Lots of jobs do actually involve bulk reading and writing with relatively low quality targets. Lawyers and assistants being the prime examples. Also, almost all of undergrad for many, many degrees.

I think you're missing the point. If you struggle with ADHD / executive dysfunction, there is a material benefit to measuring by those in that kind of job. Ultimately it is not that you're at a normal baseline and these things just make you do more busy work, it's that you struggle to keep up with so many competing priorities and demands that you end up dealing with none of it. So yes, for this purpose, that measure is worthwhile in this case.

This is well said. People who dont have ADHD or a similar cognitive dysfunction look at smart drugs as a boost above average to gain high performance - because they havent experienced ADHD or dismiss it. Unfortunately the reality is that folks with ADHD typically feel very below average regardless of their IQ, missing out on meeting details, falling behind in work, procrastinating severely vs their peers. Adderall makes me think "so this is what everyone else feels like" when I take it, and I can just get things done at the most simple levels.

Ask yourself what is actually required to succeed in academia

Depends on level, no? Certainly it seems higher up (PhD or other research-oriented role), rote busy work may be necessary from time to time, but it also requires more creative work trying to synthesize new ideas.

ADHD has too much creativity and barely any capacity for bulk, so trading a bit of that creativity to do the bulk work is worth it.

Imagine if your brain refuses to do worthless uncreative work, that is ADHD, it is great for coming up with ideas but sucks for doing the work you often have to do.

I agree with you there. But the thrust of the article was using drugs as “cognitive enhancers” not to treat a medical condition of ADHD. Bringing someone up to baseline is one thing, but this is not that.

The ability to kowtow to corporate foundations to get funding?