Joklem wrote:
I didn't suck in school, and I do even better today with stimulant medications. The disorder just made it more difficult than it should have been. Scored top 5 in my classes for my Master's and got hired to do research. I get to skip one year of the M.Sc and the thesis, straight to the Ph.D programme.
Again, many who committed what we today would consider to be malpractice or folly did pretty well in academic environments.
You could have achieved the same results through self-discipline, being disciplined by others, or simply desperation from having your back to the wall. The obvious fact that taking drugs affects your psychology doesn't make your self-serving interpretation of your weakness of character any more valid than the pothead who can't get out of bed because he has some unspecified illness.
Joklem wrote:
I had good, supportive parents, physical activity regularly since I'm a kid, good diet, etc.
I am also very ADHD. I just fucking deal with it. I'm also not the only example, one of 350 million as a fact, but I'm a good one.
Then ask yourself why. Perhaps life doesn't challenge you enough? Perhaps you are of weak character? Those issues can be confronted and overcome without resorting to chems or excuses.
I don't speak Greek or Latin very well, but I know that if I attended a Catholic school where I got my ass beat for not working as hard as I could, I'd learn the language, just like everyone else who goes through those meat grinder institutions. That doesn't mean I have a psychopathology because I don't have the self-discipline to push myself, just as you don't; I just know myself well, and choose not to hide behind psychobabble.
Joklem wrote:
Yes we did, you fucking moron. It's true that it was defined less than a century ago, but it's always been around. Bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia weren't always defined either, and they've always been around. Cancer wasn't always defined either, and it's always been around.
Your observation about cancer is wrong on two levels - it's always been known as a disease, but it used to be a lot less common.
Psychologists like to make this specious argument, "these things were always around". It's baseless. If you press them on the topic they react just like our friend here, which is they get all angry and self-righteous, and spew phrases like calling the layman an "ignoramous" or saying those case studies "got swept under the rug", which is really just a shill for circular logic - "we know they existed because we know them to exist".