I’ve been diagnosed with a fairly serious case of "adult ADHD," but I am convinced that this is mostly a hand-waving, pseudo-scientific way of saying that my constitution leaves me ill-suited to perform certain tasks under certain conditions. And it turns out that many of the opportunities available to people with my interests and education require performing those tasks under those conditions. This mismatch between these opportunities and my–what’s the gee-whiz word?–my neurotype is the problem, not my neurotype per se. There is nothing really wrong with me. Kureishi is right to suggest that the inability to tango or read music or speak Russian isn’t a condition, or a failure of development, or an illness. If you find yourself needing to tango or read music or speak Russian, then it’s a problem. The problem goes away if one removes from one’s life the need to do what one can’t do, or can’t do without too much pain. Drugs that make hard things easier can help. But reshaping one’s life to work with rather than against the grain of one’s constitution can help even more.
This always true though. A disease is a disease if you don’t like it. I always like Byron’s quote here.
I look pale. I should like to die of consumption . . . because all the ladies would say, look at that poor Byron. Look how interesting he looks in dying
You can say well X kills you, but ultimately the byproducts of metabolism itself kill you. This is why you can die while your offspring – who are but parts of you – can still live. They have not accumulated metabolic byproducts.
And, since metabolism itself leads to death and disability, what sense is there in trying to separate the morbid from the vital.