Just like you could take someone not particularly inclined to get cancer and pump them full of unfiltered sunlight and cigarettes and probably give them cancer, I think you can get AD(H)D from just about anyone with the right kind of stimulus, and there's no better attention-unsettling stimulus than modern media.
But whatever the era of media (modern or say 1980s) you're talking about the thing that's setting the pace, that's deciding what's the "normal" rate of speech and the "normal" length of an attention span, what's a "normal" amount of time to spend sitting and focused on a single story, and so on. So normal is always a moving target.
If you're not happy with the pace at which your brain moves, then by all means take steps to change it. But pharma is probably not the best solution. Again, I could take someone not particularly inclined towards obesity and with a high-calorie diet make them obese; if I did that, the best "solution" to that obesity wouldn't be SPEED, although doctors have prescribed amphetamines for weight loss for most of the past century. The best "solution" would be to give them control over their diet so they could make the choices that make them feel good.
People I know who are diagnosed with ADHD are happy to have the diagnosis because they don't feel good. They want a change, and having a label feels like the start of a change. I'm all about change, but I hate labels. I think the changes are habits of mind, life, routine, and the degree to which we internalize the "social metronome" that's always clicking way too fast.
If you can resist the beat, if you are arrogant, bull-headed, and self-directed, being "polyfocal" doesn't feel bad. It feels awesome. It means your mind is always making new connections and seeing new possibilities. It means you can see the details and the universe at once. It means you jump on ideas when you have them and you discover old ideas you half-finished just lying around. Life is a garden of wonder and delight.
Wonder and delight, IF you're a resistant, arrogant, bull-headed, self-directed polyfocal -- if you're more conformist, if your self-esteem is wobbly, if you like to go with the flow, if you prefer to follow rather than lead, then it looks to me like it must be hell. And I can completely understand why someone would complain.
But I'd still recommend resisting the external forces, following your own mind, believing in your genius, and cutting against the tide. It's more fun.
Just like you could take someone not particularly inclined to get cancer and pump them full of unfiltered sunlight and cigarettes and probably give them cancer, I think you can get AD(H)D from just about anyone with the right kind of stimulus, and there's no better attention-unsettling stimulus than modern media.
But whatever the era of media (modern or say 1980s) you're talking about the thing that's setting the pace, that's deciding what's the "normal" rate of speech and the "normal" length of an attention span, what's a "normal" amount of time to spend sitting and focused on a single story, and so on. So normal is always a moving target.
If you're not happy with the pace at which your brain moves, then by all means take steps to change it. But pharma is probably not the best solution. Again, I could take someone not particularly inclined towards obesity and with a high-calorie diet make them obese; if I did that, the best "solution" to that obesity wouldn't be SPEED, although doctors have prescribed amphetamines for weight loss for most of the past century. The best "solution" would be to give them control over their diet so they could make the choices that make them feel good.
People I know who are diagnosed with ADHD are happy to have the diagnosis because they don't feel good. They want a change, and having a label feels like the start of a change. I'm all about change, but I hate labels. I think the changes are habits of mind, life, routine, and the degree to which we internalize the "social metronome" that's always clicking way too fast.
If you can resist the beat, if you are arrogant, bull-headed, and self-directed, being "polyfocal" doesn't feel bad. It feels awesome. It means your mind is always making new connections and seeing new possibilities. It means you can see the details and the universe at once. It means you jump on ideas when you have them and you discover old ideas you half-finished just lying around. Life is a garden of wonder and delight.
Wonder and delight, IF you're a resistant, arrogant, bull-headed, self-directed polyfocal -- if you're more conformist, if your self-esteem is wobbly, if you like to go with the flow, if you prefer to follow rather than lead, then it looks to me like it must be hell. And I can completely understand why someone would complain.
But I'd still recommend resisting the external forces, following your own mind, believing in your genius, and cutting against the tide. It's more fun.