[lolinder]

Yeah, agreed. My dad had undiagnosed ADHD until a year or so ago. He loved research and got a PhD, but couldn't do the tasks that were expected of a professor and ended up not getting tenure. After that he struggled to hold a job for most of my childhood.

It's definitely not all upside, especially in modern contexts. But I do believe what I said—he would have thrived in the more Wild West academia of Isaac Newton and John Locke. The things he struggled to do were the accidental complexities of the job of professor, not the truly important aspects of that role.

[mhss]

> He loved research and got a PhD, but couldn't do the tasks that were expected of a professor and ended up not getting tenure. After that he struggled to hold a job for most of my childhood.

This sounds horrific for both the individuals and their families. Talented individuals with so much to offer not finding their place.

> He would have thrived in the more Wild West academia of Isaac Newton and John Locke.

Yes, I agree. I just don't know how to create a system where the strengths of such individuals are leveraged. If an organization of 100 people is trying to build a bridge and the tasks required are challenging for the 1-5 ADHD individuals in the group, the persons will struggle and the organization will struggle. Both individuals and organizations need to get better at routing those individuals to the right places to leverage their strengths. This is true of anyone but 10x more important for ADHD or other disabilities.

> The things he struggled to do were the accidental complexities of the job of professor, not the truly important aspects of that role.

I have mixed feelings about this because sometimes I have heard people dismiss aspects of work they're not good at as not important. E.g I have had sw engineers claim they solved the problem in their head and writing it down and communicating it to others is not important. At large organizations is just as important unfortunately.

[lolinder]

> I have mixed feelings about this because sometimes I have heard people dismiss aspects of work they're not good at as not important. E.g I have had sw engineers claim they solved the problem in their head and writing it down and communicating it to others is not important. At large organizations is just as important unfortunately.

Yeah, I get that. I guess when I say "important" I mean that we have hundreds of years' worth of examples of people doing great research and teaching without doing the kind of bookkeeping tasks that my dad couldn't keep up with (I honestly don't remember what they were, but it wasn't communicating—he's an avid writer).

There's no question that that part of the job isn't an inherent part of the researcher skillset, and to the extent that we need it to happen there's no reason it couldn't be either automated or done by a different group of people who have that skillset. For example, I often wonder how much we lost when having a secretary or executive assistant stopped being a available to anyone but the highest level employees.

[mhss]

Yes. I think is key to re-assess assumptions about what a job or role profile "should be" and make the requirements and expectations flexible to make room for those differences.