Dr Gabor Mate has a book on ADHD that is very readable and covers this well.
I recommend Russell Barkley's youtube videos and books on ADHD if you want to understand the condition and the current research.
Russell Barkley proposes that ADHD is largely inherited through genes, quoted 65%-75%, and the rest is environmental.
The big difference between them is that Gabor focuses on attachment theory and childhood trauma.
Both are beneficial to learn from. It is harmful that the ADHD community does not accept both points of view. Because they complement each other well.
In my opinion, Dr. Gabor Mate is much more interested in being a contrarian populist / sensationalist figure than he is in science or scientific proof. His tendency to do things like diagnose Prince Harry with ADHD via a 90 minute livestream doesn't do much to change my mind.
In the case of what we call ADHD, you are effectively saying, that the symptoms most commonly labeled as ADHD have a hereditary cause. I wonder what the environmental angle is here. That is, can what we call ADHD be a response to an environment that is novel or taken as normative, when it is not? If an environment (and I include parents in this) is poorly suited to the child and does not response to the child's objective needs, it would not surprise me if the result is some of the behavior described.
Take alcoholism. It is accepted that alcoholism can have a hereditary component. However, that doesn't mean everyone with this disposition becomes one. Environmental factors play a role in making alcoholism more likely. If your parents drink, or you fall in with a bad crowd that abuses alcohol, the chances that you will succumb to alcoholism increase. That doesn't mean it is deterministic, but if you have a predisposition, then it becomes more difficult to resist the temptation to abuse alcohol when put in a near occasion of sin. And culture can encourage or discourage such near occasions, or valorize or stigmatize the behavior in question. Obesity is another example.
In the case of ADHD, I can imagine several potential factors. An environment that is biased toward a sedentary lifestyle (kids have tons of energy that needs to go somewhere). A hostile school environment that produces a sense of anxiety and alienation, perhaps though the methods of 'school management' and pedagogy employed. A school environment that is abusive, e.g., through bullying, or by punishing reasonable acts of self-defense. Rigidity of the education system (prioritizing following some program above responding to a child's actual particular needs). Indulgence and softness and a lack of reasonable and age-appropriate discipline as a corrective measure. (We are squeamish about it today, but children have not yet developed their reasoning faculties well, and they haven't learned impulse control or disciplining their desires. This means punishment for obstinate bona fide bad behavior must rely on licit means of producing unpleasantness, as these are readily perceived by children and taken to counteract indulgence.) I can imagine some cocktail of these things playing a role. That rates seem to vary by country (for children <6 years of age, compare the US with Poland; for adults, Australia with China) means it is worth considering cultural factors, or else assume the genetic differences across populations play a significant role, and if so, what affected countries could do about it.
Someone causing disruption IS a problem to those around them. Someone in a system that they MUST be in by law who isn't fitting in the system IS a problem for the system and those that run it. Someone consistently having issues integrating with society IS the one with problems integrating with society.
It doesn't mean that society is good, or healthy, or bad, or anything necessarily. It exists though, and every society and social group has rules and norms, and not everyone will fit them comfortably.
In such places, "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down". It has to be for those running the system, especially if there are a lot of nails sticking up, or it quickly becomes unmanageable.
For example, a rape victim screaming every time someone touches her (even a handshake) is disruptive to everyone around her! Which is a problem. And that probably is not helpful to her either.
It doesn't mean she wasn't raped though. Or that her response isn't appropriate by some completely rational definition.
What I think you're referring to is that telling her to shut up, or that it's her problem, or kicking her out of wherever she is that there is disruption, or medicating her into a stupor (or so she is convinced she's actually fine) isn't usually helpful in actually helping said rape victim, at least in the long run. Or Anyone having these types of responses, frankly. Well, except in making them not the active problem for the group. Which is something. This is especially true long term if their reactions are a natural response to trauma and abuse, lack of met needs, or constantly being lied to about something dangerous or bad that is actually happening to them that no one is able or willing to face.
It does (somewhat) help the group deal with a disruption, and get what they need done in the moment. Which has to happen at some point, or everyone is screwed. The wealthier a system or group is, the more they can deal with these kinds of things productively and the less extractive and predatory everything is. But everything has a limit. Most systems have limits which are in actually MUCH less than the system promises/displays because they can't admit or see their actual limits (many different names for this depending on how it presents).
Hiding the fear and trauma CAN protect someone somewhat, for the same reason that herd animals tend to hide injuries. Predators often gravitate to the weak and injured. It's dangerous to do long term though, as the actual injury festers most of the time.
The underlying reality that few are willing to face about all this (IMO) is that if there is nothing people feel they can do about it (either due to lack of tools, lack of resources, of lack of ability/willingness to care), what other choice do they have but to deny it's happening or ignore it, blame the victim, or even penalize the victim for disrupting what they feel they need? Or become a victim themselves as their needs don't get met or they get attacked by the group?
If they're very strong, they might be able to admit the problem and their own weakness/inability to address it - but that often gets used against them in these systems, many times by the victims themselves!
And in such a situation, the victim will either ramp up the disruption until someone prioritizes it - or be smashed down/denied/blamed/scapegoated/medicated/told it's in their head/etc. to control the threat. You see this especially clearly in cults, small towns, companies and gov'ts, etc. Why do you think Gov't whistleblowers have such painful lives? Or LGBTQ folks almost always end up running from small towns the first chance they get?
And the person/people doing that smashed down/denying reality/blaming the victim/medicating them into a stupor will of course rationalize it away 99% of the time. Who wants to (or even can!) admit they are hurting someone because they can't afford to pay attention to them, or are too much of a coward - or will just be killed - to stand up to some stupid rule in their organization or a leader, when by all outside appearances we're historically the wealthiest we've ever been?
But the reality is, we're also the most depleted and confused we've been in a long time in some key areas, and 'help' which comes from a depleted or confused place is destructive for everyone. And is often predatory.
Ultimately, the person who is experiencing it is going to own the consequences regardless of what is done or who helps (or doesn't) and the mindset necessary to actually heal is often one of self sufficiency, knowing ones limits, independence, and holding oneself and others accountable for the results of their actions - so that help can be met appropriately with ownership, actual growth can happen, and perpetrators can be held accountable.
And that isn't easy, or even possible sometimes. and we seem to have been actively discouraging it in society for a long time. Especially since natural reactions to some of this abuse can include reactive abuse, violence, manipulation, and further trauma.
However, anything else can easily end up in co-dependent/narcissistic dynamics (or even full blown psychopathy), more trauma and more abuse.
And so the wheel turns.
> We are squeamish about it today, but children have not yet developed their reasoning faculties well, and they haven't learned impulse control or disciplining their desires. This means punishment for obstinate bona fide bad behavior must rely on licit means of producing unpleasantness, as these are readily perceived by children and taken to counteract indulgence.
What exactly are you advocating for? Corporeal punishment?
If children haven't developed their reasoning faculties well, as you say, and "haven't learned impulse control or to discipline their desires" then what effect do you think any sort of punishment achieves? This is some real third rate logic here.
ADHD is so obviously predominantly genetic that it makes me sick. Get out of here with this "indulgence and softness" nonsense.
If you're trying to say that there isn't a one size fits all way to bring up a child, I will certainly agree with you there. But you're clearly not saying that. Instead you're articulating seemingly smug insight that's actually, and obviously, a thin veil for your endorsement of the beating of children. Your comment makes me feel quite literally sick.
I don’t think this is accurate. I believe he talks about genes being like a loaded gun - they can make you more susceptible but it is the environment that pulls the trigger. There is also a lot of discussion about intergenerational trauma.