As the rare person who is both fully convinced that ADHD is real/treated successfully with stims but who also has decided not to use them anymore, I feel called out.

This article is overly long and not sufficiently informed by the history of stimulant use and ADHD diagnosis, and instead tries to derive history from first principles. I read it a long time ago and I ain't reading it again because fuck that.

If you want a good accounting of the 'what if we're overdiagnosing ADHD' argument, ADHD nation is much better researched than Scott's post, and dives into the history of ADHD as a diagnosis and the era of stimulant use before it was as tightly controlled a substance. l don't endorse it's conclusions, but if you want a background on the topic, it's better than whatever this is.

There's a schism in the online disability rights community between people who favor an extreme flavor of the social model (somewhat advocated in Scott's 'man was not made to program or account' argument) and people who are very adamant that they have an intrinsic disability which must be medicalized.

I think both are a symptom of just how common the diagnosis is and what a wide swath of human behavior it covers, but I'm not sure that's all. My sibling and I both have an ADHD dx and scrip; my sibling still takes it and is basically non-functional without it; I have instead adapted my life to avoid a total lack of executive function creating too many issues.* I do not require stimulants to program for hours, but my sibling has difficulty focusing even with the aid of stimulants. I was diagnosed earlier because I was a rambunctious boy and she was a girl so when she couldn't focus on math class, the way she tells it, they just shrugged and assumed she was bad at math.

• Posting a lot notwithstanding