Grief gets an expiration date, just like us

I'm so sorry for your loss. I agree with what you say about "disordered", the language is hostile.

In a less morbid area, I feel the same way about ADHD - "attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder". For some people this is problematic, but others can function fine and happily with this.

In those cases, why is it a "disorder"? Why can't it just be "how some people are"?

I think there's something of a pendulum here, and I agree it's swayed too far to over-diagnosing ourselves. But I also think of my father who passed a couple years ago.

We didn't have much of a relationship. He had friends, but never close ones. He was weirdly mean or weirdly seclusive or weirdly awkward at times - and also incredibly intelligent and occasionally gracious and hilarious.

After he passed, I wondered if he might have been somewhere on the spectrum - but his peculiarities were simply ignored. A poor boy, in a poor urban neighborhood, with a dead father, being raised by an immigrant mother and immigrant siblings doesn't get diagnosed with much of anything - if they see doctors at all. And hey, he had a near photographic memory, and did great in school, so what's there to worry about?

It's always been "how he was", and that's probably ok, but I do wonder if he would have had a better or somehow different life if he knew more about _why_ he was the way he was.

In my understanding ADHD is one of the few conditions that is extremely well studied and consistently appears to be a certain % of the population regardless of nationality with very strongly correlated negative outcomes with their suite of symptoms. I'm talking addition, obesity, and a shortened lifespan directly related to their ADHD. This seems like a disorder to me. If someone has attention difficulties and can function fine they obviously don't have a disorder vs someone who has attention difficulties and as a result becomes addicted to cocaine.

Function in what context? I have been diagnosed with ADHD at age seven. I have had many checkups and am currently medicated. I can tell you that I wouldn't need to if I didn't have to work a menial wageslave job. Interestingly I can focus perfectly fine when doing interesting stuff without medication and it has always been this way. What you are saying is that there is some proper definition of disorder, which would sensibly be defined relative to some "normal" human baseline. Tell me you know one "normal" human, why you see this person as "normal" and how it would be useful to use this as a reference for the big spectrum of human personality and mental fitness. I can tell you from experience that I didn't need medication when I wasn't forced to attend 12 useless meetings a week, use inefficient and stupid software and one would just let me get my shit done. I have quite a few friends who have had very similar experiences, and the idea of ADHD is just used to pathologize and medicate someone so he can work and be a "positive contributor" to whoever above them. Add here the necessary disclaimer that my experience is not universal and there may be people gravely suffering from it, etc. I do too, even with medication, but at least I can generate some bucks for management.

> In those cases, why is it a "disorder"? Why can't it just be "how some people are"?

It often is:

> It can be helpful to think of ADHD not just as a deficit or disorder but as a ‘difference’.

Especially as it seems to come with positive traits! It goes on to list focus, responding well in a crisis and creativity as common ADHD traits.

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mental-health/mental-illnesses-and...

And what I know with ADHD is that the incapacity to handle dumb meetings is just one definition of functioning. Maybe you don't need medication to clean yourself enough to prevent skin issues, prevent addiction to substances, compulsive criminal behavior, avoid hoarding behaviors, have a safe living space, have the capacity to maintain friendships/avoid loneliness, engage with social interactions in a mutually respectful manner etc. But most people I know with ADHD severely struggle with at least one of the above and I consider that functioning, not just holding down a job. My understanding is not on the level of "can you do bullshit work" but it is "can you clean your dishes before they stink" and "can you respond to being turned down by a girl without blowing up your life".

Tell them to use disposable plates or foil over their planes. Works wonders

I'd be willing to bet that there's some percentage of people who don't have ADHD, but they're also not capable of adapting to and meeting the unnatural demands school and work place on everyone and so they struggle in those environments where most people don't. ADHD medication still helps them overcome that difficultly and those medications can make a huge positive impact on their lives as a result. I'm okay with that.

Maybe we should have a different diagnosis for those kinds of people entirely and leave ADHD to the folks who couldn't accomplish what they wanted to do even if they never had to work, go to school, or follow a schedule set by another person. In the end though, what you call it doesn't matter. Both situations are thankfully improved through the use of the same types of medications. Medications which are pretty safe and can mean the difference between being able to support yourself or failing to.

I'm okay with a wider spectrum of people falling under the ADHD umbrella even if some of them don't like being lumped in with people who really do have an executive function disorder. Odds are good those people wouldn't like whatever new label doctors came up with to describe them either. It'll pretty much always carry negative connotations because ultimately, it means that you don't have it in you to do what most people are able to do just fine.

I'm autistic which is also a disorder. Like ADHD it's a neurodevelopmental disorder because from a scientific and medical POV the brain developed abnormally compared to a neurotypical person's brain.

I guess your point is why does it require a label at all but science abhors a taxonomic vacuum, everything must be classified and if so I'd rather it be a disorder than a disease or illness.

Of course this opinion is just mine, I have no idea how other autistic or adhd people see this as I don't keep up with the neurodiverse community and what words are considered good or bad.

>> For some people this is problematic, but others can function fine and happily with this.

In that case I would say it’s not ADHD, which as its name suggests is disordered. If the ADH part isn’t negatively impacting your life why would it require a diagnosis?

The DSM-5 defines ADHD as "A persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development". If you're functioning fine, then by definition you don't have ADHD.