People often forget that they go looking for evidence to support their screwed up views of the world. Not that I, an Enlightened One, would ever do that -- or you either, of course.

People often forget that Freud was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer — Question

And by cocaine. I suppose those two cancel each other out.

And by cocaine — Baden

We've come a far way from having it legally available to prescribing it to children (almost the same shit in my textbook, with Ritalin being practically like cocaine). Oh, but, then there's amphetamine!

Does anyone have any idea why we prescribe children this stuff? Don't the parents need to get their heads checked before giving their children this stuff?

Ah, confirmation bias. Just human nature I guess.

Well, at least we're not prescribing Schopenhauer to children. Then again, a spoonful of pessimism may help the Ritalin go down.

I presume parents give it to their kids because they appreciate the value of big pharma to the economy and want to make sure it continues to make shitloads of money so we can all live happily ever after in the consumer utopia that we deserve.

I presume parents give it to their kids because they appreciate the value of big pharma to the economy and want to make sure it continues to make shitloads of money so we can all live happily ever after in the consumer utopia that we deserve. — Baden

:P

Does anyone have any idea why we prescribe children this stuff? — Question

The initial experiments with amphetamines and hyperactivity go back to the 1960s. It was found that children who were "hyperactive" experienced what is called a 'paradoxical effect' -- the stimulant acted as a sedative. The effect of sedation (apparently) does not work once puberty kicks in. Then the drug acts like the stimulant it is.

I was working at a hospital in Boston, back in the late 60s, where Ritalin was being tested on children with learning difficulties. (I didn't work in the Ritalin program.) Behavior modification was also being employed. It was controversial then, and still is. First, is "hyperactivity" a real disorder, or is it a behavior associated with certain environments? Second, does the drug result in the therapeutic effect desired (better learning) or does it just sedate the child, both, and does it have additional untoward effects?

If it is a real disorder, that's one thing. Then the issue arises, "Why is this disorder becoming so common?" It seems to be just too common. Maybe it is being over-diagnosed; maybe the environmental behavior response is being mistaken for a disorder.

If it is a behavioral response to untoward environments (poverty, lead poisoning, overly restrictive classrooms, unstable homes, chaotic surroundings, etc.) then has a change in environment been tried? Environmental change is a lot more complicated than writing a prescription, of course. The cluster of poverty, chaotic surroundings, instability, violence, lead, etc. are all difficult environmental factors to change.

My guess is that quite often it is a cluster of environmental factors. IF one could change the environment, then the behavior problem could be reduced. For instance, schools could be operated differently. Most schools don't have recess anymore. That means the children are in class, under controlled supervision, all the time. There is no break. Letting the children out for 20 minutes twice a day can help reduce behavior problems. Are the classroom teachers and school principles expecting a higher level of quiet and order than is reasonable? Maybe classrooms should be more active, noisier (at times), and have fewer restrictions on movement. Like, get rid of the desks. Have chairs, tables, standing activities, sitting activities, moving around activities, and laying down activities.

I can't claim that this looser school regime would cure all the problems. It probably wouldn't, because the home and neighborhood environment are critical, too.

Let me add one more thing: Not being able to succeed in school is a genuine, life-long disadvantage. The desire to help children learn is genuine and important. We know that under normal circumstances, most children learn quite well -- even excel. So when some children are way behind by 2nd grade, a real problem exists.

I had terrible ADHD in childhood that was never treated, which in my adulthood changed to ADD, which I treated for a while and allowed me to get into a good school. Luckily for me, learning came easily and without too many issues due to having a rather higher IQ relative to other children. I devised my own way of learning by memorizing what was said in school and using my own reason to follow through all the implications and such at home, before I slept, just during the day. A highly inefficient way of learning, but much more effective at the actual process of learning and understanding. Unfortunately, not everyone has the ability to reason through arguments and facts, draw the dots and see the bigger picture, and then from the bigger picture fill in the blanks. This seems to work for me in my younger years, but at college, such a method is just burdensome due to how large the picture gets.

I would say that boredom is another word that can be interchanged with ADHD/ADD. One of the primary things stimulants do is increase interest in some activity.

Anyway, here's the big problem with stimulants from a patient to the witchdoctors willing to prescribe it. The threshold where they are effective medications for people with ADHD/ADD (and even normal people, as there's a big fad nowadays with the area called 'nootropics'. Meaning enhancing performance above one's normal ability.) and where they become abusable drugs, is too slim. The temptation also is too great. Profound neurological changes occur after the administration of these drugs that persist into adulthood. Some of these changes in brain structure/wiring are thought to be positive in people with ADD/ADHD, while in normal children this can lead to an increase in hedonistic tendencies. It's really basically fucking over the future of such a child as they will be inclined to spend and not save at any opportunity. Then there's the issue of tolerance, which is actually a codeword for "I'm not feeling high anymore".

I'm an advocate for better alternatives, or at least safer and not as profound as amphetamines. Ritalin/Focalin is OK; but, again there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes of such children, as you pointed out. My way of resolving the issue was to simply go to one of my favorite places and learn there e.g a library and take me meds. I'm for looking into alternatives such as combining THC with CBD to cancel out the stupefying/dumbing/psychoactive effects of THC. I have found out that one can use the beneficial effects of THC on staying focused on a task and canceling out most of its psychoactive effects through combining it with CBD, a natural calming and relaxing constituent of cannabis. Given the appropriate combination, you can hit two birds with one rock. You calm the person down with the CBD constituent while increasing their level of interest/desire in some task through the increase in dopamine and norepinephrine induced by THC.

One thing has to be mentioned though. How do kids in other countries manage their ADHD/ADD without access to stmulant medications?

Back at the opening theme...in fact tailor-made for you, Question...

People often forget that Ludwig Wittgenstein was once one of the richest people in Europe and gave away all his money.

People often forget that Ludwig Wittgenstein was once one of the richest people in Europe and gave away all his money. — mcdoodle

(L)

Yes, and let us not forget that he did not give his money to the poor, but to his family, who were themselves, presumably, as rich as he was. Perhaps he wanted to leave the door open to retrieving the money, should he so desire or need to.

I'm an advocate for better alternatives, or at least safer and not as profound as amphetamines. — Question

There may be better treatments; let us hope and let us advocate.

There are not very many classes of psychoactive drugs (a lot of the brand names are 'the same thing only different'). Most of them, whether for depression, schizophrenia, ADD, bi-polar, sleep disorders, anxiety, and so forth, have been around for quite a long time; have significant side effects; don't work for some patients at all (or not well); and sometimes abruptly fail to continue working.

I've been taking the available classes of drugs for glaucoma for 30 years. This past winter the drugs abruptly stopped working in one eye, but continue to work effectively in the other eye. How is that possible? Beats me.