Reply to comment

I kind of wanted to discuss this topic more as well, though I'm not sure this is entirely germaine to the questions Gillian raises. It is recognized that culture evolves overtime, but what also changes is what culture demands from it's participants. I have no doubt that fifty years ago attention disorders existed, but what didn't exist was a world market demanding literate workers capable of producing white collar product. Farm and factory labor didn't require higher education or much critical and I feel (I'm no historian) that's where most of the population would go. Today's labor force needs to be able to do things that aren't necessarily "natural." Nature had no way to select for successful market consultants, lawyers or middle managers, but if humans in industrial nations want to be successful they'll have to alter their behavior patterns in "unnatural" ways to attain it. To me, this means recognizing that the number of individuals "afflicted" with attention deficit disorder will increase until the demand is augmented. To be frank, I like the many of the prodcuts of this culture's progression to this point; anti-biotics, the internet and theoretical physics are awesome. So while I recognize that these culturally bound"disorders" will increase, I'm not necessarliy opposed to pushing the mean of human behavior "forward" until we see cause and a feasible way to do otherwise. At this point in time, the way to support "success" is to treat individuals whose attention functions "below average" up to the mean. So I guess i see treated attention disorders as not not disabling, and I think the students should be allowed back into regular classes and encouraged to attempt entry into honors or higher level coursework.