All of fraa's Comments + Replies

  1. Yes, I made an account shortly after I read HPatMoR.
  2. I've been taking peeks here and there. I mean I was aware of Less Wrong existing before. I've read stuff by Eliezer before, specifically the first contact story, and I found it fun if extremely formulaic and didactic. It was a pleasant surprise for me, that I could find something so stilted so fun.
  3. I haven't noticed anything I haven't heard of before.
  4. I've referred people to HPatMoR but not LW.

Yes, I'm sorry, I had a mini-panic episode. It's absurd for me to react in these ways, all my posting so far was automatic talk which I didn't actually think. I'm still recovering from years of untreated anxiety and ADHD. I will post something coherent when I'm better.

I upvoted all your comments, and I understand completely: you're saying that ADHD is an accepted clinical diagnosis and that you don't think people here would agree with the bizarre, lunatic-fringe conspiracy theory that it's just a way of drugging kids who misbehave. Unfortunately, there are even people here who believe in 9/11 conspiracies, so don't get your hopes too high.

If after my reply you still can't tell, then I'd better not post here. It's better for both me and this community.

Someone other than me should say this, but: please don't let one person drive you away. It's just that the comments you've made so far on LW are all at least a step removed from actually telling what you think and why.

What on Earth made you think this is some argument? I was making an observation, that I don't see why he is fearful of quacks/homeopaths/nutritionists here, this seems like the last place you could find them. People who assume everything on the Internet is an argument, well it says a lot about them.

I suspect we may attach different meanings to the word "argument". I meant only "a contribution to a useful discussion". mattnewport linked to a section of a Wikipedia article discussing controversies about ADHD, which itself links to a longer Wikipedia article [] devoted to those controversies. The references there (some hundreds) make it clear that there are in fact controversies about ADHD, even among professionals within the field of psychiatry. Your response is merely to claim that: I can't even tell from that whether you think there is such a condition or there isn't.

I am a bit confused OTOH why non-ADHD people (without akrasia, a term I just learned here on this webssite) find such questions interesting at all. To me, no matter what "system of morals" you may have, it's mostly useless thinking, because it's not like what I do depends that much on what I actually want to do, in my self-awareness.

So true. That's what akrasia is. But I'd be surprised if there were people who didn't experience that at least a little bit.

ADHD is controversial only among anti-rationalists, and this is a place for rationalists to gather so... I'm not sure why you said that.

Does the belief that ADHD does or does not exist pay rent []? Psychiatric diagnoses are the map; patterns of thought are territory. Society has certain rules that can make it expedient or inexpedient to call a particular similarity cluster [] a "disease" or "medical condition", but what really matters is whether a given intervention (medication, psychotherapy, etc.) is or isn't beneficial.
He said why: the reasons that mattnewport linked to. But you have given no reason for your opposite view. (Calling people "anti-rationalists" is not an argument.)