Talk:Oppositional defiant disorder/Archive 1

Opposing views

Please remember that talk pages are not forums for general discussion; comments made here should relate specifically to possible improvements to the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like see at least mentioned in this article the view held by many that ODD, like so many disorders that have been defined in recent years, is essentially a marketing campaign by pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs to children. Drugs cannot be prescribed without a patient being diagnosed with a specific disorder. I include a couple websites to show that this is not just a personal opinion- [1] [2]. --Karuna8 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC) To me this seems a very convenient diagnosis for children who are being bullied by teachers or parents. I mean how would you know? 86.149.196.63 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC) That's completely ridiculous. ODD is a serious behavioral disorder that affects several hundred thousand children in America. I treat them every day. There is no medicine used in the process, as it's a behavioral disorder not a psychiatric one. Treatment involves retraining and major changes in parenting and management. The opinion about pharmaceutical companies trying to sell drugs to children has some validity in a general sense - they're a business and business in psychotropics has been especially good in the last fifteen years. However, unless Karuna8 is qualified to speak expertly about the topic, it's probably best to hold off on the wayward opinions. - Ward Halverson at whalvers@twcny.rr.com That isn't ridiculous. Stigmatizing and controlling people who exhibit social behaviours you disapprove of is what's ridiculous, drug-peddling scum. What does this "treatment" involve? "Listen to your parents, they're always right. You disagree with them because of a chemical imbalance." This is bullshit, with the diagnostic criteria mentioned here, essentially 99% of American children could be diagnosed with this "disorder". This is clearly an example of treating a form of supposedly unacceptable forms of social interaction into some form of mental impairment. If you had your way we'd all be on enough drugs to wake up in the morning, go to work, work all day, come home, go to sleep, wake up & repeat ad nauseam. That is inhuman and dangerous. You can't prove it's a chemical imbalance, but it's certainly easy to make a case that it's merely caused by social factors (such as abusive parenting or some long-standing perfectly justified grudge). If I seem aggressive it's because you had the nerve to dismiss another logical point of view as "ridiculous", you contemptuous fool. Think what you want, but if you make incendiary remarks, expect to be replied to in such a way. You are somewhat correct near the end though. The "wayward opinion" is definitely more than valid. Humanity's greed would certainly dictate that one would jump at such chances to make money. Why bother putting up a strong, professional argument against a "disorder" when you can act professional and make a lot of money? This is sickening. Maybe you should be medicated for your blatantly quick dismissal of a valid point. Are there any pills or therapy that can cure greed? 70.49.88.111 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Ummmmm Oppositional Defiant Disorder? You're kidding, right? According to the DSM Criteria, EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD suffers from this condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashcleaner (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC) You are all so right that the pharmaceutical company is behind this disease! Now they will fight back with those testimonies and all that theory. Please search for the book... No! I will not put the name of the book here because it tells the story of the raise of the pharmaceutical industry empire. --Justana (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)justana To those who think that every child could be diagnosed with ODD, that is simply, mathematically, untrue. The DSM Criteria state that the behaviors must exceed what is normal: "Consider a criterion met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level." A large number of people may exhibit the behavior described (i.e., a normal occurrence of the behavior), but the ODD diagnosis requires departure from the norm for at least four of the criteria listed. Sjb0926 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Conveniently, the very nature of defining and publicizing ODD subtly shifts over time what is to be considered "normal". Shame on you! ThVa (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC) ODD is a controversarial subject that many individuals like to dismiss as being the new hype to explain the poor behavior of children due to poor or should I say lack of parenting. It is really easy to dismiss a problem if you are not dealing with it personally. I agree that in some cases doctors and therapist are too quick to pin a name on a problem, or blame behavior on some mental disorder, but this is not always the case. Children with ODD go beyond the realm of behavior that is based on "relaxed" parenting. A parent dealing with a child with ODD can not use any of the standard behavioral methods, such as time out or removing privileges. None of this works with a child with ODD because they don't care what the consequences may be, they are going to do what they want. This is not to say that every child should be treated like a robot and unable to have their own opinion and preferences; however, we have to be realistic. A child has to learn to grow up to be a responsible adult that, whether they like it or not, lives in a world that has some rules that have to be followed. We are fortunate to live in a country that allows us the freedom of not having to do everything the way we are dictated to do it, but there are limits. There is a fine line here and I totally understand the view of those who believe they had a terrible childhood because they were not allowed to be themselves. This is beyond that and unless you have personally dealt with it you just do not understand. I have a child with ODD, it is mild, but it is there. I also have two that do not have ODD so I understand the difference. Raising them has been completely different. We focus on dealing with the issues that will effect him in the long run, as an adult. The other things we let go and let him enjoy doing things differently than others. He has friends, but has difficulty in school because we have encountered numerous teachers that believe every child should fit a certain mold. So although I agree with parts of all of the post, it is important to remember not to judge before you have actually walked in someone's shoes. Ynotme21 (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC) The pharmaceutical industry counter-attack. The way they write is already known. Funny because they contradict themselves in one paragraph. I will not waste my time arguing with this. "Every child should fit a certain mold." It would be funny if it didn't destroy lives. I feel like cursing because it is monstrous. How can these people sleep in peace? Thinking about the money they did.justana--Justana (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC) So basically, ODD become a way to blame the kid, and not the parent? I feel it was invented by psychiatrists to explain why their kids don't listen to them. It's not that they have an imaginary disease, it's that they don't have any respect for contemptible people.Brody014 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC) "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" is just a slogan for a badld behaved child. They need discipline, not drugs. Exactly! And since we have too many academics with too much time on their hands - we now have a name for it. The thing to remember here though, is that it's not a "chemical imbalance" nor is anyone claiming as such. Being called a "disorder" doesn't mean it's some kind of physical or mental defect, it's simply a pattern of disorderly behaviour. If you get "drunk and disorderly", it doesn't mean you got so drunk that you suffered brain damaged. It just means that your behaviour was unacceptable in some given context. People need to learn what "disorder" is before freaking out about the false stigma. This is the reason the former "Spastic Society" have to change their name every 2 years -- because of uninformed people freaking out that their oh-so-special kid might meet the criteria of having a "socially unacceptable" disorder. Calm the f**k down everyone - it's just a name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.103.108 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal to Opposing Views

Please remember that talk pages are not forums for general discussion; comments made here should relate specifically to possible improvements to the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is exceedingly clear that those above who are expressing their opposition to the diagnosis of ODD have not experienced a child with true ODD. I have a child with ODD and another without it, and the difference is very clear. While I had no idea there was such a thing as ODD, I knew my child was much more extreme than most children starting very early and becoming very clear when she was 2 years old. Children with ODD don't just defy their parents or rules. They do so in an extreme manner to the point in which they will actively work against their own wants and desires simply because they cannot and will not follow the rules. It is about authority and the rules in and of itself. For example, said child gets a failing grade due to refusing to turn homework in (even when the homework is completed). Said child then gets grounded with the stipulation that the child can become ungrounded as soon as they bring their grade back up to passing (which could be at any time with a teacher's note; it does not require waiting for a report card). It is clear the child does not like being grounded and wants off of it; however, the child's ODD is so strong, the child will intentionally refuse to pass the class and take their own selves off of grounding simply because doing so would mean allowing someone in authority tell them what to do. The authority created the framework in which the child can work within to be grounded or be ungrounded, and the child will refuse to work within that framework specifically because the child is oppositional to all authority. So the child remains grounded. At the same time, the child refuses to take responsibility for their choices and, instead, blames the authority for "doing this to them". Perhaps that is because your child was insightful enough to realize that punishment is arbitrary and meant for control. You chose to punish over actually addressing underlying causes and are taking the easy way out by trying to say it is because of a disease. The truth is you are simply a pitiful parent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.36.1.81 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC) A good parent will have to exercise some level of control over a child who has not the wisdom to not do harm upon themself and/or others. I would not expect anyone who has never raised an ODD child to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.142.137 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC) The refusal to follow any authority starts very young and continues way beyond any normal teenage rebellion. It is highly destructive to the child's well-being. The normal motivational reward system does not work with these children because the ODD is stronger than their desire for whatever they want. Here's another example of a child with ODD. At 3 years of age, my daughter saw a water fountain and wanted a drink of water. I told her that was fine, but I needed to sign in first (for a doctor's appointment). The signing in was just feet away from the fountain and only took a few seconds. However, my daughter was furious at being told she had to wait until I've signed in. So when the few seconds it took to sign in had passed and I then started to help my daughter to get a drink from the fountain, she adamantly refused. She threw a huge temper-tantrum that continued to the point I had to leave without seeing the doctor. My daughter continued her temper-tantrum to the car, all through the 45 minute car ride home, and after we got home. When I gave her a time out of just staying in her room, she then marched two steps across the threshold of her room, stomped her feet, crossed her arms and screamed, "No!". At this point, this temper tantrum had continued for approximately 3 hours! All because I told her I would help her get a drink from the fountain after signing in! Now you want to tell me this is normal? This is the hallmark of a child with ODD. She behaved this way specifically because she wanted the drink when she wanted it and was extremely defiant at being told she had to wait until after I've signed in even though signing in only took a few seconds. This same child consistently expresses her wants and desires, but if getting them requires that she in any way follows any rules, she will refuse even though that means not getting what she wants. This behavior has carried on throughout her entire life. She will be 18 in a month. She cannot drive, is a year behind in school (and that's only because we went to great lengths to give her help to continue school even though testing indicates she is in the 97% of IQ range), has no real friends (all of her friends have left as she behaved the same with them), has never worked a day in her life and thinks she can live at home and have total freedom as an adult simply because she's 18. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way as even adults have rules to follow (banks tell us when to make payments, laws tell us what behaviors we can and cannot do, even apartments have rules or you're evicted). The people above who expressed views that ODD is merely a scapegoat to be used when a child exhibits normal childhood rebellion or opposition have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about. ODD is very real and very harmful to the child, and it must be addressed if the child is to have any chance at succeeding in life. And by succeeding, I simply mean being able to do what is necessary to bring them the freedom they desire and to obtain a general sense of happiness. It is not about making money, being at the best college, or any other material goal. It is just merely finding peace within their own selves. If ODD is not addressed, the child will have extreme difficulties in life, and if it turns into Conduct Disorder, the problems only get worse. Worse case scenario is that it will eventually lead to Antisocial Personality Disorder. These children absolutely MUST receive help which isn't easy. ODD is very real and very serious, and it is something I wouldn't wish on any child, adult or family. It is highly destructive to the person who has it. The earlier it is caught, the better. Unfortunately, I did not believe in all the psychiatric claims that abound today (very similar to those whom I'm opposing right now) so my daughter's problems were caught only after they had really caused her considerable damage. If I had known about ODD earlier, I might have been able to get her help at a younger age which may have reduced the problems she's facing now. Rather than blindly refusing to accept that ODD exists, spend time to learn about it. Because if you ever begin to truly discuss the issue with parents who have a child with ODD, you will find that the behaviors are far, far beyond any normal childhood expression of growing autonomy, independence, rebellion or even teenage angst. It IS a definite psychiatric disorder that absolutely requires treatment. Unfortunately, there is no magic pill for ODD. It is an extremely pervasive and destructive disorder that must be recognized and treated. 76.30.134.229 14:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Your daughter does not have a fictional "disorder". You have simply failed to identify and compensate for her exceptional ability. Of COURSE she threw a temper tantrum when she couldn't use the water fountain immediately. You placed an arbitrary desire to sign a meaningless piece of paper over her need to quench her thirst. This is how she saw it, and she wasn't completely wrong. You could have risked the few seconds it would take to get her a drink rather than blow her off to sign in. Or, more importantly, you could have taken the time to explain to her, immediately, as children just can't handle waiting early in life, that if you didn't sign in NOW, you might both have to sit in a boring waiting room for an extra half hour. She saw you as callous because she didn't understand the motivation behind your actions, and thus resented you for it. An intelligent child starts to guess the reasons for things very early, and one of the things almost no parents prepare for is the possibility that their child will be smarter than they are. I know, because I lived through it. Had I been born later, I would have been diagnosed with SEVERE ODD, and likely bludgeoned with "therapy" and then medication until there was nothing useful left of my mind. My mother had the good sense to realize that I needed an EXPLANATION for the actions of authority figures, because I saw myself as smarter than they were (and almost always was). It's hard to respect somebody ordering you around when: 1. you are smarter than they are, and can probably make better decisions than they can, 2. they give no explanation for their actions, as if they had a right to order you around without a reason you agree with (valid authority only ever coming from either the consent of the governed or the expertise to know better), and 3. their psychological need for control at any cost is plain to see. Smart kids don't respect authority because authority treats them like invalids. When you do this to adults, in a situation where they can't escape, the authority figures often end up dead. Explain your reasons to them, and offer positive reinforcement (rewards) for their cooperation with things they don't agree with, trusting that they will understand eventually, and you won't have such problems as often. ODD is just a category created to place children in so that parents don't have to feel responsible for their own mistakes, or even to acknowledge them. Parenting gifted children is difficult, to be sure, but the key is in understanding that they view your demands as invalid because they believe they are smarter than you, and they are often correct in that assumption. Become accustomed to the fact that they will consider themselves your equal far earlier than is normal, and deal with them as you would an adult as much as possible. They are eager to learn how to get what they want under their own power. Provide this knowledge to them and get out of the way. Also understand that a parent has no ethical authority to force their children to obey them, and any attempts to do so are going to be met with extreme resistance. Teach them why what you want is a good idea, give them input into decisions made about their lives, and definitely provide them with what they need to satisfy their curiosity. Blaming a fabricated medical condition is just going to give you exactly what you ended up with. I only hope this helps somebody else who thinks that medication or cracking the whip is the answer to their child woes. 69.118.137.231 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Clearly the statement above is done by the pharmaceutical company. They go everywhere. For the person who claimed that no drugs are involved I suggest that you make a research: "In one study, Ritalin was used to treat children with both ADHD and ODD. Researchers found that when treated with Ritalin, 90% of the children no longer had the ODD. However, this was a poorly executed study. The researchers dropped a number of children from the study because they were too defiant to take their medication as scheduled. Still, even if these children are included as treatment failures, the study still showed a 75% success rate with Ritalin." You have no shame. Of course the DSM-5 will have more and more diseases than the first edition. Greedy is the reason and total lack of concern with health. You are ruining children's lives to make money. This is inhuman and I'm sure that all you are doing will be considered, it's already being labelled as crime against humanity in the history of medicine.--Justana (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)justana--Justana (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC) User from IP 76.30.134.229, I don't know if you are still following this article, but if you are: I am writing a thesis on learning and behavioral disorders. Could I have your permission to quote select parts from your rebuttal above? And if so, could you inform me of your first name so I can attribute the quote to you? Thank you, I will be monitoring this talk page for replies. Stijn Arnauts84.197.110.133 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) "They do so in an extreme manner to the point in which they will actively work against their own wants and desires simply because they cannot and will not follow the rules." I was told this crap when I was younger, they tried to drug me. I was defiant because of very simple, logical reasons: I will hold to my beliefs and not be bullied into being passive and obedient. I will not be forced to conform to someone elses ideal of what I should be like. YOU take the pills and become complacent. We won't. I fought like hell to not be controlled and my behavior was termed the same way. And it all started because I questioned authority and was wrongly punished. Which simply made me more and more resistant. To back down would be against my own moral compass. I'm a grown man of 29 years now. My childhood was very unpleasant because of people like defending what is essentially a step in the direction of mind control. Disagree with rules that aren't even rules, just an authority figures dictations, get drugged for it. It was more than 15 years after the fact when they found out the principal of my junior high was abusive like those of transfered to "behavioral modification" classes had been telling our parents all along. GFY 22:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I have a son who they(the Doctors)say has ODD, I have a problem with that. I myself do not have any problem with any of the symtoms they have listed, but his mother says she does. I personally think it's how you treat your child or children in different ways. I have never had to punish him or ground him for anything (yet) and he is 14 years old. I have found it better to sit down with him and talk about what he had done wrong, then forgive and forget. His mother (and I should use that term loosely) is very verbal abusive and can even get phisical when thing don't go her way, so in a way I must have had ODD also because of her. I feel so much better the last 13 years i've been away from her. RB JUNE 9th 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.110.183 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

beyond opposite view

The absurdity of ODD is shocking and disturbing indeed. Opposing views TALK section fronts discussion with usual confusion.

To discern the factors in specific relevance one must obviously see the BENEFIT of these behaviours with respect to the necessarily unified collective (however specifically). New Age people called this "Indigo Children", the medi-nazis hypocritically into rock and roll all the while. I think understanding a polarity with the "Crystal Children", typically severely retarded but more free every day thanks to the brave warriors who say NO MORE. Of course labelling children like this, specifically, is pure evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.22.20 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The very suggestion that a child must be mentally ill for acting in concert with five million years of DNA coding naturally selected for superiority, is simply beyond every imaginable pale. All living DNA is encoded to stubbornly resist the domination that this drapetomania-like disorder seeks to stigmatise. The perfect definition of mental illness would be to submit to the psychotic lies & vile claims imposed upon children by those who routinely exploit them for disposal purposes as noble as clearing landmines with their feet (#Basiji) or War. You need to be mentally ill to be violent; it is irrational, inhumane and insane - the only time it can logically be justified is in dispatching the violently inhumane. It is inhumane to lie; only sociopaths perceive a need to deceive but it is insane to suggest that it could ever be a disorder to refuse to submit to whore values as transparently vile as: blind trust | unconditional love | total faith | unquestioning belief | deferential fealty | etc.

Demanding a Toddler whore obsessed with deceit and exploitation explain her reasoning (for once in her cursed life of generating misery in shame of being a human female) would be a very sane thing to do. But civil disobedience is smeared as mentally ill, in favour of the demented and vicious bullies who violently snap the free will of children in their obsession to manufacture slaves out of human children that belong to Humanity. Love for a Toddler whore = Hatred for all who displease her. Mother of...

No Toddler whore can explain to her children why they should suffer to please her any more than she can explain to men why they needed to treat her Right (when she didn't want to contribute or produce anything for value or even stop lying for long enough to have a meaningful exchange).

Yes, they are the victims of the acid spray of religious misogyny; but they're the ones spraying the acid of shame at children during their formative / impressionable years. These Toddler whore victims of misogyny choose to lie, choose to exploit, choose to be malicious; they flatly refuse to be real, genuine, authentic and they will freeze up in silence if you compel them because every thought they have is combative. This blood-soaked, love-obsessed, misery-drenched world of illusory lies and emotional needy was created by them in tandem with religion. A rebellion against the tyranny of their insanity is 5000 years overdue and we're stigmatising our only rebels? That's going backwards, regressing deeper into the Dark Ages of Religious Authoritarian Tyranny. Oh vermin species of inhumane humans, I fear you have not long for this world.

Pray tell, who infected you with so much shame at being a human being that you broke out in an allergic reaction of CLOTHES? These sociopaths are breeding children expressly for misery they intend to leverage into making human children suffer to please them; but children that heroically fight to be human in a world of whipped inhumane slaves (who unanimously fail to come to their rescue) receive the treatment of Toddler whores who assert that everything they don't understand is mentally ill? They understand more than their psychotic cunning would have you believe. It's not ignorance, it's evil. It's not confusion, it's malice. They label the innocent newborn children of unmarried women bastards (to stigmatise them); if you're oblivious to the kind of horror Humanity is up against...

The Toddler hatred and malice of married whores gives their psychosis away (if the contract to bind their victims to their side once the truth is revealed wasn't enough of a clue). Excuse me whilst I go and (fail to) rationalise for the thousandth time why it is that I'm failing to humanely put vermin out of their insufferable misery.Goscuter1 10:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck, you guys. Equivamp - talk 12:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This, 'right here', is what 99% of humans have been reduced to. It's screaming insanity. Expression of personal disapproval without a single logical argument or any argument at all. This user has had his brain strapped by a Toddler whore whilst simultaneously deluded into imagining his personal approval or disapproval is valued. He doesn't understand because he's stupidly illiterate. This insane retardation of humans is indecent and it's the reason why Wars are fought between mindless zombies. Billions of mindless zombies who hate big words and logical argument. It hurts their emotional feelings. --Goscuter1 16:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been laughing for 85 years at this comment. Equivamp - talk 12:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Treatment Options

I would like to see some treatment options provided on this site.

(The person above did not sign their comment; I am a different commenter). I agree with the person above in that I would like to see treatment options added to this page. Parents of children with ODD need help in how to address the disorder. I would also like to see a more thorough description of the disorder beyond the simple DSM-IV criteria. Each section needs to be illustrated in order to offer a much clearer understanding of what the DSM-IV requirements mean, especially what is meant by "interfering with the child’s ability to function" as this is the most important part of the criteria. 76.30.134.229 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added some information about treatment options. --Sjb0926 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have 4 children. all of them have completely different personalities. the only difference is my youngest is very defiant, very easily angered over just little things. i don't care what anyone says, there is such thing as ODD, because she definitely has it and it's a very difficult thing to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.28.79 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's doubting that some children are oppositional or defiant. What's in question is whether this constitutes a "disorder", whether it constitutes a medical diagnosis or is simply a category of common behaviour, and therefore whether it needs treatment at all. This seems to me to be a matter of parenting, not a matter for medical intervention. Have you considered giving your youngest child a cuddle and calmly explaining your reasoning? I have three children, of which the youngest - the runt of a twin litter, noticeably smaller than her siblings - is *incredibly* defiant, and frequently angry. But then I bounce her on my knee, give her a cuddle and explain flatly and logically why she's being asked to do a particular thing, and eight times out of ten that works, and one time out of ten she gets sent to bed to calm down, and one time out of ten she explains to me why *I* am wrong. And it's really important that when *I* am wrong, she has the opportunity to discuss that with me and put her side across calmly, which won't ever happen if she's drugged into compliance with rules which might, not always but occasionally, be wrong and need to be fixed. If a different authority figure just ignores her and keeps demanding that she comply, she just gets more and more frustrated. Andrew Oakley (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I know a good treatment for this disease. It takes about one bullet per psychiatrist and is very effective! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.215.44.22 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Why WikiProject Alternative medicine

This article has been identified to fall within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine. The rationale for this is the topic's centrality in objections to the allopathic-pharmaceutical paradigm's approach to health and understanding of the human being. Just in case anyone wondered. __meco 07:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

There appears to be some bias in the 'controversy' side towards the authors of this particular study. Use of emotive language "they were amazed to find..." adds to the apparent questionability of the neutrality of this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish100 (talk • contribs)

It's ok, those words only appear in a quote from source. --Zeraeph 06:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Related articles

Regarding the link on Drapetomania: without an explanation of the alleged racist component in diagnoses of ODD, this article seems almost entirely unrelated, and even if that component is included in the article, it seems a bit of a stretch. Should it be deleted?

The two disorders are identical. That you perceive a racist element to slavery is a corruption of perception that isn't remotely unique but slaves become slaves the day they submit to Authority. To declare a 19th century slave's desire to be free of domination and imposition to be a disorder is identical to declaring a 21st century child's desire to be free of domination and imposition to be a disorder. Wanting to be freed of imposition is not a disorder. But you probably think Narcissus had NPD? I assure you Narcissus was and is one of the finest heroes in Greek mythology. You've been lied to by leeches. What was Narcissus' crime again? He merely said No and meant No to worthless leeches attempting to impose their needy onto him. That's as close to a hero as this world has ever seen. Drapetomania and ODD both attempt to stigmatise what amounts to heroism. --Goscuter1 15:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goscuter1 (talk • contribs)

Controversy section

This section is based on one book and expresses the author's opinions, not empirical evidence. Furthermore the material is old...What weight should all this be given? I'd opt to make this a very short section or one or two lines or delete it. RalphLender^talk 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

How are you defining "empirical evidence" in such a way that a known fact is not empirical evidence? 68.116.206.248 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The book is no older than the DSM it challenges. The sources is published and peer reviewed and the conclusions are the result of statistical analysis. --Zeraeph 05:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Controversy section because all the references were from one source. If there are controversies, more than one source should easily be found to be cited. Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sourced information to the Controversy section in order to reflect controversies within the medical community, as opposed to amateur public opinion. The section could definitely still use some more sources, if any exist, to support the concept of widespread controversy. Until such a time, do people think the word "controversial" should remain in the lead paragraph of the article? I think it's a little misleading. Sjb0926 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I get the idea that few people care any more, maybe because everything about DSM is controversial from someone's point of view. DSM seems to have receded as a target in the public's view. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph from the Controversy Section pending location of reliable sources to attest to significant criticism of ODD:

"Outside the field of clinical research, Oppositional Defiant Disorder has been criticized as an attempt to pathologize what some see as a normal, healthy resistance to authority. In an opinion piece for AlterNet, Bruce Levine compared ODD to drapetomania, a 19th century pseudo-disease which supposedly caused slaves to flee their masters' lands."

I would very much like to return the first sentence to the article. Please find sources to support it! Sjb0926 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay: There have been changes made to the Controversy section that have not been discussed on this page, and which amount to adding unsourced claims about "social critics" and tagging them with "citation needed" tags. This seems a little ridiculous to me. The "cite needed" tags should be used to mark unsourced material already in an article, right? You should not add unsourced claims without providing SOME backup other than your belief that the claims are true. If a claim is verifiably true, you should ipso facto be able to find a source to verify it. If it's not verifiable, it does not meet WP:VERIFY. Furthermore, the use here of the phrase "Social Critics" violates WP:WEASEL. Pending any disagreement, I will revert this section to a previous version soon. Sjb0926 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your position. Putting in unsourced material is wrong. Placing a "citation needed" tag after it does not make it right. You could put in any cockeyed or POV position and simply add a tag, if that were standard procedure. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reverted this section to a previous version. I encourage any users to find reliable sources to support any controversy surrounding ODD! It would really enhance this article! Sjb0926 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What Controversy section? Apparently the controversy around this "disease" has just disappeared! Wikipedia at its best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.24.184 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I went back through the revision history, found the last revision with a Controversy section, and restored it. It's sad that such large vandalism went unfixed for 2.5 years. Ndickson (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

All you need to do is go back to a previous version. Now, that is Wikipedia at its best. Lova Falk talk 16:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Here it is:

Controversy
According to The American Journal of Psychiatry, there are several sources of controversy around the diagnosis of ODD. One concerns the fact that the DSM-IV criteria differ slightly from those of the World Health Organization's criteria, as outlined in the ICD-10. Diagnosis of ODD is further complicated by the high occurrence of comorbidity with other disorders such as ADHD, though a 2002 study provided additional support for the validity of ODD as an entity distinct from Conduct disorder.

In another study, the utility of the DSM-IV criteria to diagnose preschoolers has been questioned because the criteria were developed using school-age children and adolescents. The authors concluded that the criteria could be used effectively when developmental level was factored into assessment.

The Controversy section seems to be primarily about the diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. I proposed to move those paragraphs to the end of the Diagnosis section. I was going to be bold and do so myself, but considering the above comments in the Talk section, I decided to propose the edit here first. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Drapetomania

Someone believes that Drapetomania and this article are related. I have removed it from the See also. The other links in the See also are real psychiatric conditions or active controversies. Drapetomania is a historical oddity that does not, in my opinion, belong under psychiatric and psychological conditions. If you disagree with me, then return the Drapetomania link to this article. --Mattisse 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the references to Drapetomania should be deleted. I have clarified the pertinent paragraph a bit, but I am pretty sure that pending the inclusion of more reliable sources attesting to the prevalence of this criticism of ODD, this paragraph should be deleted per WP:FRINGE, as it does not reflect the mainstream view. If no one objects, I will probably do this soon. --Sjb0926 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is WP:FRINGE, although it is mentioned in the source given in the article in order to make a point. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He does mention it, and I understand his point. I guess what I'm asking is if the opinion of Bruce Levine is germane enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia article about ODD. I am strongly leaning towards no. From what I can tell, he is a doctor and author with a strong anti-authoritarian feelings, but his editorial does not represent a reliable source that proves the prevalence of his viewpoint on ODD.

And I'm not even talking about his drapetomania comparison, just his criticism of ODD. I tend to believe that his opinion is widely held (by the public, anyway) -- I just can't find and sources to support my belief. Consider the following from WP:UNDUE:

• "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

And then consider this, also from WP:UNDUE:

• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents."

I can't find any evidence of Bruce Levine's prominence. Therefore! Pending location of reliable sources , I still plan to delete this. Sjb0926 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. He is apparently (from his article) a member of MindFreedom International which sounds like one of those anti-psychiatry groups whose views are not very helpful in articles on psychiatry and psychology. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As promised, I have removed paragraph that mentions Drapetomania. See my comment above, under Controversy. Sjb0926 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the source, it seems like a fairly valid argument to me. Just slap a phony mental disorder on a group of people in order to justify the conquest of their free will. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Mbhutten's edits

==> Hi ...this is Mark Hutten responding. Whoever reverted my edits obviously didn't even read the article in question. It was written by a psychiatrist. The report is the most comprehensive report on ODD that I've found anywhere.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you would not splash my contact information all over the place. What kind of people are editing Wikipedia anyway?

ODD patients, no doubt :) ThVa (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Parenting Strategies section

I have removed this section from the article as it appeared to exist only to promote an outside website, it cited no references or sources, did not appear to follow a neutral point of view, nor did it significantly contribute (in my opinion) to the scope of the article. CrazyChemGuy 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link to http://www.ourdefiantkids.com/

This appears not to be a genuine testimonial of a parent, but an attempt to market a product. I removed the link, and 12.145.153.88 then reverted my change, so I shall not remove it again. That said, others should look into it and remove it if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.112 (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this looks like the spam I get in the spam-box of my e-mail system promising to help me lose weight and enhance my sexual performance. Whoever removed this had the right idea. - (Signed by User:DanTD at 08:51 (UTC), on March 20, 2013)

Please Find Sources for Controversy Section

anyone....? E 79.70.171.169 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sourced information to the Controversy section. It could definitely still use some more. Sjb0926 (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ODD

why is never taled about of who first diagnosis ODD and when that is relateive to research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.158.228 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with ICD-10

Many, if not most, DSM diagnoses differ from ICD-10. I don't see why that is a reason for controversy. They are different diagnostic systems based on different premises. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems with diagnostic criteria

The American Psychiatric Association has not released its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders into public domain, but claims copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter of complaint (Ticket:2010030910040817, for those with access) about the use of their diagnostic criteria in this and a number of other articles. Currently, this content is blanked pending investigation, which will last approximately one week. Please feel free to provide input at the copyright problems board listing during that time. Individuals with access to the books would be particularly welcome in helping to conduct the investigation. Assistance developing a plan to prevent misuse of the APA's material on Wikipedia projects would also be welcome. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is a tremendous drag. Having those diagnostic criteria greatly increased understanding of this disorder. Can they be summarized? It seems very bad that the criteria for diagnosis of a disease could be copyrightable! Sjb0926 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A question about ODD

Here's a question about this condition, which I know most likely won't be popular, but I'll ask it anyway.

Is it possible that ODD is actually a relatively normal human response to the pandemic of fascism that is currently present in Western society, or the degree of ponerogenic dysfunction that is literally hard wired into said society?

Just asking. Petrus4 (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not really possible. Firstly, there is no 'pandemic of fascism' present in Western society - yes, there are fascists like the English Defence League in the UK, or the Front National in France, or white supremacists in the US; but none of them is in power (which suggests that support for fascism is not 'pandemic'). Secondly, how can something (a source of evil) be literally hard-wired into a thing that doesn't have wires? Thirdly, the diagnostic criteria define ODD as being outside the range of normal behaviour, so, by definition, it can't be a 'normal' (or even a 'relatively normal') response.

HTH. HAND.

Alec.brady (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the "fascism" to which I'd imagine Petrus4 was referring to is the much more subtle cultural and governmental attempts at controlling the behavior of citizens. Secondly, good point. Thirdly, it can certainly be a normal response. It doesn't really matter WHAT the diagnostic criteria defines ODD as, seeing as the DSM isn't any real authority on what normal is. 69.118.137.231 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

ODD should be a normal animal response to an attempt at domination. A horse bucking a saddle. A dog not fetching or sitting when you bark out an order. A child refusing to comply with your attempted manipulation of his or her interests, when your interests have been corrupted and do not sync with the best interests of Humanity or the child. It is absolutely linked to the unsustainable tolerance of ponerology in every facet of Polite Society. Everything is rigged for sociopaths' advantage; this is purely the product of early childhood development because the nature of societies and culture will always be dictated by mothers and the acid sprays of misogyny have made them sociopaths. There's no popular way to state truth. This is a world of bullying and emotional manipulation; external validation is to blame because no one has Self. The murdering of Self in the obsession of mothers to create slaves who suffer to please them is unconscionable and barbaric. Their use of love to create slaves out of humans has been responsible for every War, all violence, all misery, all suffering because love is blind; everyone knows this.

So why are mothers attempting to blind their children with love? It's supposed to be the other way around, like it is in nature. Misogyny is the source of all the misery and evil and this species has been reduced so low by religion...no one can process logical dot points connected for their benefit. Everyone is insane. Everyone is lying. Everything is rigged in favour of sociopaths and rigged against the rights of children to be free of exploitation and lies.

nb. misogyny is hard-wired into society. It is the source of all the evil because it's the corruption of the natural order and nothing but vile religious lies intended to create misery, confusion and suffering via manufactured, moronic shame of being human. You live in a society that values the Right to Remain Silent (i.e. lie about your malice when asked a direct question) but persecutes whistle-blowers as traitors for revealing truth about slaveowners' crimes against the people. What else is there to say? #freeBradley

Don't get me started on conformity. What is wanting to be normal but the desire to want to be something that isn't natural? In the terrified obsession with being normal, everyone goes batshit insane. --Goscuter1 16:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Four of EIGHT symptoms? There are nine listed!

Can anyone tell which symptom is extra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.231.17 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, two were wrong and one was missing. Lova Falk talk 16:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Hi

This describes my 7 year old daughter down to a t where can i get her help? I live in Ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.93.31 (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi 75.186.93.31! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we write articles, and the talk page is for discussing these articles. Unfortunately we cannot help you with your question. My personal suggestion is that you ask a professional such as a family doctor or a school psychologist. Kind regards, Lova Falk talk 18:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you talk to your daughter, for as long as it takes, and stop looking for shortcuts to parenting. Andrew Oakley (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A new take on the beginning definition of Disorder

This is directly from the DSM-5 and is straight out of my university abnormal psychology textbook. I think the beginning definition is a little out dated. I wanted to change it to the following:

Oppositional Defiant Disorder is defined by the DSM-5 as a pattern of angry/irritable behavior, or vindictiveness lasting at least 6 months, and is exhibited during interaction with at least one individual that is not a sibling. Individuals must display four symptoms from one of the following categories: angry/irritable mood,argumentative/defiant behavior, or vindictiveness. Unlike children with conduct disorder, children with oppositional defiant disorder are not aggressive towards people or animals, do not destroy property, and do not show a pattern of theft or deceit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmt0804 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment and Diagnosis Sandbox Edits for Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Hello all, I have made changes in my Sandbox about this topic focusing on evidence-based assessment and diagnosis. It would be great if people would look at it and leave comments on my talk page before I post it on the article.

The sandbox link can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rterrell09/sandbox).

I appreciate it! YenLingChen (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

see Talk:Autism_spectrum#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Autism_Spectrum_Disorder Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

and see User_talk:YenLingChen Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)