This is very cool science Dr Tim. This area of science is so exciting. One caveat though is that it does always bug me deeply when from the outset an assumption is made that creates a logical category error. In this case that a 'typical brain' exists which can provide a baseline for comparison and diagnosis. If such a typical brain 'existed' it would by definition 'stick out' such that it could be shown as a literal or concrete example: "Here we have an example of a typical brain." Such a 'typical brain' however doesn't ever actually exist due to factors such as epigenetic expression. Even if we were to begin with a huge sample population that data has been collected from humans in a post-industrialised biopsychosocial environment - a sample collected with a narrow bias in the time dimension. Thus such a concept as a 'typical brain' is essentially a motif of representational convenience and a product of deductive over-simplicity. This is one of the most common category errors made in the philosophy of science in practice. Data collected from a sample population is statistically analysed to generate a composite notion or motif of normalcy (e.g. a typical brain). However in practical pathology, the correct application of the philosophy of science would parse between the scientific method as applied to populations from the scientific methods applied to individual members of that population. Herein lies the logical error in categorisation with significant if not severe ethical implications. The result is that in practice all individuals subject to an analytical process will always output onto a scale which cannot but deem them abnormal. Essentially, everyone is always going to be pathologized. Such an approach is, in a hippocratic sense, always going to be an expression of therapeutic nihilism. Whilst the science itself is utterly excellent from here on in, this is an example of a grave mistake that is today so common that it has itself become normalised. Nonetheless, it is an error which as a community, those engaged in the practice of science must co-correct. In no way whatsoever do I mean to imply that this great work is in any way obsolete or irrelevant. Quite the opposite, I applaud it. If anything I'm suggesting that in science communication terms it is critical that we encourage the acknowledgement of these logical fallacies so that we may begin to co-own them, path-correct and cognizantly unlock the deeper insights and quality of life potentials still hiding in the great work being done by yourself and so many others. This I infer as the only pragmatic pathway beyond mere allopathic approaches towards genuinely health-centric science. Something resembling apithology as an antithesis to pathology. I started working in science communication at age 12 and became especially fascinated with cognitive biases I was seeing within the broader culture of science. I'm seeking to understand the basal ganglia's relationship to reticular activation, feedback loops, and metacognition. I was only very recently diagnosed as a 40-something adult with ADHD up the whazoo (sharing this for the sake of more full disclosure).
Also abuse, how the parents interact with each other, siblings, pregnancy health mentally and physically and birth health. Breast fed or bottle fed, right amount of nutrients for brain formation and growth. Infancy and how the mother interacts and attends to the child's need to be soothed attachment style. Trauma has been misdiagnosed as adhd, anxiety and other mental issues. Abuse not just physical but emotional and psychological abuse which can be easily hidden ,no parent will come out and admit this of course. Over time this programs the brain and connects neurons incorrectly. The perpetuating thoughts with no caring communication to work through them leaves the child to deal with the overthinking in turn completely changes the makeup and function of how the brain works.
You mentioned home life... do you inquire if there was ever any experiences even the slightest moment of trauma. Trauma to one can be completely different between 2 seperate children. A mere misunderstanding due to not having the knowledge or explained reasoning behind a stimuli can also cause the brain or body to misfire and performe into a habitual program when it was never their own. I can give examples personal experience
Did u also do blood work? Look into diet? Nutrition plays a huge roll. Defiency in Vit D,potassium checking their parathyroid gland to make sure it has a good functioning connection sending out and bring in regulating
Your perception of your childhood may be different than it was. Does everyone in your family and around them have the same perception? I thought my childhood was unremarkable, until I bot tested for ADHD. It was actually chaotic and abusive, but to me, that was normal.
This is very cool science Dr Tim. This area of science is so exciting. One caveat though is that it does always bug me deeply when from the outset an assumption is made that creates a logical category error. In this case that a 'typical brain' exists which can provide a baseline for comparison and diagnosis. If such a typical brain 'existed' it would by definition 'stick out' such that it could be shown as a literal or concrete example: "Here we have an example of a typical brain." Such a 'typical brain' however doesn't ever actually exist due to factors such as epigenetic expression. Even if we were to begin with a huge sample population that data has been collected from humans in a post-industrialised biopsychosocial environment - a sample collected with a narrow bias in the time dimension. Thus such a concept as a 'typical brain' is essentially a motif of representational convenience and a product of deductive over-simplicity. This is one of the most common category errors made in the philosophy of science in practice. Data collected from a sample population is statistically analysed to generate a composite notion or motif of normalcy (e.g. a typical brain). However in practical pathology, the correct application of the philosophy of science would parse between the scientific method as applied to populations from the scientific methods applied to individual members of that population. Herein lies the logical error in categorisation with significant if not severe ethical implications. The result is that in practice all individuals subject to an analytical process will always output onto a scale which cannot but deem them abnormal. Essentially, everyone is always going to be pathologized. Such an approach is, in a hippocratic sense, always going to be an expression of therapeutic nihilism. Whilst the science itself is utterly excellent from here on in, this is an example of a grave mistake that is today so common that it has itself become normalised. Nonetheless, it is an error which as a community, those engaged in the practice of science must co-correct. In no way whatsoever do I mean to imply that this great work is in any way obsolete or irrelevant. Quite the opposite, I applaud it. If anything I'm suggesting that in science communication terms it is critical that we encourage the acknowledgement of these logical fallacies so that we may begin to co-own them, path-correct and cognizantly unlock the deeper insights and quality of life potentials still hiding in the great work being done by yourself and so many others. This I infer as the only pragmatic pathway beyond mere allopathic approaches towards genuinely health-centric science. Something resembling apithology as an antithesis to pathology. I started working in science communication at age 12 and became especially fascinated with cognitive biases I was seeing within the broader culture of science. I'm seeking to understand the basal ganglia's relationship to reticular activation, feedback loops, and metacognition. I was only very recently diagnosed as a 40-something adult with ADHD up the whazoo (sharing this for the sake of more full disclosure).
I dont have to imagine its already in my head
rofl lmao yes indeed sherlock
I wish someone could study my ADHD/bi-polar adult (36 year old) brain and see how it's wired differently n how it functions!
Consider contacting an Amen Clinic. I just read some books published by the founder. Amazing stuff
@@mandarkumthekar8565 thank u so much 🙏🏻💚
At 20:00 - image C looks like baby Jesus in the manger! (my ADHD brain hard at work)
Also abuse, how the parents interact with each other, siblings, pregnancy health mentally and physically and birth health. Breast fed or bottle fed, right amount of nutrients for brain formation and growth. Infancy and how the mother interacts and attends to the child's need to be soothed attachment style. Trauma has been misdiagnosed as adhd, anxiety and other mental issues. Abuse not just physical but emotional and psychological abuse which can be easily hidden ,no parent will come out and admit this of course. Over time this programs the brain and connects neurons incorrectly. The perpetuating thoughts with no caring communication to work through them leaves the child to deal with the overthinking in turn completely changes the makeup and function of how the brain works.
Indeed, but so many psychiatrists don't know about this.
You mentioned home life... do you inquire if there was ever any experiences even the slightest moment of trauma. Trauma to one can be completely different between 2 seperate children. A mere misunderstanding due to not having the knowledge or explained reasoning behind a stimuli can also cause the brain or body to misfire and performe into a habitual program when it was never their own. I can give examples personal experience
A had an amazing childhood. I’m adhd, i’m 34 now. It’s not something to be like ahhhhh.
How old can a child be scand?
Did u also do blood work? Look into diet? Nutrition plays a huge roll. Defiency in Vit D,potassium checking their parathyroid gland to make sure it has a good functioning connection sending out and bring in regulating
I’m weird I guess. My family has nobody with add/adhd. I had the perfect childhood. No trauma. I just am adhd.
Your perception of your childhood may be different than it was. Does everyone in your family and around them have the same perception? I thought my childhood was unremarkable, until I bot tested for ADHD. It was actually chaotic and abusive, but to me, that was normal.
The exultant susan formally gather because friction invariably question till a level stock. succinct, protective play