I've seen a few people claim this but the majority report the opposite, at least over on addforums.com. There have been polls there and most people report either no change, or an increase in creativity. I like a quote by W. Timothy Gallwey: "Concentration is the supreme art because no other art can be conceived without it - whilst with it anything can be achieved."Many of those who are medicated claim that they have difficulties with their creativity since taking the medication. The interesting issue for me is my observation that many of these kids have an amazing aptitude for left brain/right brain balance work in the hybrid technology and arts.
Probably some people do experience a drop in creativity as a side effect but that can happen with medication for any condition, even non-mental ones. You just adjust the dose or find a drug that suits you better. I've never seen anyone report the same side effects and results on every available AD/HD drug, but unfortunately a lot of people give up after one or two, assuming they'll all have the same effects on them.
Why do you see these as mutually exclusive? The frequency of both sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis in the population results from evolutionary processes and these conditions are still certainly disabilities.I still question whether this is indeed a disability or an environmental issue or whether it is evolution - much like the discussion on ASDs that has recently been going on at TC.
Oh now I see why. Evolution doesn't make judgements any more than gravity does, it doesn't try to support and influence the development of life and certainly not quality of life any more than gravity does. It's just a group of inevitable processes with the result happening to be the genetic spread that we see today. In many other planets, gravity happens to be too strong or two weak for life to flourish. This isn't a 'failure' of gravity as gravity has no intentions in the first place, it's merely a statistical probability that on one or more planets gravity will be adequate for life forms to take root.Do you think nature in its evolutionary course makes an error of judgement of this magnitude?? Figures in recent years in Australia placed an estimate in the 20% range for incidence of AD/HD in the population. This is an enormous percentage of population to advise that they are dysfunctional and need medicating to fit into societies expected behavioural pattern??
Likewise sometimes the processes underlying evolution support reproduction and the recurrence of particular genes across generations, and sometimes these in turn support better quality of life for the creatures carrying them, but other times they don't. Most genetic changes are neutral or negative in terms of reproductive rate and/or quality of life, so other times processes result in genes being created that are not passed on to many members of the next generation because they make the carrier less likely to reproduce in some way, or, as with AD/HD, they result in genes being passed along in considerable numbers that reduce quality of life for the carrier.
People with AD/HD are much more likely to get pregnant or contribute to pregnancy earlier in life than they would have wanted. This is one known factor influencing the rate of AD/HD genes in the population, and it's obviously undesirable for society and the individuals involved. Other possible factors have been proposed, for example people with neurodevelopmental disorders or even just a few of the associated genes and traits of them seem to be more likely to have long-term relationships with other people with this group of conditions and so have children with twice the chance of inheriting enough of those alleles, for reasons that aren't clear yet (though in my personal experience it's a lot to do with feeling more comfortable with and even intrigued by people who stand out in similar ways that you do yourself).
Finally, once a genetic trait is present in the population as a particular proportion of it, it won't be lowered as a percentage unless carriers of those genes start reproducing at a lower rate than those without it. There are currently not many common genetic conditions around that result in the carrier dying before reproducing and passing the genes for them on - precisely because they have that effect. Many potentially deadly genetic conditions, e.g. Alzheimers, don't kill the victim until they're old enough to have had children, and these affect more people.
AD/HD does actually increase the chance of dying young to some extent, due to the higher rate of suicide, drug abuse, serious accidents and involvement in violent crime - probably homelessness too but I have no statistics on that - but not enough people with it die before having children for it to be as rare as say, cystic fibrosis, which until very recently almost always killed people before they reached adulthood (the infertility rate of the males obviously has a lot to do with that too). The processes by which AD/HD genes are getting passed along must compensate for the increased death rate, and then some.
This doesn't mean they are desirable to us. It doesn't mean that evolution 'wants' them to be there or cares or knows about it, as it's not a calculating force but the end result of a group of complex processes. And if evolution were a force and did want them there, it must be an evil force because it would be desiring something that causes suffering for no apparent reason.
I'll finish replying to your post soon. I've been 'perseverating' as Barkley would say, instead of getting ready for bed.