surreptitious57 wrote:

So psychological traits can not be passed on in the same way that physical ones can then ? Does this mean that
they are acquired rather than inherited ? And is there therefore no connection whatsoever between psychology
and genes ? If not then what does determines psychology ? Is there no chemical or biological basis for it at all ?

Human behaviors most definitely are passed on, and in the same way that physical ones are. The reason is that our behaviors, like physical one, such as hair color, eye color, body shape etc. are all part of our genetic code. Our behaviors, are our personalities, our psychology if you will. We receive a combination of behaviors from our parents, and they adapt throughout our lives.
How are you behaviorally like your parents? What personality traits do you share with your parents, or other members in your family? Just like you share physical traits so too do you share personality traits. Those are your behaviors.
I would suggest reading up on this instead of listening to the rabble that frequents this site, far too much confusion and petty squabbling.

What Templeton is suggesting is, to compare it to physiological evolution, that if we systematically cut our arms over our lifetime then these cuts will become part of our DNA and will be based on to our kids.

Wrong, and you still don't get it do you? Try rereading the posts. Then, rather than assuming incorrectly what someone is saying, why don't you try looking up the information. The problem with many members on this site is that they believe that the small amount of knowledge they possess is common knowledge and anything that they haven't heard of or understand is an outrageous claim requiring reams of supporting data. When given that data, if they even acknowledge it, more often they are likely to attempt to debase the author on a triviality, such as they're personal, political, or professional beliefs or associations. Ignoring completely the message, and pronouncing new information as "Woo" or "Wibble" When in truth, they are the ones who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Samsa wrote:

He believes that our experiences literally changes our DNA, that all behaviors are genetically programmed, and that our DNA is aware of the choices we make.

Wrong, and more of the same Samsa, not only did you totally misunderstand what I was saying you do not grasp the function of gene expression. Do the research for crying out loud. Your ignorant babble is misleading many of the poor souls that hang on your every word. When reading your responses you partially understand some processes and then the connection gets lost. It seems like the information you're spouting on about is right out of the 1960's, outdated and antiquated. Read, learn, grow...or not, but stop going on like you're the gospel.

Templeton wrote:

What Templeton is suggesting is, to compare it to physiological evolution, that if we systematically cut our arms over our lifetime then these cuts will become part of our DNA and will be based on to our kids.

Wrong, and you still don't get it do you? Try rereading the posts.

You've repeated the position I've described in your reply to Surr just above. You can't state your position as X and then get all shitty when people take your position to be X. If you disagree with the characterisation, then correct it, don't just keep saying it's "wrong".

Templeton wrote:Then, rather than assuming incorrectly what someone is saying, why don't you try looking up the information. The problem with many members on this site is that they believe that the small amount of knowledge they possess is common knowledge and anything that they haven't heard of or understand is an outrageous claim requiring reams of supporting data. When given that data, if they even acknowledge it, more often they are likely to attempt to debase the author on a triviality, such as they're personal, political, or professional beliefs or associations. Ignoring completely the message, and pronouncing new information as "Woo" or "Wibble" When in truth, they are the ones who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

What are you talking about? You haven't presented any data. Present it and we'll talk.

Templeton wrote:Samsa wrote:

He believes that our experiences literally changes our DNA, that all behaviors are genetically programmed, and that our DNA is aware of the choices we make.

Wrong, and more of the same Samsa, not only did you totally misunderstand what I was saying you do not grasp the function of gene expression. Do the research for crying out loud. Your ignorant babble is misleading many of the poor souls that hang on your every word. When reading your responses you partially understand some processes and then the connection gets lost. It seems like the information you're spouting on about is right out of the 1960's, outdated and antiquated. Read, learn, grow...or not, but stop going on like you're the gospel.

I have read the research, I do understand it, and I actively participate in the research on this topic. You show me that you understand what you're talking about - link me to one article that suggests that our perceptions of our experiences are communicated to our DNA and that these experiences are then passed on to our children.

You talk about people spouting words as if it were gospel but that's exactly what you're doing here, preaching "truths" that only the chosen ones can understand and that instead of evidence you want us to take your claims on faith, with hopes that one day you will lead us poor masses to the light.

Templeton wrote:
Human behaviors most definitely are passed on and in the same way that physical ones are

Given that psychological traits are not and indeed cannot be pre determined I do not accept this

It is only purely physical traits which can be genetically transferred and so all others are acquired

That is because psychological ones are determined by environment and as such cannot be inherited

Children do not automatically share the same psychology as their parents and so it cannot be genetic

You've done the research? Maybe you found something from Watson from back in the 60's. Why don't You show the research, come on...Try this, Developmental plasticity, Epigenetic programing...check it out, and there is so much more...
Oh and Behavioral genetics, and Evolutionary psychology...As I mentioned above how you'd started spouting on about how my claims were outrageous and I needed to show data...Human behavior is awesome...You do the research Samsa...There will be a test later...

Templeton wrote:You've done the research? Maybe you found something from Watson from back in the 60's. Why don't You show the research, come on...Try this, Developmental plasticity, Epigenetic programing...check it out, and there is so much more...
Oh and Behavioral genetics, and Evolutionary psychology...As I mentioned above how you'd started spouting on about how my claims were outrageous and I needed to show data...Human behavior is awesome...You do the research Samsa...There will be a test later...

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof but no, you're the one who needs to present evidence.

You're trying to tell me to look up developmental plasticity and epigenetics? I've already discussed it above, it doesn't help you and the claims you've made.

If you really think those concepts support your position then I recommend you look them up yourself as you have a woeful understanding of them.

I think the idea that DNA is altered by our perceptions of events are completely outside the realm of anything we know of in current scientific literature. It seems like Templeton has misread the implications of epigenetics and extend too far.

However, I did want to comment on the whole are behaviors inherited or not. As the Skinner quote below indicates, in some trivial sense we can say that all behaviors are somewhat inherited or rather capacity to behave is inherited.

"All behavior is due to genes, some more or less directly, the rest through the role of genes in producing the structure which are modified during the lifetime of the individual" (Skinner, 1984, p.704).

Inheriting capacity to behave as open-ended behavioral system leads us right back to looking at psychology (organism-environment interactions) rather than genes for complex human behavior. Outside of inheriting the open ended system, you won't gain a lot of knowledge of what's happening within that system by saying it was based on my genes.

Imza wrote:However, I did want to comment on the whole are behaviors inherited or not. As the Skinner quote below indicates, in some trivial sense we can say that all behaviors are somewhat inherited or rather capacity to behave is inherited.

"All behavior is due to genes, some more or less directly, the rest through the role of genes in producing the structure which are modified during the lifetime of the individual" (Skinner, 1984, p.704).

Inheriting capacity to behave as open-ended behavioral system leads us right back to looking at psychology (organism-environment interactions) rather than genes for complex human behavior. Outside of inheriting the open ended system, you won't gain a lot of knowledge of what's happening within that system by saying it was based on my genes.

I agree, with both your/Skinner's generalised idea about all behavior being inherited if defined broadly enough and the issues with looking at specific behaviors in that overly broad framework. It's sort of like saying that all behaviors are caused by exploding stars. It's certainly true that behaviors couldn't occur without exploding stars (as they created the matter to make things like humans possible) but it's not that useful for many questions that we want to answer about behavior.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Imza wrote:However, I did want to comment on the whole are behaviors inherited or not. As the Skinner quote below indicates, in some trivial sense we can say that all behaviors are somewhat inherited or rather capacity to behave is inherited.

"All behavior is due to genes, some more or less directly, the rest through the role of genes in producing the structure which are modified during the lifetime of the individual" (Skinner, 1984, p.704).

Inheriting capacity to behave as open-ended behavioral system leads us right back to looking at psychology (organism-environment interactions) rather than genes for complex human behavior. Outside of inheriting the open ended system, you won't gain a lot of knowledge of what's happening within that system by saying it was based on my genes.

I agree, with both your/Skinner's generalised idea about all behavior being inherited if defined broadly enough and the issues with looking at specific behaviors in that overly broad framework. It's sort of like saying that all behaviors are caused by exploding stars. It's certainly true that behaviors couldn't occur without exploding stars (as they created the matter to make things like humans possible) but it's not that useful for many questions that we want to answer about behavior.

Yep, I only extended it out because I think many times people in fields like biology can see psychology as ignoring or disregarding genes, which is not true anymore than biologists are disregarding quarks, it's just not very useful for their analysis. It reminds me of what the philosopher Susan Haack says physicists, "Its' all physical but it's not all physics".

I mentioned before Samsa how you would behave, and nailed it to a T. If it's something you do not understand, you demand data, when supplied, you shoot the messenger, ignoring the information.

Samsa wrote:

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof but no, you're the one who needs to present evidence.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander Samsa. you've been on your soap box on this thread for sometime now, and have preached your gospel, shouldn't you supply data? Your information is outdated.

You do the research, that is how we learn. Behavioral genetics, Evolutionary Psychology, both are multi-disciplinary fields of research, which should be a great place to start.
There will be a test later

Imza wrote:
Yep, I only extended it out because I think many times people in fields like biology can see psychology as ignoring or disregarding genes, which is not true anymore than biologists are disregarding quarks, it's just not very useful for their analysis. It reminds me of what the philosopher Susan Haack says physicists, "Its' all physical but it's not all physics".

That's a good quote, I like that.

Templeton wrote:I mentioned before Samsa how you would behave, and nailed it to a T. If it's something you do not understand, you demand data, when supplied, you shoot the messenger, ignoring the information.

Samsa wrote:

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof but no, you're the one who needs to present evidence.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander Samsa. you've been on your soap box on this thread for sometime now, and have preached your gospel, shouldn't you supply data? Your information is outdated.

You do the research, that is how we learn. Behavioral genetics, Evolutionary Psychology, both are multi-disciplinary fields of research, which should be a great place to start.
There will be a test later

I still see no sign of evidence. Still looking or are you just making it up as you go along?

Templeton wrote:
Samsa wrote:

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof but no, you're the one who needs to present evidence.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander Samsa. you've been on your soap box on this thread for sometime now, and have preached your gospel, shouldn't you supply data? Your information is outdated.

You do the research, that is how we learn. Behavioral genetics, Evolutionary Psychology, both are multi-disciplinary fields of research, which should be a great place to start.
There will be a test later

Templeton, what is your goal here? I haven't seen anyone in agreement with your more extreme points as yet, but you're the one claiming that we need to present evidence. You're the one making unsubstantiated claims - you present your evidence. If it's so basic as you claim it to be, it should be no more difficult than opening a biology textbook or a quick google search, both of which I would assume you're capable of based on your supposed education in biology.

It is not our burden to prove you wrong. There's good reason for that: in many cases it's impossible to prove a negative. You are the one making a positive assertion, so the burden of proof is on you, and you're falling terribly short of it.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
The reason why I think you are trolling in some of your posts is that I'm sure you know what you're doing and that you're trying to get a rise out of people. Take for example a recent exchange of ours in the ADHD thread where the point was raised that there is a problem with diagnoses because there is little agreement amongst clinicians and I pointed out that this simply isn't supported by the evidence and there is in fact a reasonably high level of inter-rater agreement. You responded with:

Oh, yeah, baby. Consensus! That proves they're doing science.

What did that have to do with the discussion? Nobody claimed that consensus proves that something is a science, nobody doubted that psychology as a field is a science, nor suggested that the clinical application of psychological therapies was in itself scientific. Yet you felt the need to present this as if it were an argument.

To me, I personally think you're smarter than someone who would think that you had made a reasonable or relevant point there. The only other possible explanation in my opinion is that you were trying to get a rise out of people by posting incoherent nonsense.

Psychology is a broad field, Mr.Samsa. Some of what is included in the rubric is good science and some of it is worthless drivel which I call 'psychobabble'. I don't know where that leaves 'psychology' as a monolithic academic discipline. You, on the other hand, are speaking anonymously in an informal internet forum about the 'evidence' as if you were an authority (unvetted) on what the evidence is. You simply lack the authority here to press your opinions about, for example, 'inter-rater agreement'. My comment is that, even if you had the authority here to claim 'inter-rater agreement', and for me to accept it, you'd have to identify yourself personally as a recognised authority in the field, it's a fundamental fact that the agreement is over a set of behaviours without an etiology some clinicians have decided to collect and call a 'disorder'. Where this kind of 'inter-rater' agreement blends toward psychobabble is up to the individual clinician to decide.

As I and one or two others have been at pains to point out in this thread, ADHD is identifiable at least as much on a social basis as on an individual one, and my opinions are clear on whether we should apply the term 'scientist' to 'social psychologists' jotting 'observations' down on their clipboards. It's not clear to me that very bright kids with emotional responses learnt at home and who are bored with their classroom experience can be lumped in with kids who have a 'desire' to pay attention but have other 'neurological' excuses not to.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
The reason why I think you are trolling in some of your posts is that I'm sure you know what you're doing and that you're trying to get a rise out of people. Take for example a recent exchange of ours in the ADHD thread where the point was raised that there is a problem with diagnoses because there is little agreement amongst clinicians and I pointed out that this simply isn't supported by the evidence and there is in fact a reasonably high level of inter-rater agreement. You responded with:

Oh, yeah, baby. Consensus! That proves they're doing science.

What did that have to do with the discussion? Nobody claimed that consensus proves that something is a science, nobody doubted that psychology as a field is a science, nor suggested that the clinical application of psychological therapies was in itself scientific. Yet you felt the need to present this as if it were an argument.

To me, I personally think you're smarter than someone who would think that you had made a reasonable or relevant point there. The only other possible explanation in my opinion is that you were trying to get a rise out of people by posting incoherent nonsense.

Psychology is a broad field, Mr.Samsa. Some of what is included in the rubric is good science and some of it is worthless drivel which I call 'psychobabble'.

Undeniably true but completely irrelevant to the discussion as nothing anybody said referenced or relied on the idea of psychology being a science.

Cito di Pense wrote:I don't know where that leaves 'psychology' as a monolithic academic discipline.

Anybody who thinks or implies that it is monolithic is simply wrong but that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Cito di Pense wrote:You, on the other hand, are speaking anonymously in an informal internet forum about the 'evidence' as if you were an authority (unvetted) on what the evidence is.

Whoa, hold up now. I wasn't the one making the claim. I pointed out that there is no evidence of significant disagreement and then I presented possible measures where disagreement could be found but the ones making the argument had presented no evidence.

I don't need any "authority" because my position doesn't rely on fallacies, only facts.

Cito di Pense wrote:You simply lack the authority here to press your opinions about, for example, 'inter-rater agreement'. My comment is that, even if you had the authority here to claim 'inter-rater agreement', and for me to accept it, you'd have to identify yourself personally as a recognised authority in the field, it's a fundamental fact that the agreement is over a set of behaviours without an etiology some clinicians have decided to collect and call a 'disorder'. Where this kind of 'inter-rater' agreement blends toward psychobabble is up to the individual clinician to decide.

Let's be extremely generous to you here, Cito. Let's say that all of psychology is useless, purely psychobabble, and its understanding of disorders is practically pseudoscientific. It doesn't help you at all. The member above claimed that there was disagreement in diagnoses and I pointed out that no such evidence existed.

Regardless of the state of the field, the validity of medical diagnoses, etc, that fact is still true.

Cito di Pense wrote:As I and one or two others have been at pains to point out in this thread, ADHD is identifiable at least as much on a social basis as on an individual one,

But this has nothing to do with the howler of the non sequitur that you presented above. Someone said that there is little agreement in diagnoses, I claimed that there is no evidence of that, and you said "Consensus yay that proves it's a science". What the fuck.

Just admit that you fucked up and misunderstood a fundamental aspect of the discussion, otherwise I'll be seriously concerned over your ability to follow a straightforward discussion.

Cito di Pense wrote:and my opinions are clear on whether we should apply the term 'scientist' to 'social psychologists' jotting 'observations' down on their clipboards.

Nobody claims that clinicians are scientists. And this is, again, entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Cito di Pense wrote:It's not clear to me that very bright kids with emotional responses learnt at home and who are bored with their classroom experience can be lumped in with kids who have a 'desire' to pay attention but have other 'neurological' excuses not to.

They can't be - the DSM excludes them and they can't (without serious malpractice) be diagnosed as such.

And (all together now) that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of disagreement in diagnoses!

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I don't know where that leaves 'psychology' as a monolithic academic discipline.

Anybody who thinks or implies that it is monolithic is simply wrong but that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh, well, then you can easily explain this glib remark:

Mr.Samsa wrote:nobody doubted that psychology as a field is a science, nor suggested that the clinical application of psychological therapies was in itself scientific.

It all depends on how big one's science-tent is. In some circles, homeopathy is considered 'science'. Deciding whether or not an individual 'has ADHD' is not scientific, either, no matter how much 'inter-rater agreement' we can manufacture simply by agreeing with one another. There is broad 'inter-rater agreement' that one of our 'social problems' will be called 'ADHD', the same way we describe 'homophobia' and 'sexism' as social problems. No dispute that there are social problems, but how to solve them? That, my friend, is politics as usual, unless the essentialists can distill some ADHD and put it in a bottle. Why do we not try to drug homophobics the same way we drug those to whom we assign 'ADHD'?

Mr.Samsa wrote:nothing anybody said referenced or relied on the idea of psychology being a science.

Drugging someone is supposedly scientific, isn't it? Methodological naturalism, and all that rot.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Let's be extremely generous to you here, Cito. Let's say that all of psychology is useless, purely psychobabble, and its understanding of disorders is practically pseudoscientific. It doesn't help you at all. The member above claimed that there was disagreement in diagnoses and I pointed out that no such evidence existed.

Whatever the recognised name of the fallacy you're pursuing here, it's plain you're confusing the statement "not all of psychology is scientific" with "none of psychology is scientific". So let's not begin by assuming I suggested that all of psychology is useless, let alone whether all of it or none of it is scientific. The reason for my sarcastic "oh, yeah, baby" comment is that I'm as skeptical that any amount of diagnostic consensus is evidence of anything more than diagnostic consensus when there is no empirical etiology yet available.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I don't know where that leaves 'psychology' as a monolithic academic discipline.

Anybody who thinks or implies that it is monolithic is simply wrong but that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh, well, then you can easily explain this glib remark:

Mr.Samsa wrote:nobody doubted that psychology as a field is a science, nor suggested that the clinical application of psychological therapies was in itself scientific.

It all depends on how big one's science-tent is. In some circles, homeopathy is considered 'science'. Deciding whether or not an individual 'has ADHD' is not scientific, either, no matter how much 'inter-rater agreement' we can manufacture simply by agreeing with one another. There is broad 'inter-rater agreement' that one of our 'social problems' will be called 'ADHD', the same way we describe 'homophobia' and 'sexism' as social problems. No dispute that there are social problems, but how to solve them? That, my friend, is politics as usual, unless the essentialists can distill some ADHD and put it in a bottle. Why do we not try to drug homophobics the same way we drug those to whom we assign 'ADHD'?

Mr.Samsa wrote:nothing anybody said referenced or relied on the idea of psychology being a science.

Drugging someone is supposedly scientific, isn't it? Methodological naturalism, and all that rot.

I've never heard of ADHD, as a medical problem, being described as a "social problem" on par with sexism and homophobia. There are clear, identifiable traits of ADHD that a trained and educated doctor in the field would be able to identify and medicate for, literally just like any other mental illness. The arguments you're making against ADHD being a medical problem seem like they could be applied to most other mental illnesses, and would make just as little sense when used against those as they would against ADHD.

There's a legitimate difference between a "very bright kid with emotional responses learnt at home" as you put it and someone who suffers from ADHD - which, by the way, often persists into adulthood, and can be a serious issue for those who have it. Clear and identifiable traits such as general restlessness, inability to focus, and inability to remain calm or inactive can all be major issues for those who have it, and medication consistently helps deal with the issues.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Let's be extremely generous to you here, Cito. Let's say that all of psychology is useless, purely psychobabble, and its understanding of disorders is practically pseudoscientific. It doesn't help you at all. The member above claimed that there was disagreement in diagnoses and I pointed out that no such evidence existed.

Whatever the recognised name of the fallacy you're pursuing here, it's plain you're confusing the statement "not all of psychology is scientific" with "none of psychology is scientific". So let's not begin by assuming I suggested that all of psychology is useless, let alone whether all of it or none of it is scientific. The reason for my sarcastic "oh, yeah, baby" comment is that I'm as skeptical that any amount of diagnostic consensus is evidence of anything more than diagnostic consensus when there is no empirical etiology yet available.

First: see my above post, in case you missed it. Second, is there not an etiology for ADHD as yet? This paper is from 2008: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... /e358.long

Titled: Etiologic Classification of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Journal: Pediatric Vol 121, February 1 2008

This additional article, from 2004, outlines a myriad of traits of ADHD: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/495640_3

Note that studies have found that ADHD is highly heritable, and has been linked to specific chemical reactions in the brain. So there are physically identifiable, empirical traits of ADHD. [I am not educated enough to go in-depth as to those chemical reactions, but they are talked about in the article I posted above, and dozens of articles if you just google... wait for it... "ADHD etiology".]

And as I said in a previous post, even if these things weren't true, even if ADHD was just a "collection of symptoms" - we know for a fact that that collection of symptoms is highly responsive to specific medications, and that that collection of symptoms is highly disruptive to the lives of those who have it. Why not treat it as a medical disorder and medicate it in that case? Doing so clearly has a positive impact on the quality of life for the people who have that "collection of symptoms".

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:I don't know where that leaves 'psychology' as a monolithic academic discipline.

Anybody who thinks or implies that it is monolithic is simply wrong but that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh, well, then you can easily explain this glib remark:

Mr.Samsa wrote:nobody doubted that psychology as a field is a science, nor suggested that the clinical application of psychological therapies was in itself scientific.

I'm honestly not sure how or why you think you've made a valid or relevant point here. Nobody brought up the issue of psychology being a science. I don't know how you can conclude that someone implied that psychology was monolithic by not raising the scientific, or non-scientific, status of psychology.

Cito di Pense wrote:It all depends on how big one's science-tent is. In some circles, homeopathy is considered 'science'. Deciding whether or not an individual 'has ADHD' is not scientific, either, no matter how much 'inter-rater agreement' we can manufacture simply by agreeing with one another.

But what relevance does this have to the discussion? Nobody has claimed that inter-rater agreement makes it scientific.

Cito di Pense wrote:There is broad 'inter-rater agreement' that one of our 'social problems' will be called 'ADHD', the same way we describe 'homophobia' and 'sexism' as social problems.

They aren't described in the same way that homophobia and sexism are though. ADHD meets the criteria for being a mental disorder in the individual, whereas homophobia and sexism are more vague general societal issues.

Cito di Pense wrote:No dispute that there are social problems, but how to solve them? That, my friend, is politics as usual, unless the essentialists can distill some ADHD and put it in a bottle.

That may be where we differ. I side with science here and suggest that (as it currently the standard practice) the scientific method is the best way to figure out how to solve the problems associated with ADHD.

Cito di Pense wrote:Why do we not try to drug homophobics the same way we drug those to whom we assign 'ADHD'?

Because there is no evidence that homophobia is a mental disorder, that it needs to be treated, and/or that medication is the best treatment (if we decide it is to be treated). If you have evidence to support the idea that it should be, then I'm open to reading it.

Cito di Pense wrote:Drugging someone is supposedly scientific, isn't it?

No, nobody has claimed that. The evidence that shows that medication for ADHD is the best treatment option is, however, undeniably scientific.

Cito di Pense wrote:Methodological naturalism, and all that rot.

See? This is what I'm talking about. This term has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, and it doesn't even have anything to do with your incoherent ramblings here, so why throw it in there? Did you hear it once and think it sounded appropriate? Is it an insult? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Cito di Pense wrote:Whatever the recognised name of the fallacy you're pursuing here, it's plain you're confusing the statement "not all of psychology is scientific" with "none of psychology is scientific". So let's not begin by assuming I suggested that all of psychology is useless, let alone whether all of it or none of it is scientific.

Jesus fucking christ, Cito. My point was that even if we take your position to the most extreme (i.e. we don't just doubt the scientificness of some of psychology but actually dismiss the entire field) it still has no effect on anything that has been said.

Cito di Pense wrote:The reason for my sarcastic "oh, yeah, baby" comment is that I'm as skeptical that any amount of diagnostic consensus is evidence of anything more than diagnostic consensus when there is no empirical etiology yet available.

And that's fucking lovely for you, Cito. But it has no relevance to the discussion. Nobody claimed that diagnostic consensus is evidence of anything more than diagnostic consensus.

Someone claimed that there is disagreement in diagnoses and I claimed that there is no evidence to support this. You harp on about consensus proving science or something and it confuses everybody taking part in the discussion, but instead of retracting it and putting forward and actual position, you are pushing forward with it as if it wasn't the most blatant case of incomprehensible nonsense.

This is why I think you are trolling here. There was a discussion over whether there is a reasonable level of inter-rater agreement. You jump in, apparently at random and without regard for the discussion taking place, quote somebody without reading anything they wrote, simply to insert your wacky beliefs over psychology not being a science. Again, I truly don't believe that you are incapable of seeing how irrelevant and incoherent your position was and so I think that your intention must have been to provoke people.

Deremensis wrote:I've never heard of ADHD, as a medical problem, being described as a "social problem" on par with sexism and homophobia. There are clear, identifiable traits of ADHD that a trained and educated doctor in the field would be able to identify and medicate for, literally just like any other mental illness. The arguments you're making against ADHD being a medical problem seem like they could be applied to most other mental illnesses, and would make just as little sense when used against those as they would against ADHD.

I don't think Cito would mind dismissing all mental illnesses. It's better to point out that his arguments also dismiss most of medicine as a whole, and in response to that he'll come up with more postmodernist ramblings.

Deremensis wrote:There's a legitimate difference between a "very bright kid with emotional responses learnt at home" as you put it and someone who suffers from ADHD - which, by the way, often persists into adulthood, and can be a serious issue for those who have it.

There's not only a legitimate difference but it's an explicitly stated difference as described in the DSM. A clinician would have absolutely no grounds to diagnosis a bright kid who is bored at school with ADHD and the criteria state that he should not be diagnosed.

In other words, the example Cito has chosen as a problem with the diagnostic process used by psychologists actually confirms the power of it.

Deremensis wrote:I've never heard of ADHD, as a medical problem, being described as a "social problem" on par with sexism and homophobia. There are clear, identifiable traits of ADHD that a trained and educated doctor in the field would be able to identify and medicate for, literally just like any other mental illness. The arguments you're making against ADHD being a medical problem seem like they could be applied to most other mental illnesses, and would make just as little sense when used against those as they would against ADHD.

There's a legitimate difference between a "very bright kid with emotional responses learnt at home" as you put it and someone who suffers from ADHD - which, by the way, often persists into adulthood, and can be a serious issue for those who have it.

If there are traits for which to medicate, you still have to explain how the medication is necessary. That suggests a problem with a social dimension. I'm not arguing that 'fitting in' is not a problem for some people, but it is a social problem. The, er, clinical diagnoses of the difference in the cases depends on how much effort anyone wants to spend making the call, rather than on whether it's theoretically possible to make the call. That's why I call it a social problem. Yes, I'm treating 'mental illness' as a bit of a social construct, mainly because of how much effort we're prepared to expend caring for people who don't fit in. It raises all sorts of philosophical issues, such as how much effort we should expend preventing people from hurting themselves, as they do with tobacco products or other kinds of substance abuse.

I'm not yet passing judgment on the decision to drug someone 'diagnosed with ADHD'. But the issues for the 'helping professions' are a little more clear when we consider the social (or - gasp - cultural) dimension of the issues. I'm saying, more or less, that ADHD and its medical 'solution' is socially and culturally situated, and that justifying it is relative to that.

Deremensis wrote:
And as I said in a previous post, even if these things weren't true, even if ADHD was just a "collection of symptoms" - we know for a fact that that collection of symptoms is highly responsive to specific medications, and that that collection of symptoms is highly disruptive to the lives of those who have it. Why not treat it as a medical disorder and medicate it in that case? Doing so clearly has a positive impact on the quality of life for the people who have that "collection of symptoms".

Oh, quite. I'm happy for you if you've found an etiology that works for you. Drugging people with an 'etiology' is a particular response to it that is situated socially and culturally.

Cito di Pense wrote:If there are traits for which to medicate, you still have to explain how the medication is necessary.

If that's what the evidence shows, then that's your answer.

Cito di Pense wrote:That suggests a problem with a social dimension. I'm not arguing that 'fitting in' is not a problem for some people, but it is a social problem.

"Fitting in" isn't a criterion for ADHD, it has nothing to do with being diagnosed.

Do you think maybe you should read up a little on the topic before trying to engage any further?

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:No dispute that there are social problems, but how to solve them? That, my friend, is politics as usual, unless the essentialists can distill some ADHD and put it in a bottle.

That may be where we differ. I side with science here and suggest that (as it currently the standard practice) the scientific method is the best way to figure out how to solve the problems associated with ADHD.

Well, then our disagreement is a small one: The 'best' solution is a judgement call. Politics as usual, a social problem. In our rationalist-scientific culture, not everyone in our various societies agrees that the best solution for our social problems is to apply the scientific method to them. Take religious faith, for example. I bet if you looked hard enough, you could find an organic etiology for that, too, and even come up with some 'inter-rater agreement' on what drugs to use to treat it. If I were to hazard a guess about what the professionals would choose, it would be one or another of the many anti-anxiety drugs on the market. But drugging a majority of people in your society for a single condition calls the notion that it is a 'solution' into serious question.