Nowhere did I claim ADHD was a personality quirk. Nowhere did I claim ADHD wasn't real. I'm not disputing the neurodevelopmental pathophysiology of ADHD. I'm questioning the labels society applies to people with such a disorder.
I claimed it's not the "attention deficit" people think it is. People with ADHD are clearly able focus when the subject is interesting enough to them. That's a huge contradiction. The truth is probably that school is way too boring for them.
I think signal to noise ratio is a good analogy. People with ADHD are easily distracted by noisy stimuli and need disproportionally high signal to focus. Society consistently fails to provide high enough SNR then labels neurodivergent people as problematic.
ADHD discussions always remind me of this article:
> People with ADHD are clearly able focus when the subject is interesting enough to them
"interesting enough" is not a sufficient condition. You may be super interested, very motivated, and yet completely unable to start. That is one of the most frustrating parts of ADHD to me. When and how hyperfocus kicks in seems to be mostly outside of your control.
it's just poorly named; it's an executive function disorder. The hyper focus you described is just as uncontrolled and pathological as lack of attention. I used to hyper focus on StumbleUpon. You think that's evidence I _don't_ have an attention disorder?
Stop spreading medical misinformation. You're extremely uninformed.
> it's just poorly named; it's an executive function disorder.
That's my point. Labeling people as having "attention deficit" leads to unnecessary stigma and marginalization.
> The hyper focus you described is just as uncontrolled and pathological as lack of attention.
I didn't say it was controlled or healthy. I said it was evidence that people with so called attention deficit were, in fact, capable of paying attention. And it is.
> You think that's evidence I _don't_ have an attention disorder?
Nobody claimed that.
> Stop spreading medical misinformation. You're extremely uninformed.
> Here are some lectures
Refer to lecture "Why is ADHD considered a disorder?".
When does it become a disorder? When it starts causing harm, adverse consequences, for the individual. When the environment starts kicking back.
In other words, if you can adapt the environment so that it doesn't kick back at the patient, harm is mitigated.
In other words, ADHD patients might adapt reasonably well to certain environments and not others, and we can reduce impairment by putting patients in an environment that is stimulating for them.
This logic is not even unique to ADHD. Numerous diseases have adaptation of the environmental as a vital part of the non-pharmacological treatment. For example, adapting the environment is vital for preventing falls in elderly patients.
So I don't see where the lectures disagree with me. I shadowed a neurologist who specialized in ADHD patients, he combined pharmacological treatment with this environmental approach and it was very successful. Schools labeling kids as problematic was a huge problem for us.
I claimed it's not the "attention deficit" people think it is. People with ADHD are clearly able focus when the subject is interesting enough to them. That's a huge contradiction. The truth is probably that school is way too boring for them.
I think signal to noise ratio is a good analogy. People with ADHD are easily distracted by noisy stimuli and need disproportionally high signal to focus. Society consistently fails to provide high enough SNR then labels neurodivergent people as problematic.
ADHD discussions always remind me of this article:
https://www.marktarver.com/bipolar.html
I think the bipolar diagnosis is off the mark. Substitute bipolar with ADHD though and the profile fits quite well.