I don't really see how there can be any question that chaos, poverty, moving every year, constantly changing schools, multiple and changing "parent" figures, adults making poor choices over and over, no examples of deliberate planning and saving for the future, screws up kids.
They learn that life is completely unpredictable, that opportunities for reward should be taken immediately because they will not be there later, they never learn to spend extended time on learning anything or saving money for the future because they have never seen anyone in their life do those things.
A few manage to figure it out anyway, but most are doomed to repeat all of that as parents with their own kids. It's sad.
I mean, maybe? They experience that life is completely unpredictable, sure. They learn whatever they are taught along with it.
Consider, life was far more unpredictable just a few hundred years ago. Literally stubbing your toe in the forest could go septic and then you were dead. Violently so. Bad harvests could happen with no forewarning at all.
Lawrence Kohlberg's pyramid theory (stages of moral development) is flipped and chipped for these kids.
I would additionally posit the more "potential" the youth were given the perception of having, the dramatically worse the comparative results.
I can distinctly, acutely, remember sondering others' unobservable lives, long before I had any distinct sense of agency; comparing their actions against their words and little affects either had on outcomes.
So few times in my life that I have feared repercussions/punishment, it raises the question if its systematic to a group or just an individual anecdote.
I'm growing stronger in a belief that teaching/indoctrination matters more than just general experience.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that life experiences are their own teaching. However, it seems clear that a coach/teacher added to the exact same experiences can lead to different learning. Curious if folks have any links to studies that disprove that?
Treating it as a chemical error in the brain rather than "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", I'm tempted to say something about chemical errors in the researcher's brains.
Psychiatry is the gift that keeps on giving. The strangest part of some of these mental diseases is how they're defined in terms of other people. You're ill because you fail to adapt to society.
They diagnose a person with attention defict because he can't tolerate the government's mass education system. Then that exact same person goes home and writes computer code nonstop. Ten hours straight, he is a machine.
There are organic causes for this, neurodevelopmental causes. But what matters to them is to fit the guy into society's mold.
"a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through"
Isn't our brain made of chemicals of all kinds, and how we 'feel' is based on many chemical interactions, and so the "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", is the brains natural 'reasonable way to feel' as a reaction given some environment it is in.
So this is just measuring that reaction.
Maybe think of it more as analyzing why things are, and not as fixing an error. Like science does. Measure it.
What you’re describing is emergence, but it doesn’t mean that an emergent system doesn’t have mechanistic underpinnings. Your body gives rise to consciousness, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t treat blood pressure with medication.
It does mean that not all of the body's behavior can be explained by blood pressure. Emergent properties are not necessarily addressable (or describable, in the case of the OP) at the underlying level.
People used to think an Atom was the smallest particle, then they found Protons/Electrons etc.., then they found quarks.
The brain is complicated, that doesn't mean we can't measure it and try and understand it. Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
> Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
I haven't argued that at all and I'm not saying we can't measure it and understand it. I'm saying reducing it to "just chemicals" is missing the forest for the trees and goes against understanding it better. Might as well reduce it to just atoms, or just protons/electrons, or just quarks... Do you see what I mean? Why are chemicals where you draw the line?
Alternatively, the opposing view is a "fallacy" in that sense, unless you believe the brain is magical and doesn't obey the laws of physics and chemistry.
The whole water is wet is an 'emergent' property. This is true, linking emergent properties to the underlying smaller scale can be very difficult. Just not impossible. There is recent work on how water molecules interact that can explain 'wetness'. It is difficult, not impossible.
"Moreover, a similar activation pattern related to lifetime ADHD may suggest that the impact of early life stress on ADHD may possibly be mediated by a dysfunctional reward pathway."
If you're thinking about 10 different things in quick succession spontaneously flipping between each without control, your brain can't deliver sustained anticipatory reward for the one thing you actually should be working towards. The brain doesn't magically "know" what is important, presence in consciousness is what determines importance and reward allocation. Normal brains are able to fixate without tremendous effort.
My whole life I could barely sustain a conversation with someone because the moment they started speaking I'd reflexively begin thinking about something else. But when I tried Adderall I could actually have genuine conversations with people, hearing them and thinking about what they were saying and then responding, doing this repeatedly for many minutes. It felt like a superpower.
Some of the "Flipping around" might be caused by an inability to discount the reward from the thing you're flipping to - it seems important / rewarding. It's not much different than someone refusing to work on an important thing because they can't stop thinking about this neat thing over here that feels cooler.
Just to connect to the subject at hand.
hmmm yes could be that people with adhd,me for example, cant feel the reward of social contact so its hard to listen if not geniunly interested.
sometimes i try to reward myself conscious of something and it works. for example i think conscious about how if i finish a little task it would make me happier. then i kind of force a reward feeling towards the anticipation to have something done. and it works. i feel motivated to do little tasks. and if i do this repeatedly and on bigger and bigger tasks it reduces my adhd symptoms… but then there is suddenly something else to do and then i do this while thinking about the things i should do and what i could do next and suddenly i start 10 things and how the fuck did this happen … where are my keyes? :)
Yes, the utility behind that behavior is that the brain floods itself with dopamine when task completion feels imminently close in anticipation of the approaching reward. The flooding of dopamine, which is the motivation, does not suggest increased dopamine reception, which is the reward.
That utility alone accounts for gambling addiction. Consider that slot machines are a game of random chance against fixed odds. Every time you play the chance of winning is random against the same odds just like the last time. The more a person plays consecutively without winning, a losing streak, the more the brain anticipates winning the next time which builds dopamine anticipation in the brain even though a person is just as likely to continue losing into the future on each iteration.
What's more interesting is that this addiction behavior can be flicked on or off instantly, like a light switch, with medication. What's more strange though is that medically induced gambling addiction, yes that is a very real thing, effects females far more than males. I don't know if the cause of difference in behavior by sex is identified.
Can you elaborate on what medications impact gambling behaviors?
I have some addictive/compulsive behaviors that have been hard to shake. GLP-1 agonists look promising, but I'm not sure how to get a prescription since I'm not overweight.
The brain releases dopamine as a "reward"; it's a feel-good chemical that contributes to positive reinforcement of various behaviors. People with ADHD have limited dopamine response, which can express as a lack of motivation relative to others.
I was completely sure you were wrong and went and did a bunch of reading on Wikipedia and realized that my understanding of the reward pathway was incorrect. Thanks for educating me a bit today.
I thought dopamine was both the anticipatory neurotransmitters and the reward. But the reward neurotransmitters are different, they're your endorphins, endogenous opioids.
It seems this is a sort of trick our brains evolved to play on us that drives us to act- which makes sense. It is the anticipation of a reward that drives strong feelings and behaviors, but the reward itself is usually not as big of a deal- we work hard for something we expect to be great, but when it actually happens we barely notice and immediately move on to thinking about something else.
If dopamine only happened once you received a reward, it would not cause you to get you to actually act before hand.
All this just means we need an exceptionally strong signal to be able to pay attention. Most things are far too boring to engage us. Even things which were interesting at some point become boring once we figure them out in our minds and all that's left is the execution, the mechanical performance of the work. Hence the tendency to not finish projects.
Your mum has undiagnosed asperberger autism and shows zero emotions towards you besides constantly threatening you with religous terror because thats how god forces ruled on everybody. And thats all you ever expect from mankind.
So, is this just a way to do early measurements, to determine if someone might develop ADHD later.
Not any indicator of things to 'do' to help not develop ADHD later? No actions to take?
" In contrast, during reward delivery, activation of the bilateral insula, right pallidum and bilateral putamen increased with EFA. There was a significant association of lifetime ADHD symptoms with lower activation in the left ventral striatum during reward anticipation and higher activation in the right insula during reward delivery."
The actions to take would appear to depend upon whether one wishes to have fewer adults with lifetime ADHD symptoms, or more*.
The childhood adversities to affect either way are from [RutterQuinton77] and listed in TFA's Table S1, abbreviated here:
*Low educational level parent with neither school nor training
*Overcrowding more than 1.0 person/room or housing<=50m2
Parental disorder moderate to severe DSM-III-R
Parental history insitutionalised/deliquent/changes of parental figure
Marital discord low partnership in 2 of {harmony,communication,warmth}
*Early parenthood a parent <=18 (birth) or relationship <6 months (conc)
*One-parent family (at birth)
*Unwanted pregnancy an abortion was seriously considered
*Poor social network lack of friends & help in child care
Severe chronic probs affecting a parent for more than 1 year
Poorly coping parent with stressful events of past year
The ones marked with * are those factors I believe relatively easier to address via social policy.
EDIT: TFA uses different measures, discussed in the section "Definition of Rutter’s indicators of adversity (RIA)":
low social class both parents
marital discord parents not at same address
large family size 4+ children
paternal criminality
maternal disorder ICD-8: 290–315 or ICD-10: F00-F99
foster placement
* for instance, [Huxley32] mentions the practice of inducing fetal alcohol syndrome in order to ensure a steady supply of menial labour
Tread carefully. Your comment has the aroma of exactly the sort of first order thinking that over the past 50yr resulted in welfare programs exacerbating that exact list of problems (among others) that you're saying we can solve with more welfare.
I don't know what the solution is but using government to replace or supplement the kind of support that people traditionally got from their family, friends and network has only reduced the strength of those support streams over the decades.
To call out one well studied example, you can't just do first order stuff like extend bennies to single moms because then people won't get married in the first place and it's easier to split up if you're not married then you've got a legit single mom on your hands with all the poorer outcomes that entails. You can play whack a mole refining the rules forever but that has its own problems.
> Tread carefully. Your comment has the aroma of exactly the sort of first order thinking that over the past 50yr resulted in welfare programs exacerbating that exact list of problems (among others) that you're saying we can solve with more welfare.
Who says that the welfare programs exacerbate the problems?
Perhaps it is the lack of welfare programs (particularly in the US, the richest country in the world) that causes so much social problems (compared to less rich European countries).
The “welfare queen single moms” criticism is a shallow critique of government assistance programs overall and doesn’t move the analysis forward in an evidence backed manner. This is an old Republican USA talking point.
Also arguing that government support reduces the strength of family networks really needs some serious citation to back it up.
there's a lot of assumption of causation with no backup.
in particular I'd mention that there are countries with far more extensive welfare programs with measurably better social outcomes, so maybe there's something else going on
> you can't just do first order stuff like extend bennies to single moms because then people won't get married and it's easier to split up if you're not married, then you've got a legit single mom on your hands with all the poorer outcomes that entails.
Refusing to provide support to an person who wants to leave a relationship leads to several other factors, some on this very list. Indeed, staying in a dysfunctional, unwanted, potentially abusive relationship, just because finances force you to, is worse than the alternative.
The results of 50yr of various flavors of this policy kind of speak for themselves (which is why I specifically chose to mention it as my example).
It's better for society if people get married, (or perform some other socially agreed upon ritual that both requires investment and signals future investment) BEFORE they start cranking out the crotchfruit. Extending more aid to people who skip this step than those who go through it leads to predictable outcomes.
I get that it's really easy to play this off as some sort of pro-woman thing and try and send the discussion careening off into left field by bringing up domestic violence but we both know that's a red herring.
Edit: It was a mistake to reply to this comment at all. This is all a side discussion (ironic considering the subject of TFA). My point wasn't that you can't have government do things. The point was that you can't just pick a metric and turn government loose trying to address it. The goal of historical welfare was to subsidize basic necessities with certain groups getting priority that was generally accomplished (the programs exist, they doll out bennies pursuant to the rules) but it didn't yield the expected improvement on other fronts as intended and in the process we minted a class of people who are all but trapped in a multi-generational cycle of dependance upon the welfare system.
> It's better for society if people get married, (or perform some other socially agreed upon ritual that both requires investment and signals future investment) BEFORE they start cranking out the crotchfruit
The children of dysfunctional, unwanted, and potentially-abusive relationships speak for themselves: Given a couple with a kid, in a dysfunctional, unwanted, potentially-abusive relationship (marriage or otherwise), it's better for them to end the relationship. Raising a child in such an environment leads to all sorts of disorders (as described in this very article), and is worse than a single parent or separated parents properly raising the child with adequate support, financial and otherwise.
Unfortunately we cannot hand-wave away dysfunctional relationships, unwanted relationships, abusive relationships (to say nothing of domestic violence), and all that comes with them, no matter how easy it is, how much we wish we could, or which fish you wish to change the subject to.
That would imply ADHD was profoundly more widespread in the generations of our grandparents and before, since 10 or more people sharing an apartment or living space was incredibly common.
It says towards the end of the abstract that righting this balance, increasing anticipation dopamine and lowering reward receiving dopamine, could help with adhd
I don't really see how there can be any question that chaos, poverty, moving every year, constantly changing schools, multiple and changing "parent" figures, adults making poor choices over and over, no examples of deliberate planning and saving for the future, screws up kids.
They learn that life is completely unpredictable, that opportunities for reward should be taken immediately because they will not be there later, they never learn to spend extended time on learning anything or saving money for the future because they have never seen anyone in their life do those things.
A few manage to figure it out anyway, but most are doomed to repeat all of that as parents with their own kids. It's sad.
I mean, maybe? They experience that life is completely unpredictable, sure. They learn whatever they are taught along with it.
Consider, life was far more unpredictable just a few hundred years ago. Literally stubbing your toe in the forest could go septic and then you were dead. Violently so. Bad harvests could happen with no forewarning at all.
Lawrence Kohlberg's pyramid theory (stages of moral development) is flipped and chipped for these kids.
I would additionally posit the more "potential" the youth were given the perception of having, the dramatically worse the comparative results.
I can distinctly, acutely, remember sondering others' unobservable lives, long before I had any distinct sense of agency; comparing their actions against their words and little affects either had on outcomes.
So few times in my life that I have feared repercussions/punishment, it raises the question if its systematic to a group or just an individual anecdote.
There is a fantastic book on the impact of childhood adversity on long term health outcomes. Highly recommend, especially to prospective parents: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33413909-the-deepest-wel...
I'm growing stronger in a belief that teaching/indoctrination matters more than just general experience.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that life experiences are their own teaching. However, it seems clear that a coach/teacher added to the exact same experiences can lead to different learning. Curious if folks have any links to studies that disprove that?
I wish scientific papers would have their conclusion at the top of the page.
But they do, it's basically the last part of the abstract.
Publishers wouldn't like it, I guess.
I wish they'd have nothing but their methodologies and results.
Treating it as a chemical error in the brain rather than "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", I'm tempted to say something about chemical errors in the researcher's brains.
This is not an allowed opinion in Western thought, regardless of its obviousness.
Psychiatry is the gift that keeps on giving. The strangest part of some of these mental diseases is how they're defined in terms of other people. You're ill because you fail to adapt to society.
They diagnose a person with attention defict because he can't tolerate the government's mass education system. Then that exact same person goes home and writes computer code nonstop. Ten hours straight, he is a machine.
There are organic causes for this, neurodevelopmental causes. But what matters to them is to fit the guy into society's mold.
Culturally ingrained toxic positivity?
Depression is rare when you have to spend most of your day walking water.
Or maybe it presents differently.
"a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through"
Isn't our brain made of chemicals of all kinds, and how we 'feel' is based on many chemical interactions, and so the "a reasonable way to feel given what you've been through", is the brains natural 'reasonable way to feel' as a reaction given some environment it is in.
So this is just measuring that reaction.
Maybe think of it more as analyzing why things are, and not as fixing an error. Like science does. Measure it.
That's a fallacy, unless you believe the brain is not greater than the sum of its parts.
What you’re describing is emergence, but it doesn’t mean that an emergent system doesn’t have mechanistic underpinnings. Your body gives rise to consciousness, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t treat blood pressure with medication.
It does mean that not all of the body's behavior can be explained by blood pressure. Emergent properties are not necessarily addressable (or describable, in the case of the OP) at the underlying level.
People used to think an Atom was the smallest particle, then they found Protons/Electrons etc.., then they found quarks.
The brain is complicated, that doesn't mean we can't measure it and try and understand it. Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
> Right now people are just 'It's impossible, it must be a soul, or something mystical' how else could it be the way it is?
I haven't argued that at all and I'm not saying we can't measure it and understand it. I'm saying reducing it to "just chemicals" is missing the forest for the trees and goes against understanding it better. Might as well reduce it to just atoms, or just protons/electrons, or just quarks... Do you see what I mean? Why are chemicals where you draw the line?
Alternatively, the opposing view is a "fallacy" in that sense, unless you believe the brain is magical and doesn't obey the laws of physics and chemistry.
You needn't believe in magic, only in emergent properties well within the constraints of science.
The whole water is wet is an 'emergent' property. This is true, linking emergent properties to the underlying smaller scale can be very difficult. Just not impossible. There is recent work on how water molecules interact that can explain 'wetness'. It is difficult, not impossible.
"Moreover, a similar activation pattern related to lifetime ADHD may suggest that the impact of early life stress on ADHD may possibly be mediated by a dysfunctional reward pathway."
What is a dysfunctional reward pathway?
It is stated just above the quoted text.
Basically a lower-than-expected response to reward anticipation and a higher-than-expected response upon reward delivery.
I.e. the typical ADHD problem of instant vs delayed gratification and how the brain responds to it.
Neurotypical people’s brains seem to be better at rewarding in anticipation and not just on actual delivery.
IIUC
If you're thinking about 10 different things in quick succession spontaneously flipping between each without control, your brain can't deliver sustained anticipatory reward for the one thing you actually should be working towards. The brain doesn't magically "know" what is important, presence in consciousness is what determines importance and reward allocation. Normal brains are able to fixate without tremendous effort.
My whole life I could barely sustain a conversation with someone because the moment they started speaking I'd reflexively begin thinking about something else. But when I tried Adderall I could actually have genuine conversations with people, hearing them and thinking about what they were saying and then responding, doing this repeatedly for many minutes. It felt like a superpower.
Some of the "Flipping around" might be caused by an inability to discount the reward from the thing you're flipping to - it seems important / rewarding. It's not much different than someone refusing to work on an important thing because they can't stop thinking about this neat thing over here that feels cooler. Just to connect to the subject at hand.
hmmm yes could be that people with adhd,me for example, cant feel the reward of social contact so its hard to listen if not geniunly interested.
sometimes i try to reward myself conscious of something and it works. for example i think conscious about how if i finish a little task it would make me happier. then i kind of force a reward feeling towards the anticipation to have something done. and it works. i feel motivated to do little tasks. and if i do this repeatedly and on bigger and bigger tasks it reduces my adhd symptoms… but then there is suddenly something else to do and then i do this while thinking about the things i should do and what i could do next and suddenly i start 10 things and how the fuck did this happen … where are my keyes? :)
Yes, the utility behind that behavior is that the brain floods itself with dopamine when task completion feels imminently close in anticipation of the approaching reward. The flooding of dopamine, which is the motivation, does not suggest increased dopamine reception, which is the reward.
That utility alone accounts for gambling addiction. Consider that slot machines are a game of random chance against fixed odds. Every time you play the chance of winning is random against the same odds just like the last time. The more a person plays consecutively without winning, a losing streak, the more the brain anticipates winning the next time which builds dopamine anticipation in the brain even though a person is just as likely to continue losing into the future on each iteration.
What's more interesting is that this addiction behavior can be flicked on or off instantly, like a light switch, with medication. What's more strange though is that medically induced gambling addiction, yes that is a very real thing, effects females far more than males. I don't know if the cause of difference in behavior by sex is identified.
Can you elaborate on what medications impact gambling behaviors?
I have some addictive/compulsive behaviors that have been hard to shake. GLP-1 agonists look promising, but I'm not sure how to get a prescription since I'm not overweight.
could you tell me more about the medication. does it decrease dopamine production or does it increase reception?
The brain releases dopamine as a "reward"; it's a feel-good chemical that contributes to positive reinforcement of various behaviors. People with ADHD have limited dopamine response, which can express as a lack of motivation relative to others.
nitpick: dopamine means reward anticipation, the longing for the goal, not the satisfaction of achieving the goal.
I was completely sure you were wrong and went and did a bunch of reading on Wikipedia and realized that my understanding of the reward pathway was incorrect. Thanks for educating me a bit today.
I thought dopamine was both the anticipatory neurotransmitters and the reward. But the reward neurotransmitters are different, they're your endorphins, endogenous opioids.
It seems this is a sort of trick our brains evolved to play on us that drives us to act- which makes sense. It is the anticipation of a reward that drives strong feelings and behaviors, but the reward itself is usually not as big of a deal- we work hard for something we expect to be great, but when it actually happens we barely notice and immediately move on to thinking about something else.
If dopamine only happened once you received a reward, it would not cause you to get you to actually act before hand.
"Ya get high before ya actually get high, once ya know ya got it"
All this just means we need an exceptionally strong signal to be able to pay attention. Most things are far too boring to engage us. Even things which were interesting at some point become boring once we figure them out in our minds and all that's left is the execution, the mechanical performance of the work. Hence the tendency to not finish projects.
Your mum has undiagnosed asperberger autism and shows zero emotions towards you besides constantly threatening you with religous terror because thats how god forces ruled on everybody. And thats all you ever expect from mankind.
Normal brain : The joy of considering future reward is greater than the joy of actual reward.
Dysfunctional brain : The reverse.
(Which makes me go hmm)
Other brains: No joy in response to future or present rewards. Anxiety on the journey, shame at the destination.
this is literally me irl
So, is this just a way to do early measurements, to determine if someone might develop ADHD later.
Not any indicator of things to 'do' to help not develop ADHD later? No actions to take?
" In contrast, during reward delivery, activation of the bilateral insula, right pallidum and bilateral putamen increased with EFA. There was a significant association of lifetime ADHD symptoms with lower activation in the left ventral striatum during reward anticipation and higher activation in the right insula during reward delivery."
> No actions to take?
The actions to take would appear to depend upon whether one wishes to have fewer adults with lifetime ADHD symptoms, or more*.
The childhood adversities to affect either way are from [RutterQuinton77] and listed in TFA's Table S1, abbreviated here:
The ones marked with * are those factors I believe relatively easier to address via social policy.EDIT: TFA uses different measures, discussed in the section "Definition of Rutter’s indicators of adversity (RIA)":
* for instance, [Huxley32] mentions the practice of inducing fetal alcohol syndrome in order to ensure a steady supply of menial labourTread carefully. Your comment has the aroma of exactly the sort of first order thinking that over the past 50yr resulted in welfare programs exacerbating that exact list of problems (among others) that you're saying we can solve with more welfare.
I don't know what the solution is but using government to replace or supplement the kind of support that people traditionally got from their family, friends and network has only reduced the strength of those support streams over the decades.
To call out one well studied example, you can't just do first order stuff like extend bennies to single moms because then people won't get married in the first place and it's easier to split up if you're not married then you've got a legit single mom on your hands with all the poorer outcomes that entails. You can play whack a mole refining the rules forever but that has its own problems.
> Tread carefully. Your comment has the aroma of exactly the sort of first order thinking that over the past 50yr resulted in welfare programs exacerbating that exact list of problems (among others) that you're saying we can solve with more welfare.
Who says that the welfare programs exacerbate the problems?
Perhaps it is the lack of welfare programs (particularly in the US, the richest country in the world) that causes so much social problems (compared to less rich European countries).
The “welfare queen single moms” criticism is a shallow critique of government assistance programs overall and doesn’t move the analysis forward in an evidence backed manner. This is an old Republican USA talking point.
Also arguing that government support reduces the strength of family networks really needs some serious citation to back it up.
any citations for all that?
there's a lot of assumption of causation with no backup.
in particular I'd mention that there are countries with far more extensive welfare programs with measurably better social outcomes, so maybe there's something else going on
what countries? i suspect the ones you're referring to are demographically different from the US and are homogeneous in culture/race/faith.
> you can't just do first order stuff like extend bennies to single moms because then people won't get married and it's easier to split up if you're not married, then you've got a legit single mom on your hands with all the poorer outcomes that entails.
Refusing to provide support to an person who wants to leave a relationship leads to several other factors, some on this very list. Indeed, staying in a dysfunctional, unwanted, potentially abusive relationship, just because finances force you to, is worse than the alternative.
The results of 50yr of various flavors of this policy kind of speak for themselves (which is why I specifically chose to mention it as my example).
It's better for society if people get married, (or perform some other socially agreed upon ritual that both requires investment and signals future investment) BEFORE they start cranking out the crotchfruit. Extending more aid to people who skip this step than those who go through it leads to predictable outcomes.
I get that it's really easy to play this off as some sort of pro-woman thing and try and send the discussion careening off into left field by bringing up domestic violence but we both know that's a red herring.
Edit: It was a mistake to reply to this comment at all. This is all a side discussion (ironic considering the subject of TFA). My point wasn't that you can't have government do things. The point was that you can't just pick a metric and turn government loose trying to address it. The goal of historical welfare was to subsidize basic necessities with certain groups getting priority that was generally accomplished (the programs exist, they doll out bennies pursuant to the rules) but it didn't yield the expected improvement on other fronts as intended and in the process we minted a class of people who are all but trapped in a multi-generational cycle of dependance upon the welfare system.
> The results of 50yr of various flavors of this policy kind of speak for themselves
Maybe... just maybe... the US does not have enough social policies to assist the most vulnerable?
> It's better for society if people get married, (or perform some other socially agreed upon ritual that both requires investment and signals future investment) BEFORE they start cranking out the crotchfruit
The children of dysfunctional, unwanted, and potentially-abusive relationships speak for themselves: Given a couple with a kid, in a dysfunctional, unwanted, potentially-abusive relationship (marriage or otherwise), it's better for them to end the relationship. Raising a child in such an environment leads to all sorts of disorders (as described in this very article), and is worse than a single parent or separated parents properly raising the child with adequate support, financial and otherwise.
Unfortunately we cannot hand-wave away dysfunctional relationships, unwanted relationships, abusive relationships (to say nothing of domestic violence), and all that comes with them, no matter how easy it is, how much we wish we could, or which fish you wish to change the subject to.
> BEFORE they start cranking out the crotchfruit
While you are being all edgy and misanthropic and childfree or whatever, you do realize that you are included in this definition?
More than 1 person per room??? Surely everyone having their own room is a very recent development?
I think that's the whole house, not just bedrooms.
That would imply ADHD was profoundly more widespread in the generations of our grandparents and before, since 10 or more people sharing an apartment or living space was incredibly common.
That makes even less sense.
It's a recent development among poor lower class stressed people, not among calm, comfortable successful people
>Not any indicator of things to 'do' to help not develop ADHD later? No actions to take?
Reduce early life adversity.
It says towards the end of the abstract that righting this balance, increasing anticipation dopamine and lowering reward receiving dopamine, could help with adhd
That's not really how research papers go. You prove a causal link between two things before a future paper tests methodologies to address the link.
Though popular reporting on these types of papers will often have speculation from the journalist
Correlation, not causation. Randomized controlled trials of human suffering are not ethically approved research.