Comment by falcolas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by falcolas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

OK, let's assume I buy this argument, that being creative is much more important than being able to concentrate. Let's say, for a moment, that someone with ADHD would make an excellent hunter-gatherer.

Point one: This is not a hunter gatherer society. A highly successful hunter gatherer will do very poorly in today's office-bound society. If you want someone who can only be a hunter gatherer to be successful in today's society, you can't just tell them to "calm down" or "concentrate harder", you have to make accommodations.

Point two: All the creativity in the world won't help when you get bored of a painting, a story, a novel halfway through and can't finish it. Note - I didn't say "don't want to finish it", I said "can't finish it". Just like someone with clinical depression can't just snap out of it and be happy, someone with moderate to severe ADHD can't force themselves to concentrate.

Point three: ADHD does not just affect concentration. Another big impact that ADHD has is on the ability to connect an action and its consequences if those two are separated by more than a few minutes. Funny image -> immediate dopamine response -> fantastic feedback loop. Doing your homework -> discomfort and frustration -> very negative feedback loop.

Now imagine trying to live in a world where doing work and getting paid have no correlation in your brain. You have to intellectualize that doing work leads to getting paid, except you can't concentrate on it long enough to care.

I'm not getting your broader point here. His point is that ADHD is not purely negative, that it has benefits. You seem to be saying, "But it also has costs!" Sure, but nobody said otherwise.

It's true we aren't a hunter-gatherer society. But neither are we a farming society anymore. Circa 1% of the population works in agriculture. Yes, you can look at the Industrial Revolution as applying farming culture to machines; instead of tilling rows, we do piecework. And 1950s-era white-collar organization is basically applying the industrial model to paperwork.

But automation is ending that era. With the rise of the computer, we are getting machines to do all the boring stuff. We are passing out of the farming/industrial era. It's my belief that we're entering an era where the ability to do repetitive, boring work is becoming obsolete. If we technologists do our job well, the only work left is exploratory, creative, social.

So yes, having ADHD in a farmer's world isn't easy. But as the author says, the world's changing away from that.

> Sure, but nobody said otherwise.

What's happening is what I read awhile back - calling ADHD an advantage in society is presenting a weak man argument. Sure, it seems reasonable since they're adding the caveats... but the point that's coming across is that ADHD is not a real disorder since it's an advantage to have, and people who are on meds who have no real reason to be on them.

Just see how many people in these threads come to say that it's not a real problem, that behavioral therapy is sufficient, that we're overmedicating children, that everybody is "a little ADHD".

Whatever era we may be hypothetically entering; it's not the era we're in now. Being unable to direct your concentration is hinderance, not a help. And I don't think it will help in this hypothetical era, either. Not when finishing works of creativity requires a certain amount of "grit" - concentration on a task that provides no immediately positive feedback.

I'm not sure what you mean by "real disorder" here. If you read the literature on "medicalization of deviance" it's pretty clear that "real disorder" is a very fuzzy and socially determined bucket.

If you personally need medication, great, you should use it. But I don't think that justifies dumping on the people who don't. Or the people who do, but also see benefits in their different cognitive style. My ADHD has been a pain in the ass for me, but I'd never trade it away, as I like the benefits.

Point one: Sure it is. Those offices you describe? Look at how many of them are focused on things that require creativity and out-of-the-box thinking. A functioning ADHD individual could be a good writer or ad exec, or any number of other high-paying jobs, based more on their talents or portfolio. Though as you say, likely with accommodations - but what industry doesn't have its share of those.

Point two: you made it a point to use the wrong word - A person with ADD sure as shooting can finish a book. Might they skim some boring sections, find later that it seems like they jumped around and missed something, use bookmarks often when bored, or reread sections to 'catch up' and remember what they've forgotten? Sure - but that doesn't preclude finishing a book if it's good.

Point three: from a brief skim I probably agree, plus I'm bored now ;)

Re point one: There’s little incentive to accommodate someone who doesn’t finish an assigned task, even when that person comes up with something amazing, creative, and innovative that is way more valuable. The result is a job evaluation of “Doesn't follow directions.”

Re point two: In my experience, the vast majority of people don’t read the things they’re assigned or supposed to read, they just skim them. So the issue isn’t reading a book, it’s writing one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com