المشكلة بيه انو ماكو تحليل او فحص معين يوضح الاصابة بهالمرض و الاعراض تختلف من شخص لشخص

على العموم راح اختصر الكلام و اكول النتيجة الي طلعت بيها
رأيي انو ال adhd موجود بس ما مفهوم
و اكو اكثر من ٣٠٠ دراسة تثبت انو هو دا يتشخص بصورة مبالغ بيها
و اشوف انو هالشي سببه الرغبة ببيع الادوية و التحصيل المالي منها
و سبب حب الناس لل adhd هو حبهم للادوية مالته بسبب انو تساعدهم يركزون و يحصلون نتائج حلوة بغض النظر عن اعراضها الجانبية
(هي مثل الكافيين بس تأثيرها اقوى بهواي)
و اكثر الناس مدمنة كافيين …
هل اكو ناس تعاني من فرط حركة و تشتت انتباه مرضي و تحتاج هالادوية؟ اكيد اي
بس عالاكثر نسبتهم كلللش قلية مقارنة بالملايين الي دا يتشخصون بهذا المرض كل يوم

مشكلة تشخيص الـ ADHD هي مثل مشكلة تشخيص التوحد autism:
نسبة التوحد بأمريكا بسنة 2000 جانت تقريبًا 1 من بين 150 طفل. اليوم، 1 من كل 35 طفل تقريبًا بيه توحد. السبب جزئيًا لأن تعريف التوحد يتغير كل فترة.
كلما يحدثون الـ DSM (المصدر المعتمد للطب النفسي بالعالم تقريبًا)، يحدثون وياه تعريف التوحد، بحيث يضيفون حالات سابقًا جانت تعتبر أمراض منفصلة غير التوحد، ويضيفوها للتوحد... أو يمكن نسبة التوحد صدك دتزيد بسبب عوامل منعرفها هسة ولا نكدر ندرسها لأن تعريفنا للمرض ذاته يتغير كل فترة. شلون تدرس أو تشخص مرض، محد متفق على تعريفه؟

نفس الشي ينطبق على الـ ADHD. يمكن هو صدك ديزيد بسبب كل الأشياء على النت اللي تقصّر الـ attention span مثل الريلز وفيديوهات التيك توك والـ feed وغيرها... أو، يمكن احنة دنشخص شكو طفل شوية وكح على أنه مريض ونلزكه بأدوية تهدئه وتخلي بالنا مرتاح. بكل الحالات، ما رح نعرف، لأن ما عدنا تعريف ثابت مال أوادم

Psychology's problem is conceptual; it's very concepts and definitions are too vague and ambiguous

هسة اني و زوجي هم جنا نسولف بالتوحد
و طلعنا الاعراض مالته و طلع ثنينا بينا توحد 😂

You can't study psychology without discovering, in the process, that you have at least 3 mental illnesses😂

اسوأ حتى من الإنفكشس

.

.

حرام باليد احسن من حلال على الشجرة

Often, we speak of great inventions as if they make their own case merely by existing, but in fact, people don’t start building and using a device simply because it’s clever. The technological breakthrough represented by an invention is only one ingredient in its success. The social context is what really determines whether it will “take.” The steam engine provides a case in point. What could be more useful? What could be more obviously world-changing? Yet the steam engine was invented in the Muslim world over three centuries before it popped up in the West, and in the Muslim world it didn’t change much of anything. The steam engine invented there was used to power a spit so that a whole sheep might be roasted efficiently at a rich man’s banquet. (A description of this device appears in a 1551 book by the Turkish engineer Taqi al-Din.) After the spit, however, no other application for the device occurred to anyone, so it was forgotten. Another case in point: the ancient Chinese had all the technology they needed by the tenth century to mechanize production and mass produce goods, but they didn’t use it that way. They used geared machinery to make toys. They used a water-driven turbine to power a big clock. If they had used these technologies to build labor-saving machinery of the type that spawned factories in nineteenth-century Europe, the Industrial Revolution would almost certainly have started in China.

The first emperor, for example, put about a million people to work building the Great Wall. A later emperor employed even more workers to dig the Grand Canal, which connected the country’s two major river systems. Yes, China had the technology to build labor-saving machinery, but who was going to build it? Only the imperial bureacracy had the capacity, and why would it bother to save something it already had too much of? China was overpopulated and labor was cheap. If a lot of laborers were left at loose ends, whose job would it be to deal with the resulting social disruptions? The bureacracy. The one institution capable of industrializing China had no motive to undertake it.Likewise, Muslim inventors didn’t think of using steam power to make devices that would mass-produce consumer goods, because they lived in a society already overflowing with an abundance of consumer goods, handcrafted by millions of artisans and distributed by efficient trade networks. Besides, the inventors worked for an idle class of elite folks who had all the goods they could consume and whose lot in life did not call upon them to produce—much less mass-produce—anything.

It wasn’t some dysfunction in these societies that generated their indifference to potentially world-changing technologies, quite the opposite. It was something working too well that led them into “a high-level equilibrium trap” (to borrow a phrase from historian Mark Elvin.) Necessity, it turns out, isn’t really the mother of invention; it’s the mother of the process that turns an invention into a product, and in late-eighteenth-century Europe, that mother was ready.

— Destiny Disrupted

By Roberto Ferri, the modern Caravaggio