ADHD: Ramping Up Sales, Adults Next

[Polish_Silver]

Lack of play!

We are still in the dark ages of understanding the brain and it's chemistry. Perhaps we should quit f%&king with it until we know more. At least in all but the most extreme cases. One day we will look back on this like we look back on bloodletting now. Good intentions but like surgery with a blunt ax. And how much does the prescribing of anti depressants merely mask the real problem? Man was not meant to live indoors all day, under fluorescent lighting, eating garbage processed foods, with the only activity the walk from the car to the sofa. Not to mention the crazy complexity of life today. But nobody wants to address that. There's not money in it.

One thing we are doing wrong is not letting children play:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-alone/358631/


Every minute they are under adult supervision. Guess what happens: anxiety is up, creativity is down.

Like all of them will be professional ballerinas and soccer players.

[Woodsman]

Re: jumping to pharma

+1.

Pleased you liked it too, Raz. Is there a conflict between Orthodoxy and evolution or the scientific method, generally? I didn't think so, but I admit little familiarity with Orthodoxy in America. The Catholic tradition as I know it does not take a literalist approach to understanding Genesis.

Now there's plenty of confusion among the laity, but it's mostly on their understanding of the science rather than their theology. One sometimes encounters Catholics indulging in the old tropes (e.g, man "evolved" from apes etc.) most common among the Protestant fundamentalists. Of course that view has been a pretty consistent strain among the majority of Southern Baptists, many Presbyterians and the like well before William Bell Riley brought in William Jennings Bryan to assist at the Scopes trial.

Catholic theology is much more refined and nuanced on the matter. Considering the unbroken chain of apostolic succession since Peter and the fact that the Church fathers have had more than 2000 years to contemplate and understand the faith, it should come as no surprise that they were prepared to encounter the challenge of modernity. Fundamentalist organizations and their faith communities, particularly here in America, did not even really get a handle on their theology until sometime around 1910 with the publication of Dixon and Torrey's "Fundamentals." So one can hardly be surprised by their ongoing confusion about and resistance to modernity. And now that so many of them are in the thrall of Earthly political powers, it's hard for me to keep hopeful.

But these things take time and there is still much controversy on elemental matters of faith even among the various mainline Protestant communities, never mind the shotgun shack, storefront and rock and roll mega-churches. As such I don't believe it's quite fair or even particularly Christian to expect them to achieve in one century what the Church has understood since at least 325 AD and arguably even earlier than that.

As I understand it, the Roman Catholic faith has no problem with evolution as science. What it rejects is the view of evolution as dispensing with the knowledge of God as Creator of All or that one can't understand the material nature of human biology as being distinct (not separate) from the spiritual reality of the Soul. I'm not a theologian or a scientist, so I know I tread on thin ice here and in this one instance I am happy to defer to the authority of biologists and the Church.

When I encounter more politically oriented Catholics riding their anti-evolution hobby horses, I remind them that "The Origin of Species" was never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. I try to gently point them to the Holy Father's encyclical Humani Generis. I remind them that we as the Church came together on this once and for all in 1950 with its publication and that they are engaging in a false controversy which originated outside their Church. Catholics who insist on stoking controversy on evolution find themselves in a curios position, inasmuch as they seem to say that their understanding of theology surpasses even that of Saint John Paul the Great. And when they persist still, I suggest to them that what seems accidental to us might be entirely purposeful to God and wish them peace as I move on.

It kills me to think that otherwise good people who clearly love the Church and struggle heroically to live by it's teaching would adopt the view of people who know Her as the whore of Babylon. But then it's clear to me that I am not equipped to teach anyone anything about evolution or theology. If Gregor Mendel and Saint John Paul can't, who am I to even try?

What does Orthodoxy teach on evolution and science?

[ddn3f]

Re: Lack of play!

Thank you for that article.

One thing we are doing wrong is not letting children play:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-alone/358631/


Every minute they are under adult supervision. Guess what happens: anxiety is up, creativity is down.

Like all of them will be professional ballerinas and soccer players.

[flintlock]

Re: jumping to pharma

Hunter-gatherers not only had strong personal relationships, but had high physical activity levels and a less complex society. They share a common goal with others in their group and the goal is clear. What is the goal in modern society? Are we united in that goal?

[gwynedd1]

Re: ADHD: Ramping Up Sales, Adults Next

I already read Brave New Word.

[LazyBoy]

Re: More time on exams

How common is this?

The exam is supposed to measure what you can do. Almost anyone would get a higher score by getting more time. So why does being diagnosed with a disease justify more time? What if you're just plain stupid? Couldn't that be a just as good a reason for getting more time? Does it matter why you "underperform" ?

I don't know if it's common, but I've seen it abused. It wasn't even a disease. A well above average, probably brilliant kid labeled with "test anxiety" by his parents to negotiate 2x time for tests in high school. He was in a very exclusive high school magnet program and went on to prestigious university and graduate programs.

[Polish_Silver]

catholic church and modernity

since Peter and the fact that the Church fathers have had more than 2000 years to contemplate and understand the faith, it should come as no surprise that they were prepared to encounter the challenge of modernity.

The Oath against modernism

Copernicus' book was on the forbidden index for about 200 years. That's how the Catholic church encountered the science of the 1500's. At the same time, they forbade "non-official" bibles. A man holding an unofficial bible is shown being trampled by angels in the big Cathedral in Vienna. That man is Martin Luther.

Science is the idea of accepting an idea because it is testable and in accord with known information.

At least in principle, some one who replaces the existing paradigm with a better one is the hero.

Religion often involves faith without evidence, obedience to authority, etc, as shown in the oath.

Science and Christianity also lead to different opinions about human nature and ethics. If we have a common ancestor with apes, it makes sense that our psychology would be similiar to apes.

I don't know what they are saying now, but traditionally, the Catholic church forbade any sexual activity outside of marriage, though clergy did not always practice that.

If you judge topics such as contraceptive pills, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, divorce, a scientific world view will give different answers than what the Catholic church teaches.

Wikipedia:

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces.^[1]

If the soul is a "direct creation" by God, then how can human nature be the product of a struggle for survival in Africa?

If human psychology is not a product of evolution, then in what sense do catholics believe in evolution?

Tennessee allowed the teaching of evolution, just not a theory of human origins that contradicted the bible. Not so different from the Catholic position, in my opinion.

[shiny!]

Re: Lack of play!

One thing we are doing wrong is not letting children play:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/...-alone/358631/


Every minute they are under adult supervision. Guess what happens: anxiety is up, creativity is down.

Like all of them will be professional ballerinas and soccer players.

Great article... thanks! Summerhill still makes good reading, too.

I've seen some of these overprotected kids. 14 year-old girls who have never even been allowed to walk two blocks to the convenience store alone. Their mother is so convinced there's a predator on every street corner, she makes her girls stay in the house after school. Consequently they're scared of everything and everyone.

[DSpencer]

Re: catholic church and modernity

Is there any chance the science vs religion debate can be moved to a different thread? It's not even close to on topic and I'm sure there's dozens of threads already on that topic.

[DSpencer]

Re: More time on exams

I don't know if it's common, but I've seen it abused. It wasn't even a disease. A well above average, probably brilliant kid labeled with "test anxiety" by his parents to negotiate 2x time for tests in high school. He was in a very exclusive high school magnet program and went on to prestigious university and graduate programs.

That's an extreme example that's obviously wrong, but I tend to think that the whole concept is bad. Tests are generally designed for evaluating learning, not teaching directly. And generally the whole point is to compare students against each other. You can't do that if they don't take the same test under the same time constraints. When these people get jobs will their employers realize that it may take them twice as long to complete the same jobs as their peers with similar grades?

[DSpencer]

Re: ADHD: Ramping Up Sales, Adults Next

you don't develop add/adhd as an adult, btw. if you concentrated fine all your life and then have a problem with it, it's NOT add/adhd. it might be anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, situational misery, but it's not add/adhd. the latter is something you're born with, and to make the diagnosis you like to have some evidence, even if in retrospect, back to the age of 6. i think that that age is chosen because that's when kids hit the school system, and people figure it will be manifest in that setting.

How do you know this?

[vinoveri]

Re: catholic church and modernity

Is there any chance the science vs religion debate can be moved to a different thread? It's not even close to on topic and I'm sure there's dozens of threads already on that topic.

Agreed if and when that arises. Don't believe however there is any such debate going on here.

Applying simple rule of grammar and logic to point out obvious errors in conclusions or assertion is not debating, and it is certainly not religious.

"Biology teaches us we are not created by God" was the essence of the assertion by our "learned" professor. This is a false assertion and its falsity and demonstrating such does not depend one bit on religion but on reason.

The implication that pointing out any logically false ipse dixistism or other demonstrably false arbitrary statement about God or the supernatural amounts to religious debate is instructive.

[Woodsman]

Re: catholic church and modernity

Is there any chance the science vs religion debate can be moved to a different thread? It's not even close to on topic and I'm sure there's dozens of threads already on that topic.

Not debating, Spence. Just asked a question of Raz out of curiosity and explained my understanding of the controversy. It was directed to one and only one person. I understand that you might not have read it to completion, but had you done so you'd see that it was not a call to debate science vs religion at all. Just a question to an esteemed and learned iTuliper who walks the walk.

Vino's brusque dismissal of Prof. Diamond's thesis in response to a post entirely relevant to the discussion notwithstanding, I ask that you please note that I never challenged anyone or did anything else other than express satisfaction at the responses and provided links supporting the various positions (two to one anti-science/anti-evol, btw) in support.

I don't know his opinion on sci v faith, but I do agree 100% with Vino when he says:

"The implication that pointing out any logically false ipse dixistism or other demonstrably false arbitrary statement about God or the supernatural amounts to religious debate is instructive."

I get the impression that the thought police is on my tail of late. Sorry officers; no harm meant.

[vt]

Re: catholic church and modernity

It's probably a good idea not to bring up religious topics. Your comments were not meant to offend any religion, but the comment could be taken different ways.

Best to stick to economics. Yes politics is a way to allocate scarce resources, but avoiding labels is important.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: catholic church and modernity

Not debating, Spence. Just asked a question of Raz out of curiosity and explained my understanding of the controversy. It was directed to one and only one person. .

Isn't that the situation to use a private message?