Mind Revisions – Rethinking Thinking

ADHD Insights – The Top 7 Hot Brain Topics
July 22, 2012
ADHD Insights – Accountability
August 5, 2012

116 of 365 - Ambiguity

Gladwell Makes A Point About Curiosity

Germane to our discussions at CorePsych Blog on ADHD medication frivolity… – Why the remarkably universal denial of medical ambiguity regarding the  diagnosis and treatment of ADHD? Why not discover and correct the significant and frequent problems? Why not consider brain function itself?

It’s simple: ADHD meds are forgiving at first glance. Confusion and imprecision work during those first days on ADHD meds quite often.  The biomedical metabolic details are, as a consequence of this simplicity and ambiguity, simply not considered. But anyone that writes for thousands of scripts and becomes “obsessional,” to borrow Gladwell’s phrase, will surely want to ask improved questions.

Better questions improve predictability. Science matters. “What the world craves is [improved] differentiation” – based upon replications from extensive experience.

It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.
Will Rogers

Together let’s follow our curiosity and collectively undo the pervasive ADHD ambiguity!

Gladwell’s comments at Big Think – 4min 54sec:

Listen to Malcolm, his message is worth 5 min of your time.

Let’s work together to correct this remarkably common ADHD medication challenge.



  1. […] Mind Revisions – Rethinking Thinking On August 5, 2012   /   ADHD Insights   /   Leave a comment […]

  2. Tony Borell says:

    I feel like this [medical ambiguity] is a problem with much of contemporary psychiatry as a whole.

    • Tony, No doubt about it… the resistance is there to biology, it’s an entirely new learning curve outside the lanes we most often drive in. But honestly I don’t blame the doc on the street, nor do I think it’s specifically the fault of academia, tho they are the most imperious about keeping the status quo. The real problem is the almost complete ignorance and denial regarding the implications of neuroscience data… it’s all held in suspicion, just a Galileo and the telescope. The culprits are those who sit in meetings and repeated participate in group-think, and add further revisions on the standard of care by making up more diagnostic possibilities based almost entirely upon appearances. No one seems interested in cognition for office practice, at least 75% of the brain’s productive activity – but rather they focus on pathology associated with affect – and don’t regard cognitive brain science as instructive, or clinically useful!

Pin It on Pinterest