I actually saw a similar article (I'm guessing they were both based on the same study) on the New Scientist website, which was very disappointing I have to say. Articles like that, apart from being scientifically dubious to say the least, contribute to the trivialisation of ADHD which in the current political climate is very dangerous. This is social-model ideology distorting what should be reliable scientific research. The article talks about 'traits associated with ADHD' as conferring some theoretical advantage. Even if that were the case, traits associated with ADHD are not themselves ADHD - for that to be diagnosed those traits have to exist together at levels that cause impairment. I also think articles like that fail to grasp that ADHD is more than just distractibility. I know the name of the disorder doesn't help, but problems with attention are but one of the several problems with executive function impaired in adhd. How anyone thought an online foraging game in any way recreates the environment that early human foragers had to navigate - with all the dangers that they had to contend with (and surely impulsively picking a deadly berry or fungi is more not less likely if one is easily distracted or has difficulty regulating ones attention!) is beyond me.
@gmlpc7132Ай бұрын
This sounds highly dubious. Among other things I'm very sceptical of the value of any kind of experiments outside of the natural sciences - experiments in areas such as psychology are generally highly artificial and lacking in validity. We also of course know nothing about the psychology of these early humans so such ideas are at best speculative. Studies like this - or at least the way they are spun by the media - perhaps seem to be part of an attempt to create a "feel good" factor about ADHD or whichever condition they've focused on. We get similar studies or articles about autism and its supposed advantages in certain contexts. Such attempts may have good intentions in trying to counteract general negative stereotypes about conditions and maybe boost the self-esteem of those who have them but can come across as rather patronising. As regards how the media report such stories I'm not surprised it appeared in a liberal / progressive paper like The Guardian which is more likely to take a more positive view on psychological conditions. I suspect right-wing papers would pretty much ignore this and prefer to run articles about how all these conditions are being "over-diagnosed" and are just "making excuses", etc. Such right-wing sources pretty much discount the existence of mental illnesses and struggle to see autism beyond classic autism and maybe stereotypical "Rain Man" figures who may be savants but need help with the most basic things in life. ADHD they probably don't even think exists - "no-one had it when we were growing up", etc. Unfortunately these narrow-minded, unsupportive views are very common and go well beyond the media.
Пікірлер: 4
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting.
I actually saw a similar article (I'm guessing they were both based on the same study) on the New Scientist website, which was very disappointing I have to say. Articles like that, apart from being scientifically dubious to say the least, contribute to the trivialisation of ADHD which in the current political climate is very dangerous. This is social-model ideology distorting what should be reliable scientific research. The article talks about 'traits associated with ADHD' as conferring some theoretical advantage. Even if that were the case, traits associated with ADHD are not themselves ADHD - for that to be diagnosed those traits have to exist together at levels that cause impairment. I also think articles like that fail to grasp that ADHD is more than just distractibility. I know the name of the disorder doesn't help, but problems with attention are but one of the several problems with executive function impaired in adhd. How anyone thought an online foraging game in any way recreates the environment that early human foragers had to navigate - with all the dangers that they had to contend with (and surely impulsively picking a deadly berry or fungi is more not less likely if one is easily distracted or has difficulty regulating ones attention!) is beyond me.
This sounds highly dubious. Among other things I'm very sceptical of the value of any kind of experiments outside of the natural sciences - experiments in areas such as psychology are generally highly artificial and lacking in validity. We also of course know nothing about the psychology of these early humans so such ideas are at best speculative. Studies like this - or at least the way they are spun by the media - perhaps seem to be part of an attempt to create a "feel good" factor about ADHD or whichever condition they've focused on. We get similar studies or articles about autism and its supposed advantages in certain contexts. Such attempts may have good intentions in trying to counteract general negative stereotypes about conditions and maybe boost the self-esteem of those who have them but can come across as rather patronising. As regards how the media report such stories I'm not surprised it appeared in a liberal / progressive paper like The Guardian which is more likely to take a more positive view on psychological conditions. I suspect right-wing papers would pretty much ignore this and prefer to run articles about how all these conditions are being "over-diagnosed" and are just "making excuses", etc. Such right-wing sources pretty much discount the existence of mental illnesses and struggle to see autism beyond classic autism and maybe stereotypical "Rain Man" figures who may be savants but need help with the most basic things in life. ADHD they probably don't even think exists - "no-one had it when we were growing up", etc. Unfortunately these narrow-minded, unsupportive views are very common and go well beyond the media.