The Terrible Costs of a Phone-Based Childhood
theatlantic.com
By a variety of measures and in a variety of countries, the members of Generation Z (born in and after 1996) are suffering from anxiety, depression, self-harm, and related disorders at levels higher than any other generation for which we have data.
You are viewing a single comment
Casting doubt on environmental factors without conclusive evidence simplifies a complex issue. Science thrives on openness to new data, not dismissing possibilities without thorough investigation.
Personally, I don't think you should be telling folks "how science works".
No that's not how it works. If you have a theory, posit it, test it, and peer-review the tests. If you (or someone else) won't do that, you can't just muddle the waters like this. This is how anti-science works.
Them:
They admitted it’s just a theory.
You:
Alas, the only definitive assertion in this comment chain. It has been proven that there is a genetic component to ADHD, not that it is exclusively a genetic disorder.
I also believe ADHD is partially environmental. I have diagnosed with and am treated for it.
It’s not anti-science to believe something that hasn’t been disproven. It is anti-science to believe something that has been disproven (e.g. climate change-denying loons).
You don't just "I have a theory that aliens caused it" and then start spreading it around like the OP i Was responding to did.
By that argument it's not anti-scientific to believe in Gods and Astrology...
Belief in god or astrology is not anti-scientific, it is unscientific.
Anti-scientific is evangelizing that the belief in god or astrology is a replacement for science.
You're literally doing the thing you accuse others of—jumping to conclusions without full evidence. Declaring ADHD purely genetic, while ignoring potential environmental factors, is a leap without scientific backing. It’s not about muddling waters; it’s about acknowledging our current limits and exploring all possibilities. That’s the essence of true scientific inquiry.
I believe things that are proven. Claiming ADHD is environmental without proof is on the same scale as "Vaccines cause Autism" and is used to claim shit like "Everyone has ADHD these days" or find something to blame for "causing ADHD" without ever supporting actual people with ADHD. The OP was literally using this exact argument to blame electronics for causing ADHD! This is muddying the waters and is not helping people with ADHD at all and is probably just harming them.
Dismissing the role of environmental factors in ADHD overlooks the basic science that our behaviours and surroundings can fundamentally alter brain function. It's a leap to equate cautious exploration of these effects with debunked myths.
What else? Environmental factors cause Autism too? Maybe they cause homosexuality as well? If you think this is the case either make studies or point to studies that base this theory. Just because environmental factors can alter brain function, it doesn't mean every disorder or behaviour is potentially generated by environmental factors!
Is this really your response?
Nobody said environmental factors "cause ADHD"; this debate is about whether environmental factors can amplify presentation of executive dysfunction type symptoms in the genetically predisposed.
No, but it does mean that it is incredibly unlikely that they are not sometimes exacerbated by environmental factors.
You're not "genetically predisposed" to ADHD. It's not an allergy or cancer. Either you have it, or you don't.
Everything is exacerbated by environmental factors. Why single out ADHD here?
Environmental factors (screen time) while a child's sensory apparatus is not fully developed has been linked to development of ADHD and Autism.
https://www.earth.com/news/toddler-screen-time-linked-to-atypical-sensory-behaviors/
"Linked" is a stretch. From that article (which is about <2 yo btw) it is talking about a mere correlation of a behaviour which might (they don't know) exacerbate ADHD or Autistic people. If I understood it correctly, It's also a study based on self-reporting from caretakers
Is this better or worse than other forms of self-reporting?
As cool as technologies like fMRI are, we have not reached any meaningful degree of objectivity in most psychological/neurological pursuits.
I'm sorry, was that a refutation?