> John Taylor Gatto's Dumbing Us Down perfectly captured this when he noticed that schools, another place where authority figures hang out, ruthlessly disciplined any child who tried to assert individuality.
There has been an interesting result recently, which was discussed here [0]. In an online game where participants had to forage for resources, people with attention deficits scored higher, because they preferred exploration to exploitation.
I commented back then that ADHD may be understood as introducing chaos into life to avoid being trapped in local optima.
Having ADHD is then of course a major disadvantage in environments where there is only one global optimum. Examples include highly regulated and deterministic academic environments (school, undergraduate studies) or corporate environments.
But in human history, environments with a single global optimum have been the exception, not the rule.
People with ADHD - and their parents and teachers - should therefore embrace their individuality as a kind of reservoir talent in the human gene pool. We need these individuals in the future.
I have read much about Yogic traditions, and always thought that people with ADHDs are particularly well-suited for spiritual progress as laid down in core texts and aligned literature.
> In ancient times the Raja Yogis (basically wizards) preferred to recruit from those with ADHD. They called them "habitually one-pointed".
I never knew this. Can you please site some sources/supporting literature? I would like to read much more about this.
Another thing I thought- to be an Advaita Vedantin, to see God in everything (both 'data' and 'code' of everything), one benefits from ADHD, as such person will have expertise or knowledge in many areas. This is helpful, if not required to see an emerging "grand pattern" in things.
Also, if you have somewhat deep knowledge of each school of thoughts of Indian Philosophy, you also begin to see patterns, and get all these divisions are illusory and limited. And hence Bhagavad Gita 4.11.
> Thought and knowledge are overrated. Study and cultivation of awareness is where it's at.
This comment really hit me.
Like most here, I live in a culture centered around thought and knowledge. I think I've always kind of known awareness was important, but never tried to compare its importance vs thought and knowledge so directly.
Thoughts and knowledge are part of the illusion according to many schools of Indian philosophy. I last read it in Ramana Maharshi's book. I also read the same in Zen koans when Hofstadter wanted to push the same in GEB.
Wouldn't "habitually one-pointed" people be very focussed, rather than distracted?
Or is the idea that a very distracted person being honed into a focussed and aware person is a duality that's valued -- able to live in both worlds? (Rather than a very focussed person being taught to be distracted and highly integrative?)
It's a different sort of focus than mainstream, where there's not what a "normal" person would call regulation. So lots of hyperfocus on topics that interest, and little on what others might think is required or needed (which would look like distraction if the person were forced/compelled to focus on things they're not interested in).
That's a good way to put it. Though ADHD can also have high focus and then "fuck it I don't care anymore I'm all about x now" lol. But I think you're right about the characterization of distraction. For example in my undergrad I might not do my physics homework but I'm not playing videogames or something I'd do things like trying to use that same physics to program simulations or try to solve other problems that were more interesting to me. Or used that time to teach myself programming, Linux, or other types of math that weren't being taught. It's both a distraction and not. But at first I was very confused at what you were suggesting.
I know. But I'm told they're calling "Aspergers" ADHD now. And the brittleness that comes with habitual focus looks like massive distraction. I mean you've got these guys who can focus to the point of magic, but one push and they crack.
And we're borrowing somebody else's terminology anyway. So don't expect precision.
As someone who has both diagnoses late in life (autistic/Aspergers and ADHD), they explained it to me as different things. The ADHD wants to respond to stimulus, the autism wants to resist it and impose order. One at a time is fine. If they both activate, then the result is massive stress.
I have ADHD and dated someone with AuDHD who I cared for deeply (read lots of books about the neurotype and implications on our relationship). your explanation was very clear and helpful. Wish I'd heard it explained so clearly at the time :) thanks!
I think you mean it's called ASD or has been rolled into ASD now? ADHD is more of a set of regulation issues than a set of social-cues issues, but I'm oversimplifying.
> People with ADHD - and their parents and teachers - should therefore embrace their individuality as a kind of reservoir talent in the human gene pool.
Being a researcher with ADHD I find academia very very weird. I feel like my ADHD (and others I know) should be a superpower. Loving to dig down into rabbit holes and a bunch of different topics, which can allow connecting different things. Not needing reasons to go down the rabbit holes, but just because. Meaning you explore things others don't.
But actually academia is incredibly stressful and feels hostile. There's the publish or perish, so you can't go down the rabbit holes and deep dive. You don't have time to dig deep. Dealing with review is crazy as you have to argue to people who don't care that your stuff matters even though no one can tell if it does or not and you should just pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake. (We used to not review this way. We used to check for errors and plagiarism and if not, publish). Everything is just hyper metric focused even though everyone knows the metrics mean so little to the actual end goal they are everything to your survival goals. The goals are at odds and I don't think anyone wants to do anything about it even though many will admit it.
I know some people will say I'm naive to think academia should work that way but I think that's naive, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I think academia should be about pursuing knowledge and giving people the environment they need to do that, with the trade being teaching the future generations.
To be honest it feels the world is becoming more hostile to me. There is becoming less flexibility. Fewer opportunities to explore and hire punishments for doing so. Its harder to take things apart (physical or code) as the gardens close more and more. Harder to fix things, harder to make things to things I want (for utility and for fun). It literally feels like the walls are closing in and there's not enough adderal that can fix that.
I think you are right that the chaos helps escape local minima. If I've learned anything in my studies it's that noise is essential in optimization theory. It is also a measurement of error or uncertainty. So unless you can measure something to infinite precision then you should be incorporating noise into your models
> It literally feels like the walls are closing in and there's not enough Adderall that can fix that.
My psychiatrist told me that when using any amphetamine-based medication for ADHD, it's important to see it as a way to reinforce routines and habits, whatever they may be, and not necessarily a fix to ADHD itself but rather as a tool to help my brain.
With that in mind, I was advised to take my medication and immediately start doing the things I usually struggle with. For me, that just meant getting to work on specific tasks or studying specific things. Sticking to this approach made a huge difference in how well the medication worked for me.
Over time, I was able to lower my dose, and now I find it much easier to settle into a routine. While the medication can dull my creativity, I've learned to work around that by adjusting when I take it and planning out my work accordingly.
In the case my workload or life changes I tend to get back to my old dosage for a short period until new routines settle, I'm very fortunate to have a family doctor that understands this and is willing to change dosages when needed.
I'm not sure how this would play out with extended-release versions or if this applies to your situation, but I figured it was worth sharing.
Also curious to know if this approach has worked particularly well for me but not for others, or if you take the same approach already.
Thanks. I do use a similar strategy though I've only been on Adderall for about 2 years. I do take XR and treat it like a baseline. But I also have an instant that allows me to adjust. Getting better at dosing but yeah it definitely requires flexibility. I do notice it depends on lots of things like sleep, exercise, and diet. Doesn't help that human sensitivity is similar to manufacturing tolerances lol. It's hard to find the routine though as there are a lot of external forces and it doesn't help that everyone acts like they need to be done right away (I mean the big issue with ADHD is triage and prioritization). This is worse in academia than when I've worked and honestly I only went to get diagnosed because the environment made everything more difficult.
One thing I found helps is I put desiccant in my bottles and it helps maintain the quality. I do some 3d printing and so store any excess medicine with filament.
I think the lowest effective dose of the mildest possible stimulant is a pretty good strategy for people with ADHD doing any type of creative work. It also probably helps to take it intermittently so you can have the benefits of both being with and without it.
I find my creativity is still pretty much 100% on a very low (basically small child level) dose of ritalin. I won't even touch adderall- it completely killed my creativity and ability to sleep soundly.
I'm also an academic researcher with ADHD, and feel exactly the same as you. Sometimes my hyperfocus and sense of adventure leads to big discoveries and resulting publications that keep me successful... but that is interspersed with months or years of guilt and terror over not meeting expectations at regular intervals. I love science, but I do feel like my health is suffering from this, and that I'm putting much more energy into trying to hide/mask ADHD than actually doing my job.
Anyways, you are not alone, there are others like you also going through this. I am thinking about how nice it would be to have a community for ADHD academics to share advice and strategies.
This is actually why I decided not to pursue a career in Academia. I originally wanted to work in acadeemia, but as I finished my undergraduate I realized that while I would love to do research, the other aspects, like applying for grants, constantly having to publish, etc. would be extremely taxing and stressful for me.
Yeah a lot of the faculty is surprised I don't want to pursue academia. I absolutely love research and I actually like teaching (and my students really like my teaching style too[0]). Grants I can with but yeah it sucks. Why I won't do it though is all the politics. The admins hired to take care of all the bureaucracy just make things take longer as you need to ask approval for things but can't do so through a direct line of communication so it takes all day. I just get nothing done and am having so many interruptions you can't settle into deep work
[0] funny story. My advisor is kinda lazy so pushed it off to me. But he didn't always show up. But he would teach sometimes because the department would get mad if he didn't (politics). But when it'd be just me the student in the front would nervously ask "is it just you?" And when I'd say yes they all relax and get excited lol
You might get a kick out of this: it's an attempt to remodel funding to reward and reinvigorate research with the intelligence of the folks who straddle fields -- to reward those who make correct predictions about where future "breakthrough innovations" (ie. Intersectional and significant research convergences) will appear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guLDNMAOn24
Puja Ohlhaver has some great ideas and interventions in this space <3
Where she begins the talk made me laugh a lot. I research machine learning and one thing I disagree with a lot of my peers with is the speed in which ML is progressing. I don't disagree that things have changed rapidly, but the underlying work and innovation is rather slow. There's a lot of similarities in frameworks and underlying connections that mean one should be able to transfer a lot of knowledge from one niche to another. (e.g. I was focused on normalizing flows in the beginning of my PhD, while everyone was on GANs, and when diffusion came out I instantly understood it. And now flows are becoming a thing but I still am unable to publish in this area because I cannot obtain a reviewer that understands the base concepts nor the history and context of the papers. It doesn't work if I have to spend 10 pages in background contextualizing everything...).
I think with funding, the thing is you need to embrace the noise. I don't want to dissuade people from trying to optimize this process. But I think if we don't recognize there is a high amount of noise, that it is doomed to fail. There's things you know you know, there's things you know you don't know, there are things you don't know that you don't know, and there are things you think you know and don't know. Due to the latter two, you have to embrace noise into the system or else you will be limited to the first two. You have to embrace the outside, wild, and crazy. It can be extremely difficult to differentiate genius from craziness, and often there is none. There's always a price, so the question is which is more costly. She picks universities as the great breakthrough place, and to be fair, I mostly agree, but I think there's a lot of metric hacking that she isn't thinking about. That this has been baked in for years. The people that are successful in the system breed that system. Nor does it account for the dark horses, the noise. It reinforces fast timelines, as we're rewarding predictability in domains where it may take several decades for those predictions to be proven accurate or not. There's a certain irony in her mentioning Higgs, as his original paper was in 1964 but we didn't discover the particle until 2012.
Part of the issue she is talking about is solved more easily. Lots of research is rejected for lack of novelty. Why this is even a metric to judge a paper's worth is beyond me, as the foundation of science is about reproducibility. It also encourages obscurification as so much is obvious once you've been told, but not prior. If we go back to the form of publishing where we publish works void of major errors and plagiarism, I bet we would see an increase in innovation again. Another part of the issue is in evaluation itself (similarly solved). We're all under lots of time pressure and so few spend time reviewing carefully (you'd be shocked at some reviews I've gotten and similarly how generic they are: "paper is well written and easy to understand. Not enough experiments, not novel. There are too many writing errors" (points out easily solvable thing like a broken cross reference or an incorrect issue like saying 'these data')). You can see part of this in HN comments too btw. Where people look at benchmarks and read them as answers instead of hints. Which there is an extra problem in that anything sufficiently novel will be unlikely to be state of the art on all things in the initial go. So it is easy to reject. Then the research is not pursued. But this is ludicrous when we're talking about research, which is at a much lower level. The problem is people read research papers as if they are reviewing products. This can only stifle innovation. In machine learning there is the "gpu rich" and the "gpu poor." I can with high confidence say that the "gpu poor" aren't any worse at innovating, but rather that their works are just more likely to be rejected. How can you compete when others can spend 2-5x the money to tune parameters when what the paper is about is an architectural change or a change to optimization methods. We aren't holding variables equal here and very few want to admit it.
ADHD and PHD here. Somehow I survived and thrived. I think for us it’s important to know that we are extremely slow on one aspect which is reading/acquiring knowledge/editing drafts, but really fast at making connections, writing a first draft, coming up with new ideas. I’ve always felt my input bandwidth is like dial up, but the output is high speed glass fibre. You will meet many people that are the opposite in academia. Just don’t get frustrated when people pull past you at the start, you catch up later
I tend to not edit drafts as much anymore and just start over, more of a destructive iterative design approach. It makes it harder to plan projects and colleagues don't always like it but my output is high and I tend to be really good at cutting off things early that won't work. Do you feel similarly?
> I tend to be really good at cutting off things early that won't work.
I tend to be bad at this because "this isn't working" becomes "oh interesting, this isn't working".
Fwiw, very rarely does that not lead to value. Its just that the value add can be later down the line or in a different project. But so often there's that "Ahha!" or "oh it's just like that" moments. But I think a lot of people have difficulties with long term rewards. I think it's good to have both though but I'm not sure any single person is good at both so you need both types of people. Different optimizers for different goals
Totally it’s all about the kind games, trying to frame every paragraph, sentence or even word as a first draft. Don’t need to wipe an entire document imho.
I'm not so sure the knowledge acquisition is slower. I'm actually starting to believe it's faster. What my other ADHD friend and I notice is the threshold for thinking you get it is lower. I'm not sure I'll ever fully understand any single thing but I do have a lot of peers which will say yes far earlier and it leads to a lot of confusing experiences.
A common experience we have is that we'll be trying to figure something out then go talk to a larger group or find someone who should understand the thing (e.g. highly relevant publications) and then either "huh, I never thought about that" or they try to answer a different question (I understand they are trying to be helpful but I'd rather "I don't know". It's academia, the whole point is we don't know lol).
Though in other things I fully agree. I'm always slower in "speed to first result" but often that's because I'll write code from scratch, make sure I really understand, and make sure its flexible because I know I'm going to be hacking on it a lot. Others are often forking repos doing a lot of gluing and all that. (When I do that I feel very lost and like I understand nothing). But my experiments end up being more complete and I'm able to answer more questions where someone else would say that's too much work.
I think academia needs both types of people btw. I'm not trying to say I'm better it's just different. There's different advantages. My issue is that the system strongly optimizes for one and not the other. I think the biggest flaw in academia is thinking we know what's a successful line of research and what isn't (along with what's novel, especially post hoc lol). All the evidence seems against this and the high frequency of dark horses suggests it'd be idiotic to rely on predictions to be highly accurate.
I too think knowledge acquisition is faster - much faster - but that's only when I can actually get myself to sit down and focus. Depending on some magic combination of my mood, feeling of purpose, and phases of the moon, I can blow through a thick spec book in one long session and remember both tons of little trivia and grok the principles behind the design, all in one pass - or, I'll get sleepy after the third sentence, take an involuntary nap halfway through the first page, and overall maybe read a dozen pages before giving up, and not remembering much of if later.
I had this experience several times at work - I had to deal with some obscure legacy tech (think industrial protocols from the 90s), I enthusiastically figured I can learn this quickly, sat down to reference material, and... my eyes stopped being able to process text. And yet, over the following weeks or months, I'd have moments trying to work with that old thing, where I'd suddenly find a rabbit hole I had to chase, and through that chase I'd get rapidly up to speed with the spec that was impossible to even look at earlier.
Long term, this added to a much deeper understanding than people around me had, for fraction of the effort - so this was a win. Unfortunately, this also isn't compatible with how everyone works, as I can't plan or give other people promises or estimates around this. "I'll get there when I get there" doesn't fly in the modern workplace.
Like a few other related aspects of ADHD, it really is a superpower - just very hard to activate, and trying to activate it on demand actually makes it impossible.
What makes me sad though is that it seems this is not how it used to be. In fact from what I can tell it was more common in high innovation labs to select these types of people and kinda let them loose. The job wasn't so much to tell them what to work on so much as make sure there aren't things blocking them and to make sure they don't get stuck in the rabbit holes. Of course it was never all sunshine and roses, but it did seem that the environments were a lot more flexible. Even several recent Veritasium videos have talked about people who just essentially didn't do their actual job for like a year, "slacking off", and how this gave them the opportunities to explore certain ideas.
I really think we have to admit how many dark horses there are when it comes to innovation. If we don't provide space for them, then we slow progress down. If we don't create an environment, then it slows. Do we really want to go back to the time where most science was performed by the wealthy? Because only they were the ones who had the luxury of being able to explore?
I often think back to Asimov's "Profession"[0]. I can't help but think this in part was a critique on academia and the relationship to this issue.
I enjoy this take. As someone who feels like they align with a lot of symptoms associated with ADHD, I thrive in startup environments and would rather be unemployed than work in a corporate environment. That checks out! And there's no harm to it, there are plenty of opportunities for people of all kinds. I think the danger is expecting that any environment fits everyone. We're too many and too diverse for that to be true.
> There has been an interesting result recently, which was discussed here [0]. In an online game where participants had to forage for resources, people with attention deficits scored higher, because they preferred exploration to exploitation.
The “scored higher” part of this study is editorialization. The game was developed in a way that exploration produced a higher numeric result so they could measure something as part of the test. The game was an artificial experiment environment and it was designed to “reward” behavior associated with ADHD, so it would have been more surprising if the game did not result in higher scores for people with ADHD.
The layers of editorialization and hypothesizing built on studies like this remind me of the debate over “depressive realism”. Some researchers put out a study showing that people with depression more accurately interpreted something in some specific scenarios which were designed for the study. It was widely misinterpreted by the public and pop culture science writers as showing that depressed people see the world more accurately, and therefore they are an untapped reservoir for seeing the world as it really is. There’s a huge problem with this interpretation because depression produces a lot of cognitive distortions that make people think things are much worse than they really are, so they’re really only more “accurate” when you have them evaluate situations that are worse than they appear. Yet this nuance is lost in the pop culture debate and many people think “depressive realism” means depressed people have a secret advantage.
I think these ideas have become popular as the diagnostic criteria for ADHD and other conditions have widened to include large percentages of the population. In the past the diagnostic criteria for ADHD was such that it was estimated to have low single digit percentage prevalence in the population. Now we’re at a point where Adderall is the 14th most prescribed drug in America ( https://clincalc.com/DrugStats/Top300Drugs.aspx ).
A similar thing has happened with Autism Spectrum diagnoses, where the criteria were once so strict that it was very rare for someone to get a diagnosis. Now I’m hearing fellow parents casually mention that their young children got an Autism Spectrum diagnosis after simply visiting a medical professional (found on internet listings) and suggesting it. Meanwhile my family friends with a severe autistic child are increasingly frustrated that pop culture idea of autism has shifted so far into the population that people are seemingly forgetting that severe autism is actually very debilitating, much like severe ADHD.
> I commented back then that ADHD may be understood as introducing chaos into life to avoid being trapped in local optima.
I have had life-long crippling ADHD that I am only now, in my 30s, starting to learn to cope with. My biggest thing was educating myself on what ADHD actually was so that I was better able to spot it in my own life, and then apply strategies to address it.
I'm not sure the above is relevant, but what I wanted to say is in response to this:
> I commented back then that ADHD may be understood as introducing chaos into life to avoid being trapped in local optima.
My life has been really difficult because I simply cannot, ever, force myself to do something I don't want to do. I think there are cool goals in life I'd really appreciate - playing an instrument, learning a language, gettign a PhD, etc. But each of these goals involves an activity that I inherently don't want to do and therefore cannot make myself do them. Studying for exams to get into a grad program, practicing consistently for an instrument, studying a language that has no real applicable use in my life. I simply cannot do these things.
On one hand, that sucks. I wish my brain needed less short-term reward. I wish I was able to hold long term goals in my head as a motivation to get stuff done. But ADHD brains are famously very bad at this, mine included.
On the other hand, ADHD, to your point, has forced a LOT of growth and movement in my life. I cannot sit in one job, town, relationship, friendship, forever. I get antsy. I have to try new things. I crave novelty, and I seek it out in every aspect of my life. I do weird, crazy things, and I meet people who also do those things, and we get along just great. I live a very nontraditional lifestyle. And I've tried a million different things, hobbies, people, cities. I know a little bit about absolutely everything and can talk to almost anyone about something they're interested in because I know just enough to ask interesting questions that they enjoy answering.
It's a shame that my ADHD is pretty incompatible with capitalism. I work for a couple years then take a year or more off work, rinse and repeat. I've done this my entire life. Thankfully I work in software that pays well enough, and I'm frugal enough, to make this work. But job hopping plus not caring that much about my work means I don't get FAANG bucks or anything, in fact my salary has always been pretty below average for the work I do. But I make it work.
> My life has been really difficult because I simply cannot, ever, force myself to do something I don't want to do. I think there are cool goals in life I'd really appreciate (...). But each of these goals involves an activity that I inherently don't want to do and therefore cannot make myself do them. Studying for exams to get into a grad program, practicing consistently for an instrument, studying a language that has no real applicable use in my life. I simply cannot do these things.
This is 100% accurate description of me, too. Except, I somehow managed to finish my masters' studies, start a career in software and eventually get a decent job, then get married and had a kid before I got diagnosed and realized where all my anguish comes from, why I barely hold on.
On the one hand, that sucks. On the other hand, this still sucks. I really wish I'd been diagnosed a bit earlier, because even if the kind of lifestyle and perspective you described would've worked for me too, it's too late for me now. I can't afford to try any nontrivial novelty, try different hobbies, or do anything else I've been denying myself, with the intensity I actually need.
No, an hour a week of a new hobby will not do; nothing short of frequent binges lasting uninterrupted for days would do. It's how I learned everything, including the knowledge and experience to give me a solid start in software. I thought I don't need it, I denied myself it to fit better with normal society and regular people, and now it's too late - too many loved ones depend on me not just bailing out and reinventing myself in another industry.
> It's a shame that my ADHD is pretty incompatible with capitalism. I work for a couple years then take a year or more off work, rinse and repeat. I've done this my entire life. Thankfully I work in software that pays well enough, and I'm frugal enough, to make this work. But job hopping plus not caring that much about my work means I don't get FAANG bucks or anything, in fact my salary has always been pretty below average for the work I do. But I make it work.
Yes, like this, and I wish I could do it like you. Wonder if there is another way.
I think the success we see despite ADHD is that people are bright enough or resourceful enough to brute force their way through schools and careers.
I had a vasectomy around age 30 knowing kids would make my life really difficult, I think for the same reasons you're seeing right now. It's a lot of responsibility and I frankly struggle to take care of myself as it is. I'd be a really good parent and I take phenomenal care of my partners, but my financial variability would cause me too much stress if I had a kid.
There has been an interesting result recently, which was discussed here [0]. In an online game where participants had to forage for resources, people with attention deficits scored higher, because they preferred exploration to exploitation.
I commented back then that ADHD may be understood as introducing chaos into life to avoid being trapped in local optima.
Having ADHD is then of course a major disadvantage in environments where there is only one global optimum. Examples include highly regulated and deterministic academic environments (school, undergraduate studies) or corporate environments.
But in human history, environments with a single global optimum have been the exception, not the rule.
People with ADHD - and their parents and teachers - should therefore embrace their individuality as a kind of reservoir talent in the human gene pool. We need these individuals in the future.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39508573