The Gift/Curse Debate: A Nuanced Perspective
NOTE TO THE READER: Andrew, a recent visitor to this blog, has written a number of well thought out (and lengthy) comments that, I felt, deserve to stand alone as their own post. In discussion with Andrew, who has agreed to allow me to do this, the hope is to spur additional debate on these topics.
NOTE TO NEW VISITORS: If you are a new visitor to this blog, you may want to read these posts that ask if A.D.D. is a gift or a curse.
{{———- ////////// \\\\\\\\\\———-}}
I’m a little confused over this new move into ADD “politically correctness”. This debate over good/bad ADD seems to parallel many other minority debates.
ADD has caused me huge problems with work and relationships, brought me addictions and depression and continues to prevent me from achieving my goals – not that I have many goals as I rarely ever can contemplate the future. But if I had a button to press to remove my ADD, I would not press it. I like my constant craving for new interesting things, my perfectionism, humour, out-of-the-box thinking, creativity and rule breaking. If my neuro-chemistry were returned to “normal” then I would lose these attributes too. Some might argue that these positive attributes are not part of ADD but they certainly are part of the “differences” package that has set me apart for nearly forty years, only recently diagnosed.
Even though there are no double-blind studies proving the benefits of ADD, lack of proof does not equate to non-existence. Dr. Barkley has not been looking for positives, nor have any other scientists – positives are pretty hard to test for. I do however find that the usual lists of benefits for ADD seem to fit with the ADD people I know, much more so than for people without ADD. Maybe its a little like horoscopes – if you list flattering attributes then everyone will agree they have them? I also find it easy to “diagnose” people around me with “undiagnosed” ADD, as well as people in the media, authors, TV presenters, comics and actors in movies? It seems that their ADD got them those jobs in the first place, the ADD that makes them funny, engaging and interesting. I have found that I have unconsciously sought people with ADD as friends, colleagues and partners over the years. It seems it is common for ADDers to connect with other people with ADD, people who maybe talk quickly, humorously, alight on different topics and keep their boredom away?
Just because the ADD brain is different, it is not necessarily inferior. ADD brains are not broken, some parts are a little smaller, some parts a little bigger, some parts operate more quickly, some more slowly. Would it not be logical to conclude that this means people with ADD can do some things better and some things worse? The major difference in ADD is with our “weaker” frontal lobes, these lobes came late in evolution to help people operate in a tribe – to obey the rules, to be patient, to keep out emotions in check, to plan for the future. If our frontal lobes are less in charge it is inevitable that we will break rules, get bored and be more emotional. But then with weaker control it also seems inevitable that more people with ADD rule-breaking-boredom would become explorers, inventors, artists and comics? For mankind as a whole it is probably beneficial that 95% follow convention and the rules but that 5% break rules, connect new ideas, create and don’t conform. These people bring change.
The problem lies in part with medicine taking responsibility for defining ADD. Medicine defines everything as disorder or illness, that is the business of doctors, psychiatrists, pharaceuticals and therapists. There is no scope (nor ever has been) for medicine to define strengths, abilities or attributes. If you review the DSM IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD, they mandate significant problems or disorders before you can even get a diagnosis. If ADD is a genetically inherited, neurological difference that brings both good and bad then the doctors have immediately excluded all the “well” ADDers by their definition. This is deliberate selection of “disordered ADD” only. The “well” ADDers are excluded, the may well have challenges but their strengths help them overcome these and survive in society. The doctors, including Barkley, have really not done any research on this, maybe one day they will but it seems likely that neuro-typical people would be reluctant to define experiments to prove that they do not measure up to people they classify as disordered? Some of Barkley’s statements have the feel of prejudice and bigotry, it appears it would take an overwhelming amount of evidence to change his opinions.
Not every inventor or entrepreneur has ADD, nor is everyone with ADD an entrepreneur. It is fair to say that ADD people have different traits from normal (neuro-typical) people. Many of these traits cause problems but some can bring unique strengths especially if recognised and embraced. I feel that Hallowell is trying to counter the pure disorder model, maybe there is some commercial motivation too but I like his books and feel him to be a positive influence in the field of ADD – that seems a good thing.









