Okay, now you’re being a jerk. In addition to the cites you still need to bring, you now need to show where I said I was or wasn’t familiar with anything. What I did say is that rather than make an allusion to something in the guise of drawing me into an unframed debate, you have to illustrate what you’re talking about, why it’s relevant, and how it is supported. I will not guess as to your point and relevance to make these things for you. Retract this now.
But you said that it was all over the place only within the past decade. Should be easy to pull any one of those recent references.
You may be confused about them – your argument is all over the place and getting no better.
In fact, here is my bottom line, which I have contended all along. Clinical psychology is a science. It engages in empirical efforts to demonstrate whether the theories it employs are useful, valid and reliable. Our categorizations of disorder work better than anything else that is out there, but can and must be improved, whether by refining the symptoms that we have, or by improving our biological markers. There are many practitioners of clinical psychology in many variations and forms. Not all of them practice in a scientific manner, but this does not invalidate the field as a science. Claims that it is not a science should be supported by specific evidence.
In terms of this debate, the same is true for ADHD. We have refined the criteria to their present point. They work well. They are based on hundreds of studies. Children who meet the criteria are distinct from children who do not. Children who meet the criteria are distinct from children who meet criteria for other disorders. Like all psychiatric disorders, they are imperfect, and must be improved.
Your suspicions continue to be dubious. I have pretended nothing. Again, where did I say I was unaware of anything. Retract this or support it. The truth is that your argument is all over the board, including multiple disorders, multiple disciplines, multiple methodologies, and multiple levels of systems. It is disorganized, and near rambling, although you appear to be an intelligent person.
How about you get the info before introducing even further confusion to this and your own argument. Remember, your assertion was that the diagnostic standard was the application of stimulants.
As to your discussion of depression: Relevance, Mr. Vorlon? Rather than guess your point in relation to the main discussion, please show us. It feels more like a tangent.