The Questionable Labeling of Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder

By K. S. Brooks
Inspired by Author/Scientist Newton Love
1/27/2009

Nearly ten years ago, in my thirties, I was diagnosed with ADHD, Attention Deficit
Hyperactive Disorder. I was offered medication. I refused. I finally had a scientific
explanation as to why I couldn’t finish many of the ten things I’d start. Armed with that
knowledge, I set off to discipline myself into focusing better. My doctor tried to comfort
me by saying extremely intelligent people, even Albert Einstein, had ADHD.

ADHD explained the way I cleaned house, my unruly behavior dating back to Junior
High School, and being branded an adrenalin junky. My conduct in Junior High was so
bad, in fact, that I was tested on all sorts of levels. I recall a counselor telling my parents
that they only did a partial IQ test and I had scored 130, or something like that. I can’t
remember for certain, most likely because I was not the least bit interested.

During that time, I was bored. I caught errors in the curriculum and I made them known
to the teachers. That was considered annoying and disruptive by others, but it is clear
now that it was because I was not challenged. As I grew older, I multi-tasked, sometimes
to a ridiculous level – driving a stick shift while drinking coffee, talking on the mobile
phone and taking notes – yes, all at the same time, and no, no cup holder. It was
rebellious, and smugly satisfying. Why does that require medication? Evil Kneivel
jumped over chasms on a motorcycle. Is that not more detrimental? I’ve been known to
type on 3 computers at a time, flitting from task to task. That’s invigorating. Believe me,
my work got done. Why does that require medication? It was only my personal goals
that suffered. That makes me guilty of having low self esteem.

Other people I know who have been diagnosed ADHD have elected to take the drugs.
They claim it helps them “focus better.” Possibly, but I believe that 50% of that focus is
actually the ability to say to someone “I’m in the middle of something; I’ll get to that
when I’m done.” And, it is a proven fact that people diagnosed with ADHD actually have
self esteem problems, meaning they don’t have the gumption to inform whoever is
interrupting them that what they’re doing is equally important and needs to be finished
first.

Perhaps there are people out there who are so hyper that they need restraint or
medication. This would seem to me their brain is not firing properly, or their metabolism
is off-kilter. I would call that a disorder. Those people do need medical assistance.

An educated mind has to question why an ADHD patient should be drugged. Is it to stop
the creative process? To prevent progress? To make their traits conform to the less
inventive and energetic majority of society? What if they had drugged Albert Einstein?
Isn’t ADHD one of the things that make people shine? Michael Phelps is a recent and
sterling example – with the help of his devoted mother, he was able to focus like no one
else ever has.

There is a plethora of other accomplished and famous people who are believed to also be
“ADHD.” They are very successful people, who have risen against adversity and the
odds. Many articles profess notable folks such as Steven Spielberg, Walt Disney,
Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Ansel Adams and even Henry Ford exhibited
ADHD behavior.

So then, I beg to ask, why is this a disorder? Wouldn’t it, in fact, be an asset? Is doing
more than one thing at a time because you are not easily challenged really a negative
trait? I believe it is only negative if it is allowed to cause mental paralysis.

I would therefore present the theory that “Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder” is mis-
named, as it is not for a lack of attention that folks change from one focus to another in
rapid succession. It is from lack of interest. I am reluctant to call it a disorder at all. The
disorder is the fact that intelligent, energetic people do not have the time to pursue their
multiple interests in what society deems an orderly and sensible nature. If the issue is not
having enough time, how is that the fault of the patient?

Consequently, I propose ADHD be re-named MIC, “Multiple Interest Condition,” if, in

fact, it must be labeled at all.

A key characteristic of the MIC individual is hyper-creativity, which causes the brain to
follow the muse of inspiration through a series of cognitive and synergistic connections
of topic and thought association that produces a convergent resonance in the mind. The
reward for this brainstorm is a buzz of excitement for connecting all the dots in the
complex puzzle, eliciting a cranial adrenalin rush. Why is this labeled, and if it must be,
why is it called anything other than brilliance or genius? Why is it considered the Scarlet
Letter instead of a Gold Star? So many of us have come to rely upon the MIC to be the
source of our professional successes. We couldn't be the creative forces we are at work –
habitually thinking outside the box - without this ability to fly through diverse topics,
pulling them together to create new and innovative technologies and solutions. In any
industry, being MIC is a positive mental weapon.

Support the MIC movement, and those with MIC, because history teaches us that they are
the great minds indeed.