> I'm arguing that this is not about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I don't think our experience is the intended context.
Then whose experience is the "intended" context?
> To be fair, there's evidence it does the same to us.
Same for every prescription medication out there.
This is why they require a prescription.
This is why spreading the idea that Adderall is a pill that will boost your "mental efficiency" WITHOUT ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, as Huxley said in his talk, is harmful and dangerous.
Adderall is very much known to not be that kind of stimulant.
Of course, same applies for e.g. nicotine. But we also know the outcome of nicotine being touted as a consequence-free stimulant.
The fact that one is widely available to anyone over 18 no questions asked, while the other requires a thousand hoops and a costly diagnosis is, of course, a bizarre travesty...
...which is only exacerbated by people promoting the abuse of this medication, as the author of the piece does (by saying that it is anywhere close to Huxley's utopian drug at population scale).
Huxley never mentions Adderall, and neither Huxley nor the article mention ADHD.
I'm not trying to argue with your points about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I agree! I empathize!
I'm arguing that this is not about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I don't think our experience is the intended context.
The talk is mostly about tailoring learning to the individual. I think you'd find it's points quite agreeable!
> you will likely FUCK YOURSELF UP.
To be fair, there's evidence it does the same to us.