> If you don't know this stuff first hand, please refrain from making broad statements about it.
Unless all the kids illegally buying ADHD meds to do better in school when they have not been diagnosed with ADHD (and adults doing the same, for that matter, to do better at work) are doing that for no reason, I'm pretty sure I'm correct that amphetamines improve performance for most everyone, and that distinguishing between ADHD-and-improved-on-meds and not-ADHD-and-improved-on-meds is not trivial.
I was replying to a post that read:
> If they're on stims in particular, and the meds actually improve their behavior, then the cause most likely isn't insufficient PE time.
I object to that being proof of much other than amphetamines making most people perform better in school, without commenting on whether ADHD is a "real" thing (I'm not even sure what it would even mean for it not to be "real", given the state of our understanding and diagnosis of mental disorders). "We gave the kid amphetamines and they improved, must have had ADHD" is dangerously misguided.
Unless all the kids illegally buying ADHD meds to do better in school when they have not been diagnosed with ADHD (and adults doing the same, for that matter, to do better at work) are doing that for no reason, I'm pretty sure I'm correct that amphetamines improve performance for most everyone, and that distinguishing between ADHD-and-improved-on-meds and not-ADHD-and-improved-on-meds is not trivial.
I was replying to a post that read:
> If they're on stims in particular, and the meds actually improve their behavior, then the cause most likely isn't insufficient PE time.
I object to that being proof of much other than amphetamines making most people perform better in school, without commenting on whether ADHD is a "real" thing (I'm not even sure what it would even mean for it not to be "real", given the state of our understanding and diagnosis of mental disorders). "We gave the kid amphetamines and they improved, must have had ADHD" is dangerously misguided.