The Soft Science of Oppositional Defiant Disorder 01/10/25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We have a fresh new year, which means fresh new opportunities for me to put my foot in my mouth and offend people. Might as well get to it! A human in my life recently told me of a human in their life, who has a human in *their* life who they've labeled with ADHD and ODD (these two acronyms are so common, sadly, that I don't need to spell them out; plus, you have the duck if you need to look them up). It's particularly popular to adopt or attribute the label of ADHD these days--you might say it's "having a moment". In general, psychological disorder labels are increasingly popular, by which I mean that people are more ready to label themselves and stigmas for such labels are not barriers in the way they perhaps used to be. If you think I'm a jerk for saying so, please see note 1*. There is a difference between a physical disability (or, if you like, impairment or limitation) and a mental one--and that is, that the brain and psyche aren't understood with a fraction of the clarity with which we understand the psychical body. In the realm of psychology, we're grasping in the dark; it is a soft science, no matter how much the practitioners debate the fact. I'll quote someone involved in the debate, instead of giving you more of my spectator's opinion on that issue: "Psychologists like to weigh in on the psychology is a science perspective because we are engaging in upward social comparison. We want a seat at the table with the hard sciences, we want to be published in the most prestigious science journals, and we want a larger share of the grant funding from our government. In contrast, the harder sciences engage in downward social comparison with psychology. Hard sciences seek to maintain their elevated position in the science hierarchy, and sometimes they accomplish this by disparaging the softer sciences." (Michael W. Kraus, Assistant Professor of Social-Personality Psychology at the University of Illinois)[1] That quote is a little out of place, but it's useful. To come back to the assertion that there is a real difference between a hard-science condition, and a soft-science one: You can't identify as an amputee, and have any sensical human being accept your assertion, unless you are actually missing one or more limbs. You can't identify as deaf, and be accepted by the deaf community, unless you can prove your real and profound deafness (and often times, prove you've been profoundly deaf since birth via medical records; it's a thing, look it up). On the other hand, what if you identify as ADHD and/or ODD (the two are commonly ascribed as a pair)? Who can claim otherwise? A licensed, societally accepted authority can deem it so, by evaluating your words and actions, or even with only the words of those around you, using the ever-shifting criteria outlined in the DSM. But even if you simply assert it yourself, most of society will accommodate you (though if you want pills, you'll need the authorized label). The rub in all of this is what I mentioned up top there, which is that there are people who aspire to and popularize disability, impairment, or limitation labels. Are there those insane enough to wish for needless amputation, or intentional removal of hearing? I'm sure there are, but what I'm thinking about this morning is those who are popularizing psychological disorder labels. Moving from the medical model to the social model has an interesting side effect: it can incentivize voluntary self-inclusion in groups. Is this wrong, bad, or harmful?[2] This is happening, as anyone with a scholarly search engine or simple social experiences of their own can verify. But, I'll be honest, any time I run across Oppositional Defiant Disorder (I said I wouldn't spell it out, but hey, I've got the ODD it would seem), the wheels in my head start turning, and the product they're churning is anger. To me, the ODD criteria is one of the most Orwellian sections in the DSM. I've read through it in the DSM-III, DSM-IV, and DSM-V. This is a long standing issue for me; in looking through my saved documents, I note one from 2012 that I saved in 2022, Why Anti-Authoritarians Are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill, (Bruce Levine, PhD)[3]. He says this: "I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are not only extraordinarily compliant with authorities but also unaware of the magnitude of their obedience. And it also has become clear to me that the anti-authoritarianism of their patients creates enormous anxiety for these professionals, and their anxiety fuels diagnoses and treatments." He goes on: "Psychologist Russell Barkley, one of mainstream mental health's leading authorities on ADHD, says that those afflicted with ADHD have deficits in what he calls 'rule-governed behavior,' as they are less responsive to rules of established authorities and less sensitive to positive or negative consequences. ODD young people, according to mainstream mental health authorities, also have these so-called deficits in rule-governed behavior, and so it is extremely common for young people to have a 'duel diagnosis' of AHDH and ODD. Do we really want to diagnose and medicate everyone with 'deficits in rule-governed behavior'?" To his last question, I answer "hell no"**. ADHD and ODD belong to a soft science, but their application--whether imposed by authority or self-imposed--have hard-science social and personal consequences. It burns me up when they are used, especially with children whose lives may be forever altered by their use without care. While I understand that some people find comfort, aid, and even belonging in their DSM labels (even many people I know, love, and respect), I can't stop feeling a level of anger at the manipulation that is happening. Since I've said enough (that is, dug my hole deep enough) already, I'll leave you with some food for thought: the DSM is developed by an industry that is implicitly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and explicitly in a position of actual verifiable conflict for the DSM-V revisions at least[4][5]. The influence that this industry wields is wildly out of control. And they're peddling concepts (through the APA) like ODD on the general public. Under the guise of providing help and support, they're providing ideas that enslave, vilify opposition to authority, and compartmentalize humans. At least, that's how I see it. I'm open to argument or suggestion to the contrary, but on the ODD potion, it's going to be a very hard sell. [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/under-the-influence/201308/the-psychology-the-psychology-isnt-science-argument [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2024.2411242 [3] https://brucelevine.net/why-anti-authoritarians-are-diagnosed-as-mentally-ill-and-how-this-helps-americas-illegitimate-authorities-stay-in-charge/ [4] https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-6291005.pdf [5] https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/384/bmj-2023-076902.full.pdf * Note 1: Let me take a brief moment to say that I'm supportive of evaluating models of disability with the goal of finding the most useful and helpful model(s). I'm also supportive of identifying, exposing, and eliminating unhelpful models--with the caveat that popular social contexts and lenses risk destroying models that should persist and amplifying models that may hurt. I live in a community with a deaf school, and have learned firsthand how important it is to view their so-called disability as an inborn trait that places them in a different social sphere; but that it is a sphere that they claim, own, and cherish deeply. If I may presume to explain something that I can only witness from the outside: Many deaf people view their lack of hearing as a marker of their inclusion in a society, the way someone might view their nationality, race, or other heritage markers in a similar positive light. See: [n1a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_disability [n1b] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2023.2255926#abstract ** Note 2: I don't use "hell" here as an intensifier, I mean it quite literally. I believe that the loss of personal will and choice is a defining characteristic of the economy of hell. The mis-application or over-application of soft-science psychological disorder labels is not only harmful, it may strip individuals of autonomy. The thoughtful and proper application of certain labels may, in some cases, be helpful, but that's not the topic of anything I've said.