Comment by dijit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dijit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's likely a definitive example of selection bias, you won't hear people not talking about having it, but ADHD affects (approximately) 30% of the population.

Assuming even a tiny amount of those are loud when exploring their discovery would mean a lot of people talking about it online.

This is likely also combined with Millennials (my cohort at least) being one of the most self-aware generational cohorts in history (while also being a tad self-centered).

I have my own journey with ADHD ("many markers" but no official diagnosis, as that could negatively affect my life in Sweden) and it was really liberating to learn that, no, I wasn't just lazy, that I may have an issue with executive function and if I work around it I can at least partially tackle it.

The amount of stress that gets applied by society for people who are "not performing up to their potential" or slacking off or what-have-you is actually quite immense when you cannot force yourself to work, so I understand people who feel liberated in the moment and who seek solutions, loudly.

My understanding is that ADHD prevalence is closer to 5-10%. That's the number I've seen most by reputable sources.

Nonetheless, the rest of your post resonates with me and and your points stand on their own :)

I think its unknowable, but I definitely read 30% expected undiagnosed in the population.

Here is a reputable source that claims 25%

https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/mediaroom/pressreleaselisting/...

Once it's at this level of prevalence, can it really be considered neurologically atypical?

The broader point that's often missed is that this is a naturally occurring and common phenotype that doesn't gel well with office-work culture and the modern regimented schooling system, forcing people to sit for unnaturally long times focusing on anxiety-inducing problem solving all day. It's not normal, and it's a recipe for burnout, and our only answer, is not to change the system, but to try and medicate it away, with sometimes devastating consequences.

It really depends on the level of impact. Lots of people will have small quirks and uncomfortable isolated events which map onto typical symptoms. On the other hand, there's going to be much fewer with severe enough impact to classify it as an issue in their lives.

The impact can only be measured by how it negatively affects one's living standards or societal participation, both of which can be attended to by society-at-large by making society the problem, not the person. Though it's interesting to see, in the OP, an AI solution to facilitate executive functioning. And perhaps AI will be what liberates many people from the difficult and unnatural requirements that are imposed by modern lifestyles.

It seems odd that as a society it's been deemed a-okay to pathologize a cluster of traits shared by 30% of the population.

We as a society seem to enjoy doing that.

Half of the population are provably on a different circadian rhythm than the other half, but we force everyone to function only one way.

There’s a dozen more examples, related to psychiatry and medicine.

neurotypes exist in an n-dimensional space with loose clusterings, making binary attributes at best vague and clumsy.

i hope we move away from pathologizing and toward making social and economic structures adaptive for people that are currently challenged by them, and likewise find better ways for people to adapt their lives to fit how their minds work

So if 30% of people develop high blood pressure should be pretend that doesn't exist anymore as well?

20% of people are infected with herpes. So yeah, definitely worth dealing with the common problems.

Not necessarily pathologize – just structure society in a way that doesn't quite work for them (me included.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com