Obviously it's characterized as a disorder, but I really think that perspective should be challenged.
Like autism, the diagnostic criteria are almost exclusively framed in how other people are impacted or inconvenienced by it. Very little attention is paid to the experience of the person actually living with it.
I see it as a difference, but not necessarily a disorder. As someone with "severe" ADHD there are tons of things that I'm substantially better at than I would be if not for the condition.
I believe ADHD is "rising" because our culture has grown more homogenous in recent decades, resulting in people with ADHD attempting to adapt to environments that are designed for and run by people without ADHD.
Do you have ADHD? Because as someone that has it, it's definitely very much something that heavily impacts the individual with it, and not just society.
It's hard to consistent do things, form habits, maintain attention. You have almost a lack of object permanence, a hard time remembering long-term memories, etc. There are so many problems it causes that aren't even occupational related but lead to negative outcomes outside of your personal engagement in social and economic environments.
Yes, society isn't really designed for folks with ADHD, but also the prevalence of ADHD was somewhat disguised by the fact that mental health had a social stigma and that smoking was incredibly common and people were basically microdosing stimulants every hour as such. It's not that shocking to think that the decline in smoking made adhd much more apparent.
I think you are half right. The criteria for hyperactive type seem to match what you are saying, but the criteria for inattentive type are more about the patient.
My symptoms are all about how they are holding me back, and nothing about how they inconvenience the people around me.
I have a question for you. For context, in case you haven't read it, we are discussing scientific paper reporting a large population study (almost 150,000 newly-diagnosed ADHD patients, aged 6–64 years old) which compared the outcomes of those who were medicated (~57%) and those who were unmedicated (~43%). Around 88% of the medicated cohort were prescribed methylphenidate (e.g. Concerta or Ritalin).
The conclusions of the study, copy-pasted from the abstract, were:
> Drug treatment for ADHD was associated with beneficial effects in reducing the risks of suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, transport accidents, and criminality but not accidental injuries when considering first event rate. The risk reductions were more pronounced for recurrent events, with reduced rates for all five outcomes. This target trial emulation study using national register data provides evidence that is representative of patients in routine clinical settings.
My question is this: if we assume ADHD does not exist, what is going on here?
Specifically, how do you explain so-called "ADHD" patients who were medicated having a statistically significant lower risk of suicidal behaviours, substance misuse, transport accidents, criminality, and recurrent accidental injuries than those who were not medicated?
Do you think non-"ADHD" individuals (i.e. who don't fit the current diagnostic criteria for this assumed fictional disorder) would also display a reduced risk of suicidality, accidents, etc. if they were to take methylphenidate on a daily basis?
Needing to fix ADHD is itself a cultural thing. Back 100 years ago, you didn’t need an 8 hour attention span to sit at a desk staring at a monitor while the AC dries your eyeballs until they feel like foil scratching on a blackboard
No instead you might sit at a desk writing by lamplight, having your eyes dried out by smoke, assailed by the smell of horse dung (among other things)
I really don't understand this idea that people with ADHD didn't suffer in the past or that the problems we face would magically disappear if society was just organized a bit differently. Would it alleviate a lot of the pressure? Certainly, but it wouldn't do away with the problems. It's the same with autism.
100 years ago people smoked like chimneys and were basically self-medicating with nicotine. The classic 'coffee and a cigarette' breakfast is the most ADHD-coded thing imaginable.
There are ways in which ADHD is a societal issue rather than an individual one, sure.
But they're not the whole of ADHD.
If I habitually lose track of time, get wrapped up in the game that I'm playing, and forget to meet up with my friends when we've agreed to because of it, I'm going to lose friends. That's not a societal problem, that's just how relationships work.
If I absentmindedly leave a half-eaten yogurt out on the counter, and my clutter blindness makes me forget it's there for a week, it's going to grow mold. That's not a cultural thing, that's just how mold works.
>If I habitually lose track of time
why have you decided this is unfixable?
> If I absentmindedly leave a half-eaten yogurt out on the counter, and my clutter blindness makes me forget
sorry, what? clutter-blindness? is this a clinical testable condition, or just something invented for adhd?
and theres nothing subjective about a broken leg, no two doctors would disagree on a broken leg like they would disagree over mental health conditions. you meant to say physical "health" is subjective, ie what we class as "unhealthy".
> Symptoms and/or behaviors that have persisted ≥ 6 months in ≥ 2 settings (e.g., school, home, church). Symptoms have negatively impacted academic, social, and/or occupational functioning. Inpatients aged < 17 years, ≥ 6 symptoms are necessary; in those aged ≥ 17 years, ≥ 5 symptoms are necessary.
Clearly these aren't saying "have they ever misplaced anything?" or "have they ever forgotten anything?". Sure, most people have had some of these things happen some of the time. Yeah, all kids find homework boring, but most kids are still able to do it. Most kids forget things, but aren't losing multiple coats every winter. Most people aren't experiencing these symptoms to such a degree that it significantly impacts their ability to function.
Most people aren't experiencing these symptoms to such a degree that it significantly impacts their ability to function.
it only has to negatively impact academic, social or occupational functioning - according to the patient or parent. ie its subjective, anyone can claim to be having a bad time and that "hey i forget things, im a clutz!" now i have adhd.
i'm confused as to why you think you're suddenly the arbiter of the lived experience of others? all of the questions you're asking are things that are easily found online, but something makes me think you're not after knowledge.
Are you really here trying to claim that ADHD is not a real developmental disorder? To a bunch of people who have lived all their lives with ADHD?
Yes, the symptoms of ADHD are mostly things that most people experience sometimes in their lives. The reason it's a disorder is because they occur commonly enough to affect our lives.
This is not that dissimilar from many other neurodivergencies and mental health issues: Many people feel anxious from time to time. Many people enjoy the rush of gambling from time to time. Most people do not have clinical anxiety or gambling addiction.
Next time you're tempted to come into a thread of people talking about a widely-recognized developmental disorder or mental health problem and drop your superior wisdom that actually, it's not real, and you're much more rational and intelligent than we all are, because you can recognize that the diagnostic criteria are "subjective," which is the same as saying they're meaningless, please consider turning off your computer and going outside instead.
And with ADHD youre saying im more clumsy than normal, but we cannot define normal and we cannot even define abnormal - its completely upto the patient to say if they think its abnormal - unless its a kid then its normally the parent making the claim
