The word you are looking for is Inattentive - when diagnosed they should state whether the diagnosis presents as Predominantly Inattentive, Predominantly Hyperactive/Impulsive, or Combination.
Correct. People with focus issues do not necessarily have ADHD. That requires meeting a defined set of diagnostic criteria, including that it has an impairing effect on an individual's life.
Also, just because it seems like a simple lack of focus to you externally, that does not mean the person does not have a disorder.
Not going to get into a back/forth due to the pseudo-conspiracy end, just stating that this is significantly inaccurate.
Those are some possible outcomes, yes, but it is not a black/white thing, and that is actually WHY it's important to work with a qualified doctor to monitor medication, effects, dosage and so on, and make adjustments as necessary.
Different medications work very differently as it relates to dopamine, uptake, production, etc. And there are also non-stimulant medications that may be effective for some folks.
As an example, President JFK received regular injections containing high doses of amphetamines from his personal physician.
Then the risk of abuse and side-effects in the population were observed and it was banned.
Did JFK have ADHD? No, it just helped him with energy levels. Like it would anyone.
There are no conclusive bio-markers for ADHD. Therefore its not possible to say who doesn't have it and should not get stimulant medication.
The only commonality is that there is an impairment. It's not possible to say: this person has difficulty focusing and has ADHD but this person has difficulty focusing but doesn't have ADHD.
The board of psychiatrists who decide what symptoms constitute it just essentially make it up.
The only thing that is real and measurable is the level of impairment to someone's life.
Stimulant medications works, but it would work for anyone regardless of an ADHD cause. ADHD is like a catch-all for people who can't focus that doesn't match any other condition that could be resolved differently.
Stimulant medication definitely carries risks and health impacts. This is black and white.
You seem to have your mind made up, so just gonna say that for anyone else reading this, this is not accurate or scientific information. Lacks an understanding of how the medication works, the differences in kinds of medications. The fact it used to be legal is not relevant. Misrepresents how ADHD is diagnosed, the criteria for it (by professionals), and even to a lesser extent the biomarkers statement.
I skimmed over that paper, and may do a deeper dive later, although doesn't really seem worth it. I thought it was going to be a scientific study, but it reads more like a essay from two authors with a specific viewpoint trying to convince others, via slanted/biased text, that other text and language is baising an entire industry and population? I find that questionable at best.
And while the authors made a lot of claims, and cited some other studies, they don't really, IMO, prove their point in any scientifically valid way, or even as a solid, well-formed argument. Add in that the authors are sociologists, not neuroscientists or psychiatrists/psychologists, and it makes me question both their claims and understanding of the topic.
I did catch that one of their main points (that you mentioned as well) boils down to not having a physical test or clear biomarker. But that applies to nearly all psychiatric conditions. Saying the absence of those kinds of tests is the same as the absence of a real condition ignores the research that has been done demonstrating functional impairment (including twin studies, some indications of genetic heritability).
The paper presents a specific sociological viewpoint, and that isn't the current scientific consensus.
Like I said, probably not gonna convince you, just dropping this for others that might see the essay link and think it might actually provide validity when it does not. That essay does not really make significant arguments against ADHD.
It does present good warnings to be aware of pressures that would distort diagnosis and I do think there is good reason to be cautious about over diagnosing, or diagnosing by unqualified personnel, both of which do happen of course. But the article goes too far beyond that.
Because others can say this much better and with better sources and citation than I can, both directly address many of the criticisms made in the essay shared and the faulty reasoning based on it.
Why should 6 symptoms constitute ADHD while 5 don't?
The person with only 5 doesn't have it?
This is not science.
Change the diagnostic criteria to a blood test or brain scan and then we are in the realm of proper science. But until then the burden of proof should be on the ADHD community not on those trying to dispute it. It's like having to use proper science to disprove something that is not conclusively proved in science.
It's fine to publish all this science and evidence, but it all comes back to the diagnostic criteria which is so wishy washy. The diagnostic criteria has evolved from a completely arbitrary definition. There is no reason the DSM stuff should be used at all, and trying to find science to support a diagnostic criteria that was arbitrary to begin with is silly.
That's why, after all this, the main point I make is that the boundary between ADHD and non-ADHD is arbitrary and will always be and its more about having a disorder to point to to be able to prescribe stimulants to "people it would help".
Mark my words: there will never be a biomarker or test used to diagnose this condition because it would only reduce the number of people who can access treatment.
It's an elaborate exercise on how to be allowed to use a scheduled medication as treatment. If the government didn't ban drugs then all this ADHD diagnosis stuff wouldn't exist at all. It would be the reverse exercise: which people should not be allowed it because they abuse it and it negatively impacts them.
Your (and the authors of your paper) reliance on biomarkers are not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed. The fact you even ask about 5 vs 6 demonstrates a lack of understanding (or willful ignorance of) of how and why the diagnostic criteria are what they are.
Completely disagree with your conspiracy theory about the drugs. That's just laughable. Obviously need to prevent abuse, but there are both legitimate uses of and reasons to restrict general use of the drugs. Not to mention there are non-stimulant drugs as well, which kinda stomps on that argument.
Read about the history of the DSM regarding ADHD. You can look at all the versions/volumes and how and why it evolved over time. Ask yourself if you think it is actually good science.
I have done exactly that. I've seen your bias re: psychology as a whole and it appears to color your research and information gathering. I hope, like I have been doing even if not apparent from my replies, that you are able to consider your viewpoints and whether they actually hold true.
Along those lines, I do appreciate this conversation. I do like questioning what I believe, and I had to steelman some of the views you put forth and then see where they then didn't hold up. I do that while being willing to change my own mind if that is where the evidence leads, but the research presented didn't hold up to scrutiny. So while I definitely disagree with you, I do so from a place of appreciation for pushing me to do more digging into this things and whether *I* should hold the beliefs that I do.
Be careful and approach `HealthyGamerGG` with a bit of healthy skepticism. I have benefited from a number of his videos, but recently small things have lead to me growing concerned that as his reach/influence grows, the same motivations that existed early on mutate as with many influencers. Not suggesting anything negative per se, just recommending a variety of sources and validating his claims. For another source, Dr. Barkley's videos are very good.
I agree that ADHD is a serious condition for many people, and that it's overly romanticized and that isn't good when it comes to getting help for those that do need it.
To that point, I'm going push back on this language just a bit:
> you end up addicted and pretty much permanently require drugs to function well
That is negatively framing medication, which if taken properly as prescribed is no different than any other medication someone might take to help with a chronic health condition. It slightly encourages and leans into the idea that ADHD is "fixable" without medication and so taking medication is a problem (or due to a weakness, etc).
I'm not discounting the value of other forms of non-medical treatment, but in many case medication IS appropriate as part of the overall treatment that a person requires to manage their ADHD. We should not use language that stigmatizes treatment that should be between a person and their doctor.
Agree with original commenter but +1 to reframing the language. I was very afraid to begin medication because I would always hear about how addicting this medication can be. But like you say, you wouldn't tell someone with diabetes that they're addicted to insulin.
fully agreed with this. it's the same stigma that I see get applied to SSRIs - that you become 'dependent' on medication, it's not 'natural', etc
in reality, if the side effects are minimal and you function better on it, it's a sip of water and a pill a day and that's largely it for health outcomes. most drug interventions are generally extremely well-studied with very large sample sizes. there's a reason why clinical research is considered gold-standard - the regulatory requirements to even get a drug to market is monumental and some of the most rigorously audited and vetted processes in the world
the ironic thing is that most of the big pharma detractors are also ingesting dozens of supplements, the vast majority of which have little to no good empirical evidence backing them (and very small effect sizes to boot) along with even less regulatory oversight for issues like contamination, formulation, or if it even contains the active ingredient. which isn't to say that 'big pharma' doesn't often pursue avenues for profitability reasons instead of the public good but that's not the typical critique that an anti-empiricist brings most times
That's not really an "addiction" by any reasonable meaning besides "something I do often".
The actual meaning is more complex, involving inability to stop, negative effects on your life, etc. - none of which apply to wearing your glasses or breathing.
You... don't think there are negative effects to stopping breathing?
If you can be behaviorally addicted to gambling, or even more aptly eating, you can be behaviorally addicted to medication that doesn't give you any physiological dependency.
> The DSM-5 has re-classified the condition [ed: gambling addiction] as an addictive disorder, with those affected exhibiting many similarities to those with substance use disorder. They both activate a reward mechanism in the brain, causing dopamine release to reinforce repetitive behavior. Both often lead to loss of control.
Edit: to engage more substantively, imagine if your glasses gave you, say, mild skin irritation that progressively got worse with wear, but you chose to mitigate that and wear them anyway. I would rate it at that level.
it's not good to flame people for things they can't control. I also think it's not fair to compare insulin (life saving non synthesizable hormone) vs amphetamine (hard drug that helps people better cope with a society expressly designed to beat them down), because then we forget that dosing amphetamines daily comes with its own price of damage to the body. drugs prescribed for adhd are also very much addicting - if one lets an amphetamine script run out, symptoms of withdrawal will take place, regardless as to how the condition is verbally labelled (which while horrible is also to me not fair to compare with a diabetic dying without insulin)
To your point about life saving - untreated ADHD folks have a 2-3x mortality rate, generally due to accidental cause or risky behaviors. Studies have shown that medication can have a significant statistical decrease in the overall mortality rate. So while it's not a cut/dry as insulin, it is still "life saving" for many.
The reasons you cite are why it is a controlled substance, and why it should be taken under supervision of a doctor. But they aren't arguments against the drug itself or that it is in a different "category" of drug. It is a treatment, and like any treatment, the pros/cons should be discussed with medical professionals and appropriate decisions made for each individual.
And yes, sadly our society fails people who are different and our medical system fails people with regards to their medication all the time - that can happen with any medication though. And yes, consequences vary greatly depending on the medication.
I've never heard of anyone with ADHD on prescription amphetamines experiencing withdrawal when stopping. At least, not with any symptoms worse than just having ADHD and being unmedicated.
People with ADHD are often amused by referring to amphetamines as a "hard drug" since it has practically none of the typical hard drug effects on them.
I think it is also worth reframing what "functioning well" means. Society expects certain things of us and our brains function in a way that those things are more difficult. Is that our fault, or society, or some mix? Isn't it possible that society itself could adjust in such a way that people who naturally struggle to sit in a cubicle doing the same thing all day every day could be offered other options? Seems like our capitalistic system that requires "productive" work as measured by those who already control the capital is maybe also a problem here.
I'm on stimulants and I agree that the post you responded to needed reframing. But I think we do ourselves and anyone else who isn't "normal" in body or mind a huge disservice just focusing on acceptance of treatment when there are larger societal changes that could be made.
I agree and it would be great if we could do that and ideally there would be roles for people that are not able to maintain the strict structure and their contributions were valued even if different.
That said, I think we agree that accepting the treatment folks need to function in society as it exists is a step in the right direction.
Oh yes, absolutely. Meds are extremely useful and given the choice between "fight myself AND the system" or just "fight the system" I'll choose to stop fighting myself every time.
Dr. Barkley does a great job presenting research and factual information in a way that is easy to understand and I've also found it very helpful personally. Was diagnosed in adulthood, so resources like this were great finds during my hyperfocus dive into gaining some measure of understanding of ADHD.
If you don't think AI will include sponsors/ads/etc once someone comes out on top, well, I might have a bridge to sell you.
Seriously though, I'm not sure why Google evolving in this manner precludes them from having a profitable business model. Right now we're subsidizing the costs (probably just a bit) and having ongoing subscription revenue they can increase as needed (particularly in the "google won the race" scenario) will be key before they even have to consider layering advertising on top.
I think the difference this time is, anybody can curate a baseline set of training data, there is no need to constantly be scanning the open web and indexing it. Everyone already has "good enough" question-answering capability. There is no option to pay or an ad-free, trackerless search funciton on google, but I can do that with multiple non-google providers. Between LLM and kagi I've managed to largely cut google out of my life for $40/mo. Subsidized LLM will eventually disappear, but I think cost per token will reduce over time to meet the ~$20/mo ad-free tier.
Every 5 years on average since the late 90s the industry has doubled in size. Add in natural attrition (and the other things you mentioned, ageism, management or other tech adjecent careers, etc.), and even accounting for a modest number of "second career devs" starting later in life rather than out of college, you still have an industry that skews younger simply by virtue of overall growth patterns.
I think that is significantly overlooked when people ask "where are the 50+ engineers?".
While there was a lot of FUD in the media, there were also a lot of scenarios that were actually possible but were averted due to a LOT of work and attention ahead of time. It should be looked at, IMO, as a success of communication, warnings, and a lot of effort that nothing of major significance happened.
"Tragically, we are failing to avoid serious impacts"
"We have now brought the planet into climatic conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives within our genus, Homo"
"Despite six IPCC reports, 28 COP meetings, hundreds of other reports, and tens of thousands of scientific papers, the world has made only very minor headway on climate change"
"projections paint a bleak picture of the future, with many scientists envisioning widespread famines, conflicts, mass migration, and increasing extreme weather that will surpass anything witnessed thus far, posing catastrophic consequences for both humanity and the biosphere"
I don't mean to lessen the impact of that statement. I think climate change is a serious problem. But also most of the geologic time that genus Homo has existed, Earth has been in an ice age. Much of which we'd consider a "snowball Earth". The last warm interglacial period, the Eemian, was 120,000 years ago.
That's an interesting bit of detail. As you intended, it does not lessen the impact of the statement: "conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives". It confirms it, with some additional context.
To me, it seems to make it even more significant. Because as you point out, Homo evolved under ice age conditions over millions of years. Well, here we are about to be thrust into uncharted territory, in an extremely short period of time. With very fragile global interdependencies, an overpopulated planet, and billions of people exposed to the consequences.
Right? I would only caution that neither has the ice age been particularly kind to humanity. It seems at least a couple times to have almost gotten us all. There's a genetic bottleneck in genus Homo which seems to date back ~80k years, which aligns suspiciously with the Toba supervolcano eruption. And another around 850k years ago. During each there were likely fewer than 2,000 breeding humans.
Earth has certainly thrived with a warmer climate. No reason we can't too. The problems - for us and other life - stem from the rate of change. Which is easy to see is very very rapid compared to the historical cycles, but still a slow motion trainwreck compared to an asteroid strike, supervolcano, or gamma ray pulse, all of which it seems Earth has experienced. Life and human society will adapt if it has enough time. The quicker the catastrophe the more challenging that is.
I guess what I'm saying is that we're not doing ourselves any favors, but we also shouldn't underestimate mother nature's ability to throw us a curve ball in the 9th inning that makes everything worse. Life has endured an awful lot on this little rock.
What you just wrote is the same as: 'the entire lifecycle of humanity has no precursor to the conditions' we are about to face.
We aren't facing the ice age that has been the last 120,000 years.
I'm sure the rocky planet will survive just fine, maybe even some extreemophiles, even if we completely screw up the atmosphere. Not 6 billion humans though.
I can both be alarmed at how quickly the ice age humanity has evolved within is ending, and find that a very funny way of phrasing it. These things don't conflict in me, though it seems triggering to some. People are downvoting me with moral conscience, but I'm just over here laughing at a funny conjunction of paleoclimate and word choice. :) People getting offended by it kinda makes it funnier.
this is the same style comment as "no offense, but <offensive thing>"
if you didnt intend to lessen the impact of that statement, why say something that is specifically meant to lessen the impact of the statement? just say what you want to say without the hedging.
reply