ADHD has little to no physiological markers. As the floor of expectations for attention and executive functioning continues to rise, the rate of diagnosis increases.
I would regularly down 3-4 red bulls (diet) in the evening if I knew I needed to fall asleep and sleep well. I'm not sure if it's been studied but anecdotal evidence from others seem to suggest I'm not alone and that some others have the same experience.
In my youth, I would pound a mountain dew before bed.
One example, is opiates make me MOVE. Most people they zonk out, not me. I'm ready to move your house, one brick at a time, with my bare hands and feel like I could knock it out in about an hour.
Proton Pump inhibitors are common meds for acid reflux. About 10 years ago, I did a genetics study (I worked at the lab, and my data stayed mine) and learned that of the 7 classes of PPIs available, at that time, my body only works with 1. The others either have little/no effect or similar.
It may not be everyone's issue, but cases like mine do exist. It's not better or worse, it's just how it is.
ADHD is a deficit in dopamine processing/production within the brain, it has physiological signs that we can look for:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s11689-022-09440-2
ADHD is diagnosed based on symptoms, not based on physiological signs. Like most diagnoses, it's a co-occurring set of traits we'de decided is outside of what's normal.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1026...
>In conclusion, a series of biomarkers in the literature are promising as objective parameters to more accurately diagnose ADHD, especially in those with comorbidities that prevent the use of DSM-5. However, more research is needed to confirm the reliability of the biomarkers in larger cohort studies.
But yeah, generally there are a lot of conditions where you go report symptoms to your doctor or perhaps a specialist and they prescribe a treatment based on that alone. Testing is mostly used to rule out the really nasty possibilities or figure out what's actually going on when first-line treatments don't work.
Are both of those really clinical markers for ADHD? as in, adhd would be expected to have low working memory and low processing speed? My understanding is its more about executive function I.E. deciding to start tasks.
admittedly my experience is coloured by my own clinical diagnosis of adhd plus anecdotally good working memory and processing speed
I even got in an argument with the psychologist/proctor at one point during the symbol matching section. I was supposed to write the corresponding number under a series of randomly ordered symbols on a page. The numbers were mapped to each symbol using a key at the top of the page. I thought it'd be easier to solve all of the same symbols one at a time e.g., if A = 1, B = 2, etc. then I would write "1" under every A symbol, then "2" under every B, etc..
The proctor told me, "Wait, you can't solve them like that. You have to do them in order."
I replied, "Why does it matter? It's my test and it's what is intuitive to me to solve them."
He replied with something like, "Time's ticking" (implying that that I'm only hurting my score by talking with him).
There were probably more words exchanged, but that's the gist of it.
Anyway, after all the BS, I received my scores, and I swear there were flaws in the calculations (despite using the proprietary software) though my score wasn't too bad -- my GAI was much higher than FSIQ. I also had to calculate my own GAI since the ass never put it on my report (I found a pirated copy of the manual with the proper tables in the back based on the section scores).
The psychologist (who was the proctor) basically told me that due to my large variance in some scores that my test could be considered a "testing error" and "you do not technically have an IQ score" but he "managed to manipulate the numbers a bit to give me a score." He couldn't provide me anything with a confidence interval greater than 90% (not the worst, I know), and there were odd statements in my report about having difficulty scoring my test due to my age (I was 22 at the time). So, who knows? I refuse to ever do one again though.
Anyway, I know my behavior didn't help lol, but I also just got a weirdly pseudoscientific feeling from the whole process. I've done plenty of my own research on the topic, and I am still not convinced it's the be-all and end-all of psychological testing. I think intelligence is too abstract for humans to quantify currently.
As someone who is the spawn of two MENSAns, has friends in Neurosci and Psych, and who has brushed up a fair bit on the topic, I don't think any psychologists outside those in a tiny subset of the community believe in IQ Tests. The support for them is at best "well they measure something, but we're not sure what it is, and we have trouble labeling it as 'intelligence' due to the broad nature of that term". There are so, so many flaws with IQ testing that have been pointed out not only by yourself, but also by others in the field. The only actual practical, measurable use an IQ test to improve lives to date was an application in the 1980s on intake for fighter pilots, and it resulted in many less fighter pilots dying from crashes during training.
I do believe the test are not useless, and I agree with Taleb that IQ might be more accurate at the lower extremes i.e. less than 70. In other words, the test cannot measure intelligence, but is pretty good at finding a lack thereof.
However, the further along the bell curve one traverses, the more the test falls apart.
The only reason I was administered a test was for ADHD diagnostic purposes. Sure, the conclusion was that I had ADHD, but the psychologist was confident in my diagnosis prior to the test, so the test was more of a formality.
> The only actual practical, measurable use an IQ test to improve lives to date was an application in the 1980s on intake for fighter pilots, and it resulted in many less fighter pilots dying from crashes during training.
This is so fascinating.
Tangent:
I was listening to a podcast about what it means to be a genius, how it's measured, what it means, etc.. There was a section about Lewis Terman's research on gifted children/adults. He followed and studied the lives over 1500 gifted children over the course of his entire life. Out of all the gifted children, none of them became anything noteworthy -- doctors, lawyers, etc..
However, two boys that were apart of the same school system that were not studied because they were not gifted eventually went on to each win a Nobel Peace prize -- separately and in different fields.
I will not claim that Terman's research proves anything, one way or another, but I did find it rather interesting.