The point I was contesting in the parent was "disorder they likely didn't have at an extremely early stage in their development". He's claiming that childhood

The point I was contesting in the parent was "disorder they likely didn't have at an extremely early stage in their development". He's claiming that childhood diagnosis is bunk. He's insisting that kids are unlikely to have ADHD. I'm asserting that the behaviors for ADHD show up in children first and foremost. I'm not saying that receiving clinical diagnosis as a child is the only way to have an adult diagnosis: In fact I'm not talking about diagnostics at all. It's that you _had_ ADHD as a kid, undiagnosed or otherwise, means you likely _have_ ADHD as an adult. I never once posited that someone with no diagnosis as a child is precluded from being diagnosed as an adult; however they should have had childhood symptoms based on the DSM as I understand it. I'm arguing with someone who denies the existence of childhood ADHD in a naive "kids are just hyper don't drug them" argument.