As I’ve said many, many, many times, ADD is really a “disease” of capitalism, where those gifted in certain areas have trouble fitting into the designated slot of good little student and corporate cog. We can’t sit still that long, we’re distractable, and we’re highly opinionated. We’re hyperfocused on some tasks, but only when they interest us.
So what does society do when you don’t fit in? They medicate you.
You may have been reading me long enough to know that the only reason I stopped taking Ritalin was the side effects – namely, that I started to develop Tourette’s symptoms. The symptoms lasted for quite some time after I stopped taking the drug. Now, years later, if I take any drugs with stimulant qualities, the tics come back. So I avoid them.
But here’s the thing: Ritalin was a miracle drug for me. It kept me focused, calm and even relaxed. I could finish mundane tasks, and the drug even lit up parts of my brain that I’d never used (I was able to write songs, which I’d never done before). I think it would have helped a lot with my self-esteem if I’d been able to take it as a child, although of course we’ll never know. And it has a short life, so you only have to take it when you need help – which I found ideal.
So what do we do with the ADDers, especially when they can’t take drugs?
Back in 1999, Rob Waters documented ‘the Ritalin Revolution’ in Salon. “Last year, more than 2.5 million prescriptions for antidepressants were written for children and adolescents, according to IMS Health, a research firm that tracks prescription drug sales. That’s despite the fact that most of these drugs have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use with children, and that no one knows what the long-term effects might be on developing brains.” Though the drugs undoubtedly helped some children, Waters argued, “it also seems clear that powerful medications are being given far too easily to some children, fueled by a variety of forces, from managed care to overworked parents. In a culture addicted to drugs, but reluctant to address children’s pain unless they start shooting up schools, it’s become easier and cheaper to deal with troubled kids by medicating them than by providing the personal attention of a sympathetic professional.”
That same year in the New Yorker Malcolm Gladwell pushed back against the common belief that the rise of A.D.D. and A.D.H.D. were resultant of our fast-paced society. “As a result of numerous studies of twins conducted around the world over the past decade, scientists now estimate that A.D.H.D. is about seventy per cent heritable. This puts it up there with the most genetically influenced of traits—traits such as blood pressure, height, and weight,” he wrote. “Meanwhile, the remaining thirty per cent—the environmental contribution to the disorder—seems to fall under what behavioral geneticists call ‘non-shared environment,’ meaning that it is likely to be attributable to such factors as fetal environment or illness and injury rather than factors that siblings share, such as parenting styles or socioeconomic class. That’s why the way researchers describe A.D.H.D. has changed over the past decade. There is now less discussion of the role of bad parents, television, and diet and a lot more discussion of neurology and the role of specific genes.”
In a 2005 The Wall Street Journal article Jeffrey Zaslow pointed out that abnormal thinkers are often our society’s most influential. “Ritalin and other drugs for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder have helped many children improve their focus and behavior—to the great relief of parents and teachers. ADHD support groups offer long lists of out-of-the-box thinkers who had classic ADHD traits such as impulsivity, a penchant for day-dreaming, and disorganized lives. Among those who are believed to have had the disorder: Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Salvador Dali, Winston Churchill.” Zaslow continued, “The question is whether the Ritalin Revolution will sap tomorrow’s work force of some of its potential genius. What will be the repercussions in corporations, comedy clubs, and research labs?”
Discuss!
There’s an odd notion, especially among non-biologists, that somehow if a trait has a strong heritable component that means environment isn’t much of a factor.
Genes and environment interact. (What is so hard about that concept? Especially for someone as smart as Gladwell?)
Take height, for instance. The Japanese are famous for being relatively small, at least in Japan. Second generation immigrants eating the more proteinaceous Western diet in the US are many inches taller than their parents. Same genetics, different food.
ADHD? Of course there’s a strong genetic component. I mean, duh. It’s about neurology. Nerves and their transmitters form according to the DNA in the cell. What else would they do? But that doesn’t mean that upbringing, television, diet, schooling, and all the rest can’t make the difference between almost everyone expressing whatever tendency toward ADHD they have and almost nobody.
(As to its association with various abilities, we have almost no idea what goes into the genetics behind them, so even less idea how they’re actually related, if at all, to any particular kind of nervous system.)