Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Edit request on 28 May 2012

It is written: "The pathophysiology of ADHD is unclear and there are a number of competing theories.[92] Research on children with ADHD has shown a general reduction of brain volume, but with a proportionally greater reduction in the volume of the left-sided prefrontal cortex."

A lot of data suggests that the decrease of RIGHT PFC can be observed due to impairment of mesocortical dopamine pathway. For confirmation please read: Ron M. Sullivan and Wayne G. Brake, 2003, Behavioural Brain Research 146: 43-55.

Positive traits

Something that has bothered me for a long time is the pure negative tone about ADHD people on this article. There are lots of positive traits to ADHD (and lots of reliable sources to source such facts). This article focuses completely on ADHD being a negative pathology and something of a disease and demonises ADHD people unfairly. I think that there should be a section discussing positive aspects of ADHD. Given that ADD is a controversial topic, where views and opinions differ, I thought I would ask here for people's thoughts first?--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions the disadvantages of ADHD because they are many and significant, including high rates of teenage pregnancy, road accidents, lower life expectancy, lower educational attainment and poverty. Most people with ADHD have other mental disorders. The rates of substance abuse and addiction are very high, as are the incidence of personality disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, (leading to high rates of criminal convictions and imprisonment), mood disorders and anxiety disorders. If you can find reliable sources that state there are advantages, add this to to the article. There are some celebrities with ADHD for whom their condition helps them in that it contibutes to their prominent, energetic, fast-talking, lively personality. Jim Carrey, Will Smith and Russell Brand are examples of this, hence there are advantages for some ADHD people, although it seems to be unusual for the advantages to outweigh the disadvantages. 188.29.143.100 (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can dig up recent secondary sources I would have no problem with including this. I have read similar comments regarding Autism. Some see it as a different way of being rather than a disease/disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you have somewhat misinterpreted my post anon 188.29.x.x. I was not complaining about the fact that there are large number of disadvantages to ADHD mentioned in the article. I largely agree with all of what you have written regarding ADHD being associated with a range of disadvantages. My issue is that there should be a section for some positive attributes to be described. It is the looking at ADHD from the point of view that there is nothing positive about it in any form that I think is not right. I have found a couple of sources, e.g. [1] and [2] but will look out more and hopefully in a few days or so get something written up and see what people think.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure there are many advantages to autism, in the wild; in society maybe mild forms of autism their ability to excel to a very very high degree in specific area(s), eg Bill Gates with his development of microsoft is an advantage. I suppose autistics are much less prone to substance abuse and other forms of antisocial behaviour than ADHDers though and that is a good thing. Autism (other than mild forms of it), is a more serious disorder than ADD spectrum I believe.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

We have sites that state "We are not people with a defective NT (neuro-typical) operating system, we are people with a different (autistic) but intact operating system. Our "way of being in the world" is different" [3] I have not looked into this in detail however. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Some info should be added to the article about the advantages ADHD can bring for some people who have the condition. Of course, the advantages are far fewer than the disadvantages. Most ADHD people have comorbid conditions, which are very often a bigger problem than ADHD itself. ADHD can give someone a lively, extrovert personality, as is the case with Zooey Deschanel. It would be useful if we could establish whether there is a link to creativity, in the way that there is for bipolar disorder. 109.249.97.65 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes Doc, but those are written largely by people who are on the autistic spectrum; if autism had benefits it would be more prevalent (it is less than 1 percent of population), whereas natural selection has favoured ADHD with it occurring in 5-8 percent of the population. The refs are not reliable sources either hehe. :-P

109.249.x.x I think the level of comorbid conditions with ADHD are exagerated in part because only the more severely behaviourally disturbed tend to get referred for treatment as patients for studies are recruited out of psychiatric or pediatric facilities; in the wild (general population outside of psychiatry/pediatic patients), I doubt very much that 20 percent of random ADHDers out there in the general public have conduct disorder (are mini psychopaths); of those referred to psychiatry or pediatrics or criminal justice/courts, sure that figure is probably accurate. A lot of co-morbid conditions may also be connected to substance abuse rather than naturally occurring but I am not in denial that there is an elevation comorbid conditions with ADHD. I am just looking at the evidence (research) in context. But this is just my perspective. We are being kind of bad here and kind of sort of violating WP:TALK by talking about the subject rather than the article content. Lol. :-P I don't mind though.--MrADHD | T@1k? 02:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree more with the original poster here. I have ADHD and to me I do not feel that there is anything wrong with me. I am not good at following directions and paying attention -- I tune in and out. Do I feel like that is a problem or a developmental disorder that I wish I could correct? No, not at all -- it's my way of life. When I tune in and out I am not saying to myself: "why can't you just pay attention?" What is happening is that while I am paying attention, a myriad of other very exciting and interesting ideas pop into my consciousness and I would rather pay attention to them before I continue on following directions. When it comes down to it, society does not evolve on an individual basis. There is no ideal way of thinking, to have or not have ADHD/autism/etc. All of these ways of thinking are important in society. If nobody had ADHD and we all thought in a purely deterministic way that followed continuity, many of the great people that exist today in society and their great ideas that they would only be able to come up with by thinking in a DIFFERENT way than everyone else, would not be here today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.208.251 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious why ADHD has completely co-opted ADD in this article and elsewhere. Hyperactivity seems to be the main "problem/concern", but people with ADD don't have that, and tend to have a stunning ability to focus on a single project or whatever for hours at a time. ADD itself doesn't seem to get much press in this article except as a part of ADHD. --Sgtkabuki (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviews

A new review Diagnosis and management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22612184 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Evolution section flagged as fringe

Someone has flagged the evolution section as 'fringe theories'. I suggest removing the banner as evolution is not fringe, even in religious circles, natural selection within a species is widely accepted. I have added a recent review about ADHD being favoured by natural selection due to its high prevalance (hard to argue against that); additionally the section is quite well sourced. Surely if we have good quality reviews of the medical literature saying that there are evolutionary/natural selection benefits to ADHD, we can't then label the prevailing/dominant viewpoint of the medical literature as 'fringe'? What are other people's views?--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Hartmann "Hunter-Gatherer hypothesis" probably does fall under fringe theories, to be honest. That particular hypothesis is not supported by the medical literature at all. Now, some of the other hypotheses may be more rigorous, and to the extent that they're well-sourced and that we're discussing what they actually conclude rather than wishful fantasies, then it might be worth including. The conclusion for the first paper cited in that section, for example, contains statement that is similar to a few other papers I've seen on the subject: " It is possible that the presence of altered gene combinations, as in ADHD, can bring concrete benefits to society but are detrimental to the individual."

I've seen a few papers that discuss this possibility, that the symptoms themselves are harmful to the individual, but that the society as a whole benefits from having individuals who engage in impulsive behavior, both from the small percentage of the times that the impulsive behavior results in figuring out something new, and in the vast majority of times that the impulsive behavior demonstrates to the rest of the society the importance of not tbrowing rocks at a hornet's nest, for example.

The problem is that it is incredibly difficult to really demonstrate what selective pressures, if any, were involved in the evolution and spread of these alleles. It's going to be mostly speculation, because behwvioral and cognitive differences due to neurological development are simpky not something that will be apparent in the fossil record. When you compare the handful of papers on the potential evolutionary reasons why ADHD exists to the thousands of papers documenting the deleterious nature of the symptoms and the increased risk factors for things like substance abuse and incarceration, it might be reasonable to conclude that the hypothesis that ADHD confers some sort of evolutionary benefit is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Hyperion35 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Hyperion. :-) The hunter-gatherer hypothesis was 'designed' by Hartmann for his young son to understand ADHD from an evolutionary/natural selection perspective; it subsequently became a popular way for authors writing books on ADHD for lay people and children/adolescents to describe ADHD and why natural selection favoured it. I can recall my pediatrician way back using the term when discussing ADHD with me and my family and there was a whole chapter in a book on ADHD that I read many many years ago when I was young about the term. The reason that it is not commonly used in the medical literature is because the medical literature uses terms such as 'evolution' and 'natural selection' but for children, adolescents and lay parents hunter-gatherer is a way of simplifying the scientific term evolution/natural selection.

I fully agree that ADHD can have serious detrimental effects to the individual particularly in modern day society. The extraordinary evidence is how common ADHD is and there is no dispute in the medical literature about ADHD being a creation of natural selection to my knowledge. It is not heavily researched but when it is discussed in natural selection terms researchers don't dispute that natural selection/evolution has created and favoured ADHD. If there are papers which say ADHD is not a creation of natural selection by all means feel free to add them to the evolution section of this article.--MrADHD | T@1k? 13:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstand my objections, which are multiple. I am not saying that ADHD, or any other hereditary condition or trait, is not affected by natural selection. I am not arguing against evolution, dear lord no, what I am saying is that the evolution of ADHD is not something that has been heavily researched, that I'm not sure that there is any sort of definitive evidence much less a scientific consensus, and that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that for the individual, at least, it is a deleterious trait.

First, Hartmann's hypothesis, as you describe it, is not a scientific hypothesis but a "just-so" story, and really doesn't rise to the level of scholarly material. Whether it is a useful analogy for a layman, the question is how well it actually reflects scientific findings, and the Arcos-Burgos paper you cite is pretty much the only time I've ever seen it mentioned in peer-reviewed material. Hartmann is not a geneticist, or a psychiatrist, or an ecologist or evolutionary biologist, and his particular hypothesis is not something that he submitted for peer review. As such, it is at best pseudoscience, and perhaps survives the "fringe" label only because of how many people might have read it. I think it was Barkley who responded to Hartmann's hypothesis by pointing out that if he was going hunting, someone with ADHD did not strike him as being a good hunting partner.

Currently the Williams & Taylor paper is the only one with full text access. Looking over it, one thing that strikes me is that it is most definitely is not making the claims mentioned in this article or in what you are saying, and certainly it bears no relation to Hartmann's hypothesis. They note that ADHD consists of deleterious effects to the individual, and offer several hypotheses for how these traits might benefit society as a whole. When they talk about natural selection "favoring" ADHD, what they are saying is that there is likely some positive selecting pressure to outweigh the well-documented deleterious effects, not that there is some evolutionary advantage to ADHD itself. This is a very important distinction.

Williams & Taylor state that the "most prevalent view" is that there may be traits that are beneficial, but that when these various traits are combined as seen in patients with ADHD, the result is maladaptive. Thus these individual traits might undergo positive selection, but people with ADHD are "maladaptive spandrels". They then go on to explain the findings of their research, concluding that it implies that society as a whole might benefit from having a small number of people with ADHD for a number of reasons. Again, in evolutionary terms, this is not something that is undergoing positive selection, and in fact the gene itself would be said to be selected against. In fact, in addition to noting that ADHD results in bad outcomes for the individual, the authors are fairly clear that on the societal level, ADHD would not be beneficial in large numbers of people, but only that there might be "advantages to confining unpredictability to a small subgroup" to use their exact words.

As for what the prevalence of ADHD tells us about its evolutionary fitness, I'd honestly be more comfortable having a geneticist review that claim. OMIM lists ADHD as being an autosomal dominant genetic condition, and a prevalence of 5-10% for an autosomal dominant condition does not strike me as a sign that it is undergoing positive selection. I am not a geneticist, however, so I don't feel qualified to say that with any certainty, but the argument does not match what I understand of mendelian inheritance or natural selection. However, this would match what Williams & Taylor write about negative selective pressure operating to minimize ADHD to a small subgroup.

I'm sorry for the long response, but this is a complicated and complex topic, and I thought that you deserved an answer more comprehensive than simply "you're wrong" or "Hartmann is an idiot". Unfortunately, to be brutally honest I would say that the section in this article on the evolution of ADHD is absurdly large in proportion to the due weight of research actually conducted on the subject. And I would go on to say that what we have in this article on the subject is dramatically inaccurate in terms of representing what published evidence exists on the subject.Hyperion35 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that ADHD has lots of negative effects especially for the individual. I do not agree with you that the Hartmann's theory is pseudoscience as it was never written or promoted as hard science (pseudoscience is something unscientific claiming to be scientific); it is just a simplified explaination of natural selection for children and adolescents. I certainly agree that ADHD in large numbers of a population would be a very bad idea. I can't imagine how society would be if 50 percent or more of people in it had ADHD!!! 5 percent is maybe okish, LOL. Yes, but for the societal group to survive or thrive, someone has to go out there and take risks, for themselves and their group. Naturally those that are more cautious will be less likely to run into problems. In simplistic terms, 'gathering/farming' is safer than 'hunting'. Given that this paper lends some scientific support to Hartmann's theory, and also given the notability of his theory in popular culture and books etc, I think a 'see also' link to the hunter farmer article is justified.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Evolution Section

Ok, after looking taking some time to think about the subject, and finding (and translating) the full text of the Cardo paper (which had conclusions similar to the Taylor & Williams paper), I decided to rewrite some portions of the evolution section to clarify the findings. Specifically to clarify two aspects mentioned in both papers:

1. The hypothesis that some individual traits associated with ADHD may have been beneficial, but when these traits combine as seen in ADHD, it becomes detrimental, producing "maladaptive spandrels" (the term was mentioned in the Taylor & Williams paper, but it appears that they may have been quoting the term from yet another paper).

2. The hypothesis that society as a whole may benefit from having a small number of individuals engaging in unpredictable or impulsive behavior, even though this behavior may be detrimental to the individuals themselves.

Both of these hypotheses are mentioned in both the Williams & Taylor paper and the Cardo paper. Point #1 had previously lacked the important qualifier regarding the difference between individual traits vs ADHD in terms of advantages and disadvantages (and hopefully the "maladaptive spandrel" term makes the concept clearer), and point #2 had previously been mentioned but failed to distinguish between benefit to society vs detriment to individual, which is a major point of both papers.

I also removed the Hartmann reference completely. It was fringe. The one argument in favor of retaining it was that a lot of people have read the popular book, perhaps. On the other hand, a PubMed search for "ADHD Hunter Gatherer" returned exactly two articles, one was a 20 year old paper on "neuroethics", and the other was a nutritional article that claimed that changes in diet from hunter-gatherer days were the cause of ADHD, autism, and 80% all reproductive hazards. Not exactly a wealth of information to support the hypothesis. Without any published information outside of Hartmann's own book, the hypothesis can probably be considered not only fringe, but also potentially non-notable. The actual papers on the evolution of ADHD made no reference to Hartmann and did not support his hypothesis at all except for containing the words "evolution" and "ADHD".

I have left the fringe tag as it stands only because I do not know for certain that Hartmann was the sole reason for placing the tag. I'm also not sure what to do with the studies mentioned that examined the DRD4 gene: on the one hand, the gene is linked to ADHD by a large number of reputable sources and this link appears to be widely accepted, but on the other hand it is not clear that the studies themselves were looking at ADHD specifically, or how explain more clearly how they fit into the picture.Hyperion35 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hunter-farmer theory is not WP:FRINGE; see this link for notability in academic books, over 1,000 results. If it is FRINGE then by the definition of WP:FRINGE, the majority of those academic books should 'rubbish' or debunk the hunter-farmer term, which they do not, they actually 'support it' and just use the term as a simplification of natural selection of one line of evolution research. Sure hunter-gather or hunter-farmer is not a scientific term and thus you would not expect to see it in hard science research papers but academics will and do widely use hunter/farmer in academic books geared towards the public and even parts of the scientific community. As in the above section, I do not dispute that ADHD is detrimental in many respects for the risk taking ADHDer; by definition having risk taking traits involves hazards and risks and I do not dispute this.--MrADHD | T@1k? 01:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but if it's a hypothesis that has never been formally published in peer-review literature, if it's a hypothesis that is barely even discussed in the peer-reviewed published research, then it would still resemble pseudoscience. There are faux-academic creationist books out there as well. I think the question is what quality of evidence exists to support the hypoothesis compared to the rest of this page, where most of the statements are backed by comprehensive reviews and published statements from major medical societies. The other question is how widely is this hypothesis accepted within the field. I'll also note that many of those books in the search that you listed have titles like "ADHD Drug-Free: Natural Alternatives" and "Nature's Ritalin for the Marathon Mind". So, ah, when I ask how well-accepted it is within the community, I mean the legitimate research community and not the so-called "alternative medicine" community, because some of those books do actually sound rather fringe (no, seriously, consider titles advocating drug-free treatment in the context that medication is suggested as a necessary treatment component by NIH, NHS, APA, AMA, AAP, AACAP, and many other professional medical societies, so that rigjt there should be an indication that if the advocates for the hypothesis are publishing books that flat out contradict the statements made by the major medical societies, that is possibly a clue that they might be fringe).

But my main point is this: if the hunter-gatherer hypothesis does not have anything near the level of published, peer-reviewed literature as the other parts of this page, and if the bypothesis itself has never been formally published, how on exactly are we supposed to weigh it against the massove amount of published evidence used for every other claim and assign it due weight? How are we to evaluate its acceptance by the scientific community when there is no pu lished evidence that it is accepted. There is no published research. At all. It is a pop-sci idea, but that doesn't make it scientific. I get that you like Hartmann's hypothesis, but I would like to hold it to the same standard of evidence of everything else on this page. Go put it up on the Controversies page since evidence, undue weight, NPOV, and reputable sourcing apparently dln't apply there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion35 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you will get some alternative type books indexed by google books; you would likely also get some alternative books in search results if you included ADHD and Ritalin or any other number of possible searches. Google indexes a range of books from alternative books through to hard neuroscience type books. I am okay with the hunter-gatherer hypothesis being excluded from being discussed in this article although I feel a 'see also' link should remain. I actually prefer the hard science over the hunter-gatherer hypothesis/explanation as I can understand it; I don't write for my own benefit though but for readers of the article. As I stated above, the hunter-gatherer is aimed at children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD as a simplification and explaination of natural selection/evolutionary concepts in relation to ADHD as well as to make it easier for them to accept having a 'label' or 'disorder'. How do you feel about agreeing to exclude the hunter-gatherer hypothesis from this article but leaving a see also link for the small number of readers who may want to read about it?--MrADHD | T@1k? 16:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Diet and ADHD

A new review Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Signs and Symptoms section

This section could be worded better.

The bulleted lists of symptoms are a bit awkward, because they don't phrase the symptoms as nouns. For example, currently it says things like:

"Symptoms may include ..." "... Talk nonstop"

It would be better if it was phrased like this:

"Symptoms may include ..." "... Nonstop talking"

Actually, though, the lists of symptoms seem overly specific anyway, referencing things like "seats" and "story time." It might be better if the symptoms were described in more general terms, rather than school-specific ones like these.

Also, in that section, the following sentence is, for lack of a better word, a mess:

"Other symptoms that ADHD include problems for effected people with social skills and ADHD people also tend to have poorer handwriting compared to their peers.[32]"

--Juggler37 (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PerfectEdit (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Not to be contrary but ADHD is a neurological condition, which can be comorbid with some psychological/psychiatric conditions. Not all individuals with ADHD have behavioural problems. ADHD individuals have issues with low adrenaline which forces their sympathetic nervous system to kick in, and fill the need, however it's use is only ever meant to be temporary and it's chemical regulation becomes impaired, so those with ADHD may seem to be on the go a lot of the time and the bodies prolonged use of this system can cause adrenal fatigue seen as lethargy. Also some individuals have issues with working memory which can further cause problems especially in the absence of executive functioning skills. It should be noted that ADHD has no bearing on IQ, but a clear impact for some individuals to demonstrate their intellect using common marking tools i.e providing written work, mainly due to issues with time management, lethargy and EF skill application.

Article needs non-fringe alternative treatments section

http://www.logan.edu/mm/files/LRC/Senior-Research/2009-Aug-02.pdf

Is one simple survey of non-drug treatments summarizing some results. Among them biofeedback, exercise, and DHA levels in diet. Other summaries and research exist as well, obviously.

As well, the view that the disorder is in the methods of adults, and not in the constitution of the people affected, might also be included. The word "focus" is also often used in literature but tends to be undefined. The alternate view suggests that in children, their needs are not being met by reason of the assembly-line regimentation of school, and such phenomena as the failure of caregivers to self-label as "boring," tending to project social mis-match solely as problem of the children. Mydogtrouble (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the need for this section! And by the way, and I know it's off topic, but in the child psychiatric region where I work, they are about to start a research project with biofeedback. Preliminary results are that it works just as well as meds, without the side effects. Lova Falk talk 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional treatment (that is, in addition to drugs, or with drugs, or without), rather than alternative, might be more useful. I've seen too much "alternative treatment" that begins with denial and goes downhill from there. I did fine with exercise (running, primarily) for a decade or two, but twenty miles a day was hard to maintain. What would have been, looking back, most useful would have been proper diagnosis and then social skills training. htom (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - Oktober 2012

ADHS ain't a neurobehavioral disorder. It's caractrerized as "Behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence" in ICD 10. In DSM too. The DSM is about mental disorders. Neurobehavioral disorders are the classification of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. [4] But most shrinks think it's a mental disorder. So the neutrality of this article is not fullfiled. --WSC ^® 16:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you! I would like to see the definition changed into behavioural disorder because the ICD/DSM description of criteria only mentions behavioural symptoms, no emotional ones. Lova Falk talk 17:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Added "mental disorder" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the neurobehavioral disorder is still misplaced. 1. The cause isn't a clear neuronal caused behavioral disorder. There's no mechianism found which has a distinct causality to the behavioral problems. (You can't diagnose a ADHD by Medical imaging) 2. ADHD is described as multifactorial caused mental disorder. This model exclude a single neurobehavioral cause as only trigger of adhd. 3. Schizophrenia is suspected as neurobehavioral disorder too. There were found much clearer coherences between brain metabolism and the typical symptoms. Additional, the genetic coherences of schizophrenia are much higher than of ADHD. But nobody had the dump idea to call schizophrenia a "neurobehavioral disorder" [5]. A lot of research makes clear that there is much more needed to trigger a schizophrenia than a simple "neurological" vulnerability and genetical load. But when a child fools around in classroom, like on this fucking foto, it's a neurobehavioral disorder? Thats highly nonserious of the authors of the article to permit such opinions in the introduction.

The opinion of the "National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke" is relevant. But not in the introduction of our article. And not sourced by an simple information website.

--WSC ^® 20:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many references that support that ADHD is a neurobehavioural disorder other than the NINDS. This textbooks states "It has been hypothesized that neurobehavioral disabilities of childhood, such asADHD or learning disorders" [6] We also have this "According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (2000), ADHD is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood, as well as the most prevalent chronic health condition affecting school- aged children" [7]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think you are right. The quantity of the sources makes clear that ADHD is also discribed as a neurobehavioral disorder. But I try to challange the mention in the introduction! I now try to give you an understandig of my problem with the mention of "neurobehavioral" in the introduction, by pure numerals: In Google-Scholar, you have about 950 hits with the keywords neurobehavioral disorder and ADHD. But if you search the keywords mental disorder and ADHD, you have about 15,000 or 12,000 (for developmental disorder) hits. Incident to the more or less official opinion of WHO's ICD and the APA's DSM-4R and -5 it is described predominantly as mental disorder. So that should be our neutral view too. --WSC ^® 11:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Google hits is not evidence. Both are accepted positions thus we should mention both in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, these are not google hits. These are hits an an scientiffic search engine. I know you are abel to discuss a theme by ignorin all other arguments. Thats phenomenal! Please read my last contrib again. --WSC ^® 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know it is google scholar. We still do not determine content by google hits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see you like to read only my half argumentation. We still determine contents by official definitions. Don't we? Look, it's a official determination to call ADHD a mental disorder. A official resolution like show a embrassing and stereotype picture of ADHD-child causing problems unprovoked because the picture was found on the CDC-Website. [8] That was your argumentation as I remeber. --WSC ^® 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Doc realized the problem. Both his moralic immaturity at the picture and his overstate of the bilogical paradigm in the introduction. Nothing seems to stand in the way to ballance that in the article. --WSC ^® 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)