That was my first thought. I only wish my type was to put in the work for a blog post instead of just thinking on it and getting overwhelmed with all I need to get done.
Have you got some fancy scroll thing for your blog? Something in my brain is noticing that scrolling feels smoother than your average site, though maybe im crazy.
Following through on the top comment, surely you realized when you decided to forgo the back half of the test that, had the program compensated for it, you were consciously leaning into the ADHD diagnosis, right?
ADHD is way more complex than just an attention issue, I mean just the amount of average daydreaming and "rumination" and the constant multi-threading of thoughts... is just next level, I believe it's not properly explained to outsiders that might just think that X guy just have a hard time going in the flow but in reality it's much more catastrophic than this and will create many more mental health issues if left unmanaged.
Most ADHD people that have jumped on some sort of strong treatment (stimulants in general) are discovering a new world in pretty much 1 hour, the first time the mind goes "quiet" is incredible. I advise everyone to read more on this website https://www.adxs.org/en - it's also friendly to scrape to be used with LLMs.
ADHD isn't a good thing to have imo, it's a serious dysfunction and it's sad to see that it's being romanticized lately in social media or plainly discredited by some people/media, and while treated ADHD can make you productive "all the time", you end up addicted and pretty much permanently require drugs to function well.
> it's a serious dysfunction and it's sad to see that it's being romanticized lately in social media or plainly discredited by some people/media
The author of the article is contributing to this by using their medical diagnosis to "outsmart" the system for writing material. Presenting a proper ADHD assessment as merely an online test just adds fuel to the fire (and if this is the only interaction they had I am skeptical of the assessment procedure).
> and while treated ADHD can make you productive "all the time", you end up addicted and pretty much permanently require drugs to function well
That's an unfair and sweeping characterization of the immediate therapeutic benefits and long-term health outcomes of individuals.
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.
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.
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
> > 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.
The medication is an actual addictive substance that is much more controlled than regular medications. You are not allowed to get an advance supply and your doctor has to sign off on all refills. In every interaction involving these substances, doctors are more concerned with losing their DEA license than the health of any patient.
There are plenty of reports online of people going into withdrawal because a paperwork snafu meant they couldn't get their refill on time that month, or they left their pills on a trip and their doctor won't help them get more. The system treats you as a drug seeking addict or dealer supplementing their income by diverting medication.
Yeah man I can go ahead and let you know early if you want.
Good to know that neurotypical people mostly likely test differently than I did.
But then I worried if my system worked, I would be misdiagnosed.
It didn’t work. I was 98th percentile.
Thanks for sharing this!
ADHD is way more complex than just an attention issue, I mean just the amount of average daydreaming and "rumination" and the constant multi-threading of thoughts... is just next level, I believe it's not properly explained to outsiders that might just think that X guy just have a hard time going in the flow but in reality it's much more catastrophic than this and will create many more mental health issues if left unmanaged.
Most ADHD people that have jumped on some sort of strong treatment (stimulants in general) are discovering a new world in pretty much 1 hour, the first time the mind goes "quiet" is incredible. I advise everyone to read more on this website https://www.adxs.org/en - it's also friendly to scrape to be used with LLMs.
ADHD isn't a good thing to have imo, it's a serious dysfunction and it's sad to see that it's being romanticized lately in social media or plainly discredited by some people/media, and while treated ADHD can make you productive "all the time", you end up addicted and pretty much permanently require drugs to function well.
The author of the article is contributing to this by using their medical diagnosis to "outsmart" the system for writing material. Presenting a proper ADHD assessment as merely an online test just adds fuel to the fire (and if this is the only interaction they had I am skeptical of the assessment procedure).
> and while treated ADHD can make you productive "all the time", you end up addicted and pretty much permanently require drugs to function well
That's an unfair and sweeping characterization of the immediate therapeutic benefits and long-term health outcomes of individuals.
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.
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.
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 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.
The medication is an actual addictive substance that is much more controlled than regular medications. You are not allowed to get an advance supply and your doctor has to sign off on all refills. In every interaction involving these substances, doctors are more concerned with losing their DEA license than the health of any patient.
There are plenty of reports online of people going into withdrawal because a paperwork snafu meant they couldn't get their refill on time that month, or they left their pills on a trip and their doctor won't help them get more. The system treats you as a drug seeking addict or dealer supplementing their income by diverting medication.
No? First, even when I was taking it almost every day for three years, I kept forgetting to take it. Today, my last refill was in February this year.
I recommend against raw-dogging reality with ADHD without meds. At least so you have baseline "this is what normal feels like"