Monday, December 5, 2022

Comments by Ceedric

Showing 2 of 2 comments.

  • I’d be curious what people think would make a good app, besides one that y’know… is done ethically. What if like how some people rate non-profits through Charity Navigator, there are markers such as… this development team includes neurodivergent people, kindof like when you see the designation that an organization is run by women, or how responsive the company is to accountability (which… yeah, that’s just a wild take, I have no idea how that would get measured…)

    I was just talking to a Neuroscientist jokingly about how we’ll make buckets of money creating an app called, “Is it me or is it Capitalism?”, but we were both so skeptical of the idea of self-diagnosis vis-a-vis apps / AI even though there is growing consensus in the ADHD/Autism/Neurodiversity online communities that through their own extensive research they’re learning more than they ever did from doctors.

    I think the words “self-diagnosed” already have a negative connotation to them that I don’t exactly know how to unlearn, especially because the effect of having a qualified expert/clinician give credence to ones struggles leading to less personal shame and more acceptance is a big part of what makes something “a useful label”

    Ok so that was getting a bit tangential, when what I want to suggest is that it WOULD be interesting if apps would for example, pair diagnosis with connecting the user into an online mutual aid network so that it’s not about setting you up for how to talk to your doctor about getting the correct medication, as much as it is about gaining confidence doing your own research. Or, another example could be an app that helps calculate a polychronic sense of time, or a limited sense of energy based on comparing ones plans vs. what actually happened, I imagine it like how some people set clocks 5 minutes fast to trick themselves, if it notices that you are constantly 15 minutes late, it auto adjusts your Google Calendar to set everything 15 minutes ahead (not simply making more reminders), or it takes historical data such as having plans to visit with 4 friends, and get 3 papers done, and in the end you cancelled twice or had to do an all-nighter to pull off just 1 of the projects on time, then it can project a personalized idea of how much you can even inform other people to expect of your realistic output based on what you were able to pull off before. I don’t just want a smartphone that tells me I’m “over my average amount of minutes” I hoped to spend on my phone, I want a smartphone that tells me “Oh you think you’re capable of doing this in this amount of time? Think again. You’re 1/6 in following through on finishing a grant early, and not at 5 am. Suggested tips that have worked in other situations: A. Break up the task into something simpler with an earlier check in, perhaps ask _Carole_ to be your accountabilli-buddy on this since it involves writing. B. Your credit card is set to auto-pay to the _NRA_ unless you submit the grant by _May 1st_and get the code to stop the transaction which has been sent to _Emaline_ for confirmation.”

  • This sounds like Emaline isn’t describing a problem with data or the science as much as there’s a false promise of care, where people are getting their “medical facts” second hand without scrutiny if it is proportionately corrected in mainstream media, as there’s already an incentivize for being research to turn into good click-bait; putting out into the world over-hyped biased research.

    So then I was wondering what if what is being suggested was somewhere between pushing Americans to develop more skepticism and the ability to understand what studies are reliable or not (should I be learning what makes something a good sample size or know how to confirm if the source is independently verified?)

    While at the same time I feel like there’s a bigger picture I can’t see where Critical Psychology is making a case for its own existence, but I couldn’t tell if it is trying to make this case that one should peruse the whole website for personal stories, read all the tabs etc., to get a bigger picture that takes away from the current hierarchy of what is “qualified information” or if there’s a bigger critique about how diagnosis is part of a colonial project, or perhaps if everything including ADHD needs to be thrown out in favor of a much better way of looking at things.

    It seems like the metrics go as follows: Eugenics = Bad, Pharmaceutical Greed = Bad, Less Suicides = Good, Not ending up trapped without agency in your journey towards healing = Good, Stigma against medications even for those who may find it helpful = ???, How to have better studies funded or convince people that a wider approach is necessary= ???

    I think I would have appreciated seeing an article or two that can at least connect ADHD to Capitalism, or one that empowers someone with ADHD (as opposed to just being talked to in medical speak… which makes me feel inadequate part 2!)

    i.e. from @queervengeance: “ADHD is not a disease, a disorder, or a “neurodevelopmental condition”, it’s an interest-based neurotype that makes it really fucking hard to live under capitalism”

    Also I got so thrown by some of the dilemmas I was facing, about whether or not the existence of ADHD is good or not I made a diagram so that I could better get my head around it:×2048.jpg

    – Cedric

    P.S. also in case anyone comes across it with their PHDs and their infinite access to JStor n stuff, I’m still looking for a study that supposedly showed that many white people with ADHD may end up in law enforcement, whereas many Black people with ADHD may end up incarcerated. Please and Thank you.