Book Review: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Fast Minds: How to Thrive If You Have ADHD (Or Think You Might)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Fast Minds: How to Thrive If You Have ADHD (Or Think You Might) Craig Surman, Tim Bilkey, Karen Weintraub. New York (NY): Berkley Publishing Group (Penguin Group); 2013. 348 p. Can$27.50 Reviewer Rating: GoodThis book is written as a guide for adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-or some of its attributes-to developing personalized strategies for overcoming their difficulties. There is certainly a need for such a guide, and the book mostly accomplishes its objective. However, its main shortcoming is insufficient focus on the global principles for overcoming core challenges of ADHD.The book comprises 12 chapters divided into 3 sections. The first section educates about ADHD traits. The second section focuses on strategies for overcoming difficulties in such areas as executive functioning, impulse control, self-care, and interpersonal communication. The third section gives an overview of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies for ADHD and concludes the book. An extensive appendix offers summaries, practical aids, and a list of resources, such as books and online aids. The book's price is appropriate for its content. The authors are a clinical researcher and a clinician, both highly reputable experts in adult ADHD.The title of this book is an acronym to describe ADHD in adults. It stands for Forgetful, Achieving below potential, Stuck in a rut, Time challenged, Motivationally challenged, Impulsive, Novelty seeking, Distractible, and Scattered. While the acronym accurately describes many attributes of ADHD, it is long and unintuitive. Moreover, its constituents map only partially onto the current diagnostic criteria. Many adults with ADHD (or suspected ADHD) find themselves confused as to what ADHD is, or to which of its categories they belong; a diagnostic description that only partially overlaps with the criteria might only increase confusion. Moreover, if taken at face value, the title of this book implies faster than average mental processing in people with ADHD. Research does not support, and in some cases contradicts, this notion. Thus the acronym and the title, while empowering, may be covertly misleading.The book has numerous merits. While it is written in plain language and is easy to read, it does not oversimplify the material and concepts. Importantly, it is up to date with the research in the field of ADHD. One of the book's major strengths is the dimensional view of ADHD, which also reflects the current conceptual shiftin psychiatry. The book views ADHD as representing one end of the continuum on a set of normally distributed cognitive, behavioural, and emotional characteristics. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.060 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".