Talk:Driven to Distraction (1994)

NPOV dispute [Synopsis] Sounds more like a one-star review on amazon than a synopsis. "Hallowell insists that ADD is a genetic neurological disorder, although he does not mention any evidence for this. Hallowell also insists that having ADD is very different from being lazy or self-indulgent, and claims that there is a clear distinction between the medical disorder and the personality flaw." Words like insist and claim insinuate the author is wrong when the point is to simply describe the book. The passage "Hallowell also insists that having ADD is very different from being lazy or self-indulgent..." is stepping out of the realm of book review and into disagreement with the existence of ADHD in general. "Yet he does not provide any clear way of making this distinction except using the Diagnostic criteria provided by the American Psychiatric Association, and these are behaviorally based, and do not refer to the patient's intentions or motives." This just isn't true. A large part of the book discusses possible causes of ADD. And it goes without saying that the entire book in and of itself is a dissertation on the distinction between laziness, self-indulgence and ADHD. Also, Hallowell does not recommend psychotherapy as treatment. If anything, pyschotherapy is mentioned as a single option, with most treatment recommendations placing an emphasis on cognitive behavioral therapy, diet, exercise and medication. I'm taking that sentence out. Mb.remix (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to NPOV Dispute
Since there were many complaints on this talk page about NPOV, and no responses defending the content as it currently stood, I did some major edits to the synopsis. I think these edits describe the book that adequately avoids either defending or criticizing the content of the book. Sammka (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed
The statement "With the ever-increasing use of stimulants such as Ritalin to treat ADD in children, there are real reasons to be skeptical about the judgments of the medical profession." needs to be clarified. It is not clear from the context of this article (or its original form which has been extensively edited to remove much "personal opinion" material) whether this statement is an opinion stated by Hallowell in this book, or an opinion of the article's original author in reaction to the book. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of response from the article's author, I have removed the unclear material. (See the page history for details.)  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

book review
This article reads like a book review rather than an a neutral description. Evaluative statements ought to be removed unless they can be attributed to definite sources. Also, I am going to change the name of the article in accordance with MOS. Looie496 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I just happened to come across this article, and I'm stunned at the lack of neutrality in it. It seems some folks who disagree strongly have written this article. It seems more like a polite attack than a neutral discussion. I'm a wiki-noob, so I'm not going to mark this as disputed-neutrality, but I hope someone will take a look at doing that. Seems like just about every other sentence in here is a mild attack. My only connection to the book? It was the first ADHD resource I read - and it was spot on. I was diagnosed with severe ADHD. Isaac.Eiland-Hall (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)