random article of the day: "Sluggish Cognitive Tempo"

[wapiti]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/health/idea-of-new-attention-disorder-spurs-research-and-debate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

 

Ick.  Sure, it would be nice if there was some research into what could be done about slow processing and whatnot (ugh, maybe besides just drugs), but something about an actual diagnosis for "daydreamers" sounds wrong.  Intuitively, I think they're describing more than one type of issue here (e.g. slow processors vs inattentive add, which may or may not overlap), and they don't even seem to realize it.

 

Also, I think the name for the "disorder" is not only icky, it may actually be a misnomer, in that there are different types of processing with different speeds to go along with them.  (e.g., my ds is slow at processing language and has a slow motor speed on, say, the coding subtest of the wisc, but at the same time, doesn't really "think" slowly - often he's lighting-quick)

 

I wonder if they aren't looking at just a different tiny part of an elephant again, or more likely similar-looking parts of animals that may be different altogether.

[geodob]

Drug companies have found that their is a potential to expand their customer base, for their ADHD drugs?

With disorders that effect auditory, visual, spacial cognition and functioning.

Of course, this will cause thinking to take a bit longer.

 

But from a ADHD drug marketing perspective?

This 'thinking taking a bit longer'?

Ignoring this as being a symptom of difficulty with auditory, visual, spacial processing.

Has the potential to make this 'thinking taking a longer'?

As new disorder.

Where a good marketing term for this, could be: 'Sluggish Cognitive Tempo'?

Which sounds technical enough, to sound valid.

But also can be generally understood, at a basic level.

 

The next step involves paying someone to do some research,  that proves that the companies drug helps overcome their invented 'Sluggish Cognitive Tempo'?

Then marketing begins, with getting publishers to write about it.

 

The real concern that this raises,  is the issue of drug companies creating new disorders, to match up with their drugs?

[PeterPan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/health/idea-of-new-attention-disorder-spurs-research-and-debate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

 

Ick.  Sure, it would be nice if there was some research into what could be done about slow processing and whatnot (ugh, maybe besides just drugs), but something about an actual diagnosis for "daydreamers" sounds wrong.  Intuitively, I think they're describing more than one type of issue here (e.g. slow processors vs inattentive add, which may or may not overlap), and they don't even seem to realize it.

 

Also, I think the name for the "disorder" is not only icky, it may actually be a misnomer, in that there are different types of processing with different speeds to go along with them.  (e.g., my ds is slow at processing language and has a slow motor speed on, say, the coding subtest of the wisc, but at the same time, doesn't really "think" slowly - often he's lighting-quick)

 

I wonder if they aren't looking at just a different tiny part of an elephant again, or more likely similar-looking parts of animals that may be different altogether.

Are you sure what you're calling quick thinking isn't actually impulsivity?  My dd got frustrated for years that it was like she was always being called out for being too slow or too fast.  Numerically she's slow, so when she turns it on and goes fast it's easy to lose control and have it turn into impulsivity.  But yes, that's why we're looking at cooking school for her, because she's BLAZING in the kitchen, even with her low processing speed.  If the pot boils over, she's going to have a really slow response.  But when you need a ton of things done, she's your woman.

 

As far as this SCT stuff, somebody posted on it a while back saying their doc had suggested it as a label, hadn't they?  It does sound like they're trying to split off the inattentive portion of adhd.  The DSM is screwy on so many levels, who knows what they'll do.  The idea that big pharma is leading the charge is freaky.  In a sense, if the split-ups they find are accurate, that's find.  However I agree with the commenters on the site who pointed out that at some point we have to draw a line.  You can't put some child on amphetamines and other adhd drugs (stim or non), simply because they have low processing speed. The drugs affect everyone, whether they're adhd or not, so there's no check.  You'd literally have this situation where people are medicating simply because somebody is slow. SOMEBODY has to be low, or there wouldn't be a bell curve. There's a realm of normal, and this idea that we should medicate everyone to level the playing field is astonishing.  I think it promotes an *attitude* of drug abuse.  (I don't like my brain, pop this pill.)  I have to stop there, because my thoughts are a little too outspoken and extreme on it.

 

Also, note that the most vehement posts on that thread were coming from moms with kids in school complaining how horrible and hurtful the problem is.  Maybe if they shifted their attention to attacking the REAL problem (one-size all, one method fits all education), they'd stop the hurt they're so indignant about.  

[wapiti]

. 

 

[PeterPan]

Wapiti, have you actually had him eval'd?  For us the rub of the processing speed is because of the big discrepancy between IQ and speed.  She wears out with hard work, because her brain is just working SO HARD to make things happen.  She can do amazing things, she just gets worn out.

 

And no, impulsivity doesn't have to look like a kid hit in the streets though, shh, dd did run into the street once and nearly got hit.  We got a fence after that.  In general it just comes across, in our house, as enthusiasm (ooo, neat idea, let's go do it!) or no speed control, everything being too fast or too slow.  It also has a plus side which is fearlessness to go in and do things and try ideas. I wouldn't want to medicate that out, kwim?  

 

I don't mean to get to psych-y or in your brain or whatever, but is it more like you're trying to wrangle over whether your dc is actually diagnosable or needs an eval?  I know for us having those breakdowns and scores was really helpful.  

[wapiti]

Ha, this is the one who has been eval-ed the most - 3x school psych, 1x private psych.  He is a freaky combination of strengths and weaknesses and he is giving me gray hair *sigh*.  He's the one that the covd called a "dyslexic processor" even though he's not dyslexic - that's when she told me to get the Eides' book and indeed, he's in there LOL.

[PeterPan]

There are kids like that who prove just how incomplete and broken the DSM is.  (Clearly not a great lover of it here.)

[Tiramisu]

wapiti, you describe my oldest well when taking about your ds. When we did the eval, she had a variety of processing speeds so slow processing wasn't exactly the issue. Her slowness comes mostly when motor skills are involved. Also, she is slow in processing auditorally (?) particularly when there are other sounds she has to filter. That sort of matches up with your language processing, doesn't it? I found out when doing SAT prep with her that she processes more quickly than I do when it is purely mental processing. I have comparably quick motor skills, despite being rather uncoordinated and clumsy, so I might seem to be a faster processor than she is but it's very deceptive.