Attention Deficit Disorder: Personal Demise or the Next Step of Human Evolution?

According to modern evolutionary theories, evolution is based on two fundamental changes in life forms, both of which adhere to the process of natural selection: arbitrary mutation and adaptation to the environment.

Recent years have seen a remarkable increase in children diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD) often in conjunction with hyperactivity (ADHD). ADHD is now thought to occur in 3-5% of school-age children and is more common in boys. It is not yet known what causes ADD, but there does seem to be a genetic influence.

As a condition, ADD is considered to be a deviation from 'normal' capabilities (which constitutes a challenge for educators and a burden for many parents). But what if, in classifying ADD exclusively as a state of reduced mental capacity, chemical imbalance or 'different wiring' (as often alluded to), we’ve gotten it all wrong? What if ADD was actually an adaptation to dealing with an increasingly complex environment? An environment where children grow up exposed to increased levels of external stimuli and information, at an ever-increasing pace. And an environment that presents them with an increased number of multimodal communication channels to be processed in parallel.

Some scientists even correlate rises in ADD among children to a nature-deficit disorder, i.e. the lack of exposure of today’s children to the need for involuntary attention processes as required in natural environments.

At the same time, popular new-age beliefs are on the rise about the power of subconscious decision-making over thorough scientific proof (see e.g. Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink!) paving the way for societal acceptance of short-term focus and spontaneous, uninformed snap judgments.

Not surprisingly, this theory of “Thinking without thinking” has been sharply criticized by supporters of evidence-based decision making such as Michael LeGault in Th!nk, advocating the continuous need for critical thinking and problem-solving strategies as well as emphasizing a concerning decline of related capabilities among the young generations.

So, are we dealing with a classic dichotomy of contrasting trends and opinions, both of which would be supporting the hypothesis of natural selection through adaptation, with one, however, providing hope and justification for phenomena like ADD, the other dooming us to look at a future of self-inflicted mental decline?

Many aspects of the modern information society bear the risk of information overload for the human recipient and the need for them to quickly filter huge amounts of references rather than store significant amounts of information for longer periods of time.

Effectively navigating through the jungle of online media has become essential to gain and maintain social connectivity and acceptance. Crouching through a multitude of opinions in the form of blogs and discussion forums, while engaging in duels of rapidly fired bursts of micro blogs to create situational awareness in an increasingly complex world has replaced externally led knowledge acquisition and indoctrination. It is now truer than ever: "It's who you know, not what you know!"

So, are modern IT-based communication tools and techniques our response to reduced human capacity in focusing, critical thinking and long-term memorization or are those societal trends and challenges the result of the new and celebrated technologies?

Is, consequently, the best medicine in this case possibly no medicine at all, but a matter of better diagnosis resulting in differentiation between true ADD/ADHD and different learning styles and cognitive specialization of today's children?

Might it, therefore, require a revised educational system that embraces mental diversity in order not to be in the way of human evolution and adaptation to ITC innovation?

Or should we – God forbid – be a little more critical towards the adoption of modern technologies and should we study and consider their impact more thoroughly before exposing future generations?