Reply to this comment if you found LW through Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality!

A survey for anyone who cares to respond (edit: specifically for people who did find LW through HPMoR):

1. Had you already registered an account before seeing this? (Edit: That is, had you already registered an account for a reason other than to reply to this comment?) If not, had you been planning or expecting to?
2. Have you been reading through the sequences, or just generally looking around and lurking?
3. What new rationality skills that you learned from HPMoR or LW have you found most useful? Most interesting? Most change-the-way-you-look-at-everything-ly?
4. Have you referred anyone else to HPMoR? Have you referred anyone else to LW?

Someone other than me should say this, but: please don't let one person drive you away.

It's just that the comments you've made so far on LW are all at least a step removed from actually telling what you think and why.

I suspect we may attach different meanings to the word "argument". I meant only "a contribution to a useful discussion".

mattnewport linked to a section of a Wikipedia article discussing controversies about ADHD, which itself links to a longer Wikipedia article devoted to those controversies. The references there (some hundreds) make it clear that there are in fact controversies about ADHD, even among professionals within the field of psychiatry. Your response is merely to claim that:

ADHD is controversial only among anti-rationalists

I can't even tell from that whether you think there is such a condition or there isn't.

He said why: the reasons that mattnewport linked to.

But you have given no reason for your opposite view. (Calling people "anti-rationalists" is not an argument.)

You're allowed to say "X is the action I would want to take, but I wouldn't be able to"

I don't think this statement is logically consistent. Unless you're restrained by some outside force, if you don't do something, that means you didn't want to do it. You might hypothesize that you would have wanted it within some counterfactual scenario, but given the actual circumstances, you didn't want it.

The only way out of this is if we dispense with the concept of humans as individual agents altogether, and analyze various modules, circuits, and states in each single human brain as distinct entities that might be struggling against each other. This might make sense, but it breaks down the models of pretty much all standard ethical theories, utilitarian and otherwise, which invariably treat humans as unified individuals.

But regardless of that, do you accept the possibility that at least in some cases, bullet-biting on moral questions might be the consequence of a failure of imagination, not exceptional logical insight?

That's the reason. It's more debatable if ADHD even exists, and especially controversial given the high rate of medicating children diagnosed with ADHD.