Actually, there are a whole bunch of distinctions within ADHD.
First, there's the common ADD versus ADHD. But a Dr. Amen makes multiple distinctions beyond that. He's got six types. In terms of satisfying your standards for ADHD being real, he classifies based on SPECT imaging and behavior, claiming correlation, though I can't remember the specifics now.
I'd say that the brain can screw up in lots of ways, and lots of those ways get called ADHD, but I would expect fuzzy and sometimes contradictory classifications because most are based on behavior, and not on detailed white box measurement of what is going on in the brain. Different ways of sub optimal function will get boxed together based on some behavior, but then unboxed with finer parsing of the behavior.
http://www.amenclinics.com/conditions/adhd-add
I was diagnosed, or at least given the option of trying medication once. Adderall didn't do anything for me. But I read up a bunch, as we are wont to do around here. One theory not generally advertised is that ADHD is about having too low a basal level of activity in the prefrontal lobe, so that you're too easily distracted by acute stimuli.
One theory not generally advertised is that ADHD is about having too low a basal level of activity in the prefrontal lobe, so that you're too easily distracted by acute stimuli.
Not generally advertised? Isn't that the most basic mainstream theory? I mean... that's the whole point of hammering the frontal lobe with stimulants!
I've long had attention and focus problems, but never explored the possibility that I have ADHD till recently. I understand that it's a standard term, but I'm still a bit suspicious; Psychiatry doesn't seem like the most reliable field.
Are there good reasons for picking out the behaviors associated with ADHD and giving them a name? Obviously this is a different question than whether ADHD is a 'disorder' or 'disease', and whether ADHD medication is good or bad for people.
Answers that would satisfy me