Disclosure in software workplaces, beyond the negativity bias

Work in progress. Public outline; prose to follow.

The surprising finding

A mixed-methods study (Newman et al., ASSETS 2025; n=493 software engineers, 299 neurodivergent) found:

• 85% of disclosures had positive or neutral outcomes.
• Only 9 were outright negative.
• The biggest motivation to disclose wasn’t accommodations — it was transparency, empathy, shared values, and solidarity.

The negativity-bias problem

• The forum people turn to for advice (r/ADHD_Programmers, 79k users) skews heavily negative — 118 negative code applications vs 35 positive/neutral.
• People use that advice to make real decisions. The advice is calibrated to the worst cases, not the median.
• This is a known negativity bias — and it’s amplified by who posts (those burned post more) and platform dynamics.

What this changes

• For neurodivergent workers: disclosure isn’t as risky as the forums suggest — but where and to whom you disclose still matters (managers carry more career risk than coworkers).
• For managers and builders: the ask isn’t usually “give me accommodations.” It’s “understand me, don’t make me mask.” Tools and processes that reduce the extra labor of explaining neurodivergence matter more than formal accommodations.

The double-empath extension (code)

• Sasportes et al. hypothesize the “double empathy problem” extends to code and abstraction: autistic engineers struggle with abstractions written by neurotypical engineers — and vice versa.
• Implication: team composition is a bigger lever than individual “accommodation.” Pairing matters.

What I’m taking into Mneurix

• Learning design for neurodivergent learners isn’t a feature — it’s the default good design. See the follow-up: learning design for neurodivergent learners.

Draft. Prose to follow. Sources: Newman et al. ASSETS 2025; Sasportes et al.; r/ADHD_Programmers.