> "Quality" is an arbitrary definition that means nothing, that's one of the problems we're talking about in psychiatry.

Why is that a problem? It's not completely objective but it's the best we have. That criteria is typically combined with more objective neuropsychological testing for a well rounded assessment.

> The OP clearly mentioned that there was minimal impact on academic, professional, or social functioning other than internal discomfort, for example, yet was prescribed anyway.

They didn't say that, they said that they weren't suffering "catastrophic failures", which is distinctly different from "minimal impact". They also said they had high intellectual abilities which is entirely consistent with the ICD-11 description:

> The degree of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity is outside the limits of normal variation expected for age and level of intellectual functioning

High-IQ can mask ADHD, but that doesn't mean they haven't been experiencing challenges associated with ADHD.

So you've clearly just restated what I said which is that it was principally a matter of discomfort, not clinical outcomes or justification, which is the defining characteristic for diagnosis in the DSM.

I didn't restate anything, I corrected you because you take every opportunity to downplay negative effects that these disorders have on people's lives, and you've done it again by simply labeling it "discomfort".

You find it problematic that the other person was diagnosed with ADHD simply because their life wasn't a total disaster but I'd like to remind you that it's an attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and not a "Can't Hold Down a Job" or "Total Failure At Life" disorder and your desire to have it redefined it in those terms wouldn't help anyone.

I'm using the definition of the threshold necessary for a clinical diagnosis as defined in psychiatry, which is not merely "negative effects" or as I've repeatedly stated "discomfort".

It's something that persistently prevents someone from living a "normal" life, which is also defined far too narrowly.

You're absolutely insistent that virtually any amount of "negative effects" is sufficient for diagnosis and pharmacological intervention which is absolutely not the case.

Nobody is saying it's easy or the discomfort and difficulties aren't real.

> You're absolutely insistent that virtually any amount of "negative effects" is sufficient for diagnosis

There you go again, I'm doing nothing of the sort. They complained of severe difficulties and called some of them "torture".

You took that, minimized their complaints and accused me of wanting to medicate anyone suffering "virtually any amount of negative effects" which apparently includes the person who self-described it as torture.