ADHD as entrepreneurial neurodivergence: re-evaluating ‘ADHD superpowers’, revealing its connections with capitalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I critique media narratives about ‘ADHD superpowers’ that have become particularly prominent in recent times as awareness-raising activities have gained traction in social as well as new media platforms surrounding ADHD, in particular, and neurodivergence, in general. Narratives centring ‘ADHD superpowers’ widely circulating on the internet overlook ADHDers’ need for quotidian and consistent supports—as they place disproportionate emphasis on ‘strengths’ that are uniquely attributed to ADHD—while turning ADHD into a veritable brand that represents, what I call, ‘entrepreneurial neurodivergence’. These narratives do not take into account the fact that ADHDers are not a homogenous group and cannot exercise supposed ‘superpowers’ evenly or at all. Therefore, claims about ‘ADHD superpowers’ could further lead to the exploitation and marginalization of historically oppressed ADHDers—especially those who cannot conform to superhuman expectations placed on them by hyperbolic and irresponsible ‘superpower’ narratives that encourage maldistribution, inequity, and injustice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".