In the LD advocacy community, there seem to be two types of arguments made in support of entrepreneurs/leaders with LD (typically dyslexia and ADHD).
The first is the notion that people with LD have certain deficits, and because they are forced to work around these deficits they develop other skills that are important for leadership. The article makes this argument at various points.
The second is the notion that people with LD also have direct advantages (as opposed to the indirect advantages described above). These are often described as creativity, being able to see the big picture, or having superior management skills. Interestingly, this article did not make this type of claim.
As the founder of a startup whose technology improves reading ability and focus for people with LD, I am a bit conflicted about this dichotomy. After all, if my software helps dyslexic and ADHD folks to read more like neurotypical folks, then do they "miss out" on the indirect benefits of LD? If so, perhaps they would be better off without our assistive technology.
On the other hand, if the benefits of LD are direct, then there would be no tradeoff. A dyslexic person using our software would retain all the creative and other benefits of dyslexia, but they would just be able to read much faster than before.
I'm curious to know what folks here (HN + A11Y) think about these two common claims about LD. Do you think the benefits are more indirect (like the article focuses on) or direct (which the article does not claim)?
As someone with ADHD that has gone back and forth on these feelings over the years, I think I agree with both of those claims, but with a pretty big asterisk.
I'm a developer, and I'm fairly certain that my insistence to have automated testing, one-click deployment, and general "automation" of anything and everything that can be automated have led to some very good results, and most of those evolved to become non-negotiable in a project I'm on simply because I won't be able to do them myself with any kind of consistency.
And I also attribute my ability to pick up on new skills or languages to my ADHD because I spend a lot more time in the first few stages of a skill because I hopped around so much and never really stuck with something.
However, I don't believe these things to have been a net benefit on my life when combined with the downsides of ADHD. Unmedicated I was an absolute mess, and it was only with medication, AND learning the skills to manage it, along with a good support system that I was finally able to get some kind of benefit from it. And all of that didn't really come together until my early 20s for me.
I really think that any benefits someone might get from a disability like mine, can be artificially re-introduced if they do really provide benefits. And I'd wager that an "artificial disability" which was designed to do this would provide greater benefits as it could be more targeted at actually trying to improve the skill in question, plus has the added benefits of being able to be "turned off".
And all that being said, this is all just the comment of one person with ADHD. Others could feel very differently.
As another developer with ADHD - I was diagnosed at 31 - I agree with everything you've said. In my 20s it was solely my ability to pick up things so quickly along with being in a career that was less strictly 9-to-5 that kept me in work - things are much better now, although as you say there was a considerable adjustment period after starting medication that involved a lot of unlearning poor coping mechanisms and learning new skills.
There is absolutely no benefit to having a LD. Seriously, there is NONE - people with LDs who attain success do so in spite of their LD, not because of it. This notion that LDs make you more "creative" or whatever is backed by absolutely no research and is mostly a bunch of feel-good nonsense.
A great reference for this is Dr. Russell Barkley:
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Do you have an LD yourself? What do you think of The Dyslexic Advantage [1], which was written by experts who have very strong academic credentials?
Looking forward to checking out Dr. Barkley — thanks for sharing.
You realise Russel Barkley had a brother with adhd who died in a car crash?
He's extremely negative about adhd.
There has been evidence to suggest greater skills in other areas - the research isn't enough yet as it's only a few papers. But Russel barkley always jumps on any notion of improved skills and smashes it with as much passion as he can. I can understand why he hates adhd.
What? What does any of that have to do with anything I said? Why would a trained clinical psychologist be anything but negative about a brain disorder that, when left untreated, contributes to poor long-term outcomes in (1):
-academic performance
-self-esteem regulation
-addiction and drug abuse
-antisocial behavior
-obesity
-social outcomes
That's like saying an oncologist is really negative about cancer. There is nothing positive about a deficiency in executive functions. There is nothing to be gained by having a stunted capacity for working memory, being unable to plan ahead or stick to a schedule, being impulsive to the point that you are disrupting other students and or coworkers, being unable to properly regulate ones emotions, and not to even mention the loneliness, social anxiety, depression, etc that one develops due to being socially ostracized due to the aforementioned ADHD symptoms.
ADHD is a serious neurological disorder that ruins people's lives. There is nothing to be positive about (other than that it's treatable and manageable). A clinical ADHD diagnosis is a disaster, not something to tout as giving you some sort of edge up in "creativity" (because it doesn't).
Just because a person is a "trained clinical psychologist, doesn't mean there is no bias in their work. ALL SCIENTISTS - are aware they will have natural bias whether they like it or not.
My point: was that using Barkley to justify something "having no benefit" is not a good justification.
Looking at the negatives you've given here - these are all consequences of a lack of help, support and self-acceptance - where a person has fallen through society because of being different. We obviously get this a lot with adhders because we are different - society isn't set up for us at the moment - but people with adhd are NOT BORN WITH:
- obesity, addiction, antisocial behavior, low academic performances(don't get me wrong academia is fucking hard as fuck it sucks your soul and takes your life away...it also takes enormous strength of character to persevere)
I'm not knocking Barkley's work - no need to attack me here - he's done incredible things to make sure that adhd is regarded as a genuine condition that needs treatment, help and support - IT DOES.
On Barkley his work focuses specifically on the deficits - even his books focus on this - it focus on the negatives - again for good reason he wants people to take it seriously.
I notice btw - you're fixated on there just being "creativity" as a positive for adhd - and it being some disease (it's not fyi medically a disease) - so i'm not gonna sit here and start posting the papers which posit the opposite, that humanity needs these characters in order to thrive, or the recent papers that show if a person with adhd is put in a good environment for them - they thrive - because I think you're someone who will probably respond aggressively. I'm not going to bother posting about the amazing shit i've seen working with adhd kids either.
Because nothing I say is going to change you're mind. You sound mad as fuck and upset about adhd.
And I can't be fucked.
I've seen how bad it is - about 10 of my members with adhd have addiction issues - i'm under no delusion.
My Dad with ADHD died of alcohol, was in and out of prison. However - they never had help and support or knowledge of adhd until it was too late. :(.
My work: researcher in neuroscience and a software developer, adhd coach, have adhd and dyslexia, have 18 close family members with adhd(Nan had 10 kids, her mum had 10 kids, huge family), worked with kids with adhd for 3 years, give workshops on adhd, volunteer at a charity for adhd, run my own company part-time creating tools for people with neurodiversity and therapies for stroke and dementia patients.
I attribute my struggles to being able to better understand others with cognitive deficits - and it means I run a successful business with it.
If there's anything I can help with - please let me know.
I can't speak for dyslexia, but I have ADHD. Something that not many people talk about is that there are two sides to the ADHD coin.
On the one hand, I get easily distracted from things that I am not interested in. I have trouble focusing in boring meetings or mandatory classes about subjects which don't interest me.
On the other hand, when I do something that I am interested in I get hyperfocused. It is pretty similar to a flow state - I don't notice time passing and I often literally don't hear people when they talk to me. When I am hyperfocused, people often have to shake me or put their hand in front of my face for me to notice them.
This has played out much as you'd expect - when I am doing work that engages me I am super productive, able to sit for hours and bust out a program or read a book in a fraction of the time it takes other people. However, when my work is uninteresting to me, I really struggle staying focused and it tends to take me much longer than it should.
Overall, I'd say it has been a net benefit in my life - I've been able to complete many side projects outside of work and school due to my hyperfocus, and this tendency has driven me to find work that engages me.
As a person with ADD and autism, I would jump on anything that helped me work around the deficits of my condition. The benefits, such as they are, are mainly indirect.
any person who does fine with an LD would soar far, far, far higher without one. learning coping mechanisms brings you up to just barely below normal par. they don't let you exceed normal, because nobody else needs coping mechanisms to bring them to the level that they are already naturally at.
for every CEO you see waxing about their issues, remember that there are perhaps ten thousand people with similar LD and other issues who ended up in prison or beaten down at the margins of society. maybe even more. we'd do well to develop some kind of cure to these problems...
The first is the notion that people with LD have certain deficits, and because they are forced to work around these deficits they develop other skills that are important for leadership. The article makes this argument at various points.
The second is the notion that people with LD also have direct advantages (as opposed to the indirect advantages described above). These are often described as creativity, being able to see the big picture, or having superior management skills. Interestingly, this article did not make this type of claim.
As the founder of a startup whose technology improves reading ability and focus for people with LD, I am a bit conflicted about this dichotomy. After all, if my software helps dyslexic and ADHD folks to read more like neurotypical folks, then do they "miss out" on the indirect benefits of LD? If so, perhaps they would be better off without our assistive technology.
On the other hand, if the benefits of LD are direct, then there would be no tradeoff. A dyslexic person using our software would retain all the creative and other benefits of dyslexia, but they would just be able to read much faster than before.
I'm curious to know what folks here (HN + A11Y) think about these two common claims about LD. Do you think the benefits are more indirect (like the article focuses on) or direct (which the article does not claim)?