I think the vocabulary we use is starting to rub up against its limitations in problematic ways. Medicine is ver geared towards a pathology-diagnosis-treatment

I think the vocabulary we use is starting to rub up against its limitations in problematic ways. Medicine is ver geared towards a pathology-diagnosis-treatment paradigm. When it comes to something like blood pressure that's decent enough. Blood pressure above a certain threshold significantly increases the risks of XYZ and therefore… There are edge cases and grey areas that come from drawing a circle around anything that doesn't naturally conform to categorization, but the paradigm works. For other things, the paradigm is clunkier. For one thing, doctors have an ethical (and legal, institutional..) objection to intervention unless some "pathology" criteria has been met. Since people want to use treatment and/or sell it, the definition of the pathology is constantly being messed with to conform. Consider viagra. According to some, it is a pathology in young men but natural in older men. In any case, viagra is allowed to be prescribed. But then, impotence is on a scale. You are not allowed to use the drug unless you fall within some diagnostic parameters. There is no framework for "elective" use. You 22 year olds cannot have it. But, it's probably less harm to a robust 22 year old then a 55 year old. Anyway, ADHD is something that tends to be diagnosed in children when they exhibit some problematic behavior, usually problematic to schools and sometimes at home. It sticks as a diagnosis when the treatment works. So, your sample here is largely kids that had behavioral problems for which some sort of intervention (ritalin, meditation, diet..) was sought. It's almost like saying teenagers expelled for drinking at school are more likely to default on rent in their 40s. It might mean that drinking during formative years affects your financial responsibility, but it probably means that teenager who get into trouble often grow into adults who get into trouble.