This Slate article opens with Conrad Gessner’s claims that the printing press created an overload of information that was both “confusing and harmful”. It goes on to discuss more modern claims and fears.
I think I can explain this.
It’s seriously worth noting just how new the diagnosis “ADHD” really is. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) ed. III (1980) it was only referred to as ADD (with of without hyperactivity), and was solely a childhood diagnosis. DSM-3R (1987) revised the name to ADHD, but it remained only applicable to children and teens 17 and under. The DSM-IV (1994) re-classed the diagnosis with three possible subtypes attached (which messed with the numbers for just the kids).
It wasn’t until DSM-5 came out (2013) that the DSM finally allowed for an adult diagnosis (with five or more symptoms presenting). Children and teens must display six symptoms for diagnosis. Also, the pesky “subtyping” (which allowed for separate classification) is now considered “presentations” - in other words variations on the same condition.
That’s why the numbers have jumped.
It’s similar to why autism numbers have jumped - in that case, it’s a spread of classification.
1 Like
After nearly 25 years on the internet, my brain should be deep fried. Why all these concerns over adolescents constantly checking their phones? They’re bored out of their tiny, and possibly, deep-fried brains. There’s nothing new about teenagers sitting around bored and lacking the energy to scratch themselves at family occasions. Now they have this not-so-secret weapon where they can listen to nana twitter on (in the older sense) and still twitter on to their mates on these infernal gadgets of theirs. I’m jealous I didn’t have this when I was 15. I had to pretend to listen to boring old nana. The best thing I’ve heard is parents getting annoyed with the kids on their gadgets as the family watch TV. This is family time, you should be watching TV with us. If everybody sitting around boggle-eyed and slack-jawed watching some Hollywood sentimental schlock counts as family time, I’m one bored old nana who is going to reach for my iPad and find something more interesting to do.
I know the freaking out about new technologies is an historic pattern, but freaking out about the Internet seems particularly perverse to me, since the dominant entertainment medium, before the Internet became dominant, was television. And the bulk of television programming was, notoriously, stupid. Are we supposed to believe that passively watching television shows was somehow more intellectually stimulating than interacting with others on Facebook, etc.?
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
