Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

YO!

48 (19%)

I suspect I am, but am not diagnosed as such.

32 (12.6%)

NO!

164 (64.8%)

I've been diagnosed as such, but suspect I am not.

9 (3.6%)

Total Members Voted: 252

[G-Flex]

I am in no way qualified to recommend how to solve problems outside of talking to a doctor and taking any medicine a qualified doctor recommends. I know for my anxiety + ADD I get some tasty Adderall, because the dopamine is supposed to work on the anxiety.

You can get a "qualified doctor" to recommend medication for damn near anything these days. I hate to say it, but a healthy amount of skepticism and self-research is basically required if you want to do anything responsible.

At any rate, I'm just making the point that something like therapy is probably a much better point at which to start off.

[Siquo]

Did this improvement take place some time after the last time we interacted here on the forum?

And what's your excuse?

[ChairmanPoo]

Therapy can help, but ADD does need medication. Amphetamines like Adderall help by stimulating the frontal cortex. The results are good in general (70% respond to treatment the first time it's tried), and it does help them with academic performance and anxiety. The drawback is that it worsens ticks and (obviously) is bad for sleep (so the dosage is normally pathed to avoid afternoon doses).

[G-Flex]

ADD does need medication.

I'm skeptical. Behavioral therapy works for ADHD, and calling medication "necessary" for something like that seems extremely fishy.

[MorleyDev]

Ah the Medication debate, an old one still waged today by psychiatrists and psychologists and ultimately the difficulty in settling it lies in a great flaw in the study of human behaviour: Correlation without knowing causation.

To give an example: A depressed person may be lacking in certain chemicals, but is the depression a result of those chemicals or are there less chemicals because something is making the brain depressed, therefore it produces less. Are you actually treating, or just getting the poor sap too high to notice? And does it matter?

The problem is a lot of psychiatry/psychology is about symptoms, not causes. Whereas with most diseases and the like we can definitely say "yep, this little bugger is causing the problem". Not so in psych, where if a person matches the symptoms, they have the condition. Unfortunately, since we can't say what causes the condition finding the correct treatment can be difficult.

Is it a natural hormone imbalance? Is it learned behaviour? Does their life just generally suck? Do they just drink too much damn coffee? Are they on heroine without us knowing? All of the above? Who knows?

Personally until we know the cause I'm hesitant to claim medication, therapy or a combination are truly recommendable. Wikipedia says ADHD has multiple competing theories, and since the damn ethics rules won't just let people grab a bunch of babies, cut into their brains, and start messing with their hormone levels and how they are parented and the like which means it's going to be a long time before we can have definitive answers on that one -.-

Though if medication at least makes the person bearable to be around and/or productive, then maybe it's better for society if they are just kept in a state of permanent drugged-up-ness?

[Mindmaker]

In some cases you need to treat the symptoms, before you can get to the root of the problem.
At least that's the case with me. It's always situational.

[G-Flex]

To give an example: A depressed person may be lacking in certain chemicals, but is the depression a result of those chemicals or are there less chemicals because something is making the brain depressed, therefore it produces less.

You're missing an important comment here about "chemical imbalances": Any psychological imbalance will not just be caused by a chemical balance, or cause one, but rather is a chemical imbalance. The chemical state of the brain and that person's psychological makeup are reflections of each other, as they are the same thing. Obviously you can identify which substances mean what, and the actual cause of the problem is a whole other mess, but a lot of people seem to be missing out on this fact.

[Siquo]

And then there's the definition of "imbalance". What is normal? I think happy people are abnormal. They're hiding something. Never trust a smile.
<----- Like that one!

(I used to believe a lot worse than that, btw)

[MorleyDev]

Abnormal is when everybody is plotted on a curve an abnormal person is beyond 2 standard deviations. Or at least that's a potential psychological definition of abnormal (if not the only one) used often. Of course quantifying the data in question can be a challenge...

This is why I don't see why people get offended when being called abnormal, it's just saying you have a quality/flaw/feature not present with in the majority of people. Is that truly so horrific a concept?

Stating abnormal by itself is not making a judgement call on what is better or worse, a person significantly more intelligent than everybody else is abnormal, doesn't make it a bad thing. Behaviours are problematic if they cause significant distress for the person and/or those around them, and that's an entirely separate concept to normality.

[Jacos]

I was diagnosed that I had Aspergers when I was about eight, or something like that. I really can't remember. In fact, they told me barely anything about it except that it had something to do with me being terrible at socially interacting with other people. Or something like that. As I said, I really can't remember.

[Siquo]

Abnormal is [...] you have a quality/flaw/feature not present with in the majority of people.

It's not horrific, to me, it's just that there's so many dimensions of this, that everyone qualifies for this definition. And the people who don't, are just hiding it pretty well. There's not one scale, there's so many ways you can become crazy. Or abnormal or whatever you want to call it.

Jacos: that's really bad. Telling a child it's not good at something is usually a self-sulfilling prophecy... 

[Starver]

I'd say that anyone who doesn't exhibit any form of abnormality by being the median along all scales should be considered abnormal in their sheer mediocrity.  And quite possibly an alien, robot or demon (or, indeed, alien robodemon) sent among us humans to spy on us!

[MorleyDev]

Abnormal is [...] you have a quality/flaw/feature not present with in the majority of people.

It's not horrific, to me, it's just that there's so many dimensions of this, that everyone qualifies for this definition. And the people who don't, are just hiding it pretty well. There's not one scale, there's so many ways you can become crazy. Or abnormal or whatever you want to call it.

Yep, which is why when someone talks of abnormal it's almost always talking about a specific trait. Abnormally intelligent, abnormally stupid, abnormal amounts of dopamine...I don't think scientists will ever state "you are abnormal in some way" without a qualifier ^^

[x2yzh9]

Did this improvement take place some time after the last time we interacted here on the forum?

And what's your excuse?

Hey, I didn't come here to be put on fucking trial.

[RF]

Abnormal is [...] you have a quality/flaw/feature not present with in the majority of people.

It's not horrific, to me, it's just that there's so many dimensions of this, that everyone qualifies for this definition. And the people who don't, are just hiding it pretty well. There's not one scale, there's so many ways you can become crazy. Or abnormal or whatever you want to call it.

Well, no, abnormal is falling outside of a specific area of the bellshaped curve (I think it has to be outside about 40% of people on each side) and that's where abnormality lies.