Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that progress on “object-level problems” can be motivating and help counteract shame, but I think the narrative that may be counterproductive is the emphasis on ADHD as fundamentally a matter of low conscientiousness or willpower. This framing risks oversimplifying the condition and placing un…
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that progress on “object-level problems” can be motivating and help counteract shame, but I think the narrative that may be counterproductive is the emphasis on ADHD as fundamentally a matter of low conscientiousness or willpower. This framing risks oversimplifying the condition and placing undue weight on personal agency while overlooking the broader interplay of neurobiology, environment, and emotional health.
The issue with this narrative is that it can perpetuate the belief that ADHD is primarily a failure of effort or character, even if unintentionally. For many, this belief fuels cycles of shame and anxiety because it suggests that struggles stem from moral failings or lack of discipline, rather than being rooted in a neurological condition that requires tailored strategies and support. While systems and habits are valuable, they can’t fully address the emotional dimension or the structural barriers many people with ADHD face, such as misaligned work environments or lack of access to accommodations. The book ADHD 2.0 (written by two Harvard MD's who both have ADHD) acknowledges this beautifully.
My concern is that framing ADHD as a problem of low conscientiousness might encourage self-blame and discourage people from seeking the external supports or reframing their internal narratives in ways that allow them to thrive. Encouraging a more nuanced view—one that balances personal agency with understanding the broader context—may lead to better outcomes.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that progress on “object-level problems” can be motivating and help counteract shame, but I think the narrative that may be counterproductive is the emphasis on ADHD as fundamentally a matter of low conscientiousness or willpower. This framing risks oversimplifying the condition and placing undue weight on personal agency while overlooking the broader interplay of neurobiology, environment, and emotional health.
The issue with this narrative is that it can perpetuate the belief that ADHD is primarily a failure of effort or character, even if unintentionally. For many, this belief fuels cycles of shame and anxiety because it suggests that struggles stem from moral failings or lack of discipline, rather than being rooted in a neurological condition that requires tailored strategies and support. While systems and habits are valuable, they can’t fully address the emotional dimension or the structural barriers many people with ADHD face, such as misaligned work environments or lack of access to accommodations. The book ADHD 2.0 (written by two Harvard MD's who both have ADHD) acknowledges this beautifully.
My concern is that framing ADHD as a problem of low conscientiousness might encourage self-blame and discourage people from seeking the external supports or reframing their internal narratives in ways that allow them to thrive. Encouraging a more nuanced view—one that balances personal agency with understanding the broader context—may lead to better outcomes.