r/adhd must be one of the most annoying subreddits, lmao

[prince of shitskins]

there's no point in refuting conjecture



autism cant be clearly defined, so pathologizing behaviors in the context of the condition is pointless

case in point: two people diagnosed with "autism"



v.s.



(i feel bad for the kid, but c'mon)

people will say the condition is an interstellar tesseract tier spectrum, but that's just fucking retarded. what's the point of putting people who are vastly different in everyway under the same umbrella? obviously, the original reason was to push pharmaceuticals on as many kids as possible; but now people just go along with it for the sake of social cohesion or to derive a false sense of superiority, there are many more reasons, but that's a whole other topic

what's the difference between autism and mental retardation?

you can prescribe pills for autism, and nobody will question it... where mental retardation is largely seen as a permanent state of slowness that nothing can be done about


*define what autism is
*define how to test for it & control for false positives/negatives

the meaning intented by the psychiatrist can't be a conjecture. this only caught my attention because explains some recent phenomenons really well 

The term autism first was used by psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in 1908. He used it to describe a schizophrenic patient who had withdrawn into his own world. The Greek word ''autós'' meant self and the word “autism” was used by Bleuler to mean morbid self-admiration and withdrawal within self.

 




multiple birds, one stone

yeah, i mean, you can define something and call it X, but how do you actually quantify the constitutions of X accurately enough to the point it warrants a medical diagnosis? leaving it up to random psychiatrists that are subject to human bias is just foolhardy



classifying people as this or that is very appealing, but it rarely has any basis in reality

why make such an extreme statement? by your logic, people cannot be classified as anything at all. isnt it a more reasonable position to just say that occasionally psychiatrists create arbitrary conditions (as opposed to usually)?

just because you cant define something sufficiently specific doesnt automatically invalidate something

i'm just saying people have confirmation biases which cloud rational judgement, everyone does it & 
there's no way around


but you're right

tbh, ive said it before, but the water is too muddied to have any productive conversation on this topic