No Stupid Questions

ADHD came to my mind because OP's description of their problem resonated with the problems I faced when I eventually realized I had ADHD. The context and severity were quite different, but the general concept of what OP is describing is essentially the same. I don't necessarily think and definitely don't know that OP has ADHD, but they're looking for advice, so I gave them a potential avenue to explore toward that end. I believe my original response was sufficiently clear and responsibly phrased on that point.

And I get that you're going for a technical definition of the word 'condition' (which I believe is itself a word not technically defined by the DSM, but you seem to have considered my use of the term as equivalent to the DSM's use of the term 'mental disorder', which I agree is fair) there, and I kind of brought that on myself by referencing the DSM in my own reply, but to be clear: I was absolutely using it in a casual, non-technical sense. I am not a psychiatrist in any sense, I have not read the DSM. Toward that end, you're probably correct that many of the hypothetical people I referred to in my previous reply, who have a condition that is not so severe that it significantly impacts their ability to function adequately, do not have that "condition" in the strict technical DSM-5 sense of the word. Based on your reply I think you'd agree with me that something like ADHD is a spectrum, even if it's not described as such by the DSM - and that many people are on that spectrum without reaching the threshold required to justify a diagnosis or constitute a disability. The DSM's own definition of a mental disorder that you quoted supports this interpretation too: its use of the extremely subjective criteria that a symptom is "clinically significant" essentially acknowledges that a huge number of people may show the symptoms of certain disorders, but that a diagnosis should only be made if a clinician thinks the impacts are significant.

But, I would still disagree with the notion that you don't have the condition unless you've been diagnosed with the condition. I can agree with your general point that per the DSM, the presence of symptoms itself isn't enough for diagnosis - that those symptoms need to actively have a significant negative impact on your ability to function. I'd also agree that something like ADHD is itself a spectrum, and that most people at the lower end of that spectrum, which may or may not include most people in general, do not have actual ADHD, both as it is generally meant and technically defined. But someone can absolutely have something like ADHD, with symptoms that actively and severely affect their ability to function, without having been diagnosed with it. Not in a legal sense, obviously - but law doesn't dictate neurology.

I was only recently diagnosed with ADHD myself, but it's definitely been something I've had without realizing it for essentially my entire life. ADHD is paradoxically both over- and under-diagnosed. The type of ADHD that presents with symptoms similar to what OP described is precisely the type that usually goes under-diagnosed.

With regard to your last paragraph, I get and to an extent agree with the general point you're making, that there's a huge range of extremely common and socially accepted behaviors that are seen as normal and not considered mental disorders, even though they're actively harmful to both the individual and to society as a whole, just because they're so common as to be near-universal - and also that society is actively set up, at least at present, to encourage many of these behaviors. I don't think we have enough information about OP from just this post to say whether or not their stated desire to engage in hobbies is an indication of them being ahead of the curve in this regard, but it's kind to assume they are. I do think there's something to be said here, for sure - but I feel like it's also tangential to the main topic and I don't want to lose my focus here, plus it doesn't seem to be something we disagree on anyways. I think you could make a very compelling argument that societies themselves, the actual systems rather than the individuals, can have illnesses of a sort.

I would also agree that in a hypothetical world where the majority of people had a neurology that matched what constitutes a diagnosis of ADHD in our world today, that the concept of ADHD itself would not likely exist at all. But I also feel like that's not too interesting of a point - it's called "neurodivergence" because it's a divergence from the typical neurology. The difficulty comes from the fact that you're different, not necessarily from the differences themselves. If everyone had a neurology typical of ADHD, or of autism, then society would be organized in a vastly different way, such that the traits associated with these divergent neurologies would be what's already expected and supported. In an autistic-majority world someone considered neurotypical here may be considered to have severe social disabilities. In an ADHD-majority world someone considered neurotypical here would probably just seem like an unusually motivated person.

Sorry about the length. I appreciate that you seem to be engaging in complete good faith.