Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

#61

Post by faeriechangling »

luckydata wrote: post #25
mo_42 wrote: post #7

I think this is a good example of how we mix up concepts: ADHD is just a phenotype. Then, our society classifies it as a condition because it does not go well with current circumstances. Although, both are separate things.

No it's not. It's a disability with very serious consequences for the lifespan of people affected. Please don't repeat this pointless pseudoscientific bs. This link contains a good starting point to understanding what science knows about it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014976342...

Men have shorter lifespan's than women largely due to testosterone, but that doesn't mean men having testosterone is evolutionarily maladaptive.

I eye some risks people with ADHD have, like higher risk for STIs. Sure, Russel Barkley things people with ADHD getting STI's makes them "disabled", but evolution gives a bit two thumbs up to people with ADHD having unprotected sex. Barkley then brags treating ADHD will reduce STIs, by you know, reducing the amount of unprotected sex with multiple partners that they're having. If anything listening to Barkley's advice is likely to make the average person less reproductively successful.

I don't know, I don't like Barkley and his pro-pharma fan club. It's correct that medicating people with ADHD will profoundly change their behaviour. But I don't see any reason to call the prior way people ADHD people behaved as "disordered" and "a disability" and the new way they behave on stimulants to be curing them of a horrible disease or whatever. That description is not scientific - it's subjective what we do or don't consider a disability or disorder. If you prefer life on addy, good for you, keep using addy. I find the entire way we decide to describe behavioural and neurological differences as disabilities and disorders to just be thinly veiled bigotry often taking the form of self-hatred.

Re: ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

#62

Post by faeriechangling »

Yizahi wrote: post #46
nvarsj wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a disability with very serious consequences for the lifespan of people affected. I think this is the case for those with severe ADHD. They can't really function at all in modern society, it's a severe impediment. Vast majority of ADHD (esp. adult adhd cases, where childhood symptoms were not obvious) are nothing like that. I think this is where the idea of it being a phenotype comes in, for the mild/moderate A…

Is having a chronic rhinitis, or diabetes, or deafness, a block to function in a modern society? No, thousands are living with them mostly normal daily lives. Are they illnesses? Yes definitely, and we treat them with meds issued by doctors. Same with ADHD - it an illness and should be treated as such. I likely have undiagnosed ADHD. I'm ill. I need and want treatment (just afraid because of that same ADHD). What's t…

>What's the big deal with calling illness an illness or mental health disorder?

I'm not on medication and have ADHD. You're just essentially calling me disordered, disabled, and untreated. The consequent stigma impacts my social and professional opportunities, and this stigma is justified primarily on the basis that if I just simply hate and disparage who I am enough I might be motivated to take ADHD medications and thus become "better".

I dunno, when you call me less orderly than other people, and less able than other people, but I'm not being described a "lesser"? Utter horseshit. I've heard this sort of rhetoric in disability communities many times before but no, being disabled and disordered is a bad thing. That is WHY Russel Barkley likes calling people disabled and disordered - because that give people an impetus to get "Better".

I simply an intolerant of people using languages that portrays me as less capable, when autism + ADHD has opened up many doors for me that otherwise would have been closed. It's just fucking unfair and defamatory. If people want to be on meds, go on meds, but I don't see why you have to call me "disordered" in the process.

Re: ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

#63

Post by firecall »

corobo wrote: post #32
raccoonDivider wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an actual consensus on what ADHD _is_, besides a catch-all for some common concentration and hyperactivity symptoms? People online assert a lot of things, such as "it's a dysfunction of dopamine pathways", "it's genetic", "it's a sort of autism", "it's a brain chemistry problem". But never anything that looked like a real definition backed by good science. My own psychiatrist's diagnosis was a bunch of obvio…

To answer your question: Not that I know of. To waffle freely: I believe it's lower than normal background levels of dopamine. Obligatory disclaimer I am in no way a doctor or scientist. This is probably wrong. Pinches of salt all round. This is a theory I'm kicking around now and then but I don't have the knowledge to confirm/deny the hypothesis yet. When a normal person tackles a regular task they'll get a little s…

To add, it’s not just stimulants as such.

Drugs like Ritalin are an effective dopamine re-uptake inhibitor. Other stimulants may not be.

Just in case any one reading this I the future is self-diagnosed and is considering self-medicating with Amphetamine/Speed!

Re: ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

#64

Post by firecall »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #50
neom wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was on Adderall for about 10 years, when I moved to Asia I discovered 'amphs are banned, so they put me on Ritalin. Holy mother of god how people tolerate that stuff is beyond me. Over the course of an hour, I'd oscillate between wanting to go to the gym, anger, and horny. Had to discontinue using it for fear I'd kill someone during the anger phase. I've tried many substanced but I gotta say... Ritalin is high on t…

Crossing my fingers. My drugstore didn‘t have Metylphinidat, so I had to go for ritalin. Trying it next week.

Where do you live where they can just swap out medications like that?

I live in Australia and have a Ritalin prescription, but I could t swap it for another drug if they were out!

Curious to know!

Re: ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

#65

Post by firecall »

neom wrote: post #51
selfmodruntime wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crossing my fingers. My drugstore didn‘t have Metylphinidat, so I had to go for ritalin. Trying it next week.

If you remember, lmk how it goes, very curious how others react to it.

I find Ritalin to be great and works well for me.

None of the issues you described!

But totally get it - some meds do weird things to some people!

Hope you find a treatment that works for you!

Re: ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

#66

Post by Yizahi »

faeriechangling wrote: post #62
Yizahi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is having a chronic rhinitis, or diabetes, or deafness, a block to function in a modern society? No, thousands are living with them mostly normal daily lives. Are they illnesses? Yes definitely, and we treat them with meds issued by doctors. Same with ADHD - it an illness and should be treated as such. I likely have undiagnosed ADHD. I'm ill. I need and want treatment (just afraid because of that same ADHD). What's t…

>What's the big deal with calling illness an illness or mental health disorder? I'm not on medication and have ADHD. You're just essentially calling me disordered, disabled, and untreated. The consequent stigma impacts my social and professional opportunities, and this stigma is justified primarily on the basis that if I just simply hate and disparage who I am enough I might be motivated to take ADHD medications and…

I'm not on medication and maybe have ADHD (undiagnosed). I don't see why I can't be called disordered, because I am. But I completely disagree about some mythical "social stigma". Hell, if I don't know if have it, then other people can't tell it even more. Sure, they may suspect something, but without having proofs or data nobody does it. I literally can't be discriminated on the basis of having ADHD or not having it because it is impossible.

What does impact my professional opportunities is this ADHD illness itself. It makes me really bad at things I'm perfectly capable of doing with good quality and in time, but instead I screw up deadlines and my work suffers a lot.

I'm not sure if meds help or not (but evidence for other people shows that it do), but I know for sure that people without ADHD lead better lives. Better, without any scary quotes. And I also do want to become better and try to medicate this shitty condition.

Re: ADHD may have been an evolutionary advantage, research suggests

#67

Post by corobo »

Emutopia wrote: post #59
nvarsj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically the pop science explanation of ADHD. There is actually no scientific explanation for it.

There very much is a definition and Psychologists have studied it extensively It is clearly defined and operationalised for medical diagnostic purposes. https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient_care/adhd_to... There seems to be a lack of mental health expertise in the hacker community, so feel free to ask any specific questions and I'll do my best to assist you :)

Is this actually a definition though? ADHD seems to be more a list of symptoms and then if you have enough of them yup you've got the ADHD, here's some treatments that might work or not.

I don't mean the current definition or diagnosis, if diagnoses were locked in forever we'd still be on the first DSM, I mean an actual explanation for the disorder.

Currently it feels like the equivalent of diagnosing diabetes by making a list of symptoms like "dies when eats too much sugar", "went a bit blind with no other explanation", "is super thirsty all the time" and if you tick enough of the boxes they'll try injecting you with insulin and that may or may not treat the symptoms.

Is there an actual diagnosis or agreed upon description that is the equivalent to diabetes' "either the pancreas not producing enough insulin, or the cells of the body becoming unresponsive to the hormone's effects"?

That's what I mean when I say there's no agreed upon diagnosis - yes technically a doctor will say you've got it and yes technically that's a diagnosis but it's still a little archaic in that the diagnosis comes from checking enough boxes from a list of symptoms rather than telling you the actual root cause of the disorder

Post reply on HN