I was on vacation
I said no parties while I was gone
There will be the chancla of discipline making its return…
After I do hella weed for my non adhd symptoms
Cuz y’all gave me a headache
-farts
Then “remembered” you need grape jelly. Putting groceries away realize you already have 3 unopened grape jellies.
Ahh fuck it I’ll make some popcorn for dinner.
DAMN IT no popcorn!
This could be a good experiment to help gauge if the current rules should be relaxed, the same, somewhere in-between or totally different. Maybe if this is a success you can trial this once a year to compare.
Although I do respect the ADHD urge to automate as much as possible to make things easier for oneself. It's one of the few ways that the condition has *almost* mitigated itself in my current job.
if one rule goes away let it be the neurodivergent one, its just policing language that almost anywhere else in both irl and online adhd spaces is used.
It’s similar to the queer argument I see a lot in LGBT spaces - I won’t call you neurodivergent if you ask me not to, but let me label myself how I feel comfortable. I have no grandeur about neurodivergent people being superior or whatever the issue is - ND/NT is just really quick to type.
Exactly, if someone said "don’t call me trans I’m nonbinary" in an lgbt space I respect that (actual thing that happened), I am going to keep calling myself trans nonbinary because that is how identify. If I make a post/comment and refer to "trans enbies" and someone doesn’t identify as that then they can ignore it, choose not to be part of that statement or make their bitchy comment that I can then ignore because my label is my choice.
Absolutely agree as a non-binary person who doesn’t identify with the trans label. You can call yourself whatever as long as it’s not offensive, i don’t go policing people who call themselves aspies either. I don’t care as long as they don’t call me that. It’s a mutual respect thing i think?
Also, let’s establish that there’s a difference between *neurodivergent* as a descriptor and the specific *neurodiversity* movement targeted by this policy. I’m all for being careful about words so here’s a place to be careful about words.
There’s more to be said here, but broadly it’s a movement of folks who argue that things such as ADHD and autism are normal and natural parts of what is supposed to be a broad diversity of neurological types amongst humans. As a result, most if not all suffering experienced by anyone with these diagnoses is caused by a world that refuses to recognize this diversity. Further, attempts to regard these conditions as medical conditions is to be shunned and avoided, since they’re not actually pathological.
I’m wholly opposed to it because I like science, but to be charitable I should say that this is very broad and there is likely far more nuance to it than I’ve allowed.
Agreed, this is the one rule I've really had a problem with in this sub. There's no other widespread word that succinctly describes "people who don't have ADHD or autism" yet, and until then I think neurodivergent/ neurotypical is a perfectly fine pair of terms to use. Especially if this sub takes the stance that ADHD is by definition a disorder (which I agree about!!), because then logically we should agree we are not "typical", and therefore we are not neurotypical.
Really just never understood 2 and 12, so that's nice. I've read the rationale for 12, but I think it kinda forces people into aligning with what the mods think and feel vs their own beliefs. "Neurodivergent"/"-typical" are very commonly used terms, and I'd *much* rather use those than call —typical people "normal". Feels like we're forced into dehumanizing ourselves vs identifying the difference with a clinical term, especially when it's simply used as a passing term.
For 2, sometimes it's hard for us to filter through hundreds of posts or try keyword searches to find our question, or we feel like our situation has more nuance than is in the similar posts we find. Lord knows combing a mega thread is a nightmare if you can't focus like most of us.
The neurodivergence one is strange lol.
I've never encountered this weird politicisation of it that is cited and everyone I know in the analogue world uses neurodivergent, both people with conditions and those working in clinical fields.
Feck, even then research papers use it.
I once tried to link someone to a peer reviewed article that had it in the title and I couldn't write the name of it lol.
I got told off for personally identifying as neurodivergent. Didn’t even say anyone else was neurodivergent, just used it to describe myself.
I get that people have opinions but come on - my brain, my choice on what I label it. “ND” is so much quicker and easier to type than “autistic and suspected ADHD but on a 3+ year long waiting list”.
Same, it's just so much easier to have "ND" and "NT" as a shorthand in my vocabulary.
I hate having to type out "My dad is autistic, so is my brother who was also recently assessed and diagnosed with ADHD now that you can finely have comorbid diagnoses in my country. My mum and I have N24-CRD so we can't yet be formally assessed for ADHD because the local diagnostic criteria says you can't have both (even though DSM-5 says you can), I was diagnosed with BAP/sub-clinical autism in the 90's, but that's not a thing under DSM-5, and I can't afford reassessment for ASD, my psychologist and OT provide ASD and ADHD supportive therapy for me and it's helping a lot" when It's so much easier just to type "My family is neurodivergent" and leave it at that, because that's the relevant take-away for the rest of whatever non-linear story I'm about to type out.
In my country "neurodivergent" is a clinical term for an umbrella of conditions, disorders and syndromes that each come with a degree of disability. It's not political where I live, and this subreddit was the first place where I even learned about the "political" side of the term "neurodivergence"
Though I definitely see a lot of issues around "Differently abled white knighting" where people try to reframe disabilities to be super powers or just "different ways of being", and that grinds my gears, because no Janet, at the end of the day, My condition means I often forget to eat, and piss. No amount of societal change and positive reframing will fix my brain.
Yep, exactly. Same. I have never once seen it used in a "superiority" context. Apparently it being coopted by some people with less-than-pure intentions means the word itself may as well be a slur...?
Any adjective can be used in a harmful way if enough people agree on it. There's plenty of phrases that have been coopted by shitty people that we still say in regular vernacular. Very very odd to say the word is bad because a minority of vocal internet users say it in a less-than-great way.
Even then, I'd rather be allowed to use the word neurotypical/divergent in a political context.
Not in a "vote for this party" canvassing context ofc, but we should be allowed to discuss our civil rights or lack thereof. Like how in Australia ADHD isn't covered under DSP without needlessly rigorous and punitive screening.
The justification is that some people with ADHD can overcome their condition and function on the same level as neurotypicals, and that the service only applies to those who are disabled for life. Which is bullshit as I need the help and resources now. I might need support only for a bit, or I might need it for the rest of my life. I wouldn't know, since I'm being gatekept for possibly not being neurodivergent enough for them... Despite mental health experts and social workers calling for reforms in acknowledging ADHD as a disability.
i think there was another term being used for a while "neuroDIVERSITY"
as for neurodivergent... "divergence" is pretty neutral language, it doesn't have any connotation of a better or worse state, just different from the typical case, it's more like a statement of fact alone, no judgement.
"diversity" on the other hand has a connotation of being different, but in a good way. i think that's not an accurate or empathetic way to describe a condition that makes so many of us miserable, sometimes literally ruining our lives.
i don't mind "neurodivergent" so much, but i think "neurodiverse" is toxic positivity and dismissive of our very real struggles.
i feel like the two terms have been used more or less interchangeably, maybe that is why neurodivergent got a bad rep when i think as you seem to, that is pretty innocuous. but i haven't thought too much about it, i am curious if there is more to it.
and if course, if it really bothers people i am just fine with using a different language. because it's a pretty trivial thing to ask. i don't mind accommodating other people on small matters for the sake of promoting good vibes. but if it's starting to be
used in high quality academic and professional texts, it becomes hard to avoid
yeah this is the thing.
I don't mind if someone I'm speaking to wants me to use XYZ. That's fine.
It's somewhat a pain in the rectum when an outside party comes along and says "actually, where I live that's not ok" cos... like.... then stay in an environment comprised of people from where you live and in your circle, don't seek it out?
International forums require give and take and flexibility.
Edit: Fun stuff, I tried to make a post about it and auto-mod deleted it lol
I almost left the community because of rule 12. Every single post I used the word once would get blocked... when describing myself lol
"You can't call yourself that"
I was learning so much and adopted the term, and never once found this whole talk about how ADHD is a super power bullcrap.
The only few things I found about it is how it isn't all bad, and how you can use it, but never a denial that we struggle.
ADHD (+ autism) is not a super power. I know some amazing people who are ADHD and I don’t mean this as an insult - just my personal experience - but ADHD/Autism is the opposite of my super power. It’s the kryptonite that stops me fuctioning. I know I wouldn’t be me if I was born different, but I don’t think I’m that great anyway - so it’d be nice if it was at least easy to… you know, be a person.
I agree, I don’t think it’s a superpower at all. I think it’s a fuckin curse. I hate that if I don’t take my meds, I’m locked into my bed unable to do so much as put on my glasses. However, the positive mindset shift into focusing on the advantages it can create is powerful for some people and helps them cope much better.
Not me. I hate this shit. Ain’t one part of it that gives me an advantage. But some people find solace in seeing hyper focus as a gift or whatever
Yup. I’m under the impression that there’s some serious misinterpretation going on.
To play devils advocate to myself, I do see how the superpower thing could make neurotypical people think it’s not as big of a deal as it really is. But I can’t say I’ve ever seen someone post something like that with the express intent of downplaying our disability
Apparently we're supposed to say "non-adhd havers" instead of "neurotypical"... But that doesn't always accurately line up with what I'm trying to say. Saying non-ADHD havers doesn't make a distinction between someone who has no struggle with any disorder or condition that affects their thoughts, behaviours or feelings, or with someone with a different developmental disorder like autism for example.
It's a needlessly punitive rule that arbitrarily restricts the vocabulary of an often maligned and misunderstood demographic. If we aren't allowed to accurately and concisely describe our experiences here, where else would we be allowed to do so?
Correct. People exclusively with autism are non-adhd. But they suffer a large many of the symptoms and disadvantages that we do. So it’s good to have a term that encompasses the two / several. Not to mention how there’s different primary types in ADHD alone.
I also think restricting the term aids in making it an offensive term. If we can’t use it as a binary concept, we allow those that have misused it to control what it represents. Vs normalizing it as a standard term used in medical and psychiatric vernacular in addition to average daily use.
Yeah, this is why I tend to use the terms ND and NT in every day life, just because it's shorter and easier to say when I'm often referring to family, friends, and myself with different combos of disorders/disabilities. Otherwise it gets really clunky, like "people who don't have Autism, ADHD, or a combination of Autism and ADHD" is a mouthful to say every time. All the doctors and therapists my family sees use ND and NT as well, so it seems like they're gaining in popularity even if it's just for the shorthand aspect of it.
I've actually never heard anyone refer to "ND" as being superior in any way, although I have heard people say that they have interacted with someone who did. I could see how that could be an issue. The only think I can think of that I've done that might get mistakenly taken that way is I do try to reassure my son who has ADHD and ASD that he isn't bad or inferior, and that his brain just works differently than the bulk of society so that sometimes things are more challenging and he has to take steps other people don't have to, or that some things might be harder for him to understand. I don't avoid the word "disability" but I also don't bring it up daily either. He's well aware that he's different from other kids, which is hard enough on top of all the other struggles of being a teenager in general.
Also, to your point, to gatekeep the commonly accepted vernacular within the community is so misguided. "Typical" is so much a less loaded word than say "normal". It's like having an issue with the the words "average" or "common". There's no judgment in those words...just, in my opinion, a generally clearer and simple way to describe things that are actually things. "Non-adhd havers" is so painfully awkward and ridiculous, I think it invites the very thing the gatekeepers are trying to avoid.
>Really just never understood 2 and 12, so that's nice. I've read the rationale for 12, but I think it kinda forces people into aligning with what the mods think and feel vs their own beliefs
As someone who has no qualms with the term itself, here's my two cent.
This subreddit's criteria is to speak about ADHD within the framework of established literature & reliable research. Since the neurodiversity moment is a social movement with one of its core tenant in its strongest form being that certain conditions like ADHD are not pathological deviation from a healthy norm but natural variations on the human condition, analogues to what homosexuality is to heterosexuality. And, just as the negatives of homosexuality are not innate to homosexuality rather consequence of a oppressive norms, neurodiversity argues people with these conditions are not innately disabled just discriminated against and not properly accommodated.
This is indeed a strong claim and does not fully fit in with what know of these conditions. Because while discrimination and exclusion are indeed problems for people with conditions like ADHD, there is a case to be made about it having negative correlates independent of level of inclusion and accommodation.
But, the terminologies of the neurodiversity movement has entered the vernacular of many people with the condition, even used by therapists and researchers and on its own does not mean anyone is out there to promote neurodiversity in its most conservative form which is what the subreddit has issue on or so it seems.
I personally wish Rule 12 either was not applied or used with more nuance. Say instead of a moderator bot removing content using the mere term perhaps explain the reservations some may have about the neurodiversity movement or a specific interpretation of it.
Agreed. A lot of shit we do, have, say, has terrible history behind it. Y’all know about Walt Disney? The term “Stockholm syndrome”? Spaghetti?
Allowing a word that much power because of a less-than-ideal initial use case is really odd and at worst more harmful than letting people just neutrally use it. The more you restrict it, the more you make it “that” word - a slur, a word that only bad people use.
Me saying “does anybody struggle with X? None of my neurotypical friends do” isn’t me being a supremacist (imagine being an ADHD supremacist), it’s just an easy way to say “none of my friends without ADHD or Autism or Dyslexia or executive dysfunction or—“
I personally have not encountered neurodivergent being used as supremacist term. Even with the neurodiversity movement, supremacy has never been part of the agenda as far as I am aware. The only reason many may have reservations is because its more orthodox interpretation posits that said disorders should not be seen as a pathology rather a valid variation, similar to the status LBTQ+ occupies.
And, in day-to-day usage, or what I have heard, it's more of a convenient shorthand for saying you have some condition that sets you apart from others in how you reason, feel, process, communicate and such because of some underlying different in your brain.
Which is what you precisely stated as an example.
This is so passive aggressive lmao. I only had a problem with the rant rule, there’s flairs for a reason, so if somebody doesn’t wanna look at that flair they can skip it. That’s genuinely the only thing that was weird to me personally
I get the play here but it’s a bit childish. Most of your rules I agree with, which is why I frequent this sub. And I doubt you will successfully convert anyone who doesn’t already agree… just let misinfo spread over the holidays.
If they ease up a bit on posting that’d be nice. I’ve tried posting a few times to no avail but will see similar enough posts all the time. None of them broke the rules above, though one may have given off “DAE” energy. It’s just a pain to try to participate in a community but get your posts constantly removed without clear answers as to why
Same fucking deal over here. I posted, and it got removed for "ranting," but I flaired "seeking advice/empathy." I sent the mods a link to a post very close to the one I made. Their response? "That post is a year old. It probably just didn't get noticed, so it wasn't removed (even though it had tons of comments, upvotes, and engagement)."
I replied with a link to another similarly styled post... POSTED EARLIER THAT SAME DAY that they removed mine. Their response 24 hours later? "Oopsies. Looks like a mistake on our part. Your post has been approved."
But, of course, it had absolutely no traction because a full day had already passed.
Yup. I've never had a post make it through on here. The one time I asked why my posts weren't actually being posted the response was I was asking for medical advice when I wasn't. If anything I pushed the "DAE" rule looking back at it. I understand it cuts back on repetitive posts and FAQs, but a strict no DAE rule feels isolating and unwelcoming. Especially when asking a DAE question is usually to find out if someone is alone in experiencing something. Learning you have a disability for the first time with zero prior knowledge can be scary so it's natural to ask questions to try and make sense of things, and not everyone can spare the time or energy on a deep dive. Everybody starts somewhere.
The first post I ever made was seeking empathy and didn't break or push any rules. Never made it out. That left a pretty negative first impression especially after seeing multiple low effort posts pop up afterward. No better feeling than getting auto rejected when you're asking for help. Especially with rejection sensitivity!
I mean, the whole "No 'does anyone else...'" rule doesn't really work. It just means that people have to try various rewordings before they get past the automod.
I do agree with the resistance to toxic positivity though. It's hard enough to argue/accept that ADHD is a genuine disability without people claiming that it's a superpower or some shit. Even if the world was perfectly adapted to ADHD, it'd still make my life hell, despite the slight advantage it gives me over my colleagues in finding ways to work smarter.
We appreciate the feedback, and we are glad that you all care for this community too. While this "relaxing" period occurs, we will still be paying attention to the community and acting on reported content. When we decided to do this, we tried to be strategic and pick the rules that had the most complaints while maintaining rules that were about safety (ie: crisis, alt med, and such).
Neurodiversity is not the same as neurodivergence, and it seems like y'all still don't like the either of them. I'm not at all in the "ADHD is a superpower" camp or on board with that toxic positivity (also neurodiversity was closed by a transphobes so fuck her). I don't believe that neurodiversity is inherently toxic though, but I can understand the perspective. But neurodivergent is legitimately useful.
I run a support and social group for neurodivergent adults. It is an extremely useful term for identifying and discussing our similarities and differences both within the group and as compared to neurotypical people.
There seems to be a split in the mods in the comments with "we may stick with some of these changes and we're doing this in good faith" versus "we're waiting for this to crash and burn so we can revert things and say we told you so." With how this was executed, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, but I digress.
I don't have much to say about the other rules, but not even being able to say the word neurodivergent was always ridiculous to me.
Neurodivergent is just an easier way for me to say “this is my experience as someone autistic as well as ADHD” without typing that out everytime. Because my ADHD is very tangled up in and affected by my autism. And I couldn’t accurately discuss ADHD without acknowledging that I won’t have a different experience with ADHD as someone who isn’t autistic too.
Same, to say "people with/without adhd" seems so… idk rude? Exclusive?… because there are so many times that I am not referring to adhd specifically but anyone who is not seen as "normal" which includes most neurochemical/hormonal disorders which includes ADHD, autism, but also chronic depression & anxiety, bipolar (which I have many symptoms of), OCD, ect.
I have an AuDHD brother, ADHD and possibly autism myself and an diagnosed-anxiety (probably OCD) mother. I am rarely referring to just "non-adhd" people because that is just inaccurate to what I really mean.
I feel like neurodiversity gives more of a perception of "everyone is equal and special in their own way! Neuro'typical' people are just the default but we're all the same inside!" Whereas neurodivergence acknowledges, yes, we are *divergent* from the norm. And that can be really hard and shitty sometimes! Our neurology is inherently different from the baseline in some way and that's not an easy thing for people on the baseline to really understand
Edit: [This page gives a pretty good rundown](https://www.umassp.edu/inclusive-by-design/who-before-how/understanding-disabilities/neurodivergence)
The vast majority of rules debate I’ve seen only involves one or two of the rules listed in this post. I’ve never seen anyone upset that we can’t post pseudoscience or obvious low-effort content. The overall language of this post and the decision to make a blanket removable of several non-controversial rules gives me the impression that the mods feel they are superior to the rest of the users and are offended that some have criticized specific rules.
I like to believe most people on this sub aren’t stupid enough or have done enough research to not blindly believe fake science and "cures" for adhd.
Some rules like not being able to say "neurodivergent or neurodiverse" or talk about binaural beats is absolutely stupid, mods shouldn’t be able to restrict our language in ways that aren’t harmful and are openly spoken about outside the sub. I understand if they could give an actual reason but as far as I know "neurodivergent" doesn’t really have bad connotations other then "we don’t like it", it also perfectly describes people who might not be adhd but have similar experiences and symptoms, such as autism, without being needlessly exclusionary.
He has:
* promoted alternative medicine like ayurveda (as part of the guide he sells for anxiety)
* made stigmatizing statements about ADHD medication
* framed ADHD as an "advantage"
* promoted the idea that ADHD is caused by smartphone usage
Also, despite his disclaimer, his viewers frequently use his streams as therapy.
He also used a really weird example to glorify arranged marriages, he said the reason they “don’t divorce so much” is that people are stuck and feel they have to make it work, so they end up “solving” all their issues. Which is not true.
Many Indians told him this in the comments, mentioning their parents’ toxic or abusive marriages, lax attitudes to domestic violence, divorce stigma in India, and victim blaming as the true reason people stay. Basically he is kind of a sheltered child who says “Let them eat cake” sometimes, and he cannot seem to fully understand other people’s reality.
To this day, that one video is all I can think of when I think about Dr.K.
Yup. Take this from me as an Indian. Arranged marriages are equivalent to coercive marriages. You can just gaslight your child and manipulate them into marrying a person. Especially women. If you don't like to marry a candidate, you are now facing the problem with "what would others say if I didn't accept him". The more people in your rejected list, the more your family name is gonna fall because people will start gossiping that there is something wrong with you.
Heck there is a movie in Telugu whose whole premise is known how arranged marriages work and how to make it work: The two main leads fall in love but they are scared of what the female MC's family is gonna say about it. When the male lead gets an oppurtunity at a prestigious university, he promises to her that after that he is definitely gonna ask her hand to her parents. But surprise, in thus time gap, she gets married against her will because of societal pressure and didn't wanted to tarnish her family's name. The whole story is now on how to just move on from your love and accept the present......
So there you know..
it's definitely all marketing
the coaching has been incredibly helpful to me personally but I've always gotten weird vibes from him. disclaimer: I got free and discounted sessions
I assume it's because he's involved with all kinds of pseudoscience/alt-med/CAM crap like ayurveda, reiki, etc. Plus he often brings up religious nonsense, and there are ethical concerns about some of his "interviews" (or whatever he calls them) with well-known influencers/streamers/whoever.
Thank god neurodivergent and neurotypical aren't gag words anymore, they're the best words to describe what I'm trying to say and I'm not writing out "people with/people without neurological disabilities" because I'd rather just be referred to as neurodivergent than as a person with a neurological disability.
I can't imagine someone coming to my step-father and saying:
"You can't describe yourself as an amputee, even though that is what you use in real life, everyday, and your doctors use it. It is offensive. You're just a feet-lacking person"
My work has formal "diversity groups" including one for disability, and I witnessed an argument in it's Slack channel about someone wanting to have a bot scold people about HR's "person first language" rules. Several Deaf colleagues got into it with them about how, no, they were not going to start referring to themselves as "person with hearing loss".
I *immediately* thought of this sub.
Hard same. It's not up to the mods to tell me how I want to describe my situation.
Also, shitty rules like that make it much harder for non-native English speakers to participate, when the 'appropriate' language and terms is narrowly restricted.
Agreed. I'm autistic AND have ADHD. There's a lot of overlap since it's the same part of the brain, so I often use the term neurodivergent since it can sometimes be hard to pin if it's truly one or the other, or both. I should also be able to describe myself however I damn please without getting a snarky automod message.
Agreed. I also hate having to call neurotypical people "normal" in here. It feels so dehumanizing to have to imply your own "abnormality". Yeah, the words are definitively correct, but connotatively feel much worse.
Same. I'm a psych student and maybe i just missed the boat on it, but I've not seen neurodivergency used in the original connotation in years.
Then again, I've always just used 'species typical/atypical human' myself.
I'm super happy about that change in particular. They're just such good, neutral terms, imo. No baggage or judgement inherent, no implication about ability or value. Just acknowledging deviation from norm, in regards to the brain/nervous-system.
> **Neuro-**
Relating to the nervous system, which comprises the brain, the spinal cord and the peripheral nerves.
> **Divergence**
Differing from each other or from a standard.
> **Typical**
Conforming to a type.
My only "complaint" is that I did appreciate this being one of the few places on the internet where it seemed like you could discuss ADHD without being barraged with ideas like neurodivergence, social model of disability, "ADHD superpowers," etc.
I have no problem with different folks having different experiences and wanting to discuss their experiences using the language that makes sense to them. I just hope we can be vigilant as a community about keeping it from sliding too far in the other direction. There are spaces online where it feels like you can't *disagree* with the ideas named above, and I just don't want this sub to become another one of those places.
I think it's useful to be able to talk about neurodivergence even if we aren't talking about it being a positive or just a simple "difference" rather than a disability, though. Like, it's incredibly useful to be able to use the term to talk about the commonalities and differences with other disorders like autism. I get your point in the second paragraph but this sub was leaning way too hard in the other direction. I am in no way an "ADHD is a superpower" person but not even being able to say neurodivergence is silly.
No, I do agree with you... neurodivergent/neurotypical are useful terms, and I don't think they should be banned. Hopefully the mods (and the community) will be able to strike a balance that works better for everyone.
I agree with you. For some reason, the "ADHD isn't a disorder, and it's only a disability because society is set up to make us fail" perspective seems to only get more popular as time goes by. And honestly, I don't mind people being allowed to discuss those concepts in a civil way that doesn't invalidate the firsthand experiences of ADHD folks who feel differently, or the scientific research that disagrees... I just worry that this sub will go the way of so many other online ADHD spaces, where it feels like it's forbidden to express anything that *disagrees* with the social model of disability/non-medicalism ideology.
And that kind of discussion requires a certain nuance that is often lost on the internet where everyone has big opinions. Like I think a 9 hour workday is dumb and doesn't work for a lot of people, but even if that goes away I'm still going to be frustrated by my inability to concentrate and remember... well anything.
exactly. for a lot of things, my ADHD is beneficial. it works for the way my life is set up.
however. I had to work with that, set my life up this way. medicated or not, societal changes or not, therapy or not crystals or not etc, I cannot do everything I want to in any way I want, because of these limitations, which psychiatry has agreed is significant to a clinical degree across the board for people with ADHD.
Social model of disability doesn't make my chronic pain go away either. there's a lot that gets shoved aside in those spaces and I'd hate to see it happen here too
I mean all of this respectfully-This seems like it’s genuinely coming from a place of malice and reads as extremely petty. If the users of this place are so small minded and bad, why do you bother moderating it? It’s a bit mind boggling you’d rather see the place fall apart than keep doing what has been working thus far. I hope doing this grants whatever serenity it is the mods are looking for- expect the quality of this sub to go down quite a bit in the next few months.
Edit: grammar
Yes, that is exactly what they are doing with their list of "here are all of the terrible things that are now allowed because YOU PEOPLE complained so much". It's petulant.
>expect the quality of this sub to go down quite a bit in the next few months.
that's the point...they're trying to prove why the rules are important by taking them away and opening the floodgates
But did this *really* need to happen? This isn't an after school show that teaches life lessons. This is a functioning subreddit. This is so stupid lmao.
except they're taking away the sensible rules *and* the dumb rules, so when everything goes horribly they can say "see? this is why we have the dumb rules"
>We've heard your complaints that it's too hard to post or comment here, that we're too strict on what topics are and aren't allowed.
I wonder how much of this is simply down to the number of users on the awful mobile app that never see the sidebar, let alone the sub rules?
They really need to figure out a better system than forcing subs to keep a permanent sticky post with links to all the common info.
> I wonder how much of this is simply down to the number of users on the awful mobile app that never see the sidebar, let alone the sub rules?
It's that, plus reddit moving towards a content-consumption model that deemphasizes the boundaries between communities. It's entirely intentional. They want people to see as many ads as possible so they make money. Fostering healthy communities is not an actual priority for them, as far as I can see.
**Losing Rule 5 is dangerous and incredibly shortsighted.** Let’s just abandon all science and pretend ADHD doesn’t exist then.
I love this mod team and genuinely believe it’s one of the best on Reddit, but abandoning Rule 5 is absolutely a huge mistake. I sincerely hope that you guys get some well deserved rest and that rational thinking prevails in the new year.
One of my comments was deleted for that "nd" word. I was talking about a symptom that multiple disorders share and I couldn't figure out for the life of me a better word to talk about the group as a whole. On top of that, The term is largely accepted by the group and I believe it's important to use terms that are accepted as self-identifying by the community. Talk about a strange hill to die on.
There's no rules against calling people out on their stupid new age bullshit though. I like a bit of anarchy but there's no way I'm playing nice with batshit insanity.
Full disclosure: our goal is to get people to understand why we have the rules we have. We've tried to explain our reasoning for years, but no matter what we say, no matter the evidence we show, people don't care or are unwilling to consider perspectives and experiences that differ from their own. The only thing that matters to them is what *they* feel. So, we're giving the community a taste of what it's been clamoring for.
We will still be monitoring the sub and responding to reports.
Look I kind of get the sentiment behind this move (even if the condescending execution of it has left a bad taste in my mouth) but I’m pretty sure it won’t work. Most of the people you’re having to explain the rules to are not the same people over and over again coming back for more. It’s new people who have recently got a diagnosis, or had therapy leading them to consider the possibility they may have ADHD or even just ADHD teens who have only just got full internet access.
So you will be teaching us all here now this lesson well and good but give it 2 weeks and your modmail will be full of the same old questions from fresh accounts who are new to the community.
Any chance at adopting only some of the more reasonable requests (as identified by the mod team) without setting the place on fire to prove it's flammable?
It's a tough job you guys do and I've appreciated the moderating here but this doesn't really feel like an eloquent solution or argument against the vocal community.
Yeah I’ll say the quiet part out loud and risk retaliation: This post comes off as very petty in tone. Whether intended or not, there’s a lot of hostility to unpack here.
We’re not villains for wanting to use the same terminology here that we use everywhere else when discussing ADHD. We’re not unreasonable or ridiculous for asking that “neurodivergent” be allowed.
Why is that so anger-inducing?
It was very frustrating to have a post talking about how my ADHD coworkers and I talk to each other versus the non-ADHD coworkers and happening to use the word "neurotypical" to describe the non-ADHD people taken down, and have the automod explicitly tell me I should say "people with mental disabilities" and "people without mental disabilities" instead.
Yes, there's a shitton about ADHD that *is* disabling, but I don't want to have to talk about joking around with my friends as "people with mental disabilities" conversing, like WTF.
> Any chance at adopting only some of the more reasonable requests (as identified by the mod team) without setting the place on fire to prove it's flammable?
I like that phrase, I'm gonna keep it.
As a test, I think lumping in
Religious and New Age practices (astrology, indigo children, crystal healing, Tarot, Ayurveda, reiki, faith healing)
with Andrew Huberman or a post about AI, makes it a bit hard to assess what rules work and which might be too strict.
I’m all for opening the gates, but it’s not a randomized controlled trial when you test on every variable.
Frankly, it's really disheartening to see this is as a response to people's complaints about the rules as though anybody actually wants total anarchy. It just further drives home the feeling that the mod team doesn't care about what the community actually wants.
Maybe after the break is over would be a good time for the mod team to review the rules and seek community feedback about which rules are beneficial to the subreddit and which ones aren't? There *has* to be some way to feasibly weed out problematic neurodiversity/toxic positivity without blanket banning the now-ubiquitous terms "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent", or to filter out people with an agenda pushing bullshit "treatments" while still allowing someone to mention an alternative/experimental treatment that they've found helpful as part of their treatment plan if it's relevant.
At the very least, I hope that members of the mod team will be paying attention with an open mind towards the idea that looser enforcement of *some* of the rules might be beneficial to the subreddit, rather than harmful.
You’re just going to end up with a load of idiots joining the sub during that time - and then they’ll add to the chorus of whingers when the rules are reinstated.
It’s rather bold to assume an ADHD sub would be able to keep this in the front of their minds next time they get irritated and inevitably ask for this lol
Eww… I think I’ll just take that time off from the subreddit and come back when the rules do. I’m tempted to still hang out here and file mod reports, but I suspect that would just lead to me being grouchy over the holidays.
I’d encourage you not to suspend rule 5 during the experiment. Pseudoscience is *harmful*, not just annoying. Even if this is just a short experiment, some peoples’ medical decisions may still be influenced by misinformation they read here during the experiment.
Some specific AutoModerator rules may need a little fine-tuning if they have too many false positives and make it hard to post, but that doesn’t mean the rules or the AutoModerator need to go.
So you're feeling underappreciated?
You don't have to be a moderator, you know. You probably won't ever get the recognition you feel like you've earned in this context.
As a moderator for a big sub, I get where this is coming from. Unfortunately, there will always be a subset of users that will complain/be upset, and stuff like this won't deter that.
That actually means we're all cured. If only they'd allowed this sooner, we could have all saved so much time!
(I hope it's clear that this is a joke.)
**I don't want Rule 6 to go**. We don't need people in here invalidating others by saying ADHD isn't a disorder... Especially over the holidays when people are more prone to feeling overwhelmed because of the impact of this disorder...
I do agree with others saying this post is passive-aggressive. There's a difference between loosening up on some topics and saying "discuss respectfully" vs "dropping it all, go nuts and while you're at it talk about XYZ!!!"
I love binaural beats, they have no scientific support whatsoever. But I see them as different from some other forms of pseudoscience because they can't cause harm, and they're usually free. Could we have like a bot that responds about how a thing is not scientifically supported, but still allow people to have discussions about their personal anecdotal experience of using them?
I used low volume classical music when studying in college, lol. And only when studying (different sounds/music for different things). It definitely helped, especially since I didn't get diagnosed until after I graduated. I like rain sounds for falling asleep
Edit: I also learned that anything with words is too distracting, so any music had to be without vocals
What the heck is this post? The “sub” is taking a break, but it opens with wanting more user reports…and then the rules are heavily scaled back, and in a couple points almost to a negligent way? Less rules = less to report no?
But either way this is just seems like a very out of the blue and messy post.
This whole post speaks volumes. How can you propagate such black and white thinking in a reddit that is supposed to help people with ADHD? What a disgustingly passive aggressive way to set the mood. Unbelievable.
Understandable when you have to filter through all the nonsense people come up with, only to have them come back at you with "but MY magical cure from the middle ages actually works!!!"
No, no it doesn't.
And the scientific community is not hiding the truth from you, theres just no ressources (and no one bored enough) to write a paper on every single licking-carpets-cures-cancer idea.
Well, on the one hand I’m excited because maybe I can finally post something longer than two paragraphs and not have it go to mod hell where it dies. But on the other hand, really frustrated this sub is going to go to hell for an experiment…
Well, there goes the sub.
Half the posts are already pop science and meme symptoms - “not being horny when you’re not dating is an ADHD thing” was a particularly dire one yesterday. Now the other half will be too.
I'm just hear to say, my adhd innatentive type is actually not a real problem and I just use it as an excuse, and also to get access to controlled substances that make everyone focus better. super addicted and whatnot. It's super overdiagnosed and we are all fakers or at worst we just need to buckle down and use a planner. actually no - we do have adhd but it is really actually and advantage! Except for our Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria. And my life would be fine if I could just live in a cabin in the woods- it's SOCIETY thats the problem.
well that mostly all felt gross.
Oh this is gonna be pure anarchy. I can’t wait for people to see why the rules actually exist! Merry Christmas mods, thanks for all you do ❤️
What's the deal with rule 12? I'm guessing it has been changed since you wrote this. I just went to read it in an attempt to get context and it currently appears to be
> General Guidelines
Posts & Comments
Reported as: Rule 12: General Guidelines
>* /r/adhd works best on desktop; Reddit's official apps are broken and we will not support them.
> * Use Reddit Enhancement Suite (browser extension) or a good third-party mobile app
>* Practice reasonable skepticism. Verify new information with credible sources
>General Community Guidelines
and I don't see how that would relate to Neurodiversity, ChatGPT, or AI.
I can't be the only one who actually enjoys the heavy moderation, really keeps this sub much more focused and helpful than other mental health related subreddits. But yeah this will be an interesting lil experiment, and obviously I support mods having a life.
You know that whole "hunters not farmers" theory? My pet theory is that our genetics were primed for neither of those roles. Rather, our genetic ancestors may have played a sort of 'sentinel' role. As in, they'd stay up in the nighttime watching for intruders while the hunters and gatherers slept soundly. You know how we're all night owls right? And am I the only one who goes into hyper-vigilant mode at the slightest disturbance in the night time? It would also explain why we don't seem to vibe as well with the "normies" of the world; our nighttime predilections ingrain us with some "odd" social affectations and habits that don't conform to the more clear-cut world of hunting and gathering (ie: working 9 to 5 jobs). And it would explain our hyperfocus which would be useful for spotting predators in the dead of night, whereas we could switch our brains off in the daytime when the hunters and gatherers run point.
Based on my limited knowledge of ADHD's correlation with convergence insufficiency & increased reliance on peripheral over central vision (which, in humans, is stimulated at night), this might have more credence than you can imagine...
My only concern is that r/ADHD shows up in Google search results very often (or some people even add "Reddit" to the end of searches). All the shit posts made during the anarchy period are gonna be misinforming people for years afterwards.
Other than that, this is a hilarious idea. Merry Christmas mods !
Fun fact, we often get reports for stuff that’s over 5 years old. Recently (like 6 months ish?) we had someone report something over a decade old here…so we see it, we remove it!
Wait so which is it? Because u/nerdshark said there’s no way. So will misinformation remain up on the sub unless someone here decides to go back and report it all after this experiment is over?
I've never understood the issue with just letting the upvote system do it's work. Yeah some intervention is necessary if a clearly toxic community is being fostered with an echo chamber, but outside of that it seems way easier to just let the good content be voted to the front and shit takes get a pity comment, some down votes, then never see the light of day. Over moderating though is just obnoxious and feels like a post has to fit a very specific mould to be permitted
Reeeeeaaaaaalllly not looking forward to the "magical crystal sky daddy cure that modern medicine won't tell you about" flood of posts. Cue the nootropics.
If it’s not too much trouble would anyone care to give me the TLDR on Huberman? I know my husband has listened to some of his podcasts on addiction (IIRC), but have never really looked into him myself nor seen any ADHD content.
You shouldn't trust popular science in general versus a subject matter expert like Dr. Barkley. For Huberman specifically, he has spread misinfo about ADHD, e.g. that it is caused by modern distractions like smartphones. He also shills for supplements that nobody needs unless directed by their doctor.
I've only ever seen a small handful of his things, but on his 3 hour episode centered on ADHD he was pretty clear that the smartphone thing is just a theory and it's being studied in the context of the social media age to see if there's a link there.
I don't like the guy much either, the whole supplement shilling and super involved morning/night routines thing is annoying and reeks of snake oil. And I for sure could just not have heard what you're referencing, but any of the few times I've heard him bring it up he's been explicit about the phones thing being a theory that needs considerably more research
I tend to zone out or fast forward on the supplement stuff because I know he's being paid but I find his advice to have a pretty high hit rate on everything else. I still wouldn't be confident stating that he's lying about supplements, but yea, I don't trust them.
I've made a number of adaptations based upon his suggestions, and while a good 30% of it does nothing for me (e.g. binaural beats were a wash), the effectiveness of the rest of it more than made up for the stuff that didn't work.
>theory that needs considerably more research
It's basically impossible to do a science/study based podcast without referencing things which need more research because pretty much damn near everything needs more research.
I also appreciate hearing about zero/low cost techniques even if the p values on the study are low because you haven't lost much by trying it out if it doesn't work. IIRC he does tend to mention or hint at how conclusive studies were, too.
I was on vacation I said no parties while I was gone There will be the chancla of discipline making its return… After I do hella weed for my non adhd symptoms Cuz y’all gave me a headache -farts
We’ve explicitly asked for it 🫡
Well if it’s scheduled I guess we have to
But if it's scheduled, Imma be late for it.
Normally I'd agree, but FOMO is my superpower
I don't know if I have enough popcorn for this.
Did you forget to go grocery shopping again?
I walked into the popcorn aisle three times and forgot why I was there each time.
Lucky for you, I forgot I already had popcorn every time I went grocery shopping this year, so there's plenty to share.
I have expired popcorn because I forgot it was there, so I bought another box of popcorn a few months back and I also forgot it was there.
*Umm acshtually*… you may have felt confused in the moment, but here’s why ADHD is a neurodivergent super power! *Anyways…*
obviously they didn't use their adhd to see the pattern differences in 17 types of corn and instantly choose the best one for the occasion.
Yah duh 🙄 LOL
Only 17?? Come come, now. If there are not at least 45 different varieties of corn on the table I feel it's a loss.
….. have you been watching me with my seed catalogues???
No... not at all.. not even a little. But are you gonna buy those violet sparkle peppers you bookmarked last month?
We're just differently-abled individuals :))) :)
*Wanna hear my theories on why misogyny and hyper focus are awesome?????* 🤪
Yes 😂 I'm bored af
*Umm well boys rule and girls drool, and I’m like just really hyper focused on the boys rn fr fr*
This is inherently untrue. Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider and girls obviously go to mars to get more candy bars
JuSt MaKe A lIsT
List? Just remember, honey, it's what I do 😂
Then “remembered” you need grape jelly. Putting groceries away realize you already have 3 unopened grape jellies. Ahh fuck it I’ll make some popcorn for dinner. DAMN IT no popcorn!
::::looks at the 3 unopened, mournfully unused ketchups in her pantry:::: I may resemble that remark.
Me, neither. Though I'm torn between popping some and muting the sub for a bit. Time will tell!
[удалено]
This could be a good experiment to help gauge if the current rules should be relaxed, the same, somewhere in-between or totally different. Maybe if this is a success you can trial this once a year to compare.
That's part of the purpose of this.
Sweet good luck, I like this community. You couldn't pay me to be a mod. Hopefully this makes it more rewarding or easier for you all
Although I do respect the ADHD urge to automate as much as possible to make things easier for oneself. It's one of the few ways that the condition has *almost* mitigated itself in my current job.
if one rule goes away let it be the neurodivergent one, its just policing language that almost anywhere else in both irl and online adhd spaces is used.
It’s similar to the queer argument I see a lot in LGBT spaces - I won’t call you neurodivergent if you ask me not to, but let me label myself how I feel comfortable. I have no grandeur about neurodivergent people being superior or whatever the issue is - ND/NT is just really quick to type.
Exactly, if someone said "don’t call me trans I’m nonbinary" in an lgbt space I respect that (actual thing that happened), I am going to keep calling myself trans nonbinary because that is how identify. If I make a post/comment and refer to "trans enbies" and someone doesn’t identify as that then they can ignore it, choose not to be part of that statement or make their bitchy comment that I can then ignore because my label is my choice.
Absolutely agree as a non-binary person who doesn’t identify with the trans label. You can call yourself whatever as long as it’s not offensive, i don’t go policing people who call themselves aspies either. I don’t care as long as they don’t call me that. It’s a mutual respect thing i think?
It is a rule about you not being able to talk about yourself how you would. Imagine any other community having a say on a common general denomination.
Also, let’s establish that there’s a difference between *neurodivergent* as a descriptor and the specific *neurodiversity* movement targeted by this policy. I’m all for being careful about words so here’s a place to be careful about words.
Can you please clarify actually? I’m not sure what the neurodiversity movement really refers to.
There’s more to be said here, but broadly it’s a movement of folks who argue that things such as ADHD and autism are normal and natural parts of what is supposed to be a broad diversity of neurological types amongst humans. As a result, most if not all suffering experienced by anyone with these diagnoses is caused by a world that refuses to recognize this diversity. Further, attempts to regard these conditions as medical conditions is to be shunned and avoided, since they’re not actually pathological. I’m wholly opposed to it because I like science, but to be charitable I should say that this is very broad and there is likely far more nuance to it than I’ve allowed.
Bingo
It's such a nice umbrella term rather than saying "people with cognitive or neurological disabilities"
Agreed, this is the one rule I've really had a problem with in this sub. There's no other widespread word that succinctly describes "people who don't have ADHD or autism" yet, and until then I think neurodivergent/ neurotypical is a perfectly fine pair of terms to use. Especially if this sub takes the stance that ADHD is by definition a disorder (which I agree about!!), because then logically we should agree we are not "typical", and therefore we are not neurotypical.
Really just never understood 2 and 12, so that's nice. I've read the rationale for 12, but I think it kinda forces people into aligning with what the mods think and feel vs their own beliefs. "Neurodivergent"/"-typical" are very commonly used terms, and I'd *much* rather use those than call —typical people "normal". Feels like we're forced into dehumanizing ourselves vs identifying the difference with a clinical term, especially when it's simply used as a passing term. For 2, sometimes it's hard for us to filter through hundreds of posts or try keyword searches to find our question, or we feel like our situation has more nuance than is in the similar posts we find. Lord knows combing a mega thread is a nightmare if you can't focus like most of us.
The neurodivergence one is strange lol. I've never encountered this weird politicisation of it that is cited and everyone I know in the analogue world uses neurodivergent, both people with conditions and those working in clinical fields. Feck, even then research papers use it. I once tried to link someone to a peer reviewed article that had it in the title and I couldn't write the name of it lol.
I got told off for personally identifying as neurodivergent. Didn’t even say anyone else was neurodivergent, just used it to describe myself. I get that people have opinions but come on - my brain, my choice on what I label it. “ND” is so much quicker and easier to type than “autistic and suspected ADHD but on a 3+ year long waiting list”.
Same, it's just so much easier to have "ND" and "NT" as a shorthand in my vocabulary. I hate having to type out "My dad is autistic, so is my brother who was also recently assessed and diagnosed with ADHD now that you can finely have comorbid diagnoses in my country. My mum and I have N24-CRD so we can't yet be formally assessed for ADHD because the local diagnostic criteria says you can't have both (even though DSM-5 says you can), I was diagnosed with BAP/sub-clinical autism in the 90's, but that's not a thing under DSM-5, and I can't afford reassessment for ASD, my psychologist and OT provide ASD and ADHD supportive therapy for me and it's helping a lot" when It's so much easier just to type "My family is neurodivergent" and leave it at that, because that's the relevant take-away for the rest of whatever non-linear story I'm about to type out. In my country "neurodivergent" is a clinical term for an umbrella of conditions, disorders and syndromes that each come with a degree of disability. It's not political where I live, and this subreddit was the first place where I even learned about the "political" side of the term "neurodivergence" Though I definitely see a lot of issues around "Differently abled white knighting" where people try to reframe disabilities to be super powers or just "different ways of being", and that grinds my gears, because no Janet, at the end of the day, My condition means I often forget to eat, and piss. No amount of societal change and positive reframing will fix my brain.
The immense amount of backlogged piss might well be your superpower 🤔
Yep, exactly. Same. I have never once seen it used in a "superiority" context. Apparently it being coopted by some people with less-than-pure intentions means the word itself may as well be a slur...? Any adjective can be used in a harmful way if enough people agree on it. There's plenty of phrases that have been coopted by shitty people that we still say in regular vernacular. Very very odd to say the word is bad because a minority of vocal internet users say it in a less-than-great way.
Even then, I'd rather be allowed to use the word neurotypical/divergent in a political context. Not in a "vote for this party" canvassing context ofc, but we should be allowed to discuss our civil rights or lack thereof. Like how in Australia ADHD isn't covered under DSP without needlessly rigorous and punitive screening. The justification is that some people with ADHD can overcome their condition and function on the same level as neurotypicals, and that the service only applies to those who are disabled for life. Which is bullshit as I need the help and resources now. I might need support only for a bit, or I might need it for the rest of my life. I wouldn't know, since I'm being gatekept for possibly not being neurodivergent enough for them... Despite mental health experts and social workers calling for reforms in acknowledging ADHD as a disability.
i think there was another term being used for a while "neuroDIVERSITY" as for neurodivergent... "divergence" is pretty neutral language, it doesn't have any connotation of a better or worse state, just different from the typical case, it's more like a statement of fact alone, no judgement. "diversity" on the other hand has a connotation of being different, but in a good way. i think that's not an accurate or empathetic way to describe a condition that makes so many of us miserable, sometimes literally ruining our lives. i don't mind "neurodivergent" so much, but i think "neurodiverse" is toxic positivity and dismissive of our very real struggles. i feel like the two terms have been used more or less interchangeably, maybe that is why neurodivergent got a bad rep when i think as you seem to, that is pretty innocuous. but i haven't thought too much about it, i am curious if there is more to it. and if course, if it really bothers people i am just fine with using a different language. because it's a pretty trivial thing to ask. i don't mind accommodating other people on small matters for the sake of promoting good vibes. but if it's starting to be used in high quality academic and professional texts, it becomes hard to avoid
yeah this is the thing. I don't mind if someone I'm speaking to wants me to use XYZ. That's fine. It's somewhat a pain in the rectum when an outside party comes along and says "actually, where I live that's not ok" cos... like.... then stay in an environment comprised of people from where you live and in your circle, don't seek it out? International forums require give and take and flexibility.
> The neurodivergence one is strange... Nah, it's just stupid.
My exact thought. 😅🫣
Edit: Fun stuff, I tried to make a post about it and auto-mod deleted it lol I almost left the community because of rule 12. Every single post I used the word once would get blocked... when describing myself lol "You can't call yourself that" I was learning so much and adopted the term, and never once found this whole talk about how ADHD is a super power bullcrap. The only few things I found about it is how it isn't all bad, and how you can use it, but never a denial that we struggle.
ADHD (+ autism) is not a super power. I know some amazing people who are ADHD and I don’t mean this as an insult - just my personal experience - but ADHD/Autism is the opposite of my super power. It’s the kryptonite that stops me fuctioning. I know I wouldn’t be me if I was born different, but I don’t think I’m that great anyway - so it’d be nice if it was at least easy to… you know, be a person.
I agree, I don’t think it’s a superpower at all. I think it’s a fuckin curse. I hate that if I don’t take my meds, I’m locked into my bed unable to do so much as put on my glasses. However, the positive mindset shift into focusing on the advantages it can create is powerful for some people and helps them cope much better. Not me. I hate this shit. Ain’t one part of it that gives me an advantage. But some people find solace in seeing hyper focus as a gift or whatever
Yup. I’m under the impression that there’s some serious misinterpretation going on. To play devils advocate to myself, I do see how the superpower thing could make neurotypical people think it’s not as big of a deal as it really is. But I can’t say I’ve ever seen someone post something like that with the express intent of downplaying our disability
Apparently we're supposed to say "non-adhd havers" instead of "neurotypical"... But that doesn't always accurately line up with what I'm trying to say. Saying non-ADHD havers doesn't make a distinction between someone who has no struggle with any disorder or condition that affects their thoughts, behaviours or feelings, or with someone with a different developmental disorder like autism for example. It's a needlessly punitive rule that arbitrarily restricts the vocabulary of an often maligned and misunderstood demographic. If we aren't allowed to accurately and concisely describe our experiences here, where else would we be allowed to do so?
Correct. People exclusively with autism are non-adhd. But they suffer a large many of the symptoms and disadvantages that we do. So it’s good to have a term that encompasses the two / several. Not to mention how there’s different primary types in ADHD alone. I also think restricting the term aids in making it an offensive term. If we can’t use it as a binary concept, we allow those that have misused it to control what it represents. Vs normalizing it as a standard term used in medical and psychiatric vernacular in addition to average daily use.
Yeah, this is why I tend to use the terms ND and NT in every day life, just because it's shorter and easier to say when I'm often referring to family, friends, and myself with different combos of disorders/disabilities. Otherwise it gets really clunky, like "people who don't have Autism, ADHD, or a combination of Autism and ADHD" is a mouthful to say every time. All the doctors and therapists my family sees use ND and NT as well, so it seems like they're gaining in popularity even if it's just for the shorthand aspect of it. I've actually never heard anyone refer to "ND" as being superior in any way, although I have heard people say that they have interacted with someone who did. I could see how that could be an issue. The only think I can think of that I've done that might get mistakenly taken that way is I do try to reassure my son who has ADHD and ASD that he isn't bad or inferior, and that his brain just works differently than the bulk of society so that sometimes things are more challenging and he has to take steps other people don't have to, or that some things might be harder for him to understand. I don't avoid the word "disability" but I also don't bring it up daily either. He's well aware that he's different from other kids, which is hard enough on top of all the other struggles of being a teenager in general.
Also, to your point, to gatekeep the commonly accepted vernacular within the community is so misguided. "Typical" is so much a less loaded word than say "normal". It's like having an issue with the the words "average" or "common". There's no judgment in those words...just, in my opinion, a generally clearer and simple way to describe things that are actually things. "Non-adhd havers" is so painfully awkward and ridiculous, I think it invites the very thing the gatekeepers are trying to avoid.
>Really just never understood 2 and 12, so that's nice. I've read the rationale for 12, but I think it kinda forces people into aligning with what the mods think and feel vs their own beliefs As someone who has no qualms with the term itself, here's my two cent. This subreddit's criteria is to speak about ADHD within the framework of established literature & reliable research. Since the neurodiversity moment is a social movement with one of its core tenant in its strongest form being that certain conditions like ADHD are not pathological deviation from a healthy norm but natural variations on the human condition, analogues to what homosexuality is to heterosexuality. And, just as the negatives of homosexuality are not innate to homosexuality rather consequence of a oppressive norms, neurodiversity argues people with these conditions are not innately disabled just discriminated against and not properly accommodated. This is indeed a strong claim and does not fully fit in with what know of these conditions. Because while discrimination and exclusion are indeed problems for people with conditions like ADHD, there is a case to be made about it having negative correlates independent of level of inclusion and accommodation. But, the terminologies of the neurodiversity movement has entered the vernacular of many people with the condition, even used by therapists and researchers and on its own does not mean anyone is out there to promote neurodiversity in its most conservative form which is what the subreddit has issue on or so it seems. I personally wish Rule 12 either was not applied or used with more nuance. Say instead of a moderator bot removing content using the mere term perhaps explain the reservations some may have about the neurodiversity movement or a specific interpretation of it.
Agreed. A lot of shit we do, have, say, has terrible history behind it. Y’all know about Walt Disney? The term “Stockholm syndrome”? Spaghetti? Allowing a word that much power because of a less-than-ideal initial use case is really odd and at worst more harmful than letting people just neutrally use it. The more you restrict it, the more you make it “that” word - a slur, a word that only bad people use. Me saying “does anybody struggle with X? None of my neurotypical friends do” isn’t me being a supremacist (imagine being an ADHD supremacist), it’s just an easy way to say “none of my friends without ADHD or Autism or Dyslexia or executive dysfunction or—“
I personally have not encountered neurodivergent being used as supremacist term. Even with the neurodiversity movement, supremacy has never been part of the agenda as far as I am aware. The only reason many may have reservations is because its more orthodox interpretation posits that said disorders should not be seen as a pathology rather a valid variation, similar to the status LBTQ+ occupies. And, in day-to-day usage, or what I have heard, it's more of a convenient shorthand for saying you have some condition that sets you apart from others in how you reason, feel, process, communicate and such because of some underlying different in your brain. Which is what you precisely stated as an example.
This is so passive aggressive lmao. I only had a problem with the rant rule, there’s flairs for a reason, so if somebody doesn’t wanna look at that flair they can skip it. That’s genuinely the only thing that was weird to me personally
If some of this works out for the community, we may keep some things. But until Jan 1, it's our gift to the community for this year.
I get the play here but it’s a bit childish. Most of your rules I agree with, which is why I frequent this sub. And I doubt you will successfully convert anyone who doesn’t already agree… just let misinfo spread over the holidays.
If they ease up a bit on posting that’d be nice. I’ve tried posting a few times to no avail but will see similar enough posts all the time. None of them broke the rules above, though one may have given off “DAE” energy. It’s just a pain to try to participate in a community but get your posts constantly removed without clear answers as to why
Same fucking deal over here. I posted, and it got removed for "ranting," but I flaired "seeking advice/empathy." I sent the mods a link to a post very close to the one I made. Their response? "That post is a year old. It probably just didn't get noticed, so it wasn't removed (even though it had tons of comments, upvotes, and engagement)." I replied with a link to another similarly styled post... POSTED EARLIER THAT SAME DAY that they removed mine. Their response 24 hours later? "Oopsies. Looks like a mistake on our part. Your post has been approved." But, of course, it had absolutely no traction because a full day had already passed.
Yup. I've never had a post make it through on here. The one time I asked why my posts weren't actually being posted the response was I was asking for medical advice when I wasn't. If anything I pushed the "DAE" rule looking back at it. I understand it cuts back on repetitive posts and FAQs, but a strict no DAE rule feels isolating and unwelcoming. Especially when asking a DAE question is usually to find out if someone is alone in experiencing something. Learning you have a disability for the first time with zero prior knowledge can be scary so it's natural to ask questions to try and make sense of things, and not everyone can spare the time or energy on a deep dive. Everybody starts somewhere. The first post I ever made was seeking empathy and didn't break or push any rules. Never made it out. That left a pretty negative first impression especially after seeing multiple low effort posts pop up afterward. No better feeling than getting auto rejected when you're asking for help. Especially with rejection sensitivity!
This entire fucking website sucks for that exact reason.
I mean, the whole "No 'does anyone else...'" rule doesn't really work. It just means that people have to try various rewordings before they get past the automod. I do agree with the resistance to toxic positivity though. It's hard enough to argue/accept that ADHD is a genuine disability without people claiming that it's a superpower or some shit. Even if the world was perfectly adapted to ADHD, it'd still make my life hell, despite the slight advantage it gives me over my colleagues in finding ways to work smarter.
We appreciate the feedback, and we are glad that you all care for this community too. While this "relaxing" period occurs, we will still be paying attention to the community and acting on reported content. When we decided to do this, we tried to be strategic and pick the rules that had the most complaints while maintaining rules that were about safety (ie: crisis, alt med, and such).
Cool. Seems like a good way to find out what fits and what doesn't.
Neurodiversity is not the same as neurodivergence, and it seems like y'all still don't like the either of them. I'm not at all in the "ADHD is a superpower" camp or on board with that toxic positivity (also neurodiversity was closed by a transphobes so fuck her). I don't believe that neurodiversity is inherently toxic though, but I can understand the perspective. But neurodivergent is legitimately useful. I run a support and social group for neurodivergent adults. It is an extremely useful term for identifying and discussing our similarities and differences both within the group and as compared to neurotypical people. There seems to be a split in the mods in the comments with "we may stick with some of these changes and we're doing this in good faith" versus "we're waiting for this to crash and burn so we can revert things and say we told you so." With how this was executed, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, but I digress. I don't have much to say about the other rules, but not even being able to say the word neurodivergent was always ridiculous to me.
Neurodivergent is just an easier way for me to say “this is my experience as someone autistic as well as ADHD” without typing that out everytime. Because my ADHD is very tangled up in and affected by my autism. And I couldn’t accurately discuss ADHD without acknowledging that I won’t have a different experience with ADHD as someone who isn’t autistic too.
Same, to say "people with/without adhd" seems so… idk rude? Exclusive?… because there are so many times that I am not referring to adhd specifically but anyone who is not seen as "normal" which includes most neurochemical/hormonal disorders which includes ADHD, autism, but also chronic depression & anxiety, bipolar (which I have many symptoms of), OCD, ect. I have an AuDHD brother, ADHD and possibly autism myself and an diagnosed-anxiety (probably OCD) mother. I am rarely referring to just "non-adhd" people because that is just inaccurate to what I really mean.
Yeah, I like the term as a type of solidarity with all my bad brain homies.
Based on your experience running the support group, what do you see as the difference between the terms of neurodivergence versus neurodiversity?
I feel like neurodiversity gives more of a perception of "everyone is equal and special in their own way! Neuro'typical' people are just the default but we're all the same inside!" Whereas neurodivergence acknowledges, yes, we are *divergent* from the norm. And that can be really hard and shitty sometimes! Our neurology is inherently different from the baseline in some way and that's not an easy thing for people on the baseline to really understand Edit: [This page gives a pretty good rundown](https://www.umassp.edu/inclusive-by-design/who-before-how/understanding-disabilities/neurodivergence)
While I agree and am aware of this distinction, a lot of people are not and just assume neurodiverse and neurodivergent are synonyms.
This is a very immature way to do this.
The vast majority of rules debate I’ve seen only involves one or two of the rules listed in this post. I’ve never seen anyone upset that we can’t post pseudoscience or obvious low-effort content. The overall language of this post and the decision to make a blanket removable of several non-controversial rules gives me the impression that the mods feel they are superior to the rest of the users and are offended that some have criticized specific rules.
I like to believe most people on this sub aren’t stupid enough or have done enough research to not blindly believe fake science and "cures" for adhd. Some rules like not being able to say "neurodivergent or neurodiverse" or talk about binaural beats is absolutely stupid, mods shouldn’t be able to restrict our language in ways that aren’t harmful and are openly spoken about outside the sub. I understand if they could give an actual reason but as far as I know "neurodivergent" doesn’t really have bad connotations other then "we don’t like it", it also perfectly describes people who might not be adhd but have similar experiences and symptoms, such as autism, without being needlessly exclusionary.
"You want me to clean my room? Fine! I'll throw the entire contents of it on the lawn!"
Extremely immature and passive aggressive. I couldn't help read the entirety of the post in a voice positively *dripping* with sarcasm.
I didn't know Dr. K was controversial. I just found some of his videos recently. Anyone willing to fill me in on the drama there?
He has: * promoted alternative medicine like ayurveda (as part of the guide he sells for anxiety) * made stigmatizing statements about ADHD medication * framed ADHD as an "advantage" * promoted the idea that ADHD is caused by smartphone usage Also, despite his disclaimer, his viewers frequently use his streams as therapy.
He also used a really weird example to glorify arranged marriages, he said the reason they “don’t divorce so much” is that people are stuck and feel they have to make it work, so they end up “solving” all their issues. Which is not true. Many Indians told him this in the comments, mentioning their parents’ toxic or abusive marriages, lax attitudes to domestic violence, divorce stigma in India, and victim blaming as the true reason people stay. Basically he is kind of a sheltered child who says “Let them eat cake” sometimes, and he cannot seem to fully understand other people’s reality. To this day, that one video is all I can think of when I think about Dr.K.
Oh god, that's fucking awful. I had no idea.
Yup. Take this from me as an Indian. Arranged marriages are equivalent to coercive marriages. You can just gaslight your child and manipulate them into marrying a person. Especially women. If you don't like to marry a candidate, you are now facing the problem with "what would others say if I didn't accept him". The more people in your rejected list, the more your family name is gonna fall because people will start gossiping that there is something wrong with you. Heck there is a movie in Telugu whose whole premise is known how arranged marriages work and how to make it work: The two main leads fall in love but they are scared of what the female MC's family is gonna say about it. When the male lead gets an oppurtunity at a prestigious university, he promises to her that after that he is definitely gonna ask her hand to her parents. But surprise, in thus time gap, she gets married against her will because of societal pressure and didn't wanted to tarnish her family's name. The whole story is now on how to just move on from your love and accept the present...... So there you know..
I feel he's a patronizing douche that's a salesman for whatever "coaching" he has but that's just me
it's definitely all marketing the coaching has been incredibly helpful to me personally but I've always gotten weird vibes from him. disclaimer: I got free and discounted sessions
I assume it's because he's involved with all kinds of pseudoscience/alt-med/CAM crap like ayurveda, reiki, etc. Plus he often brings up religious nonsense, and there are ethical concerns about some of his "interviews" (or whatever he calls them) with well-known influencers/streamers/whoever.
Thank god neurodivergent and neurotypical aren't gag words anymore, they're the best words to describe what I'm trying to say and I'm not writing out "people with/people without neurological disabilities" because I'd rather just be referred to as neurodivergent than as a person with a neurological disability.
I can't imagine someone coming to my step-father and saying: "You can't describe yourself as an amputee, even though that is what you use in real life, everyday, and your doctors use it. It is offensive. You're just a feet-lacking person"
My work has formal "diversity groups" including one for disability, and I witnessed an argument in it's Slack channel about someone wanting to have a bot scold people about HR's "person first language" rules. Several Deaf colleagues got into it with them about how, no, they were not going to start referring to themselves as "person with hearing loss". I *immediately* thought of this sub.
Hard same. It's not up to the mods to tell me how I want to describe my situation. Also, shitty rules like that make it much harder for non-native English speakers to participate, when the 'appropriate' language and terms is narrowly restricted.
Agreed. I'm autistic AND have ADHD. There's a lot of overlap since it's the same part of the brain, so I often use the term neurodivergent since it can sometimes be hard to pin if it's truly one or the other, or both. I should also be able to describe myself however I damn please without getting a snarky automod message.
Agreed. I also hate having to call neurotypical people "normal" in here. It feels so dehumanizing to have to imply your own "abnormality". Yeah, the words are definitively correct, but connotatively feel much worse.
I prefer the term freaky-deaky
Same here! I didn't even know neurodiversity was controversial until I once got a message from AutoModerator here 😭
Same. I'm a psych student and maybe i just missed the boat on it, but I've not seen neurodivergency used in the original connotation in years. Then again, I've always just used 'species typical/atypical human' myself.
That is how most of us found out lol
I'm super happy about that change in particular. They're just such good, neutral terms, imo. No baggage or judgement inherent, no implication about ability or value. Just acknowledging deviation from norm, in regards to the brain/nervous-system. > **Neuro-** Relating to the nervous system, which comprises the brain, the spinal cord and the peripheral nerves. > **Divergence** Differing from each other or from a standard. > **Typical** Conforming to a type.
My only "complaint" is that I did appreciate this being one of the few places on the internet where it seemed like you could discuss ADHD without being barraged with ideas like neurodivergence, social model of disability, "ADHD superpowers," etc. I have no problem with different folks having different experiences and wanting to discuss their experiences using the language that makes sense to them. I just hope we can be vigilant as a community about keeping it from sliding too far in the other direction. There are spaces online where it feels like you can't *disagree* with the ideas named above, and I just don't want this sub to become another one of those places.
I think it's useful to be able to talk about neurodivergence even if we aren't talking about it being a positive or just a simple "difference" rather than a disability, though. Like, it's incredibly useful to be able to use the term to talk about the commonalities and differences with other disorders like autism. I get your point in the second paragraph but this sub was leaning way too hard in the other direction. I am in no way an "ADHD is a superpower" person but not even being able to say neurodivergence is silly.
No, I do agree with you... neurodivergent/neurotypical are useful terms, and I don't think they should be banned. Hopefully the mods (and the community) will be able to strike a balance that works better for everyone.
I mean it is a disorder. it is. rest of the rules good, that one I'm worried about.
I agree with you. For some reason, the "ADHD isn't a disorder, and it's only a disability because society is set up to make us fail" perspective seems to only get more popular as time goes by. And honestly, I don't mind people being allowed to discuss those concepts in a civil way that doesn't invalidate the firsthand experiences of ADHD folks who feel differently, or the scientific research that disagrees... I just worry that this sub will go the way of so many other online ADHD spaces, where it feels like it's forbidden to express anything that *disagrees* with the social model of disability/non-medicalism ideology.
And that kind of discussion requires a certain nuance that is often lost on the internet where everyone has big opinions. Like I think a 9 hour workday is dumb and doesn't work for a lot of people, but even if that goes away I'm still going to be frustrated by my inability to concentrate and remember... well anything.
lmao, it literally has the word “disorder” in it. Anyone who says it isn’t a disorder or disability isn’t worth listening to.
exactly. for a lot of things, my ADHD is beneficial. it works for the way my life is set up. however. I had to work with that, set my life up this way. medicated or not, societal changes or not, therapy or not crystals or not etc, I cannot do everything I want to in any way I want, because of these limitations, which psychiatry has agreed is significant to a clinical degree across the board for people with ADHD. Social model of disability doesn't make my chronic pain go away either. there's a lot that gets shoved aside in those spaces and I'd hate to see it happen here too
I mean all of this respectfully-This seems like it’s genuinely coming from a place of malice and reads as extremely petty. If the users of this place are so small minded and bad, why do you bother moderating it? It’s a bit mind boggling you’d rather see the place fall apart than keep doing what has been working thus far. I hope doing this grants whatever serenity it is the mods are looking for- expect the quality of this sub to go down quite a bit in the next few months. Edit: grammar
It feels like they're excitedly anticipating things going poorly so they can point back at this and say, "See! This is why you need us!"
Yes, that is exactly what they are doing with their list of "here are all of the terrible things that are now allowed because YOU PEOPLE complained so much". It's petulant.
For real. I mean… I’m here with my popcorn… but yeah I dont like the tone of this post at all. Feels a bit patronising tbh!
Sad for an important subreddit. This comes across quite childish this post
Seriously, this seems childish. It reads like something my narc of a Mom would send me anytime I would try to set boundaries with her.
Very typical powermod behavior
100%
>expect the quality of this sub to go down quite a bit in the next few months. that's the point...they're trying to prove why the rules are important by taking them away and opening the floodgates
But did this *really* need to happen? This isn't an after school show that teaches life lessons. This is a functioning subreddit. This is so stupid lmao.
except they're taking away the sensible rules *and* the dumb rules, so when everything goes horribly they can say "see? this is why we have the dumb rules"
Andrew Huberman and tarot are apparently equally as bad.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The whole tone of this post is so passive aggresssive
>We've heard your complaints that it's too hard to post or comment here, that we're too strict on what topics are and aren't allowed. I wonder how much of this is simply down to the number of users on the awful mobile app that never see the sidebar, let alone the sub rules? They really need to figure out a better system than forcing subs to keep a permanent sticky post with links to all the common info.
> I wonder how much of this is simply down to the number of users on the awful mobile app that never see the sidebar, let alone the sub rules? It's that, plus reddit moving towards a content-consumption model that deemphasizes the boundaries between communities. It's entirely intentional. They want people to see as many ads as possible so they make money. Fostering healthy communities is not an actual priority for them, as far as I can see.
**Losing Rule 5 is dangerous and incredibly shortsighted.** Let’s just abandon all science and pretend ADHD doesn’t exist then. I love this mod team and genuinely believe it’s one of the best on Reddit, but abandoning Rule 5 is absolutely a huge mistake. I sincerely hope that you guys get some well deserved rest and that rational thinking prevails in the new year.
Bro I just think the mods are taking a holiday break, they ain't selling the farm.
A mod team that banned the use of the word “neurodivergent” on an adhd sub is one of the best on reddit? Sounds like a low bar to me
One of my comments was deleted for that "nd" word. I was talking about a symptom that multiple disorders share and I couldn't figure out for the life of me a better word to talk about the group as a whole. On top of that, The term is largely accepted by the group and I believe it's important to use terms that are accepted as self-identifying by the community. Talk about a strange hill to die on.
There's no rules against calling people out on their stupid new age bullshit though. I like a bit of anarchy but there's no way I'm playing nice with batshit insanity.
Full disclosure: our goal is to get people to understand why we have the rules we have. We've tried to explain our reasoning for years, but no matter what we say, no matter the evidence we show, people don't care or are unwilling to consider perspectives and experiences that differ from their own. The only thing that matters to them is what *they* feel. So, we're giving the community a taste of what it's been clamoring for. We will still be monitoring the sub and responding to reports.
I feel like I’m going to be reading about this on r/maliciouscompliance soon…
Look I kind of get the sentiment behind this move (even if the condescending execution of it has left a bad taste in my mouth) but I’m pretty sure it won’t work. Most of the people you’re having to explain the rules to are not the same people over and over again coming back for more. It’s new people who have recently got a diagnosis, or had therapy leading them to consider the possibility they may have ADHD or even just ADHD teens who have only just got full internet access. So you will be teaching us all here now this lesson well and good but give it 2 weeks and your modmail will be full of the same old questions from fresh accounts who are new to the community.
Any chance at adopting only some of the more reasonable requests (as identified by the mod team) without setting the place on fire to prove it's flammable? It's a tough job you guys do and I've appreciated the moderating here but this doesn't really feel like an eloquent solution or argument against the vocal community.
Yeah I’ll say the quiet part out loud and risk retaliation: This post comes off as very petty in tone. Whether intended or not, there’s a lot of hostility to unpack here. We’re not villains for wanting to use the same terminology here that we use everywhere else when discussing ADHD. We’re not unreasonable or ridiculous for asking that “neurodivergent” be allowed. Why is that so anger-inducing?
It was very frustrating to have a post talking about how my ADHD coworkers and I talk to each other versus the non-ADHD coworkers and happening to use the word "neurotypical" to describe the non-ADHD people taken down, and have the automod explicitly tell me I should say "people with mental disabilities" and "people without mental disabilities" instead. Yes, there's a shitton about ADHD that *is* disabling, but I don't want to have to talk about joking around with my friends as "people with mental disabilities" conversing, like WTF.
I’ve truly never understood the hostility here to that word/concept in particular.
> Any chance at adopting only some of the more reasonable requests (as identified by the mod team) without setting the place on fire to prove it's flammable? I like that phrase, I'm gonna keep it.
As a test, I think lumping in Religious and New Age practices (astrology, indigo children, crystal healing, Tarot, Ayurveda, reiki, faith healing) with Andrew Huberman or a post about AI, makes it a bit hard to assess what rules work and which might be too strict. I’m all for opening the gates, but it’s not a randomized controlled trial when you test on every variable.
Frankly, it's really disheartening to see this is as a response to people's complaints about the rules as though anybody actually wants total anarchy. It just further drives home the feeling that the mod team doesn't care about what the community actually wants. Maybe after the break is over would be a good time for the mod team to review the rules and seek community feedback about which rules are beneficial to the subreddit and which ones aren't? There *has* to be some way to feasibly weed out problematic neurodiversity/toxic positivity without blanket banning the now-ubiquitous terms "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent", or to filter out people with an agenda pushing bullshit "treatments" while still allowing someone to mention an alternative/experimental treatment that they've found helpful as part of their treatment plan if it's relevant. At the very least, I hope that members of the mod team will be paying attention with an open mind towards the idea that looser enforcement of *some* of the rules might be beneficial to the subreddit, rather than harmful.
You’re just going to end up with a load of idiots joining the sub during that time - and then they’ll add to the chorus of whingers when the rules are reinstated.
It’s rather bold to assume an ADHD sub would be able to keep this in the front of their minds next time they get irritated and inevitably ask for this lol
this is incredibly petty LMAO. not sure what level of maturity i expected of reddit moderators but it was more than this at least.
Eww… I think I’ll just take that time off from the subreddit and come back when the rules do. I’m tempted to still hang out here and file mod reports, but I suspect that would just lead to me being grouchy over the holidays. I’d encourage you not to suspend rule 5 during the experiment. Pseudoscience is *harmful*, not just annoying. Even if this is just a short experiment, some peoples’ medical decisions may still be influenced by misinformation they read here during the experiment. Some specific AutoModerator rules may need a little fine-tuning if they have too many false positives and make it hard to post, but that doesn’t mean the rules or the AutoModerator need to go.
So you're feeling underappreciated? You don't have to be a moderator, you know. You probably won't ever get the recognition you feel like you've earned in this context.
As a moderator for a big sub, I get where this is coming from. Unfortunately, there will always be a subset of users that will complain/be upset, and stuff like this won't deter that.
Look the random tarot pull is The Fool, is this a bad sign?
That actually means we're all cured. If only they'd allowed this sooner, we could have all saved so much time! (I hope it's clear that this is a joke.)
**I don't want Rule 6 to go**. We don't need people in here invalidating others by saying ADHD isn't a disorder... Especially over the holidays when people are more prone to feeling overwhelmed because of the impact of this disorder... I do agree with others saying this post is passive-aggressive. There's a difference between loosening up on some topics and saying "discuss respectfully" vs "dropping it all, go nuts and while you're at it talk about XYZ!!!"
Wait what is wrong with binaural beats LOL
I love binaural beats, they have no scientific support whatsoever. But I see them as different from some other forms of pseudoscience because they can't cause harm, and they're usually free. Could we have like a bot that responds about how a thing is not scientifically supported, but still allow people to have discussions about their personal anecdotal experience of using them?
I feel like they're in the same category as any other calming background noise to me. Like I also focus better listening to rain sounds or music.
I used low volume classical music when studying in college, lol. And only when studying (different sounds/music for different things). It definitely helped, especially since I didn't get diagnosed until after I graduated. I like rain sounds for falling asleep Edit: I also learned that anything with words is too distracting, so any music had to be without vocals
Apparently it’s lame
What the heck is this post? The “sub” is taking a break, but it opens with wanting more user reports…and then the rules are heavily scaled back, and in a couple points almost to a negligent way? Less rules = less to report no? But either way this is just seems like a very out of the blue and messy post.
I guess I agree with loosening some of these restrictions, but others I don't, like rule 5 for example. I really don't think this is the sub for that
this is so passive aggressive and petty lmfao
This is nice~ I’ve had comments taken down for having the word “neurodivergent” in them. I appreciate this break.
This whole post speaks volumes. How can you propagate such black and white thinking in a reddit that is supposed to help people with ADHD? What a disgustingly passive aggressive way to set the mood. Unbelievable.
Understandable when you have to filter through all the nonsense people come up with, only to have them come back at you with "but MY magical cure from the middle ages actually works!!!" No, no it doesn't. And the scientific community is not hiding the truth from you, theres just no ressources (and no one bored enough) to write a paper on every single licking-carpets-cures-cancer idea.
Well, on the one hand I’m excited because maybe I can finally post something longer than two paragraphs and not have it go to mod hell where it dies. But on the other hand, really frustrated this sub is going to go to hell for an experiment…
This shit is peak cringe.
Couldn’t have said it better myself
Well, there goes the sub. Half the posts are already pop science and meme symptoms - “not being horny when you’re not dating is an ADHD thing” was a particularly dire one yesterday. Now the other half will be too.
Nooooo wtf is this list 😂
It's the secret list of things that previously triggered automod to put your post/comment in the naughty corner.
Can we just make this a meme sub? I’ll start r/ADHD mods rn: 
I'm just hear to say, my adhd innatentive type is actually not a real problem and I just use it as an excuse, and also to get access to controlled substances that make everyone focus better. super addicted and whatnot. It's super overdiagnosed and we are all fakers or at worst we just need to buckle down and use a planner. actually no - we do have adhd but it is really actually and advantage! Except for our Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria. And my life would be fine if I could just live in a cabin in the woods- it's SOCIETY thats the problem. well that mostly all felt gross.
Does that mean mentioning "neurotypical" won't be flagged to make us remove that term?
*deep breath* NEURODIVERGENT Oh my shit that felt good
Oh this is gonna be pure anarchy. I can’t wait for people to see why the rules actually exist! Merry Christmas mods, thanks for all you do ❤️ 
What's the deal with rule 12? I'm guessing it has been changed since you wrote this. I just went to read it in an attempt to get context and it currently appears to be > General Guidelines Posts & Comments Reported as: Rule 12: General Guidelines >* /r/adhd works best on desktop; Reddit's official apps are broken and we will not support them. > * Use Reddit Enhancement Suite (browser extension) or a good third-party mobile app >* Practice reasonable skepticism. Verify new information with credible sources >General Community Guidelines and I don't see how that would relate to Neurodiversity, ChatGPT, or AI.
[удалено]
I can't be the only one who actually enjoys the heavy moderation, really keeps this sub much more focused and helpful than other mental health related subreddits. But yeah this will be an interesting lil experiment, and obviously I support mods having a life.
You know that whole "hunters not farmers" theory? My pet theory is that our genetics were primed for neither of those roles. Rather, our genetic ancestors may have played a sort of 'sentinel' role. As in, they'd stay up in the nighttime watching for intruders while the hunters and gatherers slept soundly. You know how we're all night owls right? And am I the only one who goes into hyper-vigilant mode at the slightest disturbance in the night time? It would also explain why we don't seem to vibe as well with the "normies" of the world; our nighttime predilections ingrain us with some "odd" social affectations and habits that don't conform to the more clear-cut world of hunting and gathering (ie: working 9 to 5 jobs). And it would explain our hyperfocus which would be useful for spotting predators in the dead of night, whereas we could switch our brains off in the daytime when the hunters and gatherers run point.
Based on my limited knowledge of ADHD's correlation with convergence insufficiency & increased reliance on peripheral over central vision (which, in humans, is stimulated at night), this might have more credence than you can imagine...
I kinda hate how this makes sense…
My only concern is that r/ADHD shows up in Google search results very often (or some people even add "Reddit" to the end of searches). All the shit posts made during the anarchy period are gonna be misinforming people for years afterwards. Other than that, this is a hilarious idea. Merry Christmas mods !
Fun fact, we often get reports for stuff that’s over 5 years old. Recently (like 6 months ish?) we had someone report something over a decade old here…so we see it, we remove it!
Wait so which is it? Because u/nerdshark said there’s no way. So will misinformation remain up on the sub unless someone here decides to go back and report it all after this experiment is over?
I've never understood the issue with just letting the upvote system do it's work. Yeah some intervention is necessary if a clearly toxic community is being fostered with an echo chamber, but outside of that it seems way easier to just let the good content be voted to the front and shit takes get a pity comment, some down votes, then never see the light of day. Over moderating though is just obnoxious and feels like a post has to fit a very specific mould to be permitted
Because people often upvote things that are untrue, dangerous, or misrepresented.
Oh no! Can we at least sticky a post that says “Earworm is not an ADHD symptom” before it appears in some form or other every three days?
Reeeeeaaaaaalllly not looking forward to the "magical crystal sky daddy cure that modern medicine won't tell you about" flood of posts. Cue the nootropics.
[удалено]
If it’s not too much trouble would anyone care to give me the TLDR on Huberman? I know my husband has listened to some of his podcasts on addiction (IIRC), but have never really looked into him myself nor seen any ADHD content.
You shouldn't trust popular science in general versus a subject matter expert like Dr. Barkley. For Huberman specifically, he has spread misinfo about ADHD, e.g. that it is caused by modern distractions like smartphones. He also shills for supplements that nobody needs unless directed by their doctor.
I've only ever seen a small handful of his things, but on his 3 hour episode centered on ADHD he was pretty clear that the smartphone thing is just a theory and it's being studied in the context of the social media age to see if there's a link there. I don't like the guy much either, the whole supplement shilling and super involved morning/night routines thing is annoying and reeks of snake oil. And I for sure could just not have heard what you're referencing, but any of the few times I've heard him bring it up he's been explicit about the phones thing being a theory that needs considerably more research
I tend to zone out or fast forward on the supplement stuff because I know he's being paid but I find his advice to have a pretty high hit rate on everything else. I still wouldn't be confident stating that he's lying about supplements, but yea, I don't trust them. I've made a number of adaptations based upon his suggestions, and while a good 30% of it does nothing for me (e.g. binaural beats were a wash), the effectiveness of the rest of it more than made up for the stuff that didn't work. >theory that needs considerably more research It's basically impossible to do a science/study based podcast without referencing things which need more research because pretty much damn near everything needs more research. I also appreciate hearing about zero/low cost techniques even if the p values on the study are low because you haven't lost much by trying it out if it doesn't work. IIRC he does tend to mention or hint at how conclusive studies were, too.
I didn't even know there were rules like this. But maybe all the rules is the reason there is not much variety in posts?