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

ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

claimingattention.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#161

Post by olddustytrail »

SteveNuts wrote: post #101
olddustytrail wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well why don't you go to the college of your dreams now? Or does it only work when other people work and pay for it?

I have no academic basis to apply to a top school, and to be honest the more annoying part is that I missed out on 4 years of the college experience that I got to watch my friends have from the sidelines. I don’t understand your point about who pays for it, sorry.

> have no academic basis to apply to a top school

Then what exactly are you complaining about? You clearly didn't deserve that college experience.

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#162

Post by kerkeslager »

bitwize wrote: post #45
kerkeslager wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a neuroatypical parent of a neuroatypical children, I still have to guide them understanding the structures and expectations of society, and I see often time that she resents me for it, as the autor resent their upbringing. I think where a lot of parents go wrong is representing things as "because I said so" when in fact, there is a very good reason for what the parent is doing and explaining that reason to the…

"Because I said so" means "My authority as a parent should be sufficient reason for compliance. You asking for additional justification threatens my shifgrethor." Shifgrethor -- Ursula K. LeGuin's word meaning, roughly, authority simultaneously as the bedrock of the organization of society and as a measure of personal self-worth, is widely perceived as bullshit by neurodivergents, and it mostly probably is. But it is…

People are speaking faaaaar too broadly in this thread. "Normies", just like neurodivergent people, are a pretty wide group and don't all think alike--certainly they don't all put any importance on "shifgrethor".

And yeah, teaching your children how to interact with authority is obviously important. But notably, having any respect at all for authority isn't a requirement: I can obey an authority figure says even if it's stupid and terrible, if it benefits my goals. There are plenty of times in my career where I've done things I didn't agree with for bosses and clients I didn't respect, because other aspects of the job made it worth it, and they weren't worth risking my job over. Succinctly, "pick your battles".

Sure, as a parent, you need to teach your kids how to interact with authorities they don't respect, but being the authority they don't respect is a pretty terrible way to do that, and is going to have a lot of negative effects on your relationship with your child.

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#163

Post by TeMPOraL »

godelski wrote: post #154
RandomWorker wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aca…

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 some…

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.

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#164

Post by tonymet »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #122
tonymet wrote: post #96

I've many friends and family members over-diagnosed with mental illness in preteens, plied with legal meth (Ritalin and Adderall), psychotropics & anti-psychotics. They are now adult basket cases. There is a confirmation bias especially in tech, since many high-achievers are also taking these drugs. I want to warn people that you are only seeing the winners not the victims. For every successful Adderall addict you kn…

> For every successful Adderall addict you know, there are dozens of lives that have been ruined by parents and quacks. Counterpoint: Adderall changed my life. It makes the difference between my self-improvement effort anchoring into the ground - or uselessly bouncing away. Over ~20 years Adderall has been key to me becoming a better person. Different stims similarly improve the lives of two of my sons.

it's not a counterpoint. there are a good number like you. There are also 20 million who take Adderall and the vast majority are not successful.

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#165

Post by bitwize »

amluto wrote: post #79
bitwize wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because I said so" means "My authority as a parent should be sufficient reason for compliance. You asking for additional justification threatens my shifgrethor." Shifgrethor -- Ursula K. LeGuin's word meaning, roughly, authority simultaneously as the bedrock of the organization of society and as a measure of personal self-worth, is widely perceived as bullshit by neurodivergents, and it mostly probably is. But it is…

Except for the times when “because I said so” means “you are about to incur risk of permanent disability or death to yourself and/or someone else, and by the time we can have a reasoned discussion about it, it will be too late.” Cars, fire, heavy machinery, electricity are not “normies” and do not care whether anyone is neurotypical.

I've never heard "Because I said so" used for emergency situations. It was always "Because you could get hurt/killed", "Because it's dangerous", etc.

"Because I said so" was always used in the rank-pulling, "I don't owe you an explanation due to who I am in relation to you" sense.

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#166

Post by willy_k »

exceptione wrote: post #40
sibeliuss wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is: there isn't a "right" way. That's exactly what the author is trying to say. By failing to recognize the ways in which they were different, they forced a mode upon them and here we are. A whole medicalized generation addicted to stimulants trying to fit in where in past generations you had artists and rebels and seekers and every other kind of misfit that made life interesting and unique and challenging…

I wonder how much room there is for misfits these days. Young people have to nail it or fail with a high student debt burden. I think in the past we missed a language to label the "weird" and unproductive people. But I know of communities were it was common for an employer to "hire" such people for a period, then pass the buck to another employer. Now the thing is, in the past, it was for the public normal to see a c…

That hasn’t entirely gone away, it’s just taken up the guise of empathy now. Canada’s MAID program seeks to euthanize people for mental health issues, and it is my believe that it has already been successful in suckering many that would not otherwise go through with anything into ending their lives.

Although it is ostensibly not yet approved for mental illness, it appears that the standards in practice are lax, and that some amount of patients that start out seeking treatment for depression are convinced by their doctors to exaggerate other conditions to get approved for MAID.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted...

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/vancouve...

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#167

Post by SteveNuts »

olddustytrail wrote: post #161
SteveNuts wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no academic basis to apply to a top school, and to be honest the more annoying part is that I missed out on 4 years of the college experience that I got to watch my friends have from the sidelines. I don’t understand your point about who pays for it, sorry.

> have no academic basis to apply to a top school Then what exactly are you complaining about? You clearly didn't deserve that college experience.

Why do you say that?

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#168

Post by godelski »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #163
godelski wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 some…

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 sen…

haha this is very relatable.

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession_(novella)

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#169

Post by godelski »

patcon wrote: post #91
godelski wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 interventio…

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.

Re: ADHD Didn't Break Me–My Parents Did

#170

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

tonymet wrote: post #164
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For every successful Adderall addict you know, there are dozens of lives that have been ruined by parents and quacks. Counterpoint: Adderall changed my life. It makes the difference between my self-improvement effort anchoring into the ground - or uselessly bouncing away. Over ~20 years Adderall has been key to me becoming a better person. Different stims similarly improve the lives of two of my sons.

it's not a counterpoint. there are a good number like you. There are also 20 million who take Adderall and the vast majority are not successful.

> There are also 20 million who take Adderall and the vast majority are not successful.

These are two bold claims. What are some independent sources for each of them?

They certainly run counter to decades of my own experience.

Presently: For every person I know on ADHD meds, I know more who are unable to get them. The vast majority of Dr's are too afraid of the DEA to prescribe them.

It's difficult to recognize a health crisis when all exterior signs point to the opposite.

Post reply on HN