[TeMPOraL]

One extra underappreciated benefit: you can tell the people saying you have a moral deficiency to shut up.

(Sometimes not directly in this antagonistic way; just telling you have a particular diagnosed condition can make the annoying people in your life suddenly very compassionate.)

[oeuviz]

I like to use that when discussing politics. Foreigners and refugees are a very frequent topic in Europe and after a while of listening to people's arguments for this and that I'd often say that I am both, a foreigner and ex refugee. This usualy leaves them stuttering.

[Grustaf]

It is true that people become more compassionate, but that seems like a bit of a fallacy.

-That guy is so abrupt and rude to people, I can’t stand him -Oh but he has ADHD -I see, then it’s ok

I don’t really see why flaws should become more acceptable if you give them a scientific sounding name. In the end life is not easy for anyone, we all need to struggle to remember everything, not lose our temper, stay positive etc. Sure it is especially hard for some people but Up to a point that is just a fact of life, it just means they need to work a bit harder.

Perhaps beyond a certain point you need to give people some slack, if they have amnesia or something, but I’m not sure it makes sense to accept that people “with ADHD” behave badly for example.

[TeMPOraL]

I think you may looking at the wrong disorder. ADHD in adults doesn't mean someone is rude (no more than a normie). But at least some forms of ADHD will make the person look like inherently lazy.

> I don’t really see why flaws should become more acceptable if you give them a scientific sounding name.

It's not that they should be, they just in practice are to most people, and this can be a lifeline, especially if depression is involved.

Personally, I believe some "flaws" (aspects that make it problematic for one to function) absolutely should be cut a lot of slack and approached from another angle. Social pressure - the kind of telling you to stop having a problem and get your shit together - works only for some things, and can make the issue worse in others (e.g. in depression, it not only won't help, it can drive patients to suicide).

> I’m not sure it makes sense to accept that people “with ADHD” behave badly for example

Beyond the point that most don't "behave badly" but rather "behave inconsistently if at all", it's a matter of what you mean by "accept". If "accept to your social circle"? You can do whatever. But if you want to help that person, you'll accept that these aspects are not effectively corrected by social pressure because they're beyond the person's control.

See also, Scott Alexander's old post:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/895quRDaK6gR2rM82/diseased-t...

Quoting the Summary section:

"People commonly debate whether social and mental conditions are real diseases. This masquerades as a medical question, but its implications are mainly social and ethical. We use the concept of disease to decide who gets sympathy, who gets blame, and who gets treatment.

Instead of continuing the fruitless "disease" argument, we should address these questions directly. Taking a determinist consequentialist position allows us to do so more effectively. We should blame and stigmatize people for conditions where blame and stigma are the most useful methods for curing or preventing the condition, and we should allow patients to seek treatment whenever it is available and effective."

[Grustaf]

First of all I'm not talking about depression, I'm talking about things like "ADHD".

My point is that many people, especially parents, tend to accept a lot of bad behaviour from people as soon as they mention some magical acronym.

If you accept that human neurology is a spectrum, then you realise that we all have different starting points. The question then becomes how much should society accommodate people with worse starting points, and I firmly believe that we are too accepting, and a lot of that is because people put scientific sounding names on their shortcomings.

[Grustaf]

I read the article and I don't think it adds much. My point is precisely that it doesn't matter whose fault it is that little Johnny can't concentrate, it's primarily his and his parents responsibility, and definitely their problem, to mitigate it.

Btw I don't even agree with the last paragraph. Stigma is not just about curing or punishing the stigmatised person, it is also about sending a message to others. I would say that it is its primary function.