TFA links attention on one hand, and social media and LLM use on the other. I'm not making any points about the scientific validity of those conclusions, but that's the context in which this discussion is taking place.
Personally, I find a very strong link between my devices and my ability to focus, as they're the space in which I spaff my time. I do not believe myself to have ADHD, I believe that the machines I use offer limitless ways for me to lose track when I'm tired.
I'm deeply skeptical of pharmacological solutionism, particularly in the domain of mental health. A variety of drugs can be a boon, life-saving to many, but are over-prescribed and treat symptoms not causes.
With regard to amphetamines in particularly (we called it 'whizz' where I'm from, back in the day), we're talking about a class of drug that can cause dependency, problems with sleep and sex, anxiety and plenty more. I would not say they're not without side effects in the slightest.
Sure, great if this sort of stuff helps, but I find the "just get a diagnosis" line utterly inadequate and borderline disturbing.
I agree that screens contribute to the issues of attention and executive dysfunction. But the thing with ADHD is that there is no "treating the cause", because the cause is genetic and there is no cure, there is only management of the symptoms. As for dependency, people with ADHD report to chronically forget to take their stimulants, so there's that. For me personally, I find things like weed way more addictive, and I didn't notice any issues with sleep or sex (and I think you might be confusing stimulants with SSRIs here in regards to sex).
I agree that not everyone having issues today would be qualifying for ADHD. There are way too many things about the zeitgeist that are overloading everyone. But still:
1. you can't prescribe someone a fixed society
2. what constitutes "over prescription" is subjective, and some increase in prescriptions is to be expected in line with better knowledge and so ability to diagnose people who were previously missed
3. contrary to several other psychiatric medications, stimulants have a known MoA and consistently beat placebo
4. amphetamine taken recreationally is often in different forms and much higher doses than would be taken on prescription, by people who aren't in need. Things like sleep and anxiety can actually be improved by such prescriptions
You don't believe in them, for yourself or others, and you've been trained well enough to couch your disbelief (eg "great if this sort of stuff helps") so as to avoid someone directly addressing your disbelief in them. Yeah there are side effects, but it's a personal choice. No one's going to force you to take them if you don't want them, but for people that find them useful, going around telling everybody that they're over prescribed and have side effects doesn't help people who would benefit from them get access to them.
> just get a diagnosis" line utterly inadequate
There's an entire industry with licensing boards and factories and regulations. How much more money do you want spent on the problem in order to form an adequate response, and what would that look like to you?