I have always had ADHD, but I had zero access to mental health care when growing up. I was lucky because I'm really good at math (including competition-style math) and computer science, so it did not cause a _lot_ of issues at that time.
Over time, I adapted on my own. E.g. by buying several sets of things like scissors and screwdrivers so that I don't end up misplacing _all_ of them. Or by structuring the work so that I can switch attention between high-priority tasks.
> If you don't believe you have it, was this why you didn't previously consider taking performance-enhancing drugs?
I was really apprehensive about using mind-altering drugs, and amphetamines always sounded pretty scary.
On a more philosophical basis, should performance-enhancing drugs be available more widely anyway, with appropriate safeguards against abuse?
> On a more philosophical basis, should performance-enhancing drugs be available more widely anyway, with appropriate safeguards against abuse?
I recently came across this article discussing a study which found that stimulants lower productivity in people without ADHD.
> “Our results suggest that these drugs don’t actually make you ‘smarter’,” said Bossaerts. “Because of the dopamine the drugs induce, we expected to see increased motivation, and they do motivate one to try harder. However, we discovered that this exertion caused more erratic thinking — in ways that we could make precise because the knapsack task had been widely studied in computer science.
> “Our research shows drugs that are expected to improve cognitive performance in patients may actually be leading to healthy users working harder while producing a lower quality of work in a longer amount of time,” said Bowman.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/smart-drugs-can-decrease...
This study had just 40 participants and the study design was not great.
But I agree, that's a good argument against drugs.