ADHD isn't necessarily a pathology. I.e. arguably there is nothing "wrong" with most people with that diagnoses, it is simply an adaptation where there was an evolutionarily stable balance of temperaments where some nontrivial ratio of people are more like seekers and wanderers and not satisfied with buckling down and doing the same stuff repeatedly.

ADHD is also at least in some people, a developmental problem sort of like a muscle imbalance where people learn to do an action with a set of muscles and neglect whole muscle groups and end up kind of able to do everything but with drawbacks because they weren't trained properly.

After a concussion and extensive testing, I discovered the latter about myself. There are a lot of things I'm quite good at with neurological tests and one working memory test that I'm just terrible at. So much started making sense when I discovered this about my whole life. And maybe my brain is just weird but what I actually think is it's something that just never got trained because I got good at other things early which compensated.

Now the struggle is finding professionals interested in helping instead of telling me everything will be better with an SSRI and talk about my feelings.

I'm sure that I'm still a certain kind of person, but a lot of my "symptoms" could actually be trained away if properly measured and exercised.

If you want to learn more about ADHD there's a intresting book about it called "ADHD doesn't exist" which relates over 40 years in the matter by a specialist of the field. The author explains that ADHD is too often treated as the problem itself when it's "just" symptoms. He also takes time to explain every source he's observed to cause there symptoms, how he looks for them with daily patients and what to do/how to deal with these problems properly. I learnt a lot about myself and what could realy be the cause of my ADHD reading it.

"Wanting to invite someone into my brain for the day" really resonates with me.

There is still a stereotype of ADHD as the hyperactive child: running around, yelling, disrupting others. When your ADHD presents as absentmindedness, lack of attention and staying on task, daydreaming and so on it is much easier for it to go unnoticed.

I have plenty of ADHD symptoms that will be noticed by those around me. Forgetfulness, distractibility, poor working memory but it's really just the tip of the iceberg.

> begs the question

doesn't mean what you think it means

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The beauty of language, as soon as many people believe it means something, that is what it means now.

I think the common usage for the original begging the question would probably be tautological reasoning nowadays.

Both uses of “begging the question” are common, and since the fallacy sense is invariably intransitive and the “raising the question” sense transitive (specifying the question as a direct object), they aren’t even ambiguous. As a bonus, the transitive sense also makes a convenient rationalization of the fallacy sense (which on its own is a iffy translation into non-current English of the Latin name of the fallacy), which can be seen as (despite very different etymology) being equivalent to the transitive sense with “what is the justification of the premise being discussed?” as the implicit object.

The pedantry that approves only the intransitive usage and rejects the transitive usage is silly on several levels.

Perhaps, but deliberately using the expression incorrectly is even sillier. All you're going to do is annoy people or make them think you're ignorant. What's the point in that? What's wrong with saying "raise the question" or "prompt the question" instead, which is also more logical? What is the point of taking a pompous old-fashioned expression and using it incorrectly?

I'm not opposed to linguistic innovation if it makes the language more elegant or more expressive, but misuse of "beg the question" is just ugly and cringe-inducing.

begs the question is just so much more elegant and expressive than raise or prompts that it is really sort of funny to assert otherwise.

Having said this, on the internet, I must now defend it.

to beg in conversation is of course more energetic than raising or prompting. When you beg it is urgent, a question that has been raised can be tabled for later, a prompt can be ignored as we point at a different reporter we know is more likely to ask about how this affects the First Lady, but if the question is being begged it demands an answer from us.

To beg calls forth the image naturally, for those who think in images, of a beggar. A beggar has moral urgency, they need what we have to give, and that moral urgency of the image is transferred to the question implied by the subject of discussion.

To prompt or raise a question have absolutely no visual analogue, they are lifeless, bloodless, and should be buried before rotting.

Why do you think that this more common usage of beg the question has come into play? It's not (necessarily) ignorance, I believe the cause is that the phrasing in English far better supports what is wanted and this allowed the phrase itself to spread among the population as a tool for expressing thought.

> Perhaps, but deliberately using the expression incorrectly is even sillier.

It's not incorrect, and calling it that is exactly the misguided pedantry referred to in GP.

> I'm not opposed to linguistic innovation if it makes the language more elegant or more expressive

The intransitive sense of “begs the question” does exactly that, and I explained how it does that in GP. Also, its been in common use long enough that it is hardly "innovation”; the persistent pedantic struggle against it is a reactionary struggle for linguistic regression. Which might still make some sense, if the usage was one which created confusion or obscured meaning, but its not.

If I'll annoy grammarians and pedants, and only they will think I'm ignorant, then that's okay with me.

Language isn't logical. It's a bricolage of things people have done to communicate. It's a mash-up of many different tools all trying to accomplish a hundred different things, and if people can't find a handy screwdriver, they may successfully use a butterknife instead.

It may surprise you to learn that I know the technical meaning of “begging the question” and have used it correctly. That is, the article argues (roughly) “ADHD is caused by internet,” which begs the question: why doesn’t everyone with internet have ADHD?

Begging the question, as the Wikipedia article you link explains, is a logical fallacy akin to circular reasoning: x is some way because it is x. My usage of the term was calling out this weakness in the article. I am not completely sure what the intent of your comment is and suspect you might be leaning on your awareness of this lesser-known fact as a sort of thought-terminating cliche.