Bill Saletan does a good job, generally, as he educates all of us on so many different topics. However, I fear this article on ADHD does more harm than good for a public that sorely needs to be informed on this topic.

I take issue with a completely erroneous, not to say misleading, title that says ADHD is a disease. He says the U.S. government says it's a disease, and the psychological/medical/psychiat­ric community says it's a disease. He then links to the CDC to prove his point. Neither the government nor the psychological/medical/psychiat­ric professions state that it is a disease.

Terms and their definitions mean a great deal in these professions and they should to reporters and the public. Saletan's free and easy use of the word is like building a straw man that he can demolish with a few words from a recent study. It gets worse when he closes his article with a glib suggestion that our views on the subject [ADHD as a disease] need rethinking, profoundly.

ADHD for many people is both a blessing and curse, not just in the adaptive evolutionary history of our species, but in the here and now. People with ADHD are more likely to be outgoing, sociable, intelligent, interesting people. Some, like the President of Jet Blue, are extremely successful. However, we find in adulthood that ADHD is more likely to be paired with other disorders like depression and anxiety disorders of varying kinds and varying degrees. For many, the public perception of success and intelligence is wedded to profound insecurity and disappointment.

There are still too many people who see ADHD as an excuse for bad behavior and lack of self-control or just plain bad parenting. Even when some understand that there is a cultural or societal component in diagnosing the disorder, they see this as further justification in attributing ADHD to a personal failing to adjust.

I would like to see Bill Saletan make his own adjustment in reporting on ADHD. Not to do so would, in fact, be a personal failing.

It is true that Bill made a lgit point in questioning the status of ADHD. Note he even attributed calling it a disease to these references-but this is important as it shows WHO considers it to be a disease. I know certain right wing leaders who call liberal thinking a disease and even claim it has no logic to it and is all emotional and I know people who consider such thinking on the other side to be indications of anti-social or even psychotic behavoir. The point is that as our society becomes more and more about information and its application, perspectives become equally important.

A few short decades ago there was no official concept of ADHD, Aspergers, or many of the conditions we have recently been diagnosing. Does that mean they didnt exist? Not at all. "A rose by any other name" as Shakespear would say-it was called hysteria if you had panic disorder or called a mild obsessive/compulsive disorder if you exhibited persevations or other symptoms of ADHD.

Even today we can look at the succssful people who have the disease and more and more people seem willing to admit that the condition can be good for some people when it has helped them adapt. The connection to depression and the downside of the condition is understandable-what happens when your focus isnt helping your career but rather distracting you from it-you fail or get fired or cant seem to adapt to what is generally considered "normal". As one friend put it, imagine a business executive trying to succeed in an artist colony-its all about being able to fit in. The diagnosis for many of our modern problems like ADHD comes from the inability of the person to fit into a society which doesnt favor their strengths-who wouldnt be depressed when you're not fitting in?

There is no "cure" for these conditions because they arent diseases but mindsets. That means the most successful treatment would be (and appears to be) either coping strategies or a new way of living. If the artist cannot succeed as a business executive, then stop trying to be one-change your whole life mission to something which favors your strengths. Or do what the guy from Jet Blue did and combine your strengths with a strategy that is WFM (works for me). In either case, there is no pill which can make you something you are not in personal make up-it can deaden your drive or even change your personality to a degree, but it wont make an artist into an executive or a liberal into a conservative.

Frankly I think a lot of this is about trying to fit square pegs into round holes with a hammer. Until we admit this breaks the pegs we are no further ahead.