This is not especially surprising. It's not that I can't focus. I can, for hours and hours and hours on end. The difficulty is directing that focus productively. High stress environments provide the necessary motivation, forcing my focus onto the thing demanding that attention more strongly than the usual cacophony of distractions. But high stress also leads to burnout; I can't sustain that for months on end, so I have to cope in other ways most of the time. (Typically by altering my environment to reduce distractions.)
I like to joke that it's an array indexing issue. Some people loop through their array task list starting at 1 instead of 0, and so if they only have one task it never gets started. :P
I wouldn't say that I thrive, more that when the flight-or-fight instinct kicks in, I become extremely productive.
Prior to getting diagnosed and medicated, my life was pretty much long periods of nothing, with small bursts where I did everything.
Take college, for example. I was completely unable to partition a project into daily tasks. I'd get borderline anxiety from looking at the problem set, and then get distracted. It was only when the deadline started to get close, that my fight-or-flight instinct would set in. Then I'd sit up 1-2-3 days straight and work on the problem - not 100%, but small bursts of 100% focus and attention, before eventually getting distracted. I'd oscillate between those states.
To outsiders it will look completely ridiculous. You could literally be dealing with life-altering decisions, with the clock ticking down, and then you suddenly start looking at cute cat vids. Before shifting back and grinding away at the problem, but even more stressed.
Luckily medication has worked wonders for me. I'm able to just start on the tasks, and work consistently on them. Work and life now feels like a marathon, rather than a bunch of impossible sprints.
This reminds me of the time I didn't sleep for 36 hours straight to start and complete a Computer Vision course final assignment and aced it with an A+ because I did way better than others consistently working on it for 2 months. I still don't know whether to be happy or sad about it.
Scientifically and clinically inaccurate, sorry. I’ve personally lived one of many counterexamples to what you describe, even though my ADHD is both quite clear and professionally diagnosed. Amphetamines have a complicated mixture of effects on me that’s often not positive overall.
My current psychiatrist knows ADHD quite well, and she and I found a better non-amphetamine medication solution for me. There are multiple common medications approved to treat ADHD which are not amphetamines, and for some people those are the best option.
Whenever possible, always discuss this topic with a suitably qualified and informed doctor instead of self-medicating (or self-diagnosing).
I don’t know if I have ADHD (though I recently had some tests done and am waiting on results), but I found this relatable. If I’m interested in something I will hyper focus on it all day. If I’m not, and there is no deadline, I’ll find it impossible to get started. As a deadline approaches (a real one, not something made up), a point is reached where I think I can get it done if I literally do nothing else, and then I can focus and get it done.
Deadlines that our made up, I know are made up, have no consequences, and the where the whole project seems pointless, do not work the same way. Those are still ignored in spite of the stress and external person might try to apply.
My old boss saw this pattern and if he gave me a project I didn’t instantly latch onto and turn around, he’d give it to someone else and I’d get something I was actually interested in and spent most of my days working long hours because I’d be hyper focused on whatever project I was working on and put in 12+ hour days every day.
It was about 4 hours of questionnaires, quizzes, and questions. It wasn’t just for ADHD, but autism, and various other things as well. I figured while I was there they might as well evaluate for everything. I was told it usually takes 4-6 hours. I was on the shorter side since I didn’t take any breaks.
I am not the OP, but I have gone through actual neuropsychological testing with a specialist to be diagnosed with ADHD. It did come with a several week waiting period as the results were reviewed and considered against my thorough consultation interview, also completed by the physician.
FWIW I have ADHD and you've described exactly how I work as well. I wish I didn't need to have that pressure in order to get things done -- this work style has definitely been detrimental to my career. Meds do help somewhat but are still far from a complete fix. That's an awesome boss to be able to recognize how you work and maximize your utility. I've yet to have a boss like that. Anyways, good luck out there.
It's weird when this is described as surprising. I mean I'm glad that precise research is being done. But this topic has memes about it. We know. It's on the wiki https://romankogan.net/adhd/
Is correlating yourself with lots of points on that iceberg a sign of ADHD or am I overfitting myself to these condition. The current state of everyone being "i think I might have adhd" is just our brains cooked by phones and doomscrolling, and everyone is on the spectrum some way or other if they start scoring themselves on impulse control, attention span, time sensitivity, organic recall of pertinent time-sensitive information
Give me a deadline in six months and I'll procrastinate for at least five of them, feeling terrible about it throughout. Give me an impossible deadline tomorrow and I become a productivity machine, with no time for anxious overthinking.
This is also a result of different dopamine and other neurotransmitter function in folks with ADHD, not just anxious overthinking. With a deadline 6 months away, the dopamine reward to work on it doesn't work like in normal people. While, say doing something in a video game that triggers dopamine release reward which motivates action.
I was in a situation that at least felt “life or death” when I was ~15. In retrospect, it wasn’t that big of an issue, but for me at the time it was an absolute emergency. When the situation became apparent to me, it was like flipping a switch: my mind went completely silent, time seemed to slow, and my emotions kinda faded into the background. I knew they were there, but rather than experience them I only saw how I felt about things as data to make a decision.
Since then I’ve been in a handful of situations that made me feel that way. One of those was a potential car accident where I was able to analyze and react to a dangerous situation in time to pull off a crazy maneuver where I drove up on an (empty) sidewalk at ~40MPH and get back on the pavement before hitting a culvert, with about 12” to spare.
In everyday life, the sooner the deadline, the more work I have left to do, and the larger the consequences of not getting it done in time - the less I have to struggle with focus/attention.
Common myth. ADHD medications used as prescribed by people with ADHD in typical therapeutic doses don’t cause the high that neurotypical people experience from recreational doses. When I’ve taken those (yes by proper prescription for ADHD), my experience has been nothing like what I’ve heard neurotypical people describe.
What’s more, plenty of people with ADHD are unmedicated, and performing well under stress - sometimes even better than people without ADHD in such situations - is a common ADHD pattern even without medication. This pattern is widely self-reported in ADHD peer support communities.
One theory I’ve heard is that the stressful situation causes the body to produce more of the neurotransmitters for which ADHD often causes a deficit, and so neurotypical people sometimes produce too much to focus calmly in that circumstance whereas ADHD people can have the rare experience of functioning more like neurotypical people normally do.
By far most legally prescribed ADHD meds are not methamphetamine, only some are even amphetamines at all, and they affect people with ADHD quite differently from neurotypical people.
Among people with ADHD the specific experience varies widely by person.
My personal experience using legally prescribed Adderall XR was so unpleasant that I can’t imagine voluntarily using it for recreational purposes or often enough for any purpose to end up addicted. It was more a question of “does this situation require me going through the downsides of taking it, and how do I make sure it helps more than it interferes.” There’s no way that’s what neurotypical recreational users experience.
My current ADHD treatment does not involve any amphetamines, and I’m completely fine with that.
(Why did I use “generally” in the first sentence of this comment? Legal prescription methamphetamine is technically available in the US and approved for ADHD treatment, under the brand name Desoxyn, but it’s very much not a common choice to say the least. All other options are vastly more commonly prescribed. For my own ADHD treatment I’ve never been prescribed meth, even though I’ve been prescribed most of the common ADHD meds over the years including several different amphetamines and multiple non-amphetamine options.)
It's not conducive to a productive discussion to ignore the vast majority of what I wrote, including my entire substantive argument, while nitpicking on one point of terminology when the meaning I meant was clear from context.
If you want me to be explicit about this contextual meaning: since I was discussing the pharmacological differences for these medicines in people with vs without ADHD, "neurotypical" in this particular context simply has the contextually narrowed meaning of "without ADHD".
I didn't use the word neurodivergent in this conversation, so I won't address it in this comment, nor will I address the question of whether "neurotypical" is a useful word now that you definitely know what I actually meant.
My prior comments in this conversation are now outside of the edit window. So, in your brain, I encourage you to replace my phrases "neurotypical people" and "neurotypical recreational users" with "people without ADHD" and "recreational users without ADHD" respectively. Hopefully you agree that these are real categories of people, whether or not you like the word "neurotypical" to describe them.
Within that understanding of what I meant, I also encourage you to proceed to respond to the rest of what I said in a substantive and productive way. If you do that, I will happily respond substantively and productively in return.
But if I see any further non-substantive responses from you in this subthread, I will simply choose not to respond and will leave you with the last word, instead of spending even more of my my time on a non-substantive discussion than I have so far.
This is because pharmacology is a shell game, where there is a constant pipeline of new chemicals being rotated in as soon as they're "recognized as safe". That is because people start to notice the adverse, toxic effects of the "old and busted" chemicals, such as Thalidomide or Phen-Fen, aren't such the "miracle drugs" they were cracked up to be, so there needs to be a constant stream of new stuff to replace it. They simply need to approve drugs a bit faster than attorneys can file class-action lawsuits.
Another effect is that the "new stuff" is a weak synthetic facsimile of whatever the previous drug generations were, and eventually you end up with 100% fake treatments, often doing the opposite, exacerbating and magnifying the very symptoms they're prescribed for, or damaging the target organs/glands, and shutting them down.
"Fail first" or "step therapy" policies by insurance carriers will aid and abet this behavior, as the prescribers are forced to begin with inexpensive and ineffective (or harmful) treatments before they can even propose a treatment that is deemed efficacious.
So, yes, my comment about people high on amphetamines was relatively tongue-in-cheek, because physicians are seldom incentivized to get people high these days: they're incentivized to push the new hotness wonder-drugs that people haven't figured out are just as horrible as the old ones.
Nope. The two most common non-amphetamine ADHD drugs, methylphenidate and atomoxetine, are both now old enough that they’re available in generic form, and methylphenidate is cheap enough that step therapy is not routinely required before insurers cover it. Even one of the pretty new and therapeutically effective long-release amphetamines, Vyvanse/Elvanse, is now available as a generic as of (I think) summer 2023. So are most of the other amphetamines.
You’re right in general about how much of the pharma industry prefers to operate, but wrong about what’s true in the specific context of ADHD treatment, and also wrong (even if your remark was only tongue-in-cheek) about whether people with ADHD get high when they do take an amphetamine as prescribed.
That last misconception is actually quite harmful, whether or not you were joking. It’s a perverse fact that most of the obstacles which state and federal legislators, state and federal regulators, major pharmacy chains, and pharmacists put in the way of smooth access to most ADHD medications - primarily as part of the war on drugs - are uniquely hard to handle and overcome for people with ADHD, due to the types of life struggles that ADHD causes in particular.
The widespread stereotype of people with ADHD as drug seekers looking to get high, at least in much of the US, makes appropriate policy outcomes hard to achieve and hard to experience in practice. The benefit of medicines to people with ADHD is no less legitimate than the benefit of Ozempic or insulin to people with diabetes. And nobody with ADHD gets high from therapeutic doses of ADHD medicines.
Anyone who does get high from such doses doesn’t actually have ADHD, and so either they got the prescription from a doctor guilty of diagnostic medical malpractice (or a doctor complicit in a false diagnosis/prescription) or they lied to the doctor in a fraudulent way when undergoing the diagnostic process. Those are worth punishing, but not at the expense of making it unreasonably difficult for the medicines to be accessed by the very same population for which they are quite legitimately approved and prescribed.
This is not especially surprising. It's not that I can't focus. I can, for hours and hours and hours on end. The difficulty is directing that focus productively. High stress environments provide the necessary motivation, forcing my focus onto the thing demanding that attention more strongly than the usual cacophony of distractions. But high stress also leads to burnout; I can't sustain that for months on end, so I have to cope in other ways most of the time. (Typically by altering my environment to reduce distractions.)
I agree. For whatever reason if I have 10 things to do or 1 thing to do I make completing them take the same amount of time.
I like to joke that it's an array indexing issue. Some people loop through their array task list starting at 1 instead of 0, and so if they only have one task it never gets started. :P
Parkinson’s Law: work will expand to fill the time allotted for its completion.
I wouldn't say that I thrive, more that when the flight-or-fight instinct kicks in, I become extremely productive.
Prior to getting diagnosed and medicated, my life was pretty much long periods of nothing, with small bursts where I did everything.
Take college, for example. I was completely unable to partition a project into daily tasks. I'd get borderline anxiety from looking at the problem set, and then get distracted. It was only when the deadline started to get close, that my fight-or-flight instinct would set in. Then I'd sit up 1-2-3 days straight and work on the problem - not 100%, but small bursts of 100% focus and attention, before eventually getting distracted. I'd oscillate between those states.
To outsiders it will look completely ridiculous. You could literally be dealing with life-altering decisions, with the clock ticking down, and then you suddenly start looking at cute cat vids. Before shifting back and grinding away at the problem, but even more stressed.
Luckily medication has worked wonders for me. I'm able to just start on the tasks, and work consistently on them. Work and life now feels like a marathon, rather than a bunch of impossible sprints.
Every assignment is done on the last evening. That's what night time is for, right?
The last moments before the deadline is when the engine's firing on all cylinders.
This reminds me of the time I didn't sleep for 36 hours straight to start and complete a Computer Vision course final assignment and aced it with an A+ because I did way better than others consistently working on it for 2 months. I still don't know whether to be happy or sad about it.
Can you please share what medication worked for you
I was put on Ritalin, and that worked just fine for me. Tried 10mg, 20mg, 30mg, and 60mg. 20mg worked best for me.
Taking amphetamines will work for everyone with or without the extra step of adhd diagnosis
Scientifically and clinically inaccurate, sorry. I’ve personally lived one of many counterexamples to what you describe, even though my ADHD is both quite clear and professionally diagnosed. Amphetamines have a complicated mixture of effects on me that’s often not positive overall.
My current psychiatrist knows ADHD quite well, and she and I found a better non-amphetamine medication solution for me. There are multiple common medications approved to treat ADHD which are not amphetamines, and for some people those are the best option.
Whenever possible, always discuss this topic with a suitably qualified and informed doctor instead of self-medicating (or self-diagnosing).
I don’t know if I have ADHD (though I recently had some tests done and am waiting on results), but I found this relatable. If I’m interested in something I will hyper focus on it all day. If I’m not, and there is no deadline, I’ll find it impossible to get started. As a deadline approaches (a real one, not something made up), a point is reached where I think I can get it done if I literally do nothing else, and then I can focus and get it done.
Deadlines that our made up, I know are made up, have no consequences, and the where the whole project seems pointless, do not work the same way. Those are still ignored in spite of the stress and external person might try to apply.
My old boss saw this pattern and if he gave me a project I didn’t instantly latch onto and turn around, he’d give it to someone else and I’d get something I was actually interested in and spent most of my days working long hours because I’d be hyper focused on whatever project I was working on and put in 12+ hour days every day.
> I don’t know if I have ADHD (though I recently had some tests done and am waiting on results)
Are those physical tests as in requiring lab results or questionnaires/quizzes?
It was about 4 hours of questionnaires, quizzes, and questions. It wasn’t just for ADHD, but autism, and various other things as well. I figured while I was there they might as well evaluate for everything. I was told it usually takes 4-6 hours. I was on the shorter side since I didn’t take any breaks.
I am not the OP, but I have gone through actual neuropsychological testing with a specialist to be diagnosed with ADHD. It did come with a several week waiting period as the results were reviewed and considered against my thorough consultation interview, also completed by the physician.
FWIW I have ADHD and you've described exactly how I work as well. I wish I didn't need to have that pressure in order to get things done -- this work style has definitely been detrimental to my career. Meds do help somewhat but are still far from a complete fix. That's an awesome boss to be able to recognize how you work and maximize your utility. I've yet to have a boss like that. Anyways, good luck out there.
Sadly that boss was forced out by an incompetent VP. My productivity and satisfaction at work has taken a huge hit.
It's weird when this is described as surprising. I mean I'm glad that precise research is being done. But this topic has memes about it. We know. It's on the wiki https://romankogan.net/adhd/
Is correlating yourself with lots of points on that iceberg a sign of ADHD or am I overfitting myself to these condition. The current state of everyone being "i think I might have adhd" is just our brains cooked by phones and doomscrolling, and everyone is on the spectrum some way or other if they start scoring themselves on impulse control, attention span, time sensitivity, organic recall of pertinent time-sensitive information
This is obvious - stress is motivating.
Give me a deadline in six months and I'll procrastinate for at least five of them, feeling terrible about it throughout. Give me an impossible deadline tomorrow and I become a productivity machine, with no time for anxious overthinking.
This is also a result of different dopamine and other neurotransmitter function in folks with ADHD, not just anxious overthinking. With a deadline 6 months away, the dopamine reward to work on it doesn't work like in normal people. While, say doing something in a video game that triggers dopamine release reward which motivates action.
Interesting.
So giving you deadlines for impossible tasks every day is a good way to motivate you?
Only as long as it's a novelty, like many other approaches. If you know daily deadlines are BS, that's it. (Or you actually burn out)
I have to believe the deadlines are serious. It helps too if the task is interesting
Yes, but it's not an invitation :)
;))
> Sibley thought that ADHD patients would experience > the most relief during periods of low stress. What > she found was more counterintuitive.
Did this researcher not talk to anyone with ADHD before starting this project?
Seeing hyperfocus described as a superpower makes me want to flip a table over.
I was today years old when I learned I have ADHD.
Congrats :)
Be prepared for a long process. I'm still learning about it, after putting the pieces together ~5 years ago.
Honestly, I knew this before I knew I had ADHD.
I was in a situation that at least felt “life or death” when I was ~15. In retrospect, it wasn’t that big of an issue, but for me at the time it was an absolute emergency. When the situation became apparent to me, it was like flipping a switch: my mind went completely silent, time seemed to slow, and my emotions kinda faded into the background. I knew they were there, but rather than experience them I only saw how I felt about things as data to make a decision.
Since then I’ve been in a handful of situations that made me feel that way. One of those was a potential car accident where I was able to analyze and react to a dangerous situation in time to pull off a crazy maneuver where I drove up on an (empty) sidewalk at ~40MPH and get back on the pavement before hitting a culvert, with about 12” to spare.
In everyday life, the sooner the deadline, the more work I have left to do, and the larger the consequences of not getting it done in time - the less I have to struggle with focus/attention.
Well, duh. And it works, until it doesn't.
Isn't this just another way of saying their environment wasn't boring though?
[flagged]
Common myth. ADHD medications used as prescribed by people with ADHD in typical therapeutic doses don’t cause the high that neurotypical people experience from recreational doses. When I’ve taken those (yes by proper prescription for ADHD), my experience has been nothing like what I’ve heard neurotypical people describe.
What’s more, plenty of people with ADHD are unmedicated, and performing well under stress - sometimes even better than people without ADHD in such situations - is a common ADHD pattern even without medication. This pattern is widely self-reported in ADHD peer support communities.
One theory I’ve heard is that the stressful situation causes the body to produce more of the neurotransmitters for which ADHD often causes a deficit, and so neurotypical people sometimes produce too much to focus calmly in that circumstance whereas ADHD people can have the rare experience of functioning more like neurotypical people normally do.
You shouldn’t even joke about this. Stimulant meds for ADHD do not make people high. If you get high off them you don’t have ADHD.
it's meth. It works the same for everyone. Even better for non-addicts as their receptors haven't been fried
None of those statements are generally true.
By far most legally prescribed ADHD meds are not methamphetamine, only some are even amphetamines at all, and they affect people with ADHD quite differently from neurotypical people.
Among people with ADHD the specific experience varies widely by person.
My personal experience using legally prescribed Adderall XR was so unpleasant that I can’t imagine voluntarily using it for recreational purposes or often enough for any purpose to end up addicted. It was more a question of “does this situation require me going through the downsides of taking it, and how do I make sure it helps more than it interferes.” There’s no way that’s what neurotypical recreational users experience.
My current ADHD treatment does not involve any amphetamines, and I’m completely fine with that.
(Why did I use “generally” in the first sentence of this comment? Legal prescription methamphetamine is technically available in the US and approved for ADHD treatment, under the brand name Desoxyn, but it’s very much not a common choice to say the least. All other options are vastly more commonly prescribed. For my own ADHD treatment I’ve never been prescribed meth, even though I’ve been prescribed most of the common ADHD meds over the years including several different amphetamines and multiple non-amphetamine options.)
There is no such thing as "neurotypical"/"-divergent"
It's not conducive to a productive discussion to ignore the vast majority of what I wrote, including my entire substantive argument, while nitpicking on one point of terminology when the meaning I meant was clear from context.
If you want me to be explicit about this contextual meaning: since I was discussing the pharmacological differences for these medicines in people with vs without ADHD, "neurotypical" in this particular context simply has the contextually narrowed meaning of "without ADHD".
I didn't use the word neurodivergent in this conversation, so I won't address it in this comment, nor will I address the question of whether "neurotypical" is a useful word now that you definitely know what I actually meant.
My prior comments in this conversation are now outside of the edit window. So, in your brain, I encourage you to replace my phrases "neurotypical people" and "neurotypical recreational users" with "people without ADHD" and "recreational users without ADHD" respectively. Hopefully you agree that these are real categories of people, whether or not you like the word "neurotypical" to describe them.
Within that understanding of what I meant, I also encourage you to proceed to respond to the rest of what I said in a substantive and productive way. If you do that, I will happily respond substantively and productively in return.
But if I see any further non-substantive responses from you in this subthread, I will simply choose not to respond and will leave you with the last word, instead of spending even more of my my time on a non-substantive discussion than I have so far.
This is because pharmacology is a shell game, where there is a constant pipeline of new chemicals being rotated in as soon as they're "recognized as safe". That is because people start to notice the adverse, toxic effects of the "old and busted" chemicals, such as Thalidomide or Phen-Fen, aren't such the "miracle drugs" they were cracked up to be, so there needs to be a constant stream of new stuff to replace it. They simply need to approve drugs a bit faster than attorneys can file class-action lawsuits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenfluramine/phentermine
Another effect is that the "new stuff" is a weak synthetic facsimile of whatever the previous drug generations were, and eventually you end up with 100% fake treatments, often doing the opposite, exacerbating and magnifying the very symptoms they're prescribed for, or damaging the target organs/glands, and shutting them down.
"Fail first" or "step therapy" policies by insurance carriers will aid and abet this behavior, as the prescribers are forced to begin with inexpensive and ineffective (or harmful) treatments before they can even propose a treatment that is deemed efficacious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_therapy
So, yes, my comment about people high on amphetamines was relatively tongue-in-cheek, because physicians are seldom incentivized to get people high these days: they're incentivized to push the new hotness wonder-drugs that people haven't figured out are just as horrible as the old ones.
Nope. The two most common non-amphetamine ADHD drugs, methylphenidate and atomoxetine, are both now old enough that they’re available in generic form, and methylphenidate is cheap enough that step therapy is not routinely required before insurers cover it. Even one of the pretty new and therapeutically effective long-release amphetamines, Vyvanse/Elvanse, is now available as a generic as of (I think) summer 2023. So are most of the other amphetamines.
You’re right in general about how much of the pharma industry prefers to operate, but wrong about what’s true in the specific context of ADHD treatment, and also wrong (even if your remark was only tongue-in-cheek) about whether people with ADHD get high when they do take an amphetamine as prescribed.
That last misconception is actually quite harmful, whether or not you were joking. It’s a perverse fact that most of the obstacles which state and federal legislators, state and federal regulators, major pharmacy chains, and pharmacists put in the way of smooth access to most ADHD medications - primarily as part of the war on drugs - are uniquely hard to handle and overcome for people with ADHD, due to the types of life struggles that ADHD causes in particular.
The widespread stereotype of people with ADHD as drug seekers looking to get high, at least in much of the US, makes appropriate policy outcomes hard to achieve and hard to experience in practice. The benefit of medicines to people with ADHD is no less legitimate than the benefit of Ozempic or insulin to people with diabetes. And nobody with ADHD gets high from therapeutic doses of ADHD medicines.
Anyone who does get high from such doses doesn’t actually have ADHD, and so either they got the prescription from a doctor guilty of diagnostic medical malpractice (or a doctor complicit in a false diagnosis/prescription) or they lied to the doctor in a fraudulent way when undergoing the diagnostic process. Those are worth punishing, but not at the expense of making it unreasonably difficult for the medicines to be accessed by the very same population for which they are quite legitimately approved and prescribed.
I know what high is, and prescription levels of these drugs ain’t doing it champ.
Oddly enough my lyrica dosage on the other hand can make feel oddly very pleasant.