying into this "it's genetic" argument - and I damned well am not going to accept it for a "disorder" where the symptoms only appear selectively, i.e. when the person isn't doing something he's interested in or enjoys. I'm also not accepting the "it's genetic" argument for a "disorder" where the person with the supposed "disorder" responds well to structure and discipline. You aren't going to convince me that structure and discipline are somehow going to magically correct a "genetic" disorder.

You should really go look up what a genetic disease is. They are caused by genes that are NOT NORMAL, i.e. DEFECTIVE. The fact that you fail to understand the definition of the phrase does not change its meaning. Because you sure as hell don't get diseases from normal genes.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kite Thats not cost effective. Prescribing a pill and seeing if it fixes the problem is much cheaper than blood work.

Have you checked out the cost of medications lately?

Why would you test people that have not been labeled as having ADHD? What excuse would there be for just testing people that had no signs of the disorder? It STILL makes no sense at all.

There you go displaying your piss-poor reading comprehension skills again! You would test certain people that have not been labled - people who claim to have certain "symptoms" - to determine whether they have ADHD. The testing serves as a diagnostic tool.

What is sufficient then? Try explaining what you actually mean instead of leaving cryptic one-line responses and perhaps people wouldn't 'misunderstand' you as often, although your accusations of people having 'piss poor' reading comprehension looks more like you leaving yourself room to backpeadal from your ridiculous assertions.

What may be sufficient is diagnostic testing. As for what I mean, I mean exactly and only what I write. There is nothing cryptic about my responses, particularly when you read them as direct responses to the portions of posts quoted directly above them.

You cant diagnose HIV without a symptom.

Actually, you can. All it takes is a blood test.

Symptoms of HIV include: Low T Cell count, and the presence of HIV antibodies. Those ARE symptoms, they are just not VISUAL symptoms.

You're confusing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) with AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). Also, I don't know if you're aware of this but even AIDS can be asymptomatic.

You can also have cancer for quite a long time before noticing any visible symptoms. This is the reason for many deaths from cancer, the fact that it wasn't noticed early enough. And gasp! You just said DIAGNOSE WITHOUT SYMPTOMS. You can't diagnose anything without symptoms, testing people based on nothing is just a waste of money and shooting in the dark.

Well, then, how do you explain the medical report I read just this morning where a person was found to have a form of cancer and this was discovered while an entirely unrelated procedure was being performed? Oh, and the medical report itself specifically said that they discovered the cancer while there were still no symptoms.

So what do you suggest? That we should go running to the ER every time we have a sniffle to see if its anthrax? People DO make assumptions, if we didn't we would go insane. But for some reason, you seem to equate assume with incorrect. Now who is reading into things?

No, I suggest that people do what reasonable people do: wait and see what happens. If it lasts longer than a few days they go to their doctor and see if there's something else going on.

Most people don't become drug dependent from a 2 week trial. You also seem to be one of those people that don't understand the difference between drug use and drug abuse.

Actually, I said nothing about a two-week trial and I would appreciate it if you'd knock off these straw man arguments!

Look buddy, no one likes school. The fact of the matter is, schools are there, and we have to go through them in order to succeed in our adult lives, at least in this particular society.

Though they don't have to be government-run schools.

Just because you don't like them doesn't change the fact that people DO have this problem, and some DO need medication. Yes, there are a good number of misdiagnoses, but that is true of ANY disease. Don't let your dislike of schools color your thinking when it comes to medical matters.

I don't have any objection to children being educated; my objection is to these government indoctrination centers (public schools) - but that's another thread. And, no, these kids do not need medication! They didn't need medication before someone concocted this whole notion of ADHD and they don't need it now. Keep in mind that I have a perspective on this that you don't: I read the medical reports, the counseling records and the school records.

Now who has piss poor reading comprehension? I said they took people that don't have ADHD and people that did and compared their average dopamine levels, and they discovered that people with the symptoms of lack of focus and hyperactivity had a LOWER amount of dopamine. They linked that to the symptoms, and they administered a treatment, that is EFFECTIVE. And once again, you need to come back to the real world, where money is an object and hospitals and medical centers seldom have enough of it to waste on blood testing that would only confirm what is already known.

No, what you said was "They tested an amount of people that appeared to have an average mental health, took the amounts and made an average. People with ADHD have an amount below this average, therefore there is some kind of imbalance. My doctor explained it to me this way when I was young: Think of the brain cells as light switches, and the dopamine is what flips the switch. I don't have enough dopamine to flip the switch, so I need a way to make more, i.e. a stimulant." I was merely interpreting what you said.

Then I guess giving you data wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

As long as you give data without your interpretation, I don't have a problem with it.

Then where the hell do you think it comes from? Do you think that people just magically get inadequate amounts of dopamine in their brains? Do you think that the Dopamine Fairy takes it out of the brains of naughty children that want to conform?

You're getting confused. We're talking about the cause of ADHD, not the cause of dopamine imbalances.

No, the genetic defect does not lead directly to poor concentration,

Thank you for finally getting my point that it does not lead directly to ADHD (of which poor concentration may be a symptom)!

but the effects of the defect lead to low dopamine, which in turn leads to poor concentration, which is a symptom of ADHD. Its called a chain of events, something that I could easily understand in the fifth grade, and something that you continue to not understand.

I do understand it; I just reject your interpretation of it. Just because there is a chain of events doesn't mean the first link must be the direct cause of the last link in the chain. The first link in the chain can only be the direct cause of the second link in the chain.

Show me where in the dictionary it says Defective Gene. Its not one word with its own separate definition.

It is a phrase consisting of two words: what's your point?

Just because a gene is defective doesn't mean its no longer a gene.

I never said the gene stopped being a gene.

The disease is caused by genetics, bad genetics.

Are you sure about that? Here is the relevant medical definition of "genetic": of, relating to, caused by, or controlled by genes. Since you've already said that it was a defect that caused the dopamine imbalance that caused something else that caused something else that caused ADHD, the latter condition (ADHD) is clearly not caused by or controlled by a gene or group of genes. At most, you can say the dopamine imbalance is genetic (and even that is debateable).

Ask any doctor, although I guess since he went to a school and made an effort to educate himself you'd discount his opinion. Apparently YOU are the one that didn't pay attention to reading comprehension in school. I guess you were too busy complaining about how unfair it was that you didn't get to play with your toys and being angry at schools instead of LEARNING.

Before you continue making such remarks, keep in mind that I read the medical reports, the counseling reports and the school records and have direct access to medical and other professional journals. So, I get to see a bigger picture than any one of these sources alone (doctors don't always get to see the school or counseling reports, schools don't usually get to see the doctors' reports, and counselors don't always get to see the school or the doctors' reports). So, excuse me if I balk at your claim that ADHD is "genetic" as I read the reports from teachers saying a particular student with supposed ADHD "responds well to structure and discipline" or as I look at the medical records and see absolutely no mention whatsoever of any testing done on the child to determine whether there was an actual dopamine imbalance or whether there was the particular defective gene said to be involved before making the diagnosis (or even afterward).

You should really go look up what a genetic disease is. They are caused by genes that are NOT NORMAL, i.e. DEFECTIVE. The fact that you fail to understand the definition of the phrase does not change its meaning. Because you sure as hell don't get diseases from normal genes.

Earlier in the post I provided the relevant medical definition of "genetic." I'm well aware that there are sometimes defects that occur in genes or groups of genes. I'm well aware that these defects are often said to result in various conditions, diseases or disorders - even though this is merely a conclusion that geneticists have drawn and not direct observation. But you're not going to convince me that a child that "responds well to structure and discipline" has a genetic disorder that produces his selective inattention, selective hyperactivity or selective impulsivity.

[Kite]

Quote by: Chancellor Have you checked out the cost of medications lately?

Have you checked the prices of lab equipment, chemicals, vials and storage that are required for testing? I didn't say they don't cost a lot, I said it was more COST EFFECTIVE. And you have the audacity to say I have bad reading comprehension.

There you go displaying your piss-poor reading comprehension skills again! You would test certain people that have not been labled - people who claim to have certain "symptoms" - to determine whether they have ADHD. The testing serves as a diagnostic tool.

It would be much appreciated if you would cease the insults toward my personal intelligence based on the fact that YOU don't understand what I'm saying. And now that you have actually ELABORATED and EXPLAINED what you mean by your words, it is much clearer. I agree that testing is a great diagnostic tool, but again, it is not the most cost effective method of diagnosis.

What may be sufficient is diagnostic testing. As for what I mean, I mean exactly and only what I write. There is nothing cryptic about my responses, particularly when you read them as direct responses to the portions of posts quoted directly above them.

Perhaps they make sense to you, but not to others. Since I am not the first, nor will I be the last person to point out your quote mining and quibbling over interpretations, perhaps you should consider changing your tactics.

Actually, you can. All it takes is a blood test.

You really haven't a single clue do you? What do you think that the blood tests look for? They look at your T Cell count, and they look for Antibodies for HIV. Low T Cell count and HIV antibodies would be considered SYMPTOMS.

You're confusing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) with AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome). Also, I don't know if you're aware of this but even AIDS can be asymptomatic.

Once again, you are wrong. HIV is accompanied by a lower than average T Cell count as well as HIV antibodies. HIV becomes AIDS when your T Cell count drops below a certain number.

Well, then, how do you explain the medical report I read just this morning where a person was found to have a form of cancer and this was discovered while an entirely unrelated procedure was being performed? Oh, and the medical report itself specifically said that they discovered the cancer while there were still no symptoms.

Last I checked, 'tumor' fell under the category of 'Cancer symptoms'. The fact that they found it during a unrelated procedure was a happy accident. Also, even though they said no symptoms, in order for you to understand it using your overly specific reading method, what they should have said is 'there were no outward physical manifestation'.

No, I suggest that people do what reasonable people do: wait and see what happens. If it lasts longer than a few days they go to their doctor and see if there's something else going on.

Once again you are wrong. The average length of a cold is ten days, without treatment. If we seriously entertained the notion that we could have anthrax or the plague every time we got a cold, we would go out of our minds with fear. However you are correct in the respect that you should get yourself checked out if it seems weird, one of the reasons for the high fatality rate of meningitis is because it looks so similar to the common flu that it is frequently misdiagnosed and it is only realized to be meningitis after its too late.

Actually, I said nothing about a two-week trial and I would appreciate it if you'd knock off these straw man arguments!

I did say 2 week trial. The debate is not all about what YOU think and how YOU interpret things. Also, drug use does not always result in dependence. You should know that.

Though they don't have to be government-run schools.

Oh and I'm sure you would be the one to run them.

I don't have any objection to children being educated; my objection is to these government indoctrination centers (public schools) - but that's another thread. And, no, these kids do not need medication! They didn't need medication before someone concocted this whole notion of ADHD and they don't need it now. Keep in mind that I have a perspective on this that you don't: I read the medical reports, the counseling records and the school records.

How about you keep in mind that I have a perspective that you don't: I HAVE THE DISEASE. Do you have any idea how insulting it is for you to claim that my mental disorder is a figment of my imagination? As for your outrageous claims that I, or anyone else that has ADHD as severe as mine, don't need medication, you can shove them. You aren't a doctor, hell, I doubt you even know what the medication is comprised of or how it even functions. So why don't you keep your 'ADHD is a made up disease so that problem children have to take meds' conspiracy to yourself before you truly piss me off.

No, what you said was "They tested an amount of people that appeared to have an average mental health, took the amounts and made an average. People with ADHD have an amount below this average, therefore there is some kind of imbalance. My doctor explained it to me this way when I was young: Think of the brain cells as light switches, and the dopamine is what flips the switch. I don't have enough dopamine to flip the switch, so I need a way to make more, i.e. a stimulant." I was merely interpreting what you said.

Since when do you interpret? What happened to 'mean what you say and don't interpret my posts to mean something other than exactly what I said'? How about you do the same thing for me as you expect me to do for you.

As long as you give data without your interpretation, I don't have a problem with it.

Good, since finding data for you to ultimately reject is a waste of my time.

You're getting confused. We're talking about the cause of ADHD, not the cause of dopamine imbalances.

You are the one that is confused. For the last time, the cause of the dopamine imbalance is the defective gene, and the ADHD is caused by the dopamine imbalance. Cant you see how the two of them might be related somehow?

Thank you for finally getting my point that it does not lead directly to ADHD (of which poor concentration may be a symptom)!

So what? It does not advance our conversation at all, it just wasted my time listening to you quibble over words and interpretations. Make a point that actually does something.

I do understand it; I just reject your interpretation of it. Just because there is a chain of events doesn't mean the first link must be the direct cause of the last link in the chain. The first link in the chain can only be the direct cause of the second link in the chain.

I said it was the SOURCE of the problem, not the direct cause. Open your eyes so you can actually read what I write.

It is a phrase consisting of two words: what's your point? I never said the gene stopped being a gene.

Thats what you are implying.

Are you sure about that? Here is the relevant medical definition of "genetic": of, relating to, caused by, or controlled by genes. Since you've already said that it was a defect that caused the dopamine imbalance that caused something else that caused something else that caused ADHD, the latter condition (ADHD) is clearly not caused by or controlled by a gene or group of genes. At most, you can say the dopamine imbalance is genetic (and even that is debateable).

How ignorant can you be? That is exactly what I have been saying, if you care to use your head and think. This is very basic reading. I said the disease was genetic in nature, i.e. caused by genes. The genes in this case are defective. For you to say its not caused by genes is just plain wrong.

Before you continue making such remarks, keep in mind that I read the medical reports, the counseling reports and the school records and have direct access to medical and other professional journals. So, I get to see a bigger picture than any one of these sources alone (doctors don't always get to see the school or counseling reports, schools don't usually get to see the doctors' reports, and counselors don't always get to see the school or the doctors' reports). So, excuse me if I balk at your claim that ADHD is "genetic" as I read the reports from teachers saying a particular student with supposed ADHD "responds well to structure and discipline" or as I look at the medical records and see absolutely no mention whatsoever of any testing done on the child to determine whether there was an actual dopamine imbalance or whether there was the particular defective gene said to be involved before making the diagnosis (or even afterward).

Since when does one particular student, a minority, set the standard for the majority? Just because something is misdiagnosed doesn't mean it isn't real.

[Kite]

Earlier in the post I provided the relevant medical definition of "genetic." I'm well aware that there are sometimes defects that occur in genes or groups of genes. I'm well aware that these defects are often said to result in various conditions, diseases or disorders - even though this is merely a conclusion that geneticists have drawn and not direct observation. But you're not going to convince me that a child that "responds well to structure and discipline" has a genetic disorder that produces his selective inattention, selective hyperactivity or selective impulsivity.

Once again, just because ONE child responded well to structure and discipline, that doesn't mean ALL will. Everyone's health is specific to that person. However, at this point you are only proving my point for me to anyone with half a brain, so you can continue to refer to your one case in the face of thousands of others that have responded to medication. It makes no difference to me.