Talk:Social construct theory of ADHD

Benjamin Fanklin stuff

That should be removed, since we have no source, nor evidence that he had something such as ADHD. Plus, it is a myth that he was a bad student in the public educational system. I've read his autobiography, and it doesn't sound like he had ADHD at all, never mentions of struggling at school (he was actually a gifted student, but had to leave because of financial problems), etc. That shouldn't be on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okksasis (talk • contribs) 14:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

reason for creation of article

The belief that ADHD does not exist is not minority or majority opinion. Much of what is in this article comes from Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies article. While the existence of ADHD has often been stated to be controversial, the disorder is widely accepted as being valid by: national health institutes, scientific bodies, educational centers, and courts of law of the western world.

Rather then delete the material off of the Controversies article I thought it better to create a separate article which could link back to Controversies article. While much of what is claimed to be controversial is neither majority or minority viewpoint, there are many websites on the internet which state these viewpoints. Here readers can examine these viewpoints more closely.--scuro (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back and I'm going to be doing a major overhaul of this article. It does not present an accurate or truthful view of the subject and is purposely contorted to lend credibility to the other perspective. ShadowCreatorII —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowCreatorII (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree, and the use of the term truthful can already to a controversy so please use an alternative. I think this article explains a certain point of view very well. There is no obejctive view or at least concsensus view that I know of and it useful to have the different perspectives.Matsuiny2004 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This article absolutely needs to exist. It is a commonly held "theory". Of course I expect both support and controversy in the article, and agree that it needs to be written to reflect that. But the theory is certainly not, overall, a personal view. I look forward to seeing how this article evolves. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Commonly held theory by whom? Breggin, Baughman, Timmimi, and Szasz appear to be the main proponents of this theory, and all have ties to Scientology (Breggin testified for the Scientologist lawsuits against Novartis over Ritalin, Szasz co-founded the Scientologist front-group CCHR). The theory has gained very little acceptance within the medical and scientific communities, and is not endorsed by any major medical groups. In fact, the main tenets of this "theory" are contradicted by the clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements by virtually every major medical organization that is involved in this subject. It is also worth noting that many of those who are cited in this article as supporting this theory also believe that mental illnesses in general do not exist. All of this ought to set off red flags that this is a fringe theory.

So again, I must ask, if this theory is "commonly held," then who exactly is it who holds this theory? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for Scientologists, or any other religious group, to use to claim scientific legitimacy for their views. We don't have a separate page for Catholic theories on birth control, why do we need a special page for what is, essentially, the Scientologist view of ADHD? ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

@hyperion35 Being sceptical about ADHD does not have to have anything to do with Scientology. Basic ideas behind scepticism to the diagnosis are:

• anti-psychiatry views, held on the grounds that psychiatry stems from an authoritative set of institutions with untrustworthy histories (the Scientologists' views just happen overlap with other anti-psychiatry views);
• medical sociology views (see for example authors Peter Conrad and Joseph Schneider), based on the idea that while disease is not identical to the "sick role" people adopt when suffering from a disease. Another book of interest here is Irving Zola's "Medical Nemesis", which popularised the concept of "iatrogenic illness" which certainly provides interesting food for thought for those of us affected by ADHD. You can absolutely believe in ADHD as a condition and still be a social constructionist, there doesn't have to be a contradiction there at all. Look at Claudia Malacrida's book "Cold Comfort", for instance;
• anti-labelling proponents, who are concerned about the stigmatising labelling process that people can go into (a diagnosis is, after all, a label) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqmatit (talk • contribs) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ADHD, likle many neurodevlopmental disorders, is a dimensional disorder with no clear boundary between normality and pathology. So where and how are the limits of normality set? How much does that depend on cultural norms The DSMIVR definition of ADHD includes "degree of impulsivity & hyperactivity and/or inattention … that is …. INAPPROPRIATE for developmental level" But what is “inappropriate”? How do notions of what is appropriate vary, e.g in time and place, between girls and boys, between social classes and different ethnic groups. It is ridiculous to approach this topic as if it is either 100% right or 100% wrong. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is IN PART socially constructed.--82.0.118.253 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-contradictions

The lead makes mutually exclusive claims: that ADHD/ADD are "not abnormal", and that they are (unusual behaviors) "caused by the environment". By definition, normalcy has no "cause". Either ADHD/ADD is truly normal (in which case it's a disease only in the sense that it might irritate other people, like a hungry baby crying for food might irritate other people), or it's not (in which case, we can start looking for causes, which might be genetic [biological], developmental [biological] or environmental [due to pollution, how people treated the children, etc.] or a combination thereof [oh, say, an inborn error of nerve development that manifests as ADD when very young children are never required to sit quietly, but which might not appear in a person with much more early practice in this skill).

The problem is that I'm not sure whether this logical error is an error in the Wikipedia article, which could result from the improper conflation of multiple competing "social" theories, or whether the lead accurately represents the logical errors made by proponents. If someone else knows more than I, please either clarify it or fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, this doesn't even begin to represent the many logical errors made by the proponents. ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical section?

The argument that is contained in this article is important, as ADHD (or any of its historical variants like Hyperactivity,ADD etc) has no established organic cause. This is not the same as suggesting that children and adults who are very active don't show differences in MRI scans but this only proves that brain activity is increased with greater motor activity- hardly world shattering.

The crucial point is that if ADHD is simply describing one end of a 'normal spectrum'then pathologisation is potentially dangerous and ethically questionable. In the past, many 'diseases' and 'treatments' have had majority acceptance but have not stood the test of proper skeptical research.

The social constructionist view is a solid theoretical position which may explain not only ADHD, but also its inexorable rise as a core concept in the pathology of behaviour. What's more, social construction would dispute the placing of the subject in the medical field. However, I suspect that this is one of those areas where Wikipedia will fail to give any sort of balanced view because as we would say in the UK- it's a Marmite subject (Marmite is a spread which people either love or hate). I suspect that there is no possible consensus. Even the banishing of this topic to a separate page makes it clear that it is a marginal view which can be ignored by right-minded people.

I am an educational psychologist with long experience. But I have given up trying to encourage logic about this topic- too many people are wedded to the medical notion and will defend it with their lives. There's no discussion with that.

But saying that, the article is immensly badly written. Maybe one day I'll have a go at it..... Hughwill (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. Wikipedia will only give a "balanced view" if such a view can be supported with citations from published literature, preferably peer-reviewed scientific literature. Equally important, Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia that has an obligation to note that this hypothesis is not currently accepted by any mainstream, reputable medical organization (CCHR doesn't count, as they are neither reputable nor are they a medical organization).

Perhaps, instead of attempting to convince the Wikipedia audience as to the veracity of these claims, you would be better off attempting to publish research and convince scientists and researchers of the validity of these claims using evidence. You mention that you are a psychologist. I do not know about psychologists across the pond, but in the US, the American Psychological Association, the specialty society that represents and speaks for American psychologists, has been quite clear in stating their support for the mainstream view that ADHD represents a serious neurological behavioral problem. The American Psychological Association has also not endorsed this Social Construct hypothesis, and many of their statements contradict this hypothesis.

In fact, the APA even has a page set up specifically for ADHD: http://www.apa.org/topics/topicadhd.html

Now, as I mentioned, I am not as familiar with practice in the UK, but I did manage to find the NICE clinical practice guidelines for ADHD. They can be found here: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG72FullGuideline.pdf

In any event, the problem has nothing to do with anyone being "wedded" to any notion, but rather that the proponents of this hypothesis have published very little research and have so far failed to convince the vast majority of researchers in their field as to the merits of their proposal. First must come the research, the evidence, independently verifiable information that can be cited to support the hypothesis. That must come first, before you can expect to see any sort of "balanced view." ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

medical article?

Should an article be classified as a medical article, when the theory which is the basis of the article, is a philosophy that at it's root believes that ADHD does not exist?--scuro (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in the category ADHD, but if we are talking about Wikiprojects, I think that WikiProject Rational Skepticism instead of medicine is the right one. I decided that after I took a look at the categories which medical related theories that tend to get characterized as controversial and fringe belong to. Since this is controversial, but another editor (me) did show support, it's up to you to decide if boldly doing it is a good idea. I'd give it a day and if no one else says anything against, do it. Sifaka ^talk 01:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism? Does that imply that Breggin et al are rational? *Shudder* Talk about undue weight :)

But more seriously, if this article were placed under the Rational Skepticism project, would that result in actual rational skepticism being brought to bear on this subject? After all, this "theory" fits most of the criteria to be listed as pseudoscience under Quackwatch, I'd think (and CCHR, the main proponent of this "theory" is considered a fringe organization by Quackwatch....and by most rational individuals). ~ Hyperion35 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this isn't a "medical" and not Psychology either. This article could usefully be classified under social science or medical sociology (a branch of sociology dealing with deviance and social roles). Linking this article somehow to social sciences would probably result in an improvement in the standard of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saqmatit (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal essay?

The tag was placed on the article some time ago. I fail to see how the article reads like a "personal essay". If no one objects, I'll remove the tag in a week or so. Cresix (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

new content

Hey User:Redhill54 sorry for removing this while you were still getting the reference in place, and thanks for your gracious note when you restored it.

The source you provided supports everything after the first and the last sentences, but not the first and last sentences as far as I can see, which appear to be your own argument; this appears to be WP:SYN....

The theory of the social construction of ADHD does not appear to deal with ADHD among adults. Some of the adults who have been diagnosed and treated with ADHD were not diagnosed when they were children, particularly if they had they inattentive type of the condition, or did not show signs of hyperactivity. Some adults who were diagnosed and treated as children continue to have symptoms of ADHD and are treated, whereas some people diagnosed and treated when children cease to show signs of ADHD as adults. Some of the adults first diagnosed and treated as adults are of the view that the diagnosis and treatment has made a major improvement to their lives, at work, in education and to their relationships with family and others, as well as an important positive effect on their self-esteem. As they are adults who are free to accept or reject the diagnosis and treatments, the argument that that the ADHD condition is diagnosed because of social pressure from other people is somewhat less compelling.

References

I do get what you are trying to do, but you need a source that supports the first & last sentence; I apologize if it is in the source and I missed it Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge into ADHD controversies

This article has been proposed to be merged into Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. Please join the discussion at Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies#Merge from Social construct theory of ADHD. -- Xurizuri (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)