[Lib] Ah, but they're not just labels. They're objective realities. Saying that someone has ADD, for example, isn't just saying that they have a bunch of particular personality traits - it means that they have a particular genetically transmitted condition which causes those traits. As Fat German says, if you don't have the traits very badly, you probably don't have the condition with which those traits are sometimes associated. But if you know that someone does have that condition then you can treat it, if treatment is appropriate. Describing this kind of diagnosis as "applying labels" is as silly as talking of disgnosing a broken leg or lung cancer or any other illness or condition as "applying labels". Certainly I have found it enormously helpful to be properly diagnosed because it means I can recognise OCD things for what they are and deal with them accordingly. And this is true of many other people I have spoken to, with OCD and with ADD as well.

[BM] There is a crucial difference, though, between a broken leg and these mental conditions or constitutions. In the case of a broken leg, you can demonstrate the objective existence of a physical pathology, and there are treatments known to be effective in pretty much every individual case. For ADD and the like, no-one has demonstrated either an objective pathology, or an objectively effective treatment based on an understanding of the pathology. All we have is descriptions of symptoms that cluster together (although no individual need show all of them), vague genetic correlations, and supposed treatments of very variable effect. There may indeed be a definite thing wrong with the brains of OCD sufferers, and there may be possible treatments as effective as setting a broken bone and applying a cast, but currently, very little is actually known.

(simulposted by a much more succinct post from Raak, but...)
[BM] Well... yes and no. I'll take ADD as my example, since that is obviously what I know best.

It is clear that ADD behaviours can be severe enough to cause problems, and that there are a lot of people who carry these behaviours around with them, but it is not certain that ADD is an objectively definable disease. For instance, ADD has been described and recognised by the US psychiatric establishment for more than 30 years (although its name has been changed a few even times over that time), but the UK establishment only officially recognised ADD in the 1990s - this despite the first published work on ADD being in the UK a hundred years before. Even in the US, ADD has only recently (ie in the last ten years or so) been widely recognised as occurring in adults - it was considered a childhood affliction which was obliterated by adolescence.

Part of the problem is that labelled conditions such as ADD, OCD, etc are note discrete: a bone is broken or it is not broken, but ADD has more degrees than there are labels, and even then it is not clear that even someone whose collection of symptoms is technically pathological enough to be so labelled is actually displaying anything more than just a strong personality trait. There has been work to scan brains under ADD-expressing conditions, and there are apparently common factors to those scans, but ADD is at best a collection of possibly related symptoms. But then is personality just an expression of brain chemistry?

As I say, my belief is that those who are actually disadvantaged by their ADD behaviours are those who have been trying to use their brains in ways which don't mesh with their brain chemistry or personality, where "one size fits all" education systems teach the same learning mechanisms to everyone regardless of how they really learn best. This is one of the reasons that I talk about my having ADD behaviours; Idon't consider myself to be diseased¹.

[1] this is going in a footnote because it's not part of the core point, but one of the things which concerns me about statements that ADD is underdiagnosed is that it is then treated as a disease. At this point the children (and this is where I become most concerned - it is almost always children) are dosed up with psychostimulants in order to make them fit in rather than training them to use their brains to their best advantage: the problem is not solved, it is avoided.

Absol-bloodly-lutely. Extremely well put. It extends beyond education and learning mechanisms too, in my view.

[Dunx and Raak] Hear hear. Nicely expressed.