Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder predominantly inattentive

Rather than have a whole other article, let's integrate info into Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. And anyway, "Inattentive ADD" is redundant. Officially, it's actually "ADHD Primarily Inattentive" -- Tim D 02:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sub type not represented in main article and a radically different sub type, not appropriate no put all this info. In main article. Other then being attention problems they have very little in common. -- Chris H

It is completely appropriate to put it in the main article, as it is not a distinct disorder in itself. The main article is lacking info on it, but the topic is best represented there than elsewhere -- Tim D 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to take the liberty to move the article to ADHD predominantly inattentive, which is a more appropriate name. Inattentive ADD is close, but not quite there. -- Tim D 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The inattentive subtype is interesting because much less is known about this group then the other two types of ADHD. This is because most clinical studies have and still do focus on the "Combos" and hyperactive-impulsive subgroups. As researchers studied this group more closely they discovered a homogenous sub-sub group which has been called Sluggish Coginitive Tempo for lack of a better name. There is debate if SCT should be considered a different disorder.--Scuro 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Symptoms of ADHD

You listed one of the symptoms children who have ADHD are likely to exhibit was trouble with household tasks such cleaning or paying bills.

I don't know too many children who pay bills. I think most children would have trouble with that one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.145.169.201 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, I don't know how that snuck in there. All that stuff needs some cleaning up, actually. There's too much redundancy. -- Tim D 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing missing in the article is that ADHD PI can have impulsive and hyperactive symptoms. That is in the DSMIV

--scuro 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, rant number two of today. For all you people out there who try to have their children diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, or any other 'disorder' of any pertaining nature, I have this to say: They are children. And if you expect your child not to have high energy levels, short attention spans, or the opposite thereof, then you are yourself are in need of help. Help with being a parent, and help with your own inability to deal with situational outcomes. When I was growing up, if I acted to hyper, my parents would put that energy to good use around the house with cleaning, maintanence, etc. This turned out to be both a constructive way to teach me good work ethics, and to help make a cleaner living environment. If the house was clean , and nothing needed to be done, they would make me go outside and play. Either way, I was bettered as a child. Also take into consideration that your child just might be highly intelligent. Some children learn faster then others, and cannot abide being kept up with the rest of the class. The teacher not knowing how to deal with this, tells the parents that the kid will tap their pencil, or drum their nails on the desk, or wiggle, talk, or disrupt the class. The teacher is telling the parent the truth. However here is the catch: because children and adults who pick up on things really fast are often bored with their somewhat slower environment, everyone else says their disruptive behaviour affecting them. Now take those same 'ADD and ADHD' people in another environment covering a subject that they have no interest in, or do not understand. Take school for example. You take little Johnny who loves history and math, but hates english. He excels at History and Math, but gets very poor grade in English. His teacher constantly tells the parents how he doesn't understand it, and often seems 'uninterested and distant' while during class. Here's the finale. The parents gather that their son or daughter is either hyper active with 'nervous' habits, or 'slow and distant' within a short time period. By very definition- symptoms of ADD and other associated disorders. So the kid gets drugged up. Now the kids grades rise for a time in the classes he could not deal with before. He maintains his grades in the other class. However he looses alot of interest in doing anything else. And if you want to argue this point with me, I dare you. I have seen and know personally many 'ADD or bi-polar' people, who display these 'symptoms'. They are all good people, but in essence-lazy, and have a hard time dealing with everyday 'issues'. Then one day, the drug looses it's effect (as all drugs do), so one of two things happen. The dosage is increased, or the kid begins to get frustrated that he could not keep up things as before. This in turn leads to many other problems that all stem from the fact that the child was not taught how to deal with everyday life from the get-go. For that- I hate all of you who use this as an excuse to control your children with drugs because you do not know any oher way. Further more I think it down right pathetic how you all fall into this trap. Get your heads out of your as*** and try spending time with your child like you should you sorry excuse for overly liberal parents! PS- I really hate you. - brokerdavelhr@yahoo.com

Your post is totally subjective with many personal observations reminiscent of religious like rants. I won't comment further then to say I disagree with every major point you made. Save it for the ADD forums or some other type of ADHD messageboard or blog. Your post does nothing to further the article and I also consider it flamebait. You would do well to read Wiki policy specifically WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL Note that you have been warned.

--scuro 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Scuro: You are right,my point is subjective. As for the religious like rants,I feel the need to ask what prompted that? Anyway, last time I looked, this was the 'discussions' page. It actually does further the article by offering another perspective. So therefore you sir, maam, or whatever, are invalid. If WIKI saw something wrong with what I have said, then they will deal with me. Not you. Besides, if you are going to disagree with my point, then fine. However, for the benefit of the readers, please list your points. Not only will this help me to understand your point of view, but the other readers out there is well. As far as flamebait ( a truly ignorant term by the way, heck it is not even a word), at least I listed my points. You are the one who lit the flame by just saying you disagree and not listing your perspective like a mature adult would. Are you ADD by any chance looking for an excuse? If you are, then I would love to hear your viewpoint and I will promise not to act like a 13 year old about it. However if you have nothing further to add to this discussion, then please sir (ma'am or whatever), butt out. Or in the case you would like to add your own viewpoint,I will not bait any further; rather I would listen to your words and take them to heart. Anyway, this is a discussion board posted to help others understand the full scope of the topic in question. Therefore any input you yourself might have would be greatly appreciated :-) HAND (have a nice day) -Dave brokerdavelhr@yahoo.com

Subjectivity has no place in Wikipedia unless a subjective but referenced point furthers an article. The discussion page's purpose is to further the development of the article, not to get one's viewpoint point across or foster "understanding". That's where the religious reference came from, religion relies on faith (subjectivity) for understanding. Wiki relies on good references. I have contributed to this article and my contributions have withstood the scrutiny of other editors. I'm not here to debate ideas in discussion, go else where if you are looking for that. If on the other hand you have something meaningful to contribute and it is not already in the article find some good references to support your ideas and post away. If you like you can post these supported ideas first in discussion and I'd be most happy to scrutinize and offer suggestions first before you post. Dave, it would be good idea to create an identity. I have posted a greeting message on your talk page which instructs one on how to do this. Sign your posts with the quadruple toggle(~). It is a sign of good faith in that you abide by the conventions of this community. Happy editing.--scuro 03:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Scuro's right, this is a discussion about the article, not a debate page for ADHD itself. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think is the final thing I will ever post in wiki from now on. If you will read my first posting on ADD, I was directly addressing the article. I am extremely upset right now that my observations has been ruled as nothing but 'flamebait', and 'from a religious,subjective standpoint'. If you will take the time to read the examples posted in my first entry, you will notice that I gave several examples on where I think the article erred. You said, and I quote-'Wiki relies on good references'. If this is indeed true and correct, it would give more then a one-sided diatribe on the topic the article was written about. It would explore every side to it, for both good in bad. What I want you all to understand, is that truly understand a problem or a 'disorder', one must explore it. In great detail, in the short and long runs, in the pro's and con's. Second off, you stated, 'The discussion page's purpose is to further the development of the article, not to get one's viewpoint point across or foster "understanding"'. If you truly believe this, then you are a fool plain and simple. Not trying to give insult, but it is the truth. Think about it- discussion upon a subject are held so that it may become understood by all parties involved. Granted not everyone will agree, however understanding is a main key to knowledge, and if you are saying that I and thousands of other readers should not understand every facet of the topic covered, then you are either a fool, or a hack with no real understanding of your own. But I doubt it. You sound like a well-studied sort who knows their stuff, and is at a point in that study, where anything that interefers with that study is a major frustration. In which case I understand how you feel. I do not think you a fool, I just wish you would get around to making your valid point is all. Now back to the article. It states what is commonly referred to as ADD as a disorder. In all of the examples given though, it cites the symptoms as behaviours such as -

• • Failing to pay close attention to details or making careless mistakes when doing schoolwork or other activities

Appearing not to listen when spoken to Failing to follow instructions or finish tasks Avoiding tasks that require a high amount of mental effort and organization, such as school projects Difficulties completing household chores Adults [2] Often making careless mistakes when having to work on uninteresting or difficult projects Often having difficulty keeping attention during work Often having difficulty concentrating on conversations** Sir, maam, or whatever- all these happen to all of us from time to time. It is called being human. I must also point out that all these are the symptoms of just not being raised better. You cannot argue the fact that the way a child is raised in a given environment will dictate their behavior up to young adulthood (18-25).

:Actually, you can. This is the nature verus nurture debate, and it has been raging (as you appear to be) for the past 100 years. You may want to check your premise, as well as your sources.

Now, all the above listed 'symptoms' happen to us all as I have stated, and if you say otherwise, you need to be more honest with yourself. The truth is, most of the time, these 'symptoms' are what most of us refer to as 'being human'. Ever wonder why most people who are diagnosed with ADD, usually suffer major bouts of depression too? The answer for this is simple. Their psersona and their very being is masked by the effects of the drug. Because 'highs and low's'are minimalized with these agents, the subject is unable to dispense with the energy trapped inside. This leads to frustration, highly emotional sensativity, depression, and sometimes the use of other drugs to make them happy again. So my point is - if WIKI is indeed unbias-ed, non-subjective, and the product of good-references, then they will accept this entry as it is- unbiased, non-subjective, stating fact that the poorly conducted surveys do not tell you. No-where in what I have written states my opinion. You see, I am a huge-history buff, and I also study many cultures and religions. So I understand people. I will at last add this- if you still have a problem with me or what I have added to the discussion on the article today, then you are a blind person, and I want nothing further to do with you. HAND - Dave brokerdavelhr@yahoo.com

:Most of this is just patent nonesense. Move on. --DashaKat 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well may be wiki isn't the place for you. Keep the posts strictly to improving the article. May I suggest that you pick the most obvious point that you believe needs changing or should be included. Explain it in a simple and straightforward manner and don't stray from this task. A number of your observations are personal and negative. I'm not going to talk issues until you can be civil. I have posted a warning on your talk page. Pleae desist with this type of behaviour. --scuro 02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AHOY! Dear DashaKat - Why is it non-sense? I really want to know why you dis-agree. As I have said earlier, if you dis-agree, state why. Only children and frustrated mothers give line 'because I said so!:-) Scuro- You maybe right. Maybe WIKI is not for me. I look at things from all angles. However when you wrote ' A number of your observations are personal and negative'. Well, for just about every positive, there is a negative. However I am most curious as to what you see is negative? I did indeed say 'This leads to frustration, highly emotional sensativity, depression, and sometimes the use of other drugs to make them happy again'. This is not met to be a negative statement, merely a fact. I am very sorry that my manor is not 'simple and straight-forward'to you'r understanding. What you need to understand though, is that to correctly understand a topic, one must be familiar with all facets of it. The problem with 'simple and straight-forward', is that it omits many of the contributing factors. I will ask this once again- Are you ADD? because apparently you have trouble reading, and putting complex (though simple) thought processes together, and making corralations. Suddenly I am interested on your point of view! Oh, and for the record, you can write warnings all you want, but a valid point of view or word of experience in this topic would be better appreciated. One last thing- what is your back-ground? The more I hear from you, the more I learn. And I am starting to think that I should not waste any more words on your limited understanding despite the childish and invalid remarks. We are discussing ADD here, not telling me what WIKI is all about, which I already knew. Follow your own words and contribute to the article, or stop with the non-sense please :-) HAND- Dave brokerdavelhr@yahoo.com

':Actually, you can. This is the nature verus nurture debate, and it has been raging (as you appear to be) for the past 100 years. You may want to check your premise, as well as your sources.' - Whoever wrote this, check yourself. The nature vs nurture debate (as many thousands of others) has been around for a lot longer then a mere hundred years. I have read both sides of the debate, and spoke with many people about about it. Like all debates, there is truth to both sides of the debate, and the debatee's will stay their course for right or wrong. However to say that a person will change after they finish growing into an adult is a it of a mis-conception. Here is why- Their outside behaviour can be polished or rough, but deep down that person is no differant. It is the fighting of who we are inside that drives people to seek 'help'. The truth once again is temperance. Do you even know this concept? If you do, then you will explain you'r side of the debate on this article, instead of telling me how wrong I am, with no explaination. Thisis childish, and what WIKI is all about. If you have a valid poiht, then make it. Use as many words as you must, I am in no rush. However see my above post in the last paragraph about doing the opposite. I gotta get back to work now. HAND- Dave brokerdavelhr@yahoo.com

Dave, the talk page is for subjesting changes and upgrades to the article in question. This is not a debate forum or a place to talk about the subject. You have been already been warned by others about this.Chris H 02:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and please, if you are going to rant, say something original. I've heard all those things a million times before. I have this subset. I find the things said were really ignorant and demonstrated a profound lack of understanding on the subject at hand. Besides being inappropriate to wikipedia's standards, it is trite at best – and offensive at worst. I am sorry I sort of gave up on wikipedia myself, except for the odd comment here and there. Otherwise I would have been glad to help with this article, or section thereof in the main ADHD section, to remedy such misconceptions/misinformation, judgments, and stereotypes which seem so rampant in the media and the public at large. (Besides, my bias would be called into question after such a revelation as admitting to having this particular disorder.) I would suggest to Dave, in all kindness and goodwill, to pick up material from Dr. Daniel Amen or Thom Hartman, to name a few more popular sources (I humbly apologize if that's presupposing you haven't, and thus seems patronizing). On the substance abuse issue: check with the latest NIH study recently released, if you haven't already, or I missed such reference to it. If you want to then argue why my disorder overall is a self-delusional, "defeatist" complex which is naught but a tactic to avoid responsibility and make excuses for life failings, then you can at least be prepared to make some cogent and researched points. You're intelligent, I respect your viewpoints. I can see where you're coming from. But I will avoid further discussion from the personal sphere (or even returning to this discussion page), and demur this matter to those more invested in the article. Such dallying into the personal and subjective in the first place on my part in this post has already bordered on highly distasteful, and I apologize to my fellow wikipedians for that. I also refuse to be drawn into a discussion of anecdotes or personal life stories. That is inappropriate here. As suggested before, find a forum, if you want to talk to ADDers. It is precisely because of such personal experiences, and living daily with this for over a quarter century that such assumptions could be readily and summarily deemed 'flame' material. Cheers on the history, cultures and world religions. Me too. They in fact, are my 'hyperfocus' interests (the more obscure the better). Your intentions are well intended and thoughtful, Dave. This just isn't the place for them, I'm afraid. I also duly make amends for my tone at the beginning. It just gets a little tiring and frustrating (human nature, no?), but I responded because I think you may be sincere. --And again, I apologize to wikipedians for indulging in this in the first place. I'm just trying to help in resolving this, hoping my efforts don't end up only encouraging and validating the behavior. Khirad 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)