[corobo]

Is this actually a definition though? ADHD seems to be more a list of symptoms and then if you have enough of them yup you've got the ADHD, here's some treatments that might work or not.

I don't mean the current definition or diagnosis, if diagnoses were locked in forever we'd still be on the first DSM, I mean an actual explanation for the disorder.

Currently it feels like the equivalent of diagnosing diabetes by making a list of symptoms like "dies when eats too much sugar", "went a bit blind with no other explanation", "is super thirsty all the time" and if you tick enough of the boxes they'll try injecting you with insulin and that may or may not treat the symptoms.

Is there an actual diagnosis or agreed upon description that is the equivalent to diabetes' "either the pancreas not producing enough insulin, or the cells of the body becoming unresponsive to the hormone's effects"?

That's what I mean when I say there's no agreed upon diagnosis - yes technically a doctor will say you've got it and yes technically that's a diagnosis but it's still a little archaic in that the diagnosis comes from checking enough boxes from a list of symptoms rather than telling you the actual root cause of the disorder