Harold Robert Meyer The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
Reviewed: August 25, 2026 · Published: August 31, 2026
You can produce the list of what is wrong with you in four seconds, itemized and dated. Ask for the other list and you get an adjective, or a fact with a “but” attached to it. Here is how to build a strengths record to the same evidentiary standard as the one you already keep – and how to cross-examine the word that arrives to cancel it.
Part One · The Article
Ask yourself what is wrong with you and the answer arrives almost immediately, itemized. You can date the incidents and name the people who were in the room. Several entries came with documentation: a report card, a performance review, a sentence someone said in a kitchen in 2011 that you have never been able to file anywhere else.
Now ask what is right with you.
Most adults with ADHD produce a pause, then a word. Creative, maybe. Good in a crisis. Some produce nothing at all. And a few produce something real, then take it back in the same breath: “I got 100 on the essay, but the test was easy, anyone could have done it.“
The first answer was evidence. The second was an adjective borrowed from an article about ADHD in general. The third was evidence, overruled by a judge who never has to show any.
That is not a self-esteem problem. It is a record-keeping problem, and it has a procedural fix.
Key Takeaway
You keep two files on yourself. One was built to evidentiary standard over decades and corroborated by other people. The other was never opened – and on the rare occasion an entry does get written, a “but” arrives to strike it from the record. The work is not to think more positively. It is to hold both files to the same standard of proof.
Why This Matters
Researchers compared 200 adults with ADHD and 200 without on how well they knew their own strengths and how often they used them. In both groups, greater strengths knowledge and use tracked with higher wellbeing, better quality of life, and fewer symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress (Hargitai et al., 2025).
The same study found adults with ADHD were no less aware of their strengths than anyone else. This is not remedial. It is something that helps most people, attempted under conditions that make it harder: whatever you know sits across from a fully documented case for the prosecution, with a standing objection to everything the defense says.
Key Findings
- Strengths knowledge and use, not possession of the traits, is what tracked with wellbeing – in both groups alike (Hargitai et al., 2025).
- Cognitive therapy has had a name for the “but” since 1963: disqualifying the positive, in which favorable evidence is seen and then rejected so the negative view survives contact with it (Beck, 1963; Chand et al., 2023).
- Others judge you more accurately than you judge yourself on evaluative traits such as competence (Vazire, 2010).
Two files, one cabinet
The deficit file was not assembled by you alone; much of it was dictated to you. Report cards named the problem in a comment box. Supervisors put it in writing at review time. Partners named it during arguments, which is when people are most specific and least kind. You transcribed it faithfully, because it arrived with dates and witnesses attached.
Nothing comparable happened on the other side. Nobody writes to say a project went fine. Good entries arrive unlabeled, and unlabeled material does not get filed – especially not when negative information is processed more thoroughly to begin with and resists disconfirmation more stubbornly (Baumeister et al., 2001). Then the file did what files do: it became the summary. Internalized stigma is what it looks like when an external record has been absorbed as a description of the person (Masuch et al., 2019).
The rule that makes the second file work
No adjectives. “Creative” is not an entry. “Good in a crisis” is not an entry. Those are category labels; they belong to ADHD in general, not to you in particular. They are also unfalsifiable, which is why they give no comfort at 3 a.m.
An entry is an incident, and it has the same four parts the deficit file has always used: a date, a situation, what you specifically did, and who saw it. What any of it demonstrates about you is a conclusion, and conclusions come later, from the pile. Part Two carries the format and a worked example.
The word that comes after
Now the harder half. For many people the entry gets written and then immediately edited. But the test was easy. But anyone could have done that. But I was late three times that same month.
Do not try to suppress it. Suppression fails, and the objection simply runs where you cannot examine it. Write it down, in its own line beneath the entry, and then apply the same rule to it that you applied to the entry.
Because look at what a “but” actually does. It never disputes the event. Anyone could have done it does not deny that you wrote the essay; it attacks what the essay is allowed to mean. And it does that with no date, no incident, and no witness. Anyone could have is an adjective in disguise. Everyone could do it is a factual claim you have never once checked – did everyone get 100? Under the standard you apply to yourself, the objection is inadmissible.
“Your ‘but’ has never been cross-examined. That is the only reason it keeps winning.” – Harold Robert Meyer
The step most people skip
The objection is hardest to sustain in company. Others judge evaluative traits such as competence more accurately than the person being judged (Vazire, 2010), which is why Part Two asks you to collect two specific things from each of three people who know you – not compliments, incidents. Anyone could have done it does not survive three witnesses who independently named you doing it. Send the request in writing; it removes the need to arrange your face while someone answers.
The next step
None of this is the argument that ADHD is a superpower, and it replaces no part of your treatment. The deficit file is not fraudulent either – it is accurate in nearly every particular and incomplete as a whole, which is a different failure and a far more correctable one.
Print Part Two and give yourself one week. Three entries. If you manage one, that is a start. If you manage none, the blank page is information rather than a verdict. You cannot fail this page: a list you could not write and a list you wrote and then dismantled are both findings, and both are more useful to you and to your clinician than a tidy inventory would have been.
Hold onto this while you do it. The discount is not a fact about you. It is a habit of evaluation, practiced for decades against no opposition – and habits are the one thing in this entire picture that answer reliably to practice. You are not being asked to become a different person, or to feel differently about yourself by Friday. You are being asked to stop being the only person in your life who never gets the benefit of the doubt. The first honest entry is the hardest one anybody writes. The tenth takes an afternoon. And somewhere past that, on an ordinary day, something will go well and you will notice it while it is still happening – not as a feeling you talked yourself into, but as a fact you have finally started writing down.
Part Two · The Printable Inventory
The Other File
A strengths inventory for adults with ADHD
Harold Robert Meyer · The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
Before you start
You already keep one detailed file on yourself. This is the second one.
You cannot fail this page. It is not a test of how much is right with you. It is a way of finding out what happens when you try to write it down – and whatever happens is worth knowing. A blank page is information. A page full of entries that you argued with is better information, because the argument is now visible on paper instead of running silently where nobody can look at it.
Three entries is the whole assignment. One is a real start. Take a week.
Four rules govern the whole thing.
Rule 1. No adjectives. “Creative,” “resourceful,” “good with people,” and “loyal” are category labels. They belong to ADHD in general, or to human beings in general, not to you in particular. They also cannot be checked, which is why they will give you no comfort at 3 a.m.
Rule 2. Entries are incidents. Something happened, on a date, you did something in it, and somebody was there. That is the same evidentiary standard the other file was built to. You are not writing affirmations. You are building a case file.
Rule 3. Small counts. The bar is not “impressive.” The bar is “it happened and I did it.” A file made only of dramatic rescues will be empty in most ordinary weeks.
Rule 4. The “but” gets a line of its own. If an objection arrives – it was easy, anyone could have, it doesn’t really count – do not swallow it and do not argue with it in your head. Write it in the box provided, then test it the same way you tested the entry.
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
\newpage
The anatomy of an entry
| Part | What goes here |
|---|---|
| When | A date, or near enough. “Last March” is fine. |
| What was happening | One sentence. The situation, not your feelings about it. |
| What I did | The action. A verb. Not the trait it implies. |
| Who saw it | A name. If nobody saw it, write “nobody” – it is still an entry. |
| The “but” | Whatever arrived to cancel it. Word for word. |
| Does the “but” pass? | Apply Rules 1 and 2 to the objection. Date? Incident? Witness? |
Worked example
When: Last month. What was happening: Final essay for the course, due Monday. What I did: Wrote it. Got 100. Who saw it: My instructor. My roommate watched me do it. The “but”: The test was easy. Anyone could have done it. Does the “but” pass? No. “Anyone could have” is an adjective with no date, no incident, and no witness – it fails Rule 1 and Rule 2. “Everyone could do it” is a factual claim I have never checked. Did everyone get 100? I don’t actually know. Struck.
Notice what the objection never did: it never disputed that the essay was written. It only attacked what the essay was allowed to mean.
What a bad entry looks like
I’m a creative problem solver.(An adjective. Nothing happened.)I’m usually the one people come to.(A generalization. No date, no incident.)I handled that thing at work pretty well, I guess.(What thing? What did you do?)
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
\newpage
If you cannot think of anything
That reaction is expected, and it is worth noticing you had no such difficulty producing the first list. Use these prompts. They are deliberately unglamorous.
- A time somebody was upset and you were the one who made it better.
- Something you fixed, repaired, assembled, or got working again.
- A time you noticed something nobody else in the room noticed.
- A problem you solved sideways, in a way the instructions did not describe.
- Something hard you finished. Anything. However late.
- A time you told the truth when a lie would have been easier.
- Something you know how to do that most people around you do not.
- Money, paperwork, or logistics you handled that you had been dreading.
- A time you kept going after something went badly.
- Someone you stayed in touch with when it would have been easier not to.
- A time you apologized first.
- A day you took care of yourself when you did not feel like it.
- A time you asked for help, which is harder than doing it alone.
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
\newpage
Entries
Entry 1 When: ______________________________________________________________ What was happening: __________________________________________________
What I did: __________________________________________________________
Who saw it: __________________________________________________________ The “but”: ___________________________________________________________
Does it pass? Date? ____ Incident? ____ Witness? ____ → Stands / Struck
Entry 2 When: ______________________________________________________________ What was happening: __________________________________________________
What I did: __________________________________________________________
Who saw it: __________________________________________________________ The “but”: ___________________________________________________________
Does it pass? Date? ____ Incident? ____ Witness? ____ → Stands / Struck
Entry 3 When: ______________________________________________________________ What was happening: __________________________________________________
What I did: __________________________________________________________
Who saw it: __________________________________________________________ The “but”: ___________________________________________________________
Does it pass? Date? ____ Incident? ____ Witness? ____ → Stands / Struck
If you want more room, use the back of the page. If three felt like too many, one is enough to bring in.
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
\newpage
Ask three people
A file you build alone will be wrong, and it can be wrong in either direction. That is why this page exists.
Ask three people who know you in different contexts: someone from work, someone from home, and one more. Send it in writing. Writing removes the need to arrange your face while somebody answers.
A message you can copy
I’m doing an exercise that asks me to collect specific examples of things I do well, from people who actually see me. Would you send me two? Not compliments – incidents. Something I did, roughly when it happened, and what you saw. Short is fine. No rush, and no obligation.
What they said
Person 1 (name / how they know you): _____________________________________
Person 2 (name / how they know you): _____________________________________
Person 3 (name / how they know you): _____________________________________
If an answer surprises you, do not discount it. Surprise is the signal that you are receiving information the file did not already contain. And note how much harder anyone could have done it is to sustain when three people, independently, named you doing it.
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
\newpage
When the week is over
Read what you have in one sitting. Then answer four questions in writing.
1. How many entries did I write, and how many arrived with a “but”?
2. Did any “but” survive the test?
If one did, keep it. Accurate limits belong in an accurate file. If none did, sit with that for a moment: the case against you has been running for years on evidence that would not be admitted anywhere else.
3. What shows up more than once?
Now – and only now – you may name a trait, because you have incidents to attach to it. Write the trait, then the entry numbers underneath. A trait with no entry numbers gets crossed out.
4. Where in my life is this currently going unused?
That last question is the one that does the work. Strengths tracked with wellbeing when people knew them and used them, not when they merely possessed them (Hargitai et al., 2025). Pick one thing from your file and put it somewhere it is not currently being spent – a task you take on, a role you volunteer for, a conversation you have.
Keep the file open. Add to it. A file that closes after one week reverts to the other one by default, because the other one never stopped receiving entries.
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
\newpage
A note for clinicians and coaches
This page is for the practitioner, not the client.
Asked at intake for a list of what is going well, many people with ADHD cannot produce one, and many of those who can attach an immediate disqualifier to each item. Both responses are data, and this worksheet is built to surface them rather than to produce a tidy inventory.
What the returns tend to tell you:
- A blank page. Not non-compliance. Often the first honest report you will get about how the person’s self-appraisal actually works.
- Entries with no “but” line filled in. Worth probing aloud rather than accepting. The objection may have run silently, or the client may have declined to write it down.
- Every entry struck by its own objection. A picture of disqualifying the positive as a working habit, with the client’s own examples already in the room (Beck, 1963; Chand et al., 2023).
- A “but” that passes the test. Take it seriously. An accurate limitation is not a distortion, and treating it as one costs you credibility on everything else.
- Third-party answers that surprise the client. Usually the most productive material in the packet.
The ratio of entries to surviving objections is worth tracking over time. It moves before self-report of mood does, and it gives the client something countable in a domain where they are used to being told to simply feel better.
Screen for co-occurring depression and anxiety before reading a blank page as a thinking style. This worksheet is a structured clinical exercise, not a diagnostic instrument, and no scoring is implied.
© 2026 The ADD Resource Center · addrc.org
Bibliography
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression: I. Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9(4), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160014002
Chand, S. P., Kuckel, D. P., & Huecker, M. R. (2023). Cognitive behavior therapy. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470241/
Hargitai, L. D., Laan, E. L. M., Schippers, L. M., Livingston, L. A., Fairchild, G., Shah, P., & Hoogman, M. (2025). The role of psychological strengths in positive life outcomes in adults with ADHD. Psychological Medicine, 55, e278. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725101232 · Free full text (PMC)
Masuch, T. V., Bea, M., Alm, B., Deibler, P., & Sobanski, E. (2019). Internalized stigma, anticipated discrimination and perceived public stigma in adults with ADHD. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 11(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-018-0274-9
Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908
Resources
From The ADD Resource Center
- Living Well with ADHD: Building on Strengths – the companion piece on identifying strengths and designing a life around them.
- ADHD Isn’t a Superpower – And That’s Okay: Real Talk for Teens – the honest version of the strengths conversation, written for a younger reader.
- Building Confidence with ADHD: How to Fake It Until You Make It – on building confidence through accumulated evidence rather than self-talk.
- Building a Better You: Strategies for Working With Your ADHD – self-awareness and environmental strategies.
- Nothing Grows in the Shade: ADHD and Controlling People – what happens when somebody else is keeping the deficit file on you.
External
- Cognitive Behavior Therapy – StatPearls entry defining disqualifying the positive and the other common cognitive distortions (NCBI Bookshelf, National Library of Medicine).
- The role of psychological strengths in positive life outcomes in adults with ADHD – free full text of the Hargitai study (PubMed Central).
- “Playing to your strengths” improves wellbeing in ADHD – plain-language summary from the University of Bath.
- How to Recognize Your ADHD Strengths – Attention Deficit Disorder Association (nonprofit).
About the Author
Harold Robert Meyer founded The ADD Resource Center in 1993 and has spent more than 30 years as an advocate, coach, and educator in the ADHD field. He co-founded CHADD of New York in 1989 and served on CHADD National’s board and executive committee, including as Vice President, Finance. He was elected to lead the Institute for the Advancement of ADHD Coaching. As an author and international speaker, he has presented at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting and at CHADD national conferences. Reach Harold at [email protected].
📚 Come back often — we add new evidence-based ADHD resources daily.
The ADD Resource Center [email protected] · +1 (646) 205-8080 · 127 West 83rd St., Unit 133, New York, NY 10024-0840 USA
X · LinkedIn · Facebook · Substack · Newsletter
Please consider the environment before printing.
Our content is educational and informational only – not medical, legal, financial, or other professional advice, nor a substitute for it, and should not be relied on as such. We strive for accuracy, but errors or omissions occur and information becomes outdated. Some content and images may be created with AI assistance and, though reviewed before publication, may contain inaccuracies. Our screening tools are not diagnostic instruments. Verify independently and consult a qualified professional before acting on anything here.
In the USA and Canada, call or text 988 anytime for free mental health and suicide prevention support, or call 911 if someone is in immediate danger. The ADD Resource Center is independent from these services and is not liable for any actions taken by you or by these services.
Under GDPR and CCPA, you may request access to, correction of, or deletion of your personal data at [email protected].
© 2026 Harold Robert Meyer · The ADD Resource Center. All rights reserved. Part Two may be printed and used for personal or clinical purposes with attribution intact. For any other reproduction, contact [email protected].