As an individual who was actually diagnosed with ADHD, I have an axe to grind with a medical industry that sold me amphetamines at 15. The results were ~nugatory~ at best.
I'm sorry to hear that you were diagnosed by an incompetent psychiatric physician, but I would hope you don't use your misfortune as fuel for spreading superstitious, anti-science anti-ADHD-medicine hysteria, there's enough of that out there already.
Given the uncertain pathophysiology of ADHD, the degree to which symptoms resemble moral judgements, the dramatic increase in diagnosis following advocacy in the psychiatric community, and questionable improvement of long-term outcomes for patients treated with medication, ADHD is seen by them as a good example of this point of view. I assume that's what he was alluding to.
Is debate allowed about in science anymore? It seems that everyone who disagrees with the status quo is branded as anti-science, therefore destroying all chances for a constructive discussion.
I've always seen debate as the fundamental principle of advancing science (and have no idea what Popper may think on the subject).
> Is debate allowed about in science anymore?
Of the type we are discussing? It's never been allowed. It's always been discouraged. You can see similar types of debates when people talk about teaching the controversy.
In fact, science is not about debate. It's about presenting facts in support of an argument. Merely arguing is pointless.
What science "is" is a subjective opinion, and there are many different claims what science really is. In my opinion debate is important to science. In addition, 'presenting facts in support of an argument' is debating in my opinion.
Anyways, I'm not about to explain why allowing holocaust denialists equal time is a silly proposition.
So let's find some quieter common ground:
A class of prescription psychoactive drugs are increasingly being used by tens of millions. They substantially alter the motivation systems of the human brain, have a poorly understood method of action, are extremely easily and inexpensively sourced from the graymarket, and are being issued to children as young as five. Off-label use is increasing to the point where it's omnipresent in high-pressure social arenas.
There are no social rituals or consumption contexts that retard use of these amphetamines - they're privately consumed as "medication" (therefore perceived as "undangerous" and "acceptable") in a way that street drugs would never be considered.
But the results are the same. They're the same for ADHD folks, they're the same for non-ADHD folks, they're the same for the habitual user, and they're the same for the occasional user. Ferocious forever focus! ...for a while... with a comedown. And then: more?
The end-game for every single one of these users is potentially the same. Five years old with ADHD, 24 years old trying to make it in NYC, whatever. It's habit forming, excessive use comes with a boatload of major side effects, and it's directly monkeying with a core part of the human psyche for a sprawling number of reasons, all of them social in nature.
We're doing something new and big here as a society, and it's worth discussing.
> But the results are the same. They're
> the same for ADHD folks, they're the
> same for non-ADHD folks...
It's kind of like saying that platform shoes make everybody taller. Yes, they do, but some people need platform shoes just to reach an "average" height.
(To be clear, I'm not a medical professional)
For someone with ADHD, a single Adderall isn't going to make them stay up all night. It isn't going to cause them to stop eating. There is no "razor sharp infinite focus".
Instead, it just brings things up to normal. Rather than being unable to even have a chance to focus, the possibility now exists.
Where did you get this from? Using psychostimulants to treat ADHD is one of the most researched treatments in psychiatry. We've been prescribing Adderall for almost 100 years now. We know it works, and it works well when prescribed correctly.
Either way, if you want drugs to get up in arms about, better choices are SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics. Those are the drugs with poorly understood mechanisms of action that are given to way too many people.
This woman shared her negative experiences related to abusing Adderall. Note that she was never even really diagnosed with ADHD (and she makes mention of this fact). This is clearly an essay about the dangers of addiction and substance abuse, not about the dangers of Adderall. Perhaps secondary themes might be the disturbing "performance at all costs" attitude found in many workplaces and the ease with which legal drugs can be obtained without proper diagnosis.
These are real problems for society. The fact that the illiterate take the wrong message from something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be published.
Anyhow, I'm only the second person in my extended family to not have gone to college. If I performed in school how I perform now (when I am medicated) I would have done very well in high school, I would have gone to college, and I probably would have done pretty okay.
But, then I would have graduated to the work force in 2001-2002 rather than in 1997.
do you see the problem here?
in 1997, I was able to get a programming job, essentially on enthusiasm. In 2001-2002? I would have spent considerable time unemployed, even with a degree.
(of course, that was just pure luck)
But yeah. I'm glad that the crutch is available to me now.
If you were born 2-3 years later you would have been writing a thoroughly different comment.
As a matter of fact, there is very likely someone who made a similar choice like you, only his time line was shifted forward a few years.
His outcomes would be remarkably worse than yours. Not only would he have never gone to college, he would also have an non-competitive start in a tough environment.
Oh yeah, that guy worked for me for a short period of time. He got a better job (first at hostgator, then at some fairly well-known generic-sounding consulting house) very shortly afterwards. He mostly just needed /something/ to put on the resume so people didn't give him shit about the empty years.
But yea, random chance is absolutely huge, and I got lucky.
>His outcomes would be remarkably worse than yours. Not only would he have never gone to college, he would also have an non-competitive start in a tough environment.
College isn't one of those 'once in a lifetime' chances; I mean, unless you have parents or something that are willing to pay for it out of high school but not willing to pay for it a few years later, you /can/ go back a few years later. I think it's pretty destructive that the choice is presented to 17 year olds as "go to college now, or suffer forever because you did not!"
Really, if I had to do my life over with what I know now? I would have spent much of the .com crash trying to go to college. I dono if I would have done very well, but I was much better equipped then than I was right out of high school. (well, that, or staying at MAPS. I don't know if I could have handled it, but if I could have, I would have been a thousand times better off than I was hiding out where I did.)
I mean, my main takaway there? even authority figures that genuinely care about and want to do right by you often give bad advice. Your life gets vastly better once you gain self-determinism.