"ADHD" is no more than misunderstood children, parenthood problems and a bad society.

Oh, I left the debate up and didn't realise the time wasn't changing lol. Apologies. I know people will probably vote against me on this anyways, but I will continue any who. Because I'd like to have this debate. This argument is not quite finished but il send it anyway. You say this does not account for the fact that some people with ADHD have family members that are also diagnosed. On the contrary, parents with 'ADHD' provide a more chaotic environment for the child than 'normal' parents. So the children are more likely to develop hyperactivity disorders and attentional deficit disorders because they: 1. follow their parents example. 2. Grow up with less routines, encouraging them to be less structured in their own lives. 3. More likely to have similar diets (bad) to their parents, that cause erratic moods. Why, when a child copies their parents, do we always assume genetics are the cause? Is it not more likely that the child just learns the behaviour? We know the child would just learn it anyway, even if it was genetic. Can behaviours even be genetic? The public opinion of genes is over simplistic. We can thank newspapers and media for that: the idea of a 'code' embedded in everyone that determines their behaviour and entire self that can read, is an exiting prospect. Not least because of its possible health ramifications, the idea was beneficial to corporate America because it builds a context in which certain behaviour is inevitable. This is beneficial because it draws attention away from the real causes of metal health/violence/poverty, which is societal, and encourages the public to view these things as solely the fault of the individual. People are thusly encouraged to feel as though these people are not worth spending resources trying to help, and that nothing is wrong with society. If people realise that behaviour is the result of the environment, then people would begin to question the society. This is an idea that has not been suppressed by accident. The reality of genes and their relationship with behaviour is far more complicated than the general opinion suggests. That opinion is that behaviour is rooted in biology, is unchangable, and predetermined by genetics. So what do we realy know about genes? Well we share 30% of our genes with houseflies and not much less with mushrooms. So this suggests that genes are not very specific. Also, rice has more genetic material than humans: it has a more complex genome. So it seems that genes are not clear determinants of much, indeed we don't quite understand them, for how could a piece of rice be more complex than a human? What this is believed to show is that genes are less specific and more general. For instance, if you take the gene that makes an eye from a bird and put it onto a flies leg (to grow a birds eye on a flies leg), then a fly eye grows on the leg. So the gene 'says' 'make eye', but the rest of the system (RNA etc.) makes the specific characteristics of the fly's eye. Another study shows, and its also a well known fact, that we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. So with all this in mind, consider the notion of a gene 'causing' a specific behavioural trait.