When “Evidence-Based Thinking” Becomes a Ruthless Power Move

We’ve all been there. How often have we heard someone say, “But is that evidence-based?” It seems like an entirely reasonable question. We want to make decisions and hold beliefs that are grounded in solid facts and research. That's evidence-based thinking, and that’s only logical.

Here’s the thing about “evidence-based” arguments: they don’t always aim at discovering the truth. Often, they can serve as a way to silence others. Instead of being a straightforward tool for thoughtful discussion, they can transform into something more aggressive—a means of pushing aside personal experiences, diverse ideas, or unique viewpoints just because they don’t align perfectly with what a scientific study might say. It’s essential to recognise that not all truths fit neatly into data or research; many lived experiences can carry wisdom that statistics can’t capture.

The Problem With Relying Only on “Evidence-Based” Thinking

If we act like only “evidence-based” knowledge is valid, we risk ignoring a whole range of other ways people understand the world. Personal experience, intuition, emotions, and gut instincts aren’t the opposite of evidence; they’re just a different kind of it.

Ironically, let’s use some evidence to back this up.

Take Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. In the 1800s, he noticed that when doctors washed their hands between patients, the number of women dying in maternity wards plummeted. His observations were clear. His theory made perfect sense. And yet, the medical community mocked him because he couldn’t provide acceptable scientific proof at the time.

Fast-forward a few decades, and germ theory confirmed that he was absolutely right. But by then, countless lives had already been lost.

The takeaway? Just because something hasn’t been proven yet doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Science takes time to catch up. Dismissing people’s lived experiences just because they aren’t in a peer-reviewed journal doesn’t just slow down progress. It silences voices that could be leading the way forward.

Human Factors Are Evidence

Here’s something that often gets overlooked: human experience itself is a form of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence isn’t just about lab results and controlled studies. It’s about observation, real-world data, and human factors. In fields like psychology, medicine, and engineering, human behaviour and lived experience are valid sources of knowledge.

Take aviation safety. Before black box recorders and rigorous crash investigations, many improvements in aircraft design came from pilots reporting issues. They felt when something was wrong, even if they couldn’t immediately prove it with data. Those reports, based on lived experience, became evidence that shaped safety protocols.

Or consider mental health. We don’t diagnose anxiety, depression, or ADHD just by looking at brain scans, we listen to people. Their experiences, their struggles, and their day-to-day reality are the data.

So when someone says, “That’s just anecdotal,” they often miss the fact that anecdotes, when gathered and examined, are data, too. Every formal study starts with observations. Human factors research - the study of how people actually experience and interact with the world - is built on these real-world insights.

The ADHD Perspective: When What We Know Isn’t “Proven”

For people with ADHD, this whole “evidence-based” obsession can be incredibly frustrating. Our brains don’t follow neat, linear pathways, and we don’t always have official studies to back up what we know to be true. That's one of our "superpowers" after all!

We often notice patterns before anyone else does. We pick up on emotional undercurrents, spot dynamics shifting in a group, or sense when something feels off long before data proves it. But when we share those insights, we’re often dismissed. That’s just anecdotal. That’s not scientific. There’s no proof.

Take the workplace, for example. An ADHDer might sense a toxic environment before there are obvious red flags, such as resignations, burnout, and dysfunction. Or maybe we know that movement-based learning helps us focus even before the research catches up. Just because something hasn’t been studied in a lab doesn’t mean it’s not real.

The AuDHD Paradox: When You Crave Evidence But Also Trust Your Gut

For those of us who are both autistic and ADHD (AuDHD), this whole issue gets even more complicated. Because, honestly? Sometimes, we don’t even trust ourselves.

Autistic brains thrive on structure, logic, and hard facts. If something isn’t backed by data, it can feel unreliable or even meaningless. Meanwhile, ADHD brains run on intuition, pattern recognition, and gut instincts. We know things before we can explain them.

So what happens when you have both? It can feel like being pulled in two completely different directions simultaneously. One part of your brain demands proof, while the other part already knows the answer without needing it. It’s frustrating, to say the least.

The Bias in “Evidence Based” Thinking

And let’s be real, bias often shapes what counts as evidence.

For decades, medical and psychological studies focused almost exclusively on neurotypical people. That means neurodivergent experiences were either ignored, misunderstood, or wholly misrepresented.

Look at ADHD, for example. For years, executive dysfunction was dismissed as laziness because research frameworks weren’t designed to capture it adequately. Or autism, where studies focused almost entirely on young white boys, leaving women, nonbinary people, and people of colour undiagnosed and unsupported for decades.

If “evidence” is built on a foundation of bias, blindly relying on it reinforces the same old problems.

Evidence Without Human Context Is Just... Data

Science is an incredible tool, but it’s not enough on its own. Data without human context is just numbers. Evidence without empathy? That’s just information.

Some of the most significant breakthroughs in history didn’t start with a research paper. They began with someone saying, “Hey, this is my reality.” That person was probably neurodivergent, too!

Semmelweis saw the impact of handwashing long before germ theory explained it. ADHDers knew executive dysfunction was real long before psychology recognised it. Autistic people have been describing traits in women and nonbinary folks for years, even when official diagnostic criteria ignored them.

The world only started listening because people kept speaking up, whether or not the research-backed them at the time.

So, What’s the Takeaway?

Relying on research and data is essential, but it’s not the only way to understand reality. Human experience is evidence. Lived observations, intuition, and real-world patterns deserve just as much consideration as formal studies, especially when those studies have yet to catch up.

Science isn’t about dismissing what doesn’t fit neatly into a spreadsheet. It’s about learning. And learning starts with listening.

So, next time someone says, “That’s not evidence-based,” maybe ask, “Or is it just a kind of evidence we haven’t studied yet?”

What Do You Think?

Have you ever been dismissed because your experience wasn’t “evidence-based”? If you’re AuDHD, do you struggle with the push-and-pull between needing proof and trusting your intuition?

Let’s talk about it - because all kinds of knowledge matter, not just the ones that fit neatly into a study.

Get in Touch | ADHDaptive - ADHD Coaching & Consultancy