[swombat]

I downmodded you for your willingness to diagnose ADHD in someone you don't know.

Most people have some mental quirks. The difference between a quirk (that doesn't need treatment) and a disorder (that needs treatment) is whether it is so disruptive that it prevents you from living a life which you consider normal.

Being easily distracted does not automatically imply that you should start a regular course of amphetamines prescribed by your neighbourhood friendly psychiatrist.

[rms]

...the poster is asking about stimulants and shows an interest in cognitive enhancement. He talks about being easily distracted. I'm not diagnosing him; that's up to a physician. I'm saying that if he's interested in these drugs, it's as easy as talking to a doctor because he probably could be diagnosed with ADHD if he is interested in stimulants. I take care to use the phrasing "meets the criteria for ADHD" because I don't think ADHD actually exists in the vast majority of cases, at least not as a disorder. Concentration and focus are a continuum, some are better at it than others and stimulants improve concentration for everyone

See an online ADHD inventory like this one: http://www.addresources.org/article_adhd_questionnaire_amen..... Western medicine has a very generous definition of adult ADHD -- if you get distracted easily as an adult, and had behavior problems OR organizational problems as a child in school, a doctor is likely to diagnose you with ADHD. This doesn't rise to the level of disorder in my opinion, but when the diagnosis is handed out so freely, stimulants are a safe, reliable method of cognitive enhancement. I am generally against our society's overmedication of children with stimulants without their consent, but as adults, we have the ability to make informed, rational decisions about the substances we put into our bodies.

This Nature article discusses some of the ethical issues behind cognitive enhancement in the healthy. http://www.scribd.com/doc/13134612/Naturrecom456702a