The article could have used  an abstract, you have to read
   a third  into it  before the text  starts relating  to the
   title.

   But...  It does a decent  job of pointing out diagnoses in
   various DSMs describe sets of symptoms and not etiologies.
   Which is  to say, a "disorder"  in the DSM doesn't  give a
   biochemical explanation for the  origin of a behaviour, it
   just describes  the behaviours (often  using self-reported
   observations of one's own emotions.)

   Given  the way  English-speaking  humans  use language,  I
   would argue that "superpower" is something more akin to an
   innate  ability.   It's  not  //just//  a  description  of
   behaviours.  Superman  is superman  not simply  because he
   leaps tall  buildings with  a single  bound or  because he
   races faster than  a speeding bullet.  The  state of being
   called "Superman"  is dependent  on Kal-El /  Clark Kent's
   path through  phenomenal existence.  (I'm  obviously using
   Superman  as   the  exemplar   of  entities   who  possess
   super-powers.)

   If the  nature of  having a super-power  is innate  to the
   individual  and  the  underlying  hypostasis  of  an  ADHD
   diagnosis  is  dependent   on  descriptions  of  behaviour
   independent   of   any   biochemical   cause   then   yes,
   "superpower" and "ADHD" are not in the same class.

   However...  Gods of Catachresis forgive me...  Language is
   complex and those damn'd  humans often use it imprecisely.
   From  context,  I think  we  can  infer  that "ADHD  is  a
   Super-Power" means  that the behaviours described  by ADHD
   in the  DSM-X are associated with  iteologies which confer
   benefits to the individual.

   Still.  I enjoyed reading the article.