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.
