So, being incapable of working in a modern corporation is a... good thing? I would have to disagree. Remember, we're not a hunter-gatherer society anymore; anyone optimized for that kind of society (not that I believe ADHD would have offered any real benefits in such a society either) would not work well in our current society.
I'm sure many with split personality disorder are capable of deluding themselves into thinking its a good thing too.
Who says they're incapable? I know plenty of people who do it. I have done it.
Further, as I mention elsewhere, it's true that we're not a hunter-gatherer society anymore. But neither are we a farming society. As we automate more and more of the boring stuff, I think we are, cognitively, moving in a direction where hunter-gather cognition fits in much better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16607911
>So, being incapable of working in a modern corporation is a... good thing?
I'm not on the "ADHD is a good thing" side of this, but the argument you're implying has some serious problems. First of all, who says that people with ADHD are incapable of working in a modern corporation? Secondly, you're examining only one side of what is asserted to be a tradeoff. There are certainly other ways to be successful in life than working at a corporation, and if ADHD provides an advantage on those other paths, then it could clearly be considered a good thing.
> who says that people with ADHD are incapable of working in a modern corporation
ADHD is a disorder whose primary feature is the inability to control concentration. It's a disorder because the feature is strong enough that a person has trouble interacting with society without help. So, someone who is diagnosed with ADHD has trouble interacting with society without help.
There is no modern institution which supports an inability to control concentration as a money provider. Paintings need to be completed. Novels need to be completed. Abstract thoughts need to be written down.
Any advantage experienced by those with ADHD is also experienced by those who have trouble directing their concentration, but not to a severe enough degree to require assistance interacting with society. I can bet a lot of folks with ADHD would rather live at that point on the spectrum.
There is nothing in the definition of a mental disorder that implies that a person requires assistance to interact with society. You can certainly have ADHD while being capable of coping on your own.
The DSM-IV definition for ADHD requires "clinically significant impairment in social, academic or occupational environments".
This was (somewhat controversially) softened to "clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with, or reduce the quality of, social, academic, or occupational functioning" in DSM-V (2013).
'Inability to function' is a straw man, 'requires assistance' was what you claimed was nowhere implied by the definition of a mental disorder.
One could certainly exhibit ADHD-like _symptoms_ while still being capable of coping on their own (= low 'impairment'), but an ADHD diagnosis would be incorrect in this case [1]. By definition (DSM-IV Criterion D 'clinically significant impairment'), an ADHD diagnosis is appropriate only when the symptoms cause severe enough impairment that require assistance (e.g., 'clinical intervention') to function.
Well, "incapable of working in a modern corporation" was the original claim.
> One could certainly exhibit ADHD-like _symptoms_ while still being capable of coping on their own (= low 'impairment'), but an ADHD diagnosis would be incorrect in this case [1].
I don't see how your source backs this statement up. Yes, it's possible to have many symptoms but low impairment, but your premise that "capable of coping on one's own" is the same as "low impairment" is simply false.
For sure. And I think it's important to note that in a disorder characterized by a mismatch between a person and their environment, changing the environment can apparently make the disorder disappear.
For example, imagine a musician with ADHD. They might struggle a good deal in school, which requires doing a lot of to-them-boring stuff. But once they're out of school, they might be perfectly good at earning a living, because the environment they create is suited to their approach to the world.
I was talking just recently with a software developer with ADHD. They preferred a pair programming environment because that was much more engaging to them than solo coding.
idk re: corporation, but look at the studies assessing unemployment rate of ADHD+ people. it's something ridiculously higher than the normal population.
Me too (diagnosed ADHD, work in tech)! Prior to being medicated, however, I was frequently on the verge of being being disciplined or fired for being incapable of completing some projects.
Medication made it possible to turn it into a reliable career with promotion paths.
That said, "incapable" was a poor word choice. Not entirely inaccurate, however. I know of many people who end up shifting jobs a lot - smart but lazy is how the upper management sees them.
My managers might want to fire me at times (and some have tried and failed) but ultimately I think I have enough value that it is worth keeping me around.
I am glad to see medication is helpful for you! I have tried it, but I didn't feel like the benefits outweighed the risks (the irony).
"Incapable of working in a modern corporation." Holy hell man, this is some 1950s era able-ist nonsense. "Oh no, they have 'something wrong with them', it's sad that they'll spend the rest of their lives in a living hell they can't escape, unable to contribute or function in society."
I can point you to a zillion people with ADHD who hold high positions in modern corporations, and a zillion more who do excellent work. ADHD is just a different way the brain works, there are many highly effective coping mechanisms to deal with it. And ADHD does have some real benefits as well, such as hyperfocus and creativity.
Also, I should note that there are a ton of people who don't even know they have ADHD simply because they don't understand what it looks like, and they naturally developed coping mechanisms that allowed them to be highly productive. ADHD doesn't look like the cartoon pop-culture version its portrayed as. It's not like some uncontrollable child bouncing off the walls and unable to concentrate on anything.
For myself, I didn't realize I had ADHD until I was 40. Why would I suspect? I graduated college at 20 (with a degree in Mathematics), I learned about turing machines in high school on my own time, I read textbooks for fun, I love science and math, I can get lost in good books or studying quite easily. But those are, actually, signs of ADHD, which is a horribly mis-named condition, it's not about a deficit of attention it's about interest-based attention. If I'm interested in something then I can immerse myself in it quite easily, dedicate hours to study, churn through dense written material, iterate through "boring" repetitive tasks, etc. But if I'm not interested in something then forcing myself to do it can be like pulling teeth.
This made me think about a verse from Auden's poem "Under Which Lyre--A Reactionary Tract for the Times":
The sons of Hermes love to play
And only do their best when they
Are told they oughtn't;
Apollo's children never shrink
From boring jobs but have to think
Their work important.
Is it ADHD, or something else, that results in the widespread inability nowadays to keep two mutually-contradictory-yet-both-true viewpoints in your head at the same time? Or a set of pros and a set of cons? Almost everything in reality is of a mixed nature, so what makes people want to believe a false model of reality where everything is either good or bad, and must be sorted neatly into one or the other category immediately? Is it a need for certainty? For being right? You will find a shortage of both in life.
I'm sure many with split personality disorder are capable of deluding themselves into thinking its a good thing too.