When I was little, I struggled in school. I flipped my letters around. I pulled my best friend's pigtails because they were there. As time went on, I underwent testing and was placed in special education due to my differences from other kids.

The assessment correctly identified some of my issues: I have learning disabilities, specifically dyslexia and dysgraphia. However, they used insufficient data and their gut to make these decisions. Looking back at it, I understand that the evaluators and the system had limitations and couldn't provide a perfect assessment. Yet they missed ADHD (or ADD at the time.) Instead, I was led to believe I wasn’t smart enough to get through high school.

This experience influenced my decision to study psychology, intending to help others receive accurate information. One of the reasons I ventured into content creation is my frustration with unverified information (broscience) negatively impacting people. I advocate for the scientific method and evidence-based practices. The best work emerges from peer-reviewed journals with robust experimental designs.

It's important to note that natural science acknowledges uncertainty and is grounded in probability. Life itself is filled with anticipation and doubt. Yet, being ADHDers/ADHDish, we get attracted to what “feels right” and sure, rather than what is real, useful, and demonstrated via evidence.

Why am I talking about this? Recently a study had professionals rate 100 TikTok ADHD videos. They found 52% of TikTok contained misleading information.

In this newsletter, I’ll provide a helpful framework for understanding pseudoscience from evidenced-based work.

Evidence-based work and pseudoscience are two contrasting approaches to understanding and explaining.

Here are the key features that differentiate them:

Good Evidence-Based Work:

• Empirical Evidence: It relies on empirical data and observations from well-designed experiments or research.

• Peer Review: Research is subject to peer review, where experts critically assess and validate the methods and findings.

• Scientific Method: It adheres to the scientific method, including hypothesis testing, controlled experiments, and data analysis.

• Transparency: Good evidence-based work is transparent about its methods, data, and potential biases.

• Reproducibility: Findings are reproducible, meaning other researchers can replicate the results independently.

• Objective and Unbiased: It strives for objectivity and minimizes bias by using rigorous research designs.

• Continuous Improvement: It is open to revisions and changes based on new evidence and updated knowledge.

Pseudoscience:

• Lack of Empirical Evidence: Pseudoscience often lacks empirical data or relies on anecdotal evidence, testimonials, or unverified claims.

• Absence of Peer Review: Pseudoscientific claims are typically not subjected to peer review or critical evaluation by experts.

• Unscientific Methods: Pseudoscience employs unscientific methods, that can’t be proven or make vague claims.

• Lack of Transparency: Pseudoscientific practices are often opaque about their methods and may not disclose potential biases.

• Limited Reproducibility: Pseudoscientific claims are often difficult to replicate or fail to produce consistent results.

• Subjective and Biased: Pseudoscience can be highly subjective and prone to confirmation bias, where only information supporting a belief is considered.

• Resistance to Change: Pseudoscientific beliefs often resist revision, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

In summary, good evidence-based work is rooted in the scientific method, transparency, and empirical evidence. At the same time, pseudoscience lacks these foundational principles and often relies on unverified claims and subjective beliefs.

News

Course! I’m creating a cohort-style class to help ADHDers/ADHDish be more productive and better at making things they love. If this interests you, please email me!

I hope you have a wonderful week!

Sincerely

-Drew