DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Hermit]

There's clearly a cadre of professionals and academics and otherwise highly intelligent people there who know their shit. Then most of the rest of the membership is composed of humble intellectually curious people who learn a great deal and ask sensible questions (on the most part). But it's the small but vocal and arrogant minority [...] fuck up good threads with their arrogant bleating and refusal to learn or accept that they may be wrong.

What an active imagination you have.

No imagination required. The Dunning-Kruger types rEvolutionist is referring to stick out at ratskep like sore thumbs just as they do in any other forum where they appear. The combination of arrogance, ignorance, unquestionable certainty and inability to learn anything shines like the beacon from a lighthouse.

[Mr.Samsa]

There's clearly a cadre of professionals and academics and otherwise highly intelligent people there who know their shit. Then most of the rest of the membership is composed of humble intellectually curious people who learn a great deal and ask sensible questions (on the most part). But it's the small but vocal and arrogant minority [...] fuck up good threads with their arrogant bleating and refusal to learn or accept that they may be wrong.

What an active imagination you have.

No imagination required. The Dunning-Kruger types rEvolutionist is referring to stick out at ratskep like sore thumbs just as they do in any other forum where they appear. The combination of arrogance, ignorance, unquestionable certainty and inability to learn anything shines like the beacon from a lighthouse.

Agreed, I don't think anyone needs any rigorous statistical evidence to demonstrate that those people exist on RatSkep (and the internet in general, really).

[Mr.Samsa]

Poor Nicko... Looks like he understands so little about the ADHD topic that he's taken to simply making up an opponent's position and trying to knock it down. I don't understand the point of his outburst though - surely he should wait for someone to make the argument he's fighting against before debunking it? Just seems silly to me.

It'd be interesting to see if he could find any problems with the arguments that Shrunk or I have made though, hopefully he gets around to trying to address them at some point.

[Hermit]

I don't think anyone needs any rigorous statistical evidence to demonstrate that those people exist on RatSkep (and the internet in general, really).

Frequently it's very difficult to even establish clear, empirical criteria to prove that a particular individual is of the deluded Dunning-Kruger type.

Take the case of someone making assertions that are obviously madcap such as, say, Obama is a crypto Marxist and any policies to the left of extreme Randian lolbertardianism are perpetrated by evil communist conspirators and aided and abetted by their hordes of useful idiots and that this insidious fact is irremovable by democratic means because many among the fleet of policies, welfareism, creates a massively large electorate beholden to evil. Furthermore, those policies only appear to be capitalist, but since redistributive taxation and welfareism are essentially tools of dictatorship they are prima facie the works of insidious collectivism. The circularity of that argument makes it impervious to being broken. Empirical facts to the contrary simply bounce off.

There are situations where rigorous statistical evidence for the existence of Dunning-Kruger types can be clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrated. Look at the "faster than wind" discussion. I admit that I have decided to not waste further time on the topic after a few pages, but it would not surprise me that if someone with the requisite knowledge of physics and concurrent mathematical competence has come up with a few brief and elegant lines of equations that unequivocally prove the faster than wind concept to be as harebrained as every other perpetuum mobile type proposal. Anyone stubbornly persisting in arguing in favour of it with the certainty of a fool would incriminate himself as the D-G type.

ETA: As for ADHD, I don't need rigorous statistical evidence to demonstrate that it exists. My personal and anecdotal experience on hand of my grandson is enough. I have repeatedly observed the difference between his behaviour when the drug worked and when its effect has worn off eight hours later. Ritalin and its equivalent, non-branded products work. If drugging is the best method is another matter, though. Two of my sisters have been teachers for several decades. One of them once remarked on the gobsmacking difference in behaviour of students in her school when the soft-drink vending machines were removed and the offerings at the tuckshop were changed. Maybe a change in diet is both cheaper and more effective.

[pErvinalia]

There are situations where rigorous statistical evidence for the existence of Dunning-Kruger types can be clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrated. Look at the "faster than wind" discussion. I admit that I have decided to not waste further time on the topic after a few pages, but it would not surprise me that if someone with the requisite knowledge of physics and concurrent mathematical competence has come up with a few brief and elegant lines of equations that unequivocally prove the faster than wind concept to be as harebrained as every other perpetuum mobile type proposal. Anyone stubbornly persisting in arguing in favour of it with the certainty of a fool would incriminate himself as the D-G type.

I'm not 100% sure what position you are arguing here, but the faster than wind craft thingy is 100% legit. You need to keep reading.

[Mr.Samsa]

I don't think anyone needs any rigorous statistical evidence to demonstrate that those people exist on RatSkep (and the internet in general, really).

Frequently it's very difficult to even establish clear, empirical criteria to prove that a particular individual is of the deluded Dunning-Kruger type.

Indeed, I think it's quite hard to accurately determine D-K in everyday discussions but generally if someone is making strong claims about an academic topic without demonstrating a grasp of the basics of the field (e.g. arguing that ADHD isn't real because most people meet one or two of the criteria of the condition) then in my opinion it can safely be assumed.

There are situations where rigorous statistical evidence for the existence of Dunning-Kruger types can be clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrated. Look at the "faster than wind" discussion. I admit that I have decided to not waste further time on the topic after a few pages, but it would not surprise me that if someone with the requisite knowledge of physics and concurrent mathematical competence has come up with a few brief and elegant lines of equations that unequivocally prove the faster than wind concept to be as harebrained as every other perpetuum mobile type proposal. Anyone stubbornly persisting in arguing in favour of it with the certainty of a fool would incriminate himself as the D-G type.

I didn't really follow the discussion on that but have you phrased it correctly there? It was my understanding that the concept has been proven true so the D-K effect would only apply to those arguing against it (if anyone at all). Or have I misunderstood what you've written there?

ETA: As for ADHD, I don't need rigorous statistical evidence to demonstrate that it exists. My personal and anecdotal experience on hand of my grandson is enough. I have repeatedly observed the difference between his behaviour when the drug worked and when its effect has worn off eight hours later. Ritalin and its equivalent, non-branded products work. If drugging is the best method is another matter, though. Two of my sisters have been teachers for several decades. One of them once remarked on the gobsmacking difference in behaviour of students in her school when the soft-drink vending machines were removed and the offerings at the tuckshop were changed. Maybe a change in diet is both cheaper and more effective.

As I think I explained in some detail over at RatSkep, there is absolutely nothing controversial or pseudoscientific about questioning whether medication is the best treatment option or suggesting it is overdiagnosed in some situations or places. The problem is when people make strong claims like "ADHD does not exist", or "ADHD medication is just a tool to control the masses", or "ADHD diagnosis is subjective and completely different from medical diagnoses", etc, they are simply talking out of their asses. The sad part is that they don't realise how stupid they sound because they lack the knowledge to accurately assess how little they know. It's like creationists who ask how we could have evolved from monkeys if monkeys still exist, and sit back smugly like they've presented a water-proof case. In reality, the statement is barely coherent, yet alone correct.

With the specific issue you raise, the data overwhelmingly tells us that medication is the best treatment option for ADHD. Nobody would argue against the fact that we need to assess the use of the drugs for each individual case, weigh up the pros over potential side effects, control dosage levels, and so on, but overall if we're going to have a debate about ADHD, the evidence tells us that the controversy is over the fact that children are currently undertreated and potentially underdiagnosed (especially with girls). Trying to frame the discussion as a concern about overdiagnosis is like discussing vaccination and focusing the discussion on whether too many kids are being vaccinated each year.

There is currently some weak evidence that managing a child's diet could improve their symptoms and so it might be reasonable to propose it as a possible future treatment or a concurrent treatment, and it would only be pseudoscientific or ridiculous if it was proposed (currently) as a valid alternative to medication given that it has nowhere near the same amount of evidence behind it.

[mistermack]

The big rise in ADHD diagnosis can be explained as follows :

Pushy parent. ''doctor, my kid is over-active, and disorderly, and falling behind my neighbour's kid.''
Doctor ''this is fairly normal in some kids, he should grow out of it''.
Pushy parent ''it's not normal for MY kid, I don't want him lagging behind the kid next door, can't you give him something?''
Doctor. ''There is something, but it's for kids with ADHD.''
Pushy parent '' ok, so he's got ADHD then''.
Doctor '' I think you're right''.

In other words, it's the drug that is pushing the diagnosis. Not vice versa, as it ought to be.

[pErvinalia]

[Mr.Samsa]

The big rise in ADHD diagnosis can be explained as follows :

Pushy parent. ''doctor, my kid is over-active, and disorderly, and falling behind my neighbour's kid.''
Doctor ''this is fairly normal in some kids, he should grow out of it''.
Pushy parent ''it's not normal for MY kid, I don't want him lagging behind the kid next door, can't you give him something?''
Doctor. ''There is something, but it's for kids with ADHD.''
Pushy parent '' ok, so he's got ADHD then''.
Doctor '' I think you're right''.

In other words, it's the drug that is pushing the diagnosis. Not vice versa, as it ought to be.

You realise that this doesn't happen, right?

The reason why ADHD rates are "increasing" is mostly because of improved awareness and diagnostic procedures (similar to the rising rates of autism). The evidence for this is the fact that prevalence rates for ADHD have been hovering around 11% for the last decade or so and it's only now that our diagnosis rate appears to be matching the true prevalence rate.

Given that there is no evidence of systematic over- or mis-diagnosis with ADHD it doesn't really make sense to propose that it's pressure from parents. Your idea would also fail to explain why prevalence and diagnosis rates are pretty much equal across the world, even in countries with universal healthcare systems where the doctor gets no benefit from diagnosing them with a disorder.

[mistermack]

Of course ADHD exists. It existed, as soon as somebody invented it.

Say I invent BED. ( big ears disorder ). I lay down the criteria for it. ( ears over a certain size ).
I can then point to 5% of children, and say that they suffer from BED.
It exists. Some kids DO have big ears, that fall withing the criteria.

Nobel please. Can't we name it after me?

[Mr.Samsa]

Of course ADHD exists. It existed, as soon as somebody invented it.

Say I invent BED. ( big ears disorder ). I lay down the criteria for it. ( ears over a certain size ).
I can then point to 5% of children, and say that they suffer from BED.
It exists. Some kids DO have big ears, that fall withing the criteria.

Nobel please. Can't we name it after me?

Indeed, just as we do with cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. I'm not quite sure that your "BED" is on par with the descriptions of various forms of cancer though.

[Robert_S]

ADHD exists because God is angry at our sins and lets ride bikes.

[pErvinalia]

Of course ADHD exists. It existed, as soon as somebody invented it.

Say I invent BED. ( big ears disorder ). I lay down the criteria for it. ( ears over a certain size ).
I can then point to 5% of children, and say that they suffer from BED.
It exists. Some kids DO have big ears, that fall withing the criteria.

Nobel please. Can't we name it after me?

Indeed, just as we do with cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. I'm not quite sure that your "BED" is on par with the descriptions of various forms of cancer though.

Don't go there, Samsa. MM is this forum's Scot Dutchy.

[Strontium Dog]

Of course ADHD exists. It existed, as soon as somebody invented it.

Say I invent BED. ( big ears disorder ). I lay down the criteria for it. ( ears over a certain size ).
I can then point to 5% of children, and say that they suffer from BED.
It exists. Some kids DO have big ears, that fall withing the criteria.

Nobel please. Can't we name it after me?

Indeed, just as we do with cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. I'm not quite sure that your "BED" is on par with the descriptions of various forms of cancer though.

Don't go there, Samsa. MM is this forum's Scot Dutchy.

Poor Scot Dutchy. What did he ever do to deserve that.

[pErvinalia]