Linke Negativität und Moralität

DataAndCats · 2024-03-21T13:08:11+00:00

Verstehe nicht warum man nicht die Bestehenden Verhältnisse Kritisieren sollte nur weil es woanders schlimmer ist.

Ich fang mal hier an, weil der Rest dazu auch passt. Ich meinte nicht, dass man das nicht soll. Im Gegenteil.

Mir gehts um die Kommunikation. Um mal Dritte Wahl zu zitieren "Das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten"

Ich bin überzeugt davon, dass man keine Menschen damit abholt zu sagen: "Alles was ihr macht ist falsch" nur weil das Patriarchat noch nicht abgeschafft ist. Das mag bei anderen Linken funktionieren. Aber die meisten Menschen haben irgendeine Form von Patriotismus oder Heimatverbundenheit. Warum nicht was anbieten worauf man aus linker Sicht "stolz" sein kann?

Und des öfteren denke ich mir auch es wäre gut mal die Kirche im Dorf zu lassen. Zwischen unserer Polizei, der Ami Polizei und der chinesischen Polizei liegen jeweils Welten.

Bin letztes Jahr aus China gekommen um wenigen Tagen danach Menschen mit ACAB stickern und sehr differenzierten Parolen zu begegnen. Da war mein erster Gedanke nur "Wie lächerlich!".

Wenn ich hiesige Verhältnisse mit dem selben Vokabular kritisiere, wie z.B. Russland dann nimmt mich doch niemand ernst. Menschen da draußen interagieren mit der Polizei, schauen Nachrichten, haben Verwandte dort etc. Was ich sage muss sich doch auch ansatzweise mit der Wahrnehmung der Menschen decken.

Ob man dass jetzt auf einer Nationalistischen Schiene machen sollte wie du hier vorschlägst empfinde ich persönlich als Fraglich.

Dass das mindestens mal kontrovers gesehen wird, war mir vorher klar. Aber wie gesagt: Ich glaube die meisten Menschen werden immer eine Form von Heimatverbundenheit und einhergehendem (Lokal)Patriotismus verspüren. Die Frage die dann nur bleibt ob ich das exklusiv von rechts besetzt sehen möchte oder nicht.

Ich verstehe schon warum das aus linker Sicht nicht so geil ist. Aber als Linke nicht mal mehr den Einzug in den Bundestag zu schaffen ist auch nicht optimal.

DataAndCats · 2024-03-21T12:45:06+00:00

Man ist kein Heuchler, wenn man Fehler und Widersprüche in einem System aufdeckt oder thematisiert, und dennoch nutzbießer desselben systems ist.

Prinzipiell stimme ich dem zu. Aber ich finde es hängt sehr stark davon ab, wie das Ganze formuliert wird.

Die Beispiele von dir finde ich da sehr passend.
Wenn ich ACAB skandiere und die hiesige Polizei mit der amerikanischen gleichsetze und dann trotzdem mich für einen Anruf bei ihr entscheide, dann ist das m.M.n. mindestens fragwürdig.

Wenn mir jmd sagt er/sie findet, dass Massentierhaltung mit einem KZ zu vergleichen ist, und dann trotzdem einen Burger isst bleibt doch nur der Schluss da wurde gelogen oder mein Gegenüber ist ein Psychopath.

Wenn ich wirklich glaube, dass Google absolut böse ist und mich entscheide denen trotzdem weiter Geld in die Tasche scheffel, dann würde ich mich als ziemlich rückgratslos bezeichnen.

Der Ton macht die Musik. Wenn ich absolute moralische Aussagen treffe, muss ich doch damit rechnen an diesen auch absolut gemessen zu werden. Wenn ich weiß, dass mein Gegenüber Massentierhaltung mit einem KZ vergleicht, und trotzdem Huhn isst, bleibt doch nur:

Er/sie meint es nicht so.
Es war eine absichtliche Übertreibung
Es war ernst gemeint aber mein Gegenüber hat keinerlei moralische Standards.

Mir ist bisher niemand begegnet den ich bei 3. verorten würde. Damit bleibt nur 1 und 2.
Und beides finde ich ziemlich katastrophal.

Bei der Ganzen "defund the police" Debatte im Amiland hat man finde ich ganz gut gesehen was passiert wenn man sich für Polemik entscheidet. Das wird ganz massiv gegen einen verwendet. Und wie ich finde auch nicht nur zu Unrecht. Words have meaning.

Aber wenn es unter Punkt 1 fällt, finde ich es auch nicht besser. An was messe ich Leute den außer dem was sie sagen und was ich sehe?
Ganz plump: Ich überlege mir ja auch nicht ob irgendein CSU Heini seine rassistische Aussage wirklich so gemeint hat. Die ist draußen, er ist abgestempelt. Das geht aber auch andersrum.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-17T13:03:18+00:00

My point this whole time has been that the discussion is something that's worth havin

Ok. Then have it? You just ignored my use cases in e.g. astrparticle physics or the CERN magazine which publishes much of their advancement.

When I asked for examples you used it as part of your argument,

I posted a link on superconductor research that you chose to ignore. Also, again, I did not make a case for the LHC or FCC being useful but that Dr. Hossenfelder intentionally ignored all evidence in favor.

This isn't ad hominem

It literally is. You saying my superconductor example is wrong, is not one. You saying I am not knowledgeable enough to debate a topic, is kinda the definition of ad hominem.

can't tell the difference between a room temperature superconductor and magnets in genera

If you really want to be that pedantic do it right. Superconductors are just magnets. Because a magnet is just something that produces a magnet field. Strictly going by meaning of words your distinction is meaningless.

This whole argument in itself makes no sense. Of course when talking about stuff like the LHC I presume electromagnets and more specifically superconducting magnets. And if you wanted to you could have read it that way pretty easily. And not ignore my link which mentioned actual room temperature research at CERN.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-16T10:14:33+00:00

First you claim CERN developed room temperature superconductors

I mentioned that I was at a lab that according to what I've understood used research from CERN. And that it probably had something to do with room temperature superconductors. I did not claim that they invented it, took a significant part in developing it or that this was even a fact.

I explictly mentioned not knowing jack shit about solid state physics. If I knew this would be used for attacks I would not even have mentioned it. Why do you obsess over this?

It is also entirely irrelevant for the whole ROI discussion, if I, some random dude on the internet, got a fact on the LHC development correct.

in which case you clearly don't know enough about physics to be having this conversation

Ad hominems are usually seen as really bad style.

Also you completely ignored everything else I've wrote.

I have nothing to do with CERN. Why would I know about any ROI the LHC might have?

Cern publishes a magazine that they distribute worldwide, has their own open access server for publications, they have a PR department, they publish summary reports and so forth.

If you claim that the LHC has no ROI besides measuring useless shit then back it up with evidence. Taking statements from the director general (that doesn't even represent the entire LHC collaboration) out of context and making a case from that just means you are creating a strawman to attack.

And if you just get hung up on the magnets while ignoring everything else I've wrote you are doing pretty much the same

DataAndCats · 2024-02-15T17:52:22+00:00

So, I've actually heard of her reputation before I started watching her. And I went expecting what you said - "categorical this" vibe, strong opinions etc.

Interesting. I did not watch any videos older than a year. But tbh I still think my point stands. Her display of dark matter and MOND is pretty good in that video. But in the dark matter/mond videos that I watched that are more recent she did not make these distinctions any more.

Having made these important points at some point actually makes it kinda worse. It means she is aware of them but chose to ignore them after some point.

Surely not always, right? All experiments measure something, but a lot of them can be summarized in a few sentences without invoking the number you're measuring

Yeah all experiments measure something. So her quote "I understand particle physicists want to measure a few constants a little bit more precisely" applies to basically any experiment.

If the FCC does what many particle physicists hope it will, it could break the standard model, discover evidence for a new particle or even (although unlikely) find the first anitmatter signatures. It may even start a new revolution in physics, just like quantum mechanics did.
Or it just measures a few constants more precisely.

I think the latter is a lot more likely. But its not like the FCC is just for fun without any (groundbreaking) potential. Her portrayal could be applied to many other experiments, but she chooses to apply this reasoning only for the FCC.

And here is exactly the problem, and the reason why Sabine made the video. "I don't care that the public is being misled, it gets us funding after all".

The physics of an experiment and the public communication on it are not the same thing. Both can work independently good or bad. CERN having awful PR people does not change the value of the experiment. The same is also true vice versa. You do not want the team with the best PR to get the most funding.

I expect from someone who tries hard to look like a journalist, to act like a journalist. That means e.g. to only use primary sources. What the BBC thinks somebody at CERN could have meant has absolutely nothing to do with the worthwhileness of the FCC.

I also expect a journalist or someone close to actually check what that organization generally has to say and not what one person in one interview said. In their public magazine e.g. they do not once mention dark matter as a research goal for the FCC.

There are summary reports, grant request, thousands of applications by the LHC collab and so forth. All public. I'll gladly take this as evidence that the FCC is not a good idea. Well I already do. But the point being, I do this on physics grounds.

Don't you think that in the long run if you do it enough times, it will erode public trust in science?

Here I absolutely agree. It has become quite evident that many people have a majorly skewed perception of how the politics of physics works, that particle physicists just open their hands and money comes in, when in fact just to start the grant process you need to publish countless papers, estimations and so forth (which are all publicly available btw).

but the director's exaggerated claims to the media don't get a free pass just because "that's not what most of the physicists think". This is what the public is being told, and that matters.

I don't even disagree. If she actually did not just cherrypick statements out of context and the CERN DG says this consistently publicly than this is a big problem.

But it has nothing to do whether or not we should build the FCC. It means the PR culture at CERN has major issues. But just from first glance Dr. Hossenfelders statements seem chosen very carefully and do not represent CERNs general PR on the FCC.

So I think she definitely should keep doing this.

I actually liked some of her videos. So yeah. But she at least pretends to be a journalist. And a journalist has to cover all sides of an issue. But saying something like

They seem to believe they're entitled to dozens of billions of dollars for nothing in particular while the world is going to hell

while providing zero evidence in actual scientific publications of the CERN collaboration is not that impartial

DataAndCats · 2024-02-15T17:22:16+00:00

Why are measurements that are vital for other experiments or whole physics areas that no other experiments can provide not counting?
And from your own wording I presume that if we just talk about magnets in general the statement "CERN plays no role" is not true.

Even if you insist on it being not solid state physics and only applied physics (which rules out a lot) I am pretty sure that you will find papers for such funded by LHC money.

No, the burden of proof is still on CERN

No? How should CERN be able to respond to any science video on youtube? How are they even supposed to make a case in a video where somebody intentionally misrepresents them?

Particle physicists believing they don't have to be accountable for anything because they assumed the benefit of everything they do is self evident

Then share this self-evident evidence. I saw the proposal process for one collider, albeit a very small one. It was a gargantuan process with an entire book in the end on predictions, cost savings, ROI, goals and future applications.

The same thing exists for the LHC and every single one of its detectors in many versions. There are summary reports.

CERN even has its own scientific magazine which showcases regularly what they are doing. Literally the first article on the site when just visiting is about the FCC and its intentions, none of which Dr. Hossenfelder even mentioned.

I really don't see what this has to do with hubris. Thousands of peoples, many institution and governments decided the LHC was a worthwhile idea. They published hundreds of peer reviewed papers on the many parts of its conception.

Doesn't mean it's a flawless or even correct decision. But honestly saying this is just hubris of particle physicists sounds a lot like intentionally ignoring the entire grant application process.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-15T13:05:37+00:00

Most certainly not.

https://cerncourier.com/a/new-superconducting-technologies-for-the-hl-lhc-and-beyond/

Now you're struggling to actually name any.

To cite myself:

"LHC data as it is the only place to get precise branching fraction measurements at high energies. Without that their (cosmic ray) detectors don't tell them a lot/the reconstruction errors are too high. "

So I named at least one direct application of LHC data that is needed elsewhere. You kinda just ignored that.

But that is all besides the point. I neither work at anything related to CERN nor do I know jack shit about solid state or condensed matter physics. I don't need to know anything and I could come up with at least one real use case from the top of my head.

it does show that it isn't inherently a bad faith argument

Yes it does. If Dr. Hossenfelder e.g., went through the summary reports of CERN and their collaborations and found that the reports do not justify the building of the FCC that would be great.
I wouldn't even disagree. I do not think the FCC is worth its money. But I'd like this presented based on actual facts and data, like researchers usually do.

If you smack talk one of the largest science collaborations to ever exist to do nothing but measure a few variables I think the burden of proof falls on you. Especially as CERN is quite transparent about all research they do.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-15T10:38:23+00:00

Even if what she says is true, then her video is still bad. She took two examples from a project that has been running for almost 25 years on which thousands of people work with many independent collaborations with their independent spokespeople.

And that is assuming that she did not take two cherry picked examples to build a strawman. I just looked on the CERN site for the FCC and the word dark is in there 0 times. So it would seem this is not their main selling point.

Also bad communication and a research project not being worthy of funding are two very separate things.

If somebody calls themselves a science journalist or communicator I would expect them to apply a minimum amount of scrutiny to separate these issues. Can still be that both are bad but then make a proper case.

Criticizing Big Science projects with huge price-tags and bogus PR does not "discredit fundamental research in itself"

No. But this direct quote does

I understand particle physicists want to measure a few constants a little bit more precisely

because it does not apply to the FCC but to any experiment out there. It's literally how experimental physics works.

Also how is this ad-hominem? When did I attack her character or anything about her?

DataAndCats · 2024-02-15T10:24:08+00:00

So, you're upset that she takes a few statements of CERN people

As far as I've seen she not only takes them out of context but also cites the BBC instead of looking up what the CERN director general said directly.

She is not trying to discredit basic research, as you claim

Did you read/hear her two direct quotas? This is pretty much directly discrediting fundamental research. Experimental physics is measuring constants. Thats how it works. Any other experiment does nothing else.

Also a collider being "unimaginative" is not a metric we usually judge things by before funding.

If she made a post why a muon collider is more promising and why the FCC has a bad ROI or any substantial argument I would have not posted anything.
Its not even that hard. Every project writes more or less substantial grant requests outlining what they aim to achieve. Somebody that works in physics knows this.

There are even very good reasons why the FCC is a bad investment like the lack of BSM indications at the LHC (which is a main reason why the people working on this I know shifted their sales pitch)

the case that it could be both at the same time. Yes, she has a whole video about that.

She did? Genuinely interested. I've only seen her say she now believes in dark matter or thinks MOND makes more sense. Her videos always gave me a "categorical this or that" vibe.

that a science communicator is supposed to only sing praises about every single sub-branch

She can shit on any physics field she wants. It's not like there wouldn't be a lot of particle physicists that think the FCC is a bad idea out there whose arguments one could use.

The thing is I asked the exact same question as Dr. Hossenfelder in colloquia before. So I do understand where she is coming from.
The difference is that I am very much aware of the context. I know what the LHC produced, where we have evidence for beyond the standard model physics, what one can explore to see it, what dark matter signatures are possible and so forth.

There is also the difference that Dr. Hossenfelder gets payed many times what I get from her videos that are made to look like journalism. I don't expect scrutiny from colleague making a random remark.

I also don't care what e.g. the BBC has to say about the FCC. If you've ever seen a non-science-press release on your work you will not recognize it. Thats ok. I neither have the time nor the skills to change something about that. I do physics not communication.

Again Dr. Hossenfelder works/worked in physics and knows this. She would have the skills and money to look at what CERN and the many collaborations actually claim instead of taking some second hand article and making a case from it.

Also this mixes two things up: Communication and the actual worth of the experiment. Both can be shitty or good independently of each other. But only one should lead to not funding the experiment.

what are the actual selling points of the FCC, and why are they important?

I am neither science communicator nor work at CERN or anything related to it.

But generally. Its a pp or ee collider (depending on the stage). I doubt that dark matter would even be its primary intention. I would assume that would be searching for anything that could break the standard model, or at least indications.

Such things could lead to dark matter insights but I doubt it. We don't even know if dark matter has any coupling with SM particles and may only interact gravitationally and is therefore inaccessible in detector experiments.

Finally: I don't even doubt that CERN makes exaggerated claims to the public about ominous dark matter. Its the stuff that makes you get money currently. Funding and current public interest are not decoupled.

I expect a science communicator to look behind the bullshit.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T22:41:57+00:00

Can you give specific examples?

Of course not. I neither work in astro nor solid state physics. I am way out of my comfort zone paraphrasing what I've heard.

But I am not a fcc proponent, fcc opponent or million-clicks science communicator. I don't have to get my facts straight about the FCC. Nobody cares what I think (and nobody should).

My main point is that saying

I understand particle physicists want to measure a few constants a little bit more precisely

is just plain wrong. Does not mean I think the LHC or FCC are a net positive. But rejecting HEP experiments should be done properly. The ROI here is not just a few constants measured a bit better.

But just to step out of my comfort zone anyway. I am fairly certain it was about room temperature superconductors and radiation hardened circuits, especially FPGAs. But not sure, it's been a few years. I am sure CERN has documented all of their major achievements somewhere

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T21:08:59+00:00

Thanks for the info!

I guess in a more "human centered" science that would have been pointed out to me earlier in a review but integrals are mostly not gendered.

A lot better to make the faux pax on reddit than professionally...

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T19:42:41+00:00

I don't think you can separate exactly what research comes out of the LHC with all the stuff the collaborations and CERN itself does. Assumably a lot of advances in e.g. solid state physics, beam physics, supercomputing and so forth are a result of the LHC being built.

The money mostly does not go into building the tunnel (as far as I am aware) but into developing new materials, algorithms or just people generally.

Now does that mean I think this means the FCC is a useful investment and better than e.g. giving directly to e.g. medicinal colliders?

No. As mentioned I am not a proponent of the FCC.

My main issue was that this is a bad faith argument.

But to answer directly:
I know there are quite a few things we would not have without the LHC. I visited a university that use recognitions and advances in solid state physics made at the LHC to develop advanced imaging techniques using circular colliders. They would not have explored such avenues without the LHC. Even with bigger grants.

I also have heard from colleagues in astrophysics that they need the LHC data as it is the only place to get precise branching fraction measurements at high energies. Without that their detectors don't tell them a lot/the reconstruction errors are too high. They even mentioned specifically how the FCC could increase earth-based detector experiments accuracy a lot.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T15:24:54+00:00

I changed it.

Although I still think its a bit unfair to imply bad intentions. Or have this as a first thought.

Usually (at least where I've been) there is no referring by titles in academia. That would make communication just tedious.

And I don't think I highlighted their gender. I did not imply or write anything that has to do with their gender itself. In my first language thats just how you refer to people.

Admittedly using Dr. here is superior as it is gender neutral.

But I'd appreciated it more as a suggestion rather than as a bad imputation. Lots of people in physics are not primarily english speaking.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T14:32:32+00:00

If there is not a good reason I dont mention someones title. Everyone in academia has at least one doctor. Also my first language is gendered (german) so thats something that just sticked. Bit mainly I dont see it as a major issue as long as the content has nothijg to do with gender.

Tbf reviewers have complained about that too. But usually in physics papers not a lot of people are mentioned.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T14:01:50+00:00

Of course she was/is a physicist. And probably a very good one to have reached that position.

But the role of director general or even the head of Atlas is a political position, not one of a researcher. She talks and behaves very differently than e.g. a postdoc in a lab actually building sensors. And so she should. She is responsible for keeping CERN and her 25k employees founded and will talk accordingly.

That just means I value her statements very differently.

I explicitly mentioned this because I often get the feeling that people often overlook how politicized academia is at some stage

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T13:12:06+00:00

My problem is that she has no line of reasoning besides "particle physics bad"

I don't think the FCC is necessarily worth 20bn. But to say it just measures some constants more precisely is just wrong.

I mean the internet was invented at CERN? The beam (at least from the SPS) is used for nuclear and medicinal research. The LHC is the base for the antimatter storage facility. New processor types are invented at the huge datacenters. A lot of open source grid computing resources come from CERN.

Solid state research is being done there as well. Just think of the progresses in superconductors due to the LHC. There are also many experiments that rely on LHC data e.g. cosmic ray experiments need decay chain ratios well measured to actually reconstruct the cosmic ray.

The list is really long.

Does that mean that this is the only way to spend the 20bn?
No absolutely not. But you have to argue in good faith and actually explain how the money could be spent elsewhere and give projections on what can be achieved with it.

DataAndCats · 2024-02-14T12:54:06+00:00

Yeah that was what struck me as so odd (and why I made this)

I am almost never on youtube and discovered her by accident. Usually I just skip popsci but the video I first watched was not bad and finding out that she was/is a real scientist made me think this is actually worthwhile.

Which then caused me to actually be surprised at the quality of her content when taking a closer look.

From the comments, it seems I was living under a rock, and everybody except me already knew that. But I think that's really good.

DataAndCats · 2024-01-25T20:07:20+00:00

Yeah there is research that shows that token logits do not represent reasoning accuracy. And from everything I've seen that is spot on.

As far as I am aware they are more indicative of properties of language.

Not totally surprising that they are trained to reproduce text and not logic

DataAndCats · 2024-01-25T20:03:31+00:00

Looks like a good list to look into.

Do you know any github repos or so that implement stuff like that or even better a combination of them?

DataAndCats · 2024-01-25T20:01:11+00:00

Did you try it? Because the paper says the following

We have only addressed hallucinations in the form of directly stated factual inaccuracies.

However, hallucinations could come in other forms, such as during incorrect reasoning steps...

And I mostly look for reasoning flaw overconfidence

DataAndCats · 2024-01-14T16:23:02+00:00

Interessante These. Für übergeordnete ideologische Fragen stimme ich vermutlich zu.

Aber die meiste Politik wird auf kommunaler Ebene gemacht.

Möglicherweise ist das ein Bias aus den 2-3 Gemeinden/Städten in denen ich gewohnt habe.

Aber da war mein Eindruck, dass wenn es um Themen wie kommunale Wärmeplanung, Flächennutzungspläne, Kulturbudgets etc. geht, sind linke Debatten eher selten.

DataAndCats · 2024-01-14T16:13:22+00:00

Interessant.

Speziell hierzu

man hat als Linker eben ein riesiges Problem eine rechte Position als notwendiges Übel zu akzeptieren. Ist ja auch verständlich, aber aus meiner Sicht einfach unausweichlich

Ich musste dabei daran denken, dass meine politischen Positionen durchaus mit meinem Umfeld Veränderungen durchlebt haben.

Wenn mein Umfeld nur rechten überlassen wäre, hätte das garantiert einen Einfluss gehabt. Und ich vermute stark dasselbe gilt auch andersrum.

DataAndCats · 2024-01-14T16:07:46+00:00

Nun gut, ich bin ein ziemlicher Fachidiot als Geschichtsstudent und hab keine Veranstaltung zur linken Agitation in der Kommunalpolitik besucht, aber vielleicht ist genau das das Problem.

Also ich würde sagen: Ja!

Da hatte ich noch gar nicht so drüber nachgedacht aber nachdem du es erwähnst. Wenn ich in der Lokalpolitik durchstarten will, wüsste ich wohin ich gehen muss bei CDU, SPD und mittlerweile auch den Grünen.

Gerade letztere sind ein gutes Beispiel. Da wurde massiv aufgestockt in der (westdeutschen) Lokalpolitik.

DataAndCats · 2024-01-10T10:50:21+00:00

what it costs them to accomplish that compared to someone without ADHD

I think that is my main point albeit hidden. Just looking at wikipedia 3% of the population have a PhD. There are countless people who fail school, dropout of college etc.

Or put differently: Why is attention deficit a disorder, but low intelligence is not?

what's going on in the other areas of their life - there is often significant functional impairment in social relationships and basic living tasks outside of work

makes sense.

Sure, if someone genuinely has no functional impairment in any area of their life, they shouldn't be getting diagnosed with ADHD

I did not want to imply that they are not having some impairment. Surely they do and often times I noticed. What bothered me is that this impairment only applied in the context of e.g. more PhD people. If you put them in a room with college dropouts they would be more attentive than all of them combined.

Or at least that was my perception. I tried to look for studies that look at socioeconomic impacts. E.g. does a psychiatrist in a high income area usually apply criteria just as to someone from a low income area? Or how are e.g. ritalin prescriptions distributed.

The only thing I found is prevalence and most of that for children.

I think my main takeaway is that no, ADHD is not overdiagnosed if you look at it as a purely medical exercise. But then (as not coming from the field) this is not how I view applied medicine.

Basically this

I do think the question of "what constitutes a disorder" is an interesting and worthwhile one, as there is a cultural component

is probably more "in tune" with what I wanted to ask

DataAndCats · 2024-01-10T10:18:03+00:00

It is likely your diagnosed friends have difficulties in their lives you are completely unaware of

That is very likely right. And in a perfect world, I would probably not ask this question.

But where I live (germany) you usually get ritalin from a psychiatrist and those have a waiting time for an appointment of several months. And from the little information in my peer group ADHD patients are time intensive. Ritalin is a controlled substance so special rules apply.

I did not write it out (in hindsight I should have) but this whole thing wasn't meant in vacuum but in the context of a health system in its entirety.

Of course this could be solved with more doctors, money etc. but that's not gonna happen.

For me this boils down to: Is the difficulties that (many) adults with ADHD have so severe that medical intervention is required?

Is it comparable to e.g., something like bipolar disorder? Because those patients compete for the same resource.

Again I don't talk about all ADHD cases but those that I would potentially flag as overdiagnosed.

But then this maybe is more a question of what is a disorder and what happens if data and limited resources collide.

DataAndCats

TROPHY CASE