ADD: A New Paradigm

I keep talking of a better way to view and understand ADD, but what exactly do I mean by that?  I'm going to discuss the idea here that classifying ADD as a "disorder" in need of treatment is erroneous.  I propose that by looking at the brain state currently labeled ADD in a different light, one of uniqueness and not dysfunction at all, we should be better able to help people who express this trait to find inspiration in their lives and thrive, academically and functionally.

I discussed in last post the numerous theories that have attempted to explain the cause of ADD, but so far they have all come up short.  From genetics to environment to evolutionary theories, no explanation has been sufficient to account for what they have found (or not found) regarding ADD.  I have also explained how the parameters for the disorder have grown throughout history--the wider they become, the more people that get the diagnosis.  Although this practice has identified many different similarities among people suspected of having an attention disorder, it has also increased the number of similar differences; in other words, too many symptoms blur the already fuzzy lines.

Further, I have pointed out that there are no clear-cut markers to be found in people diagnosed with ADD, unlike those found in other diseases like AIDS (HIV+), hepatitis (elevated liver enzymes), and prostate cancer (elevated PSA) to name a few.  Brain changes have been noted in some studies, but they are complicated by the fact that they have never been able to be reproduced in further studies.  One study did find that the brains of 50% of subjects labeled ADHD have slower maturation of their frontal cortices relative to "normal" controls, but I contend that it presupposes ADD to be an actual disorder, which I emphatically reject (aside from the possibility of the brain changes resulting from stimulant drug treatments).

I am certain that the neurological irregularity we currently classify as ADD is a normal variant to the mental attentive function we all exhibit.  Everybody, including those labeled ADD, has the ability to focus their attention at various moments in their consciousness.  The person labeled ADD, however, has difficulty focusing attention at preset moments defined by current cultural norms, most notably during classroom time.  Because we are all expected to learn which moment requires which behavior, this inability to focus is naturally considered a malfunction.  But is it?

It is my opinion that people exhibiting this normal variation of attention, this inability to concentrate at will, is more a reflection of an uninspired mind toward the subject matter--conventional academics primarily.  This is not news to anybody keeping up with these posts: I've made it abundantly clear that I believe the problem lies with teachers having an inability to inspire these normal variant minds.  But let me focus even more: People labeled ADD--we'll say children primarily, because adults have usually learned to adapt to circumstances (as any successful organism does)--do lose their attention more quickly than the so-called "normals".  I will not dispute this fact, but it doesn't mean they are somehow dysfunctional; they are simply unique in their needs.

OK, so far I haven't said anything that goes against today's conventional wisdom on ADD.*  But here is the difference: By perceiving this unique variation in attention span as a disorder, it opens the door for a particular kind of fix--primarily stimulant drugs.  This has not only had a minimal effectiveness, but it is likely causing more harm than good both to individuals and to the society at large.

By seeing the unique challenges faced by some children (3-5% worldwide according to the latest figures) as a normal variation of a ubiquitous brain state allows the possibility to help these children wide open.  Seeing how the brain state labeled ADD is merely a different similarity to what we all experience when uninspired allows parents and educators to find out exactly what these children are inspired by.  When accomplished, the task will be to then relate all other subject matter back to the areas of inspiration.  Whew.

I know it sounds simple, but that's because it is.  It's universal.  Trying to find the fragmented parts that separate some human beings from others in order to account for a perceived abnormality is futile--we all operate under specific laws.  It's not that I think the entire historical course of this non-disorder was unnecessary.  It served a sort of ruling out process.  But the evidence has been piling up--there is no there there.  Isn't it wiser to see how people labeled ADD are similar to us and nurture that?

I do not for a second believe that the hunt for a fragmented cause of ADD, and its subsequent pharmacological solution, will end anytime soon.  But if you are a parent with a child that has trouble conforming to the social norms of focusing in the classroom on subjects that are maddeningly uninspiring, then think twice before attaching the label ADD to that child.  I am certain that the drug solution associated with that life-label will never provide anything more than reliance on drugs; at worst it might even harm your child, physically and/or mentally.

I will touch even further on the current treatment solutions for people labeled ADD in upcoming posts.  Until then, rethink conventional wisdom.

*It has recently come to my attention that my thoughts on this subject are similar to those put forth by the Church of Scientology.  I am NOT a Scientologist.  While I have nothing against Scientology, per se, as I know next to nothing of its philosophical teachings, I merely wish to separate my thoughts from that of any organized group or religion.  I respect all peoples' choices to believe and worship as they choose fit.

TV Comes Between Parent and Child

Want a developmentally-stunted child? Then keep the TV on. Want to be a mentally-absent parent? Again, keep the boob tube running constantly. In fact, if you want to hinder your child's development to the utmost, then just put the kid in a playpen, leave the TV on, and do your thing, baby. That's the way.

Damn, that's hard Campos. No it's not. The data is out and it's conclusive: TV makes people stupid!!! Sorry.

Here's the latest: A team at the University of Massachusetts observed about 50 children, aged 1, 2 and 3 years, who were with a parent at a university child study center. For half of a one-hour session, parents and children were in a playroom without a television; in the other half-hour, parents chose a program to watch.

The researchers studied how much verbal interaction there was between parents and children, whether parents were actively involved in their children's play, and whether they responded to each other's questions and suggestions.

The study authors found that while the TV was on, parents spent about 20 percent less time talking to their children and were less active, attentive and responsive to their kids, resulting in a decrease in the quality of the interactions.

This study is important, researchers say, since more than one-third of American infants and toddlers live in homes where the television is on most or all the time, even if no one's watching. This study challenges the popular notion that television doesn't affect young children if they are not watching the screen. Wrong! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that parental interaction is imperative in child development. And this study just reinforces how television pulls parents' attention away from where it is needed the most--the children. So turn off The View ladies (and ESPN, gents), and keep your attention on the kids--they deserve it!

*More info on how TV affects your child.

Too Much Dummy Tube Leads to ADD

We all know that too much T.V. isn't good for the brain, right? Well, at least most people with common sense suspect so, anyway. But now we have proof: Current research shows that young children who watch more than two hours of the brainfryer a day are more likely to have attention problems as adolescents.

Duh. You mean that constantly changing visual images rapidly flashing on a screen - sometimes faster than the human mind can comprehend (anyone hear of subliminal messages) - might have long term effects. You don't say?

Think about it for a second (I'd have you think about it for a minute, but veteran television watchers might change the channel): Television really does consist of rapidly changing images. As a medium, it does not engage your concentration. You just passively watch images and listen to the accompanying audio. No thinking or concentrating necessary. True, you are following a story (reality shows notwithstanding), but it's still a passive activity.

One might make an argument for educational T.V. (like Discovery Channel, National Geographic, and the History Channel), but you still passively watch and listen, which does nothing for the development of focus or concentration. Add to that today's popular programming - reality shows, awards shows, music videos - and the term dummy tube starts to take on a whole new accuracy, doesn't it?

The study, carried out at the Dunedin School of Medicine in New Zealand, showed that children who watched two or more hours per day were at a significant risk for developing attention deficit disorders later in life. And those who watched over three hours per day were at even greater risk. According to Carl Erik Landhuis, one of the lead authors of the study, kids who get used to watching lots of attention-grabbing TV may find ordinary life situations - like the classroom - boring. It's also possible, he adds, that TV may simply crowd out time spent doing other activities that can build attention and concentration skills, such as reading and playing games.

Yes, that's exactly it. Activities like reading, solving puzzles, playing sports and other games, learning computers or instruments, all require focus and concentration. They also require thinking and problem solving which leads to the development of dendritic pathways in the brain and nervous system, which leads to overall brain development. I'm sorry but T.V. doesn't do that - no thinking involved. Furthermore, learning to entertain oneself in the absence of mind-numbing image flashing is the gateway to the imagination. Give your kid a copy of Tom Sawyer, Harry Potter, Encyclopedia Brown, Nancy Drew, or whatever, and let them learn to stimulate their own vivid and priceless imaginations. And get them away from the dummy tube. Trust me, our autonomy and self-sufficiency as a civilization depend on it.