Is ADHD Good for Something? ADHD as an Adaptation - Part II

In this two part video, I examine the hypothesis that ADHD is not a disorder but is simply a mismatch between modern culture and traits that were adaptive for some reason earlier in human evolution. This adaptationist or mis-match idea argues that cultural evolution proceeded far more quickly than biological evolution such that a trait or set of traits that were once adaptive or helpful to human survival in earlier periods of human evolution have become maladaptive due to changes in culture such that these traits are no longer adaptive. For example, Hartmann’s idea that ADHD represents earlier successful hunters during the hunter-gatherer phase of evolution now forced to live among farmers in contemporary culture. Or Jensen and colleagues’ idea that ADHD represents adaptive traits for warfare during an earlier human epoch that are new at odds with a relatively more peaceful contemporary culture.
Part I of this video examines these ideas as well as the evidence for the current known etiologies of ADHD to see how well they agree or disagree.
In Part II, I go on to explore an alternative, more scientifically based theory of ADHD as a set of maladaptive traits that can remain at a stable rate within a human population. This “conveyor belt” theory by Keller (2008) argues that new mutations arise all the time in the genes for ADHD (and other neurodevelopmental disorders) in each new generation and that it takes multiple generations for natural selection to remove those original mutations. Despite their being removed, new mutations continue to arise in the next generation that go on to create disorder. If the new mutation rate and the genetic removal (death) rates (natural selection) reach a certain level of balance with each other, the result is a stable rate of a maladaptive trait (disorder) within a population (say, 5-8%). The available evidence is more consistent with this theory than with the hypothesis of cultural mismatch.
Esteller-Culcala, P. et al. (2020). Genomic analysis of the natural history of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder using Neanderthal and ancient Homo Sapiens samples. Nature Research: Scientific Reports (10).
www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
Hartmann, T. (1993). Attention deficit disorder: A different perspective. Novato, CA: Underwood Miller Press.
Jensen, P. S. et al. (1997). Evolution and revolution in child psychiatry: ADHD as a disorder of adaptation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1672-1679.
Keller, M. C. (2008). The evolutionary persistence of genes that increase mental disorders risk. Curren

[@fraufuchs9555]

"Natural selection has been acting against this genetic variants", it kind of hurts to know natural selection wants to get rid of me. On the other hand, I'm in my mid 30s and never had any addiction and I don't think I have any risky behavior. I guess I should call it a win.

[@AmandaJuneHagarty]

Don't take anything nature does personally. 😂

[@fraufuchs9555]

@@AmandaJuneHagarty I know. But nobody wants to be victim of a hurricane or whatever natural disaster, even if that's not personal 😂

[@AmandaJuneHagarty]

@@fraufuchs9555 I know the feeling. In 2015 I almost died from the flu and afterwards I had this weird moment when I realized that I had been reduced to a statistic. Hard to explain the feeling but that's the simplest. I had always heard x% of the population get the flu, y% get seriously ill and z% die. The z and the y numbers are always so small you barely notice them because of course that could never happen to you. But it did, and it left me feeling very small and vulnerable for a little while.

[@fraufuchs9555]

@@AmandaJuneHagarty exactly. We rarely notice how vulnerable we are, those kind of situations highlights it to us. I'm glad you survived it 😊

[@AmandaJuneHagarty]

@@fraufuchs9555 me too. My basic philosophy when faced with the stark truth of our vulnerability is to remember that a meteor could hit us or the sun could supernova or a rogue black hole could wander straight thru our planet. Sounds like things that would be anxiety inducing but for me it's the opposite. If any of those things could happen it makes it kind of silly to worry about anything at all. There is so much that's out of our control, it makes better sense to just let go and get on with the life we have right now. Anything else is just wasted energy.

[@rskcy]

Just my thoughts as a biologist (with ADHD). Even without the new mutations, as not all chidren of ADHD parents will be ADHD, but still carry some of the genetic variants, two people like this can have ADHD children without new mutations, adding to the stable rate. The other thing is, success in a biological sense, has very little to do with life expectancy (after reaching reproductive age), and I would guess risky sexual behaviour is not a modern thing in ADHD, so I guess the rate of children/repro years might have been a bit higher for those with ADHD, making up a bit for the less repro years. Until you showed the last paper, my first thought was WHY does everything has to be either adaptive or maladaptive? I can imagine a society/culture/time period, where mild to moderate ADHD would just be neutral, no selection for or against.

[@oysterchampion8998]

I like that take. I figured it might be something Luke sickle cell anemia and how being a carrier for the mutation is adaptive and protects against malaria where 2 copies is maladaptive. So it's adaptive for the gene pool to have the mutation but not for the individual

[@captainzork6109]

​@@oysterchampion8998 You mean sickle cell anemia. It's sickle, not circle, because the blood cells have the shape of the blade of a sickle

[@executivelifehacks6747]

Yes. TFR is more indicative of evolutionary success than life expectancy, IMO.

[@bichosalvaje]

I was thinking the same if it can provide a somewhat higher reproduction rate. Another thought is that, as we humans live and evolve in groups, some variations in behaviour could maybe give shorter life expectancy for that specific individual, but help the group and so the reproduction of that individual too. Like salt in the food. A dish only made of salt won't be very successful, but a dish with the right bit of salt will make the whole dish better than another without. From a tastiness point of view, at least.

[@Alex-kj9rc]

Thanks for another amazing video. I really appreciate your communication style, very clear and concise. This is especially valuable when there's so much misinformation about ADHD around. Also, to let you know, I first realised I likely had ADHD when, around five years ago, I watched some of your older lectures on KZbin, which prompted me to seek treatment. So without the benefit of your work, I could easily have continued bumbling along undiagnosed and untreated, and I imagine there are thousands of people like me. You're one aging baby boomer who will continue to have relevance for many decades to come through the lives of people you've helped to understand their condition.

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

Thank you!

[@phillustrator]

Thank you for these 2 videos. I think it's a bit of a missed opportunity that you did not address recent studies that support the adaptation hypothesis. For example: Swanepoel et al. (2022) found that in the sedentary population of the Ariaal tribe in Kenya, ADHDers were less well fed than the average, whereas in the nomadic portion of the tribe, they were better fed. This supports the hunter/farmer hypothesis. Also: Chuansheng Chen et al (2011) found genetic evidence that ADHD was overrepresented in the early explorers that came out of Africa. Which suggests that ADHD helped humans colonize the planet, and encourages exploration and novelty seeking. I believe balancing the views is more scientifically rigorous than focusing solely on the negative aspects.

[@captainzork6109]

I doubt very strongly ADHD gives an advantage when it comes to hunting or gathering, and it is rather that nomadism mitigates the disadvantages of lacking self-regulation

[@captainzork6109]

If you look at the final slide about Culcalle et al. 2020 you'd find your answer to what you said

[@jonsprivatelife]

'Relatively stable' is how my therapist describes me, hah. And as long as misinformation continues to be popularised, the relevance and necessity of channels like this one will never fade!

[@VitorFM]

Thank you for this video discussing the evolution of ADHD-associated alleles and its implications for the mismatch theory. While the video presents a compelling perspective, I would like to offer a more nuanced analysis: 1. *Lack of Disproof for Hunter-Farmer Theory*: The article's findings do not categorically disprove the Hunter-Farmer Theory. The data explores allele frequencies but does not directly address the adaptiveness or non-adaptiveness of ADHD in various historical contexts. 2. *Terminology: Fitted vs. Non-Fitted*: - *Example*: Considering ADHD-associated traits as "fitted" or "non-fitted" to specific societal structures allows for a more complex understanding. For instance, impulsivity might be non-fitted in a structured classroom setting but fitted in creative or entrepreneurial endeavors. 3. *Complexity of ADHD's Evolutionary History*: - *Kin Selection*: ADHD-associated traits might have enhanced the fitness of close relatives. - *Frequency-Dependent Selection*: ADHD-associated traits might have been advantageous at specific population frequencies. - *Heterozygote Advantage*: Carrying one copy of ADHD-associated alleles might have conferred benefits in certain environments. 4. *ADHD and Creativity*: - *Example*: A recent study (dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.909202) found that ADHD symptoms in the general population were associated with higher scores on measures of divergent thinking, such as fluency, flexibility, and originality. This correlation suggests that ADHD-associated traits may foster specific aspects of creativity, providing a more balanced view of ADHD's potential strengths and challenges. 5. *Ethical Considerations*: Labeling ADHD as maladaptive may inadvertently lead to stigmatization or eugenics. A more balanced view is essential. 6. *Need for Further Research*: - *Diverse Populations*: Future studies should explore how ADHD-associated alleles function across different cultural and genetic backgrounds. - *Environmental Interactions*: Understanding how ADHD-associated genes interact with various environmental factors can provide a more comprehensive view of ADHD's evolutionary dynamics. - *Group-Level Advantages*: Research into how ADHD-associated genes might confer advantages at the group level, such as fostering creativity or resilience within a community, could provide new insights. In conclusion, while the video and the article contribute to an essential discussion on ADHD's evolutionary history, a more nuanced and scientifically rigorous approach is warranted. The use of terms like "fitted" and "non-fitted," along with the consideration of alternative hypotheses and detailed examples, can foster a more robust understanding of this complex subject. Thanks.

[@fuzonzord9301]

True. Also, I think that it's important to consider following issues: 1. First, fresh mutations and environmentally induced needs to be discarded as a separate thing. 2. Second, people with ADHD need to be divided according to their strongest sides - obviously Simone Biles and Albert Einstein don't have the same type of a brain because their brains clearly specialise in something else as demonstrated by fields in which they excelled. This demonstrates need to use something like Jungian typology. Basing on findings of Dario Nardi, I would say there's a strong overlap between hereditary ADHD and Thinking Perceiving types and some Intuitive types. For example an ESTP will have pretty different set of strengths and weaknesses than an INTP with both fulfilling the ADHD criteria. 3. There was time when there were no medicated people with ADHD, so if there exist strong sides of ADHD, one would have to put up with bad sides to get their services and not using them may not be a realistic option. 4. There were social structures. There were slaves and low paid servants. Impact of executive dysfunction can be much lower when one has reliable people caring for the household and various chores.

[@shaneward_adhdreimagined]

I think what is frustrating for me in this area is the level of certainty that is proposed to negate another certainty. It's not entirely true to suggest that modern evolutionary theory suggests that ADHD (or any other disorder) was good for anything - a fair amount of that thinking is legacy faddism (the 60's thinking that there is A gene for everything). Let's be fair, the Esteller-Culcala, P. et al. doesn't conclusively close the door on anything, they're simply proposing an alternative analysis. In fact they don't completely discount the mismatch theory - but I'm not hanging my hats on any specific theory. Why I am extremely sensitive on this particular topic is that to exclude the cultural/environmental impact altogether challenges our ability to influence our environment in a meaningful way. As a genetic "maladaptive" I can influence the environment that I work in to make it more beneficial to my employer and less strenuous on my efforts. It's about understanding This is a complex topic with too many redirects - there are aspects of an ADHD diagnosis that rely on our interaction with our environment in order to determine an impairment, in another environment that diagnosis would not be made, and yet somehow we're still certain that ADHD is empirically defineable (notwithstanding the fact that the above study relies on existing ADHD diagnostic data to assume gene clusters are representative of a disorder determined via DSM criteria). I have ADHD, late diagnosed in rehab at 45 years old, I don't view ADHD as a superpower/benefit because I know now how disruptive my non-diagnosis was over a lifespan. But I want to be empowered to make a difference by parsing all the information that is available to me. Your work is *the* work, I even have the clinical textbooks :-), so this is not about criticism but rather an engagement on a topic that I think is widely misunderstood in general. EPSIG UK and Randolph Nesse I believe also hold some key ideas that can be useful ( www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10168175/ ).

[@mnelson9057]

Interesting. The link didn’t work for me.

[@shaneward_adhdreimagined]

Looks like my bracket added onto the link - fixed in comment but link www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10168175/ should now work.@@mnelson9057

[@AmandaJuneHagarty]

Also, i would just like to point out that it doesn't matter whether we were adapted for living in any specific past society or not. Because we are all adapting all the time, no matter what our genes. Those of us watching this video tonight are atill here because we had a challenge and we adapted and survived. Maybe some of us as individuals learn to be more creative in order to manage lifes little challenges. Some of us still win in the face of adversity. Just because these ideas that our ADHD makes us special arr not true, doesn't mean that we aren't each special as individuals because of the things we have faced and overcome.

[@CapnSnackbeard]

It sure does make us special. We have the opportunity to reject all of these silly notions about evolution and psychology, because we are in posession of curious minds that question things, and don't enjoy being confined.

[@CapnSnackbeard]

For instance, one could read "Mutual Aid, A Factor In Evolution," a book that explains the many holes in the notion that evolution is ruled merely by competition, and the culling of the "unfit." How about the fact that the "order" by which these edits to our genome are made is itself an ephemeral and imperfect human construct? What if America and the west collapse in puff of hubris? What then? Will we measure ourselves according to some new science? A new ideal? This way of considering the facts of ADHD show a very strong western bias.

[@s.m.4948]

I appreciate that you tell us the truth, even when it’s painful to hear. As the parent to ADHD offspring, learning that nature is doing its best to cull these genes from from the population (even as new mutations pop up) is sobering. Parents who refuse to “drug” their ADHD children ought to consider that fact. Please continue to rage, rage for many years to come, Dr. B.

[@deltastripes]

14:50 - ohhh no, not clinging to relevance at all, you have improved the lives of countless people and your legacy will carry on for generations in waves of impact. ADHDers around the world are so thankful for you to continue sharing your insights freely on the internet 🇰🇷

[@Alex-js5lg]

Could impulsivity/lack of inhibition possibly be a factor as well? Those with lower capacity for self-regulation and planning presumably have more unplanned/unprotected sex which (I'd imagine) leads to more pregnancies and more children being born with a 50% chance of developing ADHD. Given how low general childhood mortality rates are, I could see something as seemingly inconsequential as that actually being enough to offset the increased risk of accidental death. That would obviously depend on the specific numbers though: whether people with ADHD tend to have more children than those without and/or if they tend to have them earlier in life.

[@dazanta4541]

I feel like there is something missing in the explanation of the conveyor belt model/metaphor. Under the assumption of stable mutation rates, we would see the same amount of denovo ADHD cases in each generation, which somehow was not mentioned at all. Then there would also be the question of how stable ADHD alleles are (intuition tells me impairing function is more likely than restoring it) and what combination of alleles leads to what level of impairment (again intuition would predict more mutations = higher level of impairment, perhaps ADHD allele carriers who don't have symptoms but carry genetic risk for their offspring). And while people with ADHD have much higher death rates, could this be somewhat offset by earlier parenthood and/or more offspring? Overall I have more questions than before! Another advantage of the conveyor belt model is testing and parametrization, both seem much more difficult for the cultural-mismatch hypothesis.

[@r_a4134]

It seems that it's the gene pool that's adaptive through these intricate kill and spread mechanisms rather than the individuals. Maybe the gene pool wants us to spread more quickly with less thought... A fascinating 2 part series thank you.

[@elianmusic7452]

Thank you Dr. Barkley

[@icelandic969]

Thanks for this very interesting presentation. I do Have one question. What is the long term expected impact of ADHD medication on the "Conveyor Belt"? Would we expect the incidence of ADHD to increase as the reduction in negative behaviours results in more cases reproducing?

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

While there is no research yet on that issue of medication in this theory, there is plenty of evidence that medication reduces most of the risks associated with early death and so shortened life expectancy. So it would likely lead to the persistence of the ADHD variants across generations more than in untreated cases. Yet most people are not consistent in using treatment across most of their life. It’s therefore hard to say.

[@Najahfreeman]

So glad you keep putting out content!

[@antkcuck]

Thank you for your diligent work and clear presentations on this topic over the years Your (in previous videos) explanation of the benefit of medication, especially the analogy to insulin for diabetes helped me to overcome hesitation, and to not be put off by well meaning but misinformed friends and family, and the medication has made a strong difference but I am still in strong deficit in many areas I would love to see in-depth discussion/review for many different strategies for overcoming ADHD difficulties, possibly in detail for each executive disfunction. I have an app on my phone that reads out the time in 15 minute intervals which is helpful I make use of calendar and reminder apps I try to budget my income but struggle to stick to a plan I struggle with severe insomnia and unfortunately the medication is no help there

[@RyanFuruness]

Thank you so much for this, the internet contains way too high of a % of guru nonsense about ADHD and too low of a % of your content

[@jophillipsillustration]

Even though, AuDHD myself, I find this incredibly hard hitting and quite honestly makes me feel 💩 as a human being, I understand this view a lot more than the ‘superpower’ or ‘superior human’ theory that is picking up momentum. I don’t relate to that at all! 😢

[@jimikrakorn6132]

Thanks again Dr. Barkley.

[@user-pb3dr7nq2f]

Thanks

[@patriciajump9511]

Relevance! You got it! Thank you for your fascinating reports. This boomer very much appreciates them. Please keep them coming!

[@BrothireStrangLuve]

Thank you very much! I'll watch this 4 times in a row to get a full hour of Barkley knowledge!

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

You are too kind. But I can be tiresome I imagine.

[@nraynaud]

In Computer Science we often talk about the "use" of our generations in genetic algorithms, either we dig down on the best performers to reach the local minimum, or we give a ton of random mutations do try to jump out of a local minimum. It's the exploration vs exploitation divide. What if ADHD is a recurrent exploration scheme? ADHD people will not improve the specie in the current local minimum, but maybe they are a way to jump out of the local hill, without being stillborn. That is ADHD would be a relatively large bassin collecting random genetic mutations (let's say the border is close between non-verbal autism genes and ADHD genes, nature might have kept a bigger ADHD population because non-verbal autism is a very strong impediment in a social verbal specie)

[@HansBBJJ]

Dr Barkley, your last comment hit me like a train. I hope one day I too will say, "I am just an aging millennial reaching for continued relevance in late life." Listening to you has been helping me make better life choices that hopefully will increase the odds of me growing into a riper age than statistically expected.

[@chrishawkins6068]

Hey doc thanks so much for all this amazing content! I think you address the evolutionary adaptation idea very well. But I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a related but slightly different take on "Is ADHD good for something?", Which is - regardless of whether ADHD is evolutionarily advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral - have you seen in any of your clinical work or research, any day-to-day benefits of ADHD in terms of living, working, creativity, sociality etc? I would love to see that. Perhaps a more similarly related topic to this video is whether there is any evidence that ADHD could have benefits in terms of sexual selection? It seems to me that not only are of some of us ADHD'ers more prone to promiscuity and sexual impulsivity, but those ADHD personality-type traits can be...well, sexy! Asking as an ADHD father with an ADHD partner 😅 Thanks again

[@PVVI2015]

Very Interesting! Thank you😊

[@annak29]

Dr. Barkley, your life's work and your continued teaching are a treasure for humanity! 💯🕊️😎💝💐 In a total spirit of silliness, i am goung attempt to transfom a pejorative slang phrase into a positive affirmation of your closing sentiment... You are an Ok boomer 👍😎💯🕊️😅

[@andrewsuttar]

Russell - Jeremy Coplan's studies of the risk-taking behaviors of Macaque monkeys identified a gene change that responds epigentically to changes in the perceptual environment (variable food foraging test / hiding the food). If the environment becomes extremely variable, its makes sense to encourage a diversity of survival approaches. The risk taking monkeys will explore new grounds, away from the tribe, which may hold more food. Yet, potentially full of predators. Others will cling to recency bias and consistency. I like to consider Gregory Bateson's Learning 0, 1, and 2 in these situations. Especially given his father William Bateson, was Darwin's protégé. Where the cybernetic governor, is the environment in a bio, psycho, and socio sense. What's your etiology for maladaptation? Does it factor in levels of learning as strata of adaptation? The conveyor belt makes perfect sense but I don;t see that rationale for it disproving a adaptionist view at all. From a species perspective, maintaining a constant 'fringe populus' of risk takers is itself a natural selection is it not?

[@Drnonstop]

ADHD summary: turns out we are objectively the best write this in research and hope nobody asks for facts or sources

[@Indy4Cookie]

14:46 the signoff on this video is hilarious. Russ really makes some of the best content out there.

[@KenrickLeiba]

I tend to treat all evolutionary psychology with a very heavy grain of salt. There are several problems with evolutionary psychology. Firstly the fact most behavioural traits are poly genetic and it is hard to isolate the impact of any one gene on adaptiveness. A combination of genes might lead to a constellation of maladaptive traits BUT that isn’t equivalent to all those gene variants (or even all those traits) being maladaptive. Being a risk taker might be very dangerous combined with low intelligence, but fruitful combined with high intelligence. Also since adaptiveness is contextual it isn’t uniform over an entire species or over the life time of an animal. Humans don’t alone inhabit a environmental niche but also social niches within the tribe or society. Cultures that recognise the unique strengths and weaknesses may place certain individuals into a context that suits them. I can think of other things but this is already turning into a thesis. Is it true that there was a study done on hunter-gatherer that showed that those with gene variants associated with ADHD were better nourished? That’s one I’ve heard bandied about. Is that a complete fabrication or is it something that was later peer reviewed and dismissed? Also have any studies differentiated between inattentive type adhd, combined and hyperactive (also keeping in mind these distinctions are some what arbitrary). It seems to me the types associated with impulsiveness and hyperactivity are probably bigger early death risks. Also how can we be sure our historical genetic databanks are truly representative?

[@insidiatori9148]

If 20% of EMT has ADHD must have been useful for society in the past too, although hunter farmer theory is the biggest bullshit ever xD

[@scaramoucheysimp]

@@insidiatori9148 right? every single human was a hunter-gatherer. it's not like a bunch of farmers randomly showed up and kicked the hunters out either. most humans over time began to cultivate grains until they settled around them.

[@insidiatori9148]

@@DopamineTwonk-jl9pm You are spitting in the face of neurologists, please get rid of your tinfoil hat. Your theory is so dumb.

[@karyonemos]

Very interesting, thank you Dr. Barkley for explaining this concept of the conveyor belt. Does the elimination and emergence of genetic variants imply that disorders such as ADHD and ASD change slightly over generations, i.e. do the symptoms vary?

[@timothyspencer7217]

Thank you for making these videos. I have two questions: 1. Is it possible that ADHD genetics are analagous to something like sickle-cell, where one gene is highly adaptive to malaria, and two is a serious disease? I.e. mild ADHD might be adaptive, but more severe is maladaptive? 2. Nearly all the studies cited on this topic look at whether ADHD traits are adaptive for the individual. But humans don't only evolve as individuals; in band level society, a larger group is also adapting and selecting traits collectively, based on whether the group survives and thrives. I've heard of studies in monkeys that show that having a small number of individuals with sensory processing sensitivity or anxiety has a benefit to the larger group, and helps keep the group safe from predators. Has anyone looked at whether ADHD traits confer a benefit to the group, even if they don't benefit the individual?

[@octopiinthesky44]

Yay my favorite poem, do not go gently into that good night - by dylan thomas

[@elize-mariemuller411]

Thank you Dr Russell for just another amazing teaching. Can you explain The NAP™ Toolbox or NAPTM brain profile assessments to help children with learning difficulty's is it a good program and is there reserch to back it up?

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

I honestly don’t know much about that program and have seen no research on it.

[@midge_gender_solek3314]

The fact it was never an adaptation still doesn't mean society can be better or worse suited for ADHD people. I'd say urban life with longer planning horizon and less obvious and immediate rewards is why it becomes a *disorder* rather than just a trait that leads people to have kids less often for example, which would still be in line with the data. Urban life in modernity necessarily requires reading and other skills that are hard to do with ADHD.

[@pf5895]

Thank you for this video @russellbarkleyphd2023. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into providing the excellent educational videos you provide. I have a question, since ADHD is a product of multiple genes, could the presence of a ceretain number be non maladaptive (or even adaptive) while the whole set is maladaptive?

[@insidiatori9148]

At least the emotionally aroused drive of a later-treated adhd person is INSANELY strong. Like what could ever fuck over our lives after living in a trueman show?

[@executivelifehacks6747]

It's funny... relatives of mine were really into hunting. And, there is significant, diagnosed ADHD in the family. Also, distinguished military service, when they served. Some acceptance of risk is also essential in war, as while risk can be minimized, it is often riskier to do nothing rather than trying something. It is notable that a key part played in modern war (e.g. ww2) was by rural youth who knew basic rural skills such as aiming, hunting, camping and the like. I note myself that there is a familial aspect to ability in FPS (First Person Shooter) games. Myself and children are very well adapted to games such as PUBG and Fortnite, which mimic hunting other humans in packs (war). Fishing is also form of hunting that still is in place today, and I think you would find that many of the most adept fishermen have ADHD. (Male) opportunistic sexual promiscuity associated was likely not selected against either, in historical pre-contraception times, in terms of the selfish gene. I wouldn't be surprised if the ability of ADHD to converse, to find the elements of mutual interest in a less structured way, leads to mating success. And the hyperfocus to do well at it. Entrepreneurial activity also seems associated with ADHD. Putting out fires in a business, adapting, seizing opportunity is helpful. (A boatload of receipts from several years of unfiled taxes is not helpful... but there are neurotypical people who are happy to assist with that). I think in the modern world, ADHD is either maladaptive or requires some serious workarounds to adapt to. The ADHD brain in the higher IQ was I think, well adapted to information scarcity. If you were eager to get your hands on all writings, and there were not many books in existence, then hyperfocusing on what little information existed, exploring all the rabbit holes, synthesizing the information... was helpful. One thing about ADHD is that on things I'm interested, I put 10-20x the work into relative to my peers. This helps me get good at them, relatively. These days there are many avenues to waste your life on... hunting and war simulation, news feeds, internet forums, review sites, porn, etc. etc. The ADHD brain does not deal well with this, without some guard rails in place, which are very hard to implement. So in short, I personally think the circumstantial evidence I have seen supports the hypothesis that there are roles in this and especially previous society suited to ADHD. In occupations where complete risk avoidance is maladaptive (i.e. business, war, hunting, fishing, dating)... elements of ADHD, and often ADHD itself is an advantage. In lots of modern society though, ADHD needs workarounds. We are the "low hanging fruit" of the "internet attention marketplace", unfortunately.

[@executivelifehacks6747]

BTW Dr Barkley, I have greatly enjoyed and found helpful your lectures on ADHD, even if I remain to be convinced by you on this point. I do find that extreme, untreated ADHD can be very maladaptive. I suspect that it's a bit like creativity and madness - the fine line between genius and insanity. Like turning the "temperature" up in a neural net, it's not dissimilar to say, schizophrenia and creativity. The creativity to come up with a new song, to take an idea from an unrelated field and combine it, etc... it's good in appropriate doses, and likely leads to above average evolutionary success (wealth creation and children). However, if the "temperature" goes too far up, too much random noise is injected in the thinking process and instead of sparks of genius you get unhinged, delusional insanity. So I think seeing that a spectrum of ADHD exists (it's not a binary condition), some is likely adaptive but lots is likely maladaptive. i.e. if you have a schizophrenic, or scatterbrained ADHD basketcase individual in a family, and several creative, entrepreneurial, military adept type people in a a family, overall the number of surviving children produced might be similar to a less creative, less entrepreneurial neurotypical family. I am not sure of the applications for a female, I have less insight into that as I am male, but guessing that there are some. Perhaps performing, dancing, male attracting, might be a forte. If a female can snag a good husband, there is evolutionary success there. For quite a number of males, they are looking for looks, female charisma, athletic ability displayed in dancing, things like that as the first order of business. As long as the children are clothed, fed and sent to school, those are the basics of child rearing at least in terms of evolutionary success.

[@drewdraw0]

Isn't this easily falsifiable? If you know that a mental disorder is tied to a particular sequence in DNA then you can track it as an inherited trait. This should demonstrate the dwindling prevalence of the trait along a particular genetic line over time. Maybe data like this isn't available or possible to collect for some technical reason? Alternatively, it seems like it should be possible to calculate the likelihood that a specific sequence resulting in the same maladaptive trait appears and reappears in a population at some rate due to mutation vs. inheritance. That is to day, I wish there had been some evidence presented that ADHD is a trait identified in the human genome, and that this trait can be shown to follow the inheritance pattern described by the conveyor belt hypothesis. I see a lot of comments that are essentially approvingly restating the argument as eugenics. I suspect presenting the evidence for Keller's theory would have required additional context that undercuts these unfortunate interpretations. However, these interpretations are natural and understandable anytime DNA is presented as equivalent to observed traits, and those traits as having fixed relationships to natural selection. Natural selection, of course, is just the medium through which our own valuations of 'worthy of living' and 'unworthy of living' are laundered. I'm assuming that more context could have avoided this implication.

[@CapnSnackbeard]

Is it really "adaptive" to function perfectly according maladaptive system? There is a tacit assumption being made in the framing of this question, and removing it shifts the outcome of the answer dramtically.

[@ericm9495]

This was really interesting, but I want to know a bit more. It seems to me like with the details given, the cultural mismatch theorists still have something to say. You mention that ADHD has been selected against, in general, for a long time and that people with ADHD have higher death rates. But this doesn't seem to contradict the mismatch theory, unless you talk about what the nature of those deaths are. If I lose my job because I have poor executive function, can't keep up with deadlines, etc and I die on the street penniless, it seems like you could argue that the cause of my death is at least somewhat culturally mediated. If I get eaten by a lion because a squirrel disracts me (silly innaccurate stereotypical example, i know, but it gets my point across) then that is not culturally mediated. both the lion and unemployment killing me are "ADHD genes getting selected against" but one arguably supports mismatch theory and the other doesn't. Your presentation seems to just say that they are selected against, and doesn't go into detail about how the selection occurs. but it seems like those details are exactly what the crux of the argument is about. This seems to be a good refutation of what you might call "special mismatch theory" which says that some cultures weed out ADHD genes and others don't, but not "general mismatch theory" which would say that all/most cultures do.

[@kellyalsaleh3032]

I have a very tiny percentage of neanderthal DNA (according to 23andme) but they highlighted very specific traits that I have inherited from my my neanderthal ancestors: 1. Inability to follow directions 2.Inability to discard things that are no longer of any use 3. More prone to mosquito bites 4. Better at sprinting than endurance

[@nicktheritter]

Great video. Is the answer to the question in the title then that ADHD isn't good for anything? Or what's the answer to the question?

[@PLAIDSHORTS1]

That's what I am trying to find out too.. lol 😅

[@2Siders]

I have watched both Part I and II Dr. Barkley, and I was wondering if you could comment on this theory everyone seems to bring up when it comes to 'ADHD as an adaptation' topics. I cannot link a specific study, but apparently there was research on a West African tribe of some kind, and they found that the most successful hunters possess more ADHD genes or some such things. (In Part I, I think Dr. Barkley mentioned something that was the complete opposite, that "good hunters didn't have ADHD", I'm paraphrasing here.) Again, I wish I could say specifics but I'm not well informed on the subject. It was just something I've seen brought up in multiple places in the past and I was actually expecting that the Dr. would talk about in these videos. (Maybe he mentioned them, differently worded and I missed it because even if I tried my darned hardest to pay attention I couldn't )

[@2Siders]

I also wanted to ask, and I know I'm stupid, please bear with me; At 14:00 the fact that the ADHD genes seemed more prevelant before history seems to mean the opposite of what the conclusion was, no? Instead of saying "Natural selection has been against ADHD" doesn't this support the fact that there was a time in evolution before modern times that ADHD was useful? It's almost like you can spin the conclusion either way.

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

Well, that is not quite right. As best as I recall, the explored which populations had which variant of a single gene linked to ADHD. People with ADHD have more copies of this gene. They found that so did populations that were more migratory and thus suspected the gene increased activity or exploratory behavior. It a single gene like this doesn’t cause ADHD though it is one of more than 20+ that contribute small amounts of symptom variance. You need multiple genes to get ADHD. So this really isn’t supportive of ADHD being more common in hunters or migrating populations. Just one of its genes. Thanks!

[@2Siders]

I see, thank you Dr. Barkley!

[@piotr780]

also large number of law offenders have ADHD - if so in past time they could have more childrens (inside and outside family) as all cultures heavily regulates mating and law offenders breaks norms in general

[@kinglarry3727]

Has it been studied what factors cause these genes to mutate? Im also interested in seeing what associated mutated genes are responsible for the changes found at the Neuron , synapse etc

[@AmandaJuneHagarty]

Brilliant! Thank you! Now I have the information to give a more educated reply when someone talks about the benefits of ADHD. I think the problem is that people don't understand how prevalent mutations are. But they arise so often and so easily. From anything to a simple copying error to cosmic rays or eating red Skittles. Few people understand this the way I do. I have one good copy and one broken copy of the VHL tumor suppressing gene. Only 1 in 30000 people have this mutation, I am the third generation of my family known to have it and my nephew has it so there is now a 4th generation. But 10% of new cases are de novo. And just because I have one bad copy doesn't mean I will grow tumors. My spare is still good. In order to grow a tumor I have to have a new mutation in my body that damages the spare. But that's not hard at all because each of us is acquiring trillions of new mutations a day. I don't think people understand that. They think we are all super stable except the occasional whoopsie that either leads to cancer or some new mutant powers. Genetics is so much more complicated. Epigenetics is this whole weird world of gene expression that we barely understand. Too many people think genetic adaptions are a story that they can just make up cuz it sounds good. But there is some legit science that they ignore when they do that. Evolutionary psychology was my fav subject in university but it seems to have become horribly misused by pop science and media lately. Glad to see there is still some legit science going on in the discipline.

[@jonasbrinkworse5436]

I share your enthusiasm, and it's very interesting with that cancerbattling gene you mention. The reason so many people don't get all of this, is probably because we changed to thinking of ourselves purely as individuals and no longer as "bloodlines", which would be the ancient term for genetics, and that means we have lost capacity to conceptualize changes in that perspective. Like, some in this thread express sorrow for having drawn the evolutionary short stick, and from an individuals point of view that is quite right, they have, but evolution is not really about individuals, and other factors as place of birth and family's social status play a much larger role in the short perspective of an individual, even accounting for the three to four generations constituting a family nowadays. Genetic mutations as a mechanism are only meaningfull in an evolutionary perspective, for the individual they have only normative and completely meaningless effect, as it were.

[@AmandaJuneHagarty]

@@jonasbrinkworse5436 Yep. Genetic mutation can actually lead to very rapid changes in a population. But on the individual level not much. There is still epigenetics at play but it's never going to be on an individually noticeable scale. But on an individual level when you are 99 years old looking back on life genes don't really come into it. It's your individual ability to adapt and survive that matters in the end. So keep on keepin on and you will win natures game lol.

[@AmandaJuneHagarty]

@@jonasbrinkworse5436 for good perspective you can look at Darwin's beak size study. This isn't man evolving from apes. This is season to season beak size changes depending on the types of food available. If you think of it from that perspective then the beak size gene is probably one that is vulnerable to mutation. Because if a season of no small seeds were to cause the extinction of the genes for smaller beaks, then why would they come back once the small seeds were available again? Maybe a few just survived, or maybe there is some other reason for it to arise again. Maybe when the population of finches explodes, having a small beak that can get into narrow cracks is beneficial. In it's very simplest terms evolution is driven by food sources. Some resource is going to waste? Nature will find a way to make a creature that will exploit it. Once upon a time there was no creature on the earth that would break down and digest trees. That's why we have coal. Trees would die and then just pile up without rotting until they were buried. Then nature filled in that gap. Today we have have bacteria that live on our nuclear reactors and "eat" radiation. You could take this information and argue that it's possible for ADHD to still be adaptive. Maybe the conveyor belt keeps bringing it around because in very specific conditions it would allow for better survival. For example, risk taking is generally bad. But that bacteria who decided to try radioactive snacks sure was taking a risk. But in that case the benefits of ADHD would be extremely short lived. The risks that paid off would create a new arena of exploitation, and no more risks would be required. Then all the risks that didn't pay off would kill off the gene again. Follow me? Now all this is just a sweet bedtime story if there is no research. And it's virtually meaningless on an individual level at a single point in time. Because if you are impaired and not thriving, it's not doing you any good. But if you don't want to feel like an evolutionary loser then you don't have to. Say Elon Musk asks for a group of intrepid volunteers to colonize Mars. And your ADHD make you restless and risk taking enough that you decide to boldly go to Mars. And say they even discovered some kind of ice algae on Mars that could be turned into a food source. And generations of your offspring enjoy life on a new planet. That would mean your ADHD gene at that moment was an advantage. Your genes overall would survive well into the future. But chances are once the advantages of risk taking were over your ADHD gene would likely die out. Again. Just a sweet bedtime story. But also, a reason not to feel like an evolution lottery loser.

[@TheFuel89]

@@AmandaJuneHagarty While a facscinating bedtime story, it helps me to get some peace of mind. Thanks for that.

[@OkOk-tt2dg]

Hello Sir, at 8:40 in the video, the support for the elevator argument states that these traits in human behavior are new...how can that be proven? Does behavior not always exist, and evolve, therefore, are these social behaviors not with us from the beginning? Something about this argument seems like it is invalid and a fallacy. I find it a stronger suggestion that ADHD behaviors are mismatched to modern society....as someone who has ADHD, I can see how I would have done better in older times than in modern society... Thank you for sharing.

[@Thesteadfast]

I think there's something missing in this analysis. ADHD has proven to be maladaptive for the lifespan but what about the short term? ADHD is about the now, and not the later. I could see it being a genetic response to crisis mode. This would also fit with what you said about it being more prevalent in prehistoric times where survival was less guaranteed. This still doesn't make it a mismatch trait but an outdated one. It also may be adaptive for the group but not the individual. Having some percentage of risk takers to be the fodder or cautionary tales for the group. Why do these mutations keep occurring in a similar fashion? You fully debunked Gabor Mate; an individual's trauma does not create ADHD but I'm still very curious about epigenetics. Could enough unfavorable, traumatic circumstances affect genes to the point that a child is born wired for short-term survival? I could see this idea being a bunch of rubbish but I can't shake it. It's at least not rooted in trying to feel better about ADHD.

[@ruthminkov]

Thank you so much for your wonderful, accessible overview and synthesis of this research! I'm wondering if you are aware of similar work in autism? I've heard the claim made that autistic traits/genes may have been overrepresented in the Neanderthal population. Thanks again for all the incredibly important (and relevant!) work you do. 😊

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

I am guessing it would apply just as much since ASD is as genetically influenced as ADHD, affects life expectancy as much or more, and likely leads to lower rates of reproduction in the moderate to severe cases. The theory applies to genetically influenced forms of disorders so, yes, I think it has application to autism as well thanks for watching.

[@cxrmack6922]

I’m a subscriber to hyper focus and other “beneficial” psychological constructs like hypo-mania just because these “State Of being” phenomena are fascinating but despite the on paper benefits of extreme awareness and heightened focus or boundless physical and mental energy being able to work 2 days straight on paper seeming beneficial because after all they are hyper activations of useful features so more of a good thing = greater thing that’s not how it works in this case it’s more like putting a 2500 watt amp in your car while everything else is rated for a 1000 atleast in the case of mania a little bit for hyperfocus but they are only similar temperamentally eventually something’s gonna give your gonna blow a speaker and all that is good is gone and everything that that was functional is now not in ancient society that would not be beneficial even if this bipolar hunter could hunt and keep watch for nights on end assuming he actually did that that would disappear at some point and everyone that was relying on his “special ability” would be left hanging at that point it’d be much more beneficial (metaphorically) for that trait to be moderated and equally distributed among the other men and them split the night shifts and hunting as to not leave themselves 1-3 months without food or protection till the one guy who had it all to become manic again ofc this is all just made up and is meant to be metaphorical Ik bipolar wouldn’t actually manifest like that but ya get my point to focus on adhd despite hyperfocus being useful feature in function it’s not in functionalities being that for one you can’t choose when it happens so just like with mania but # 2 and this is what makes it worse than hypo-mania you can’t choose what your hyper focusing on so imagine your supposed to be hunting and your hyper focused on idk cooking so thinking about what your gonna cook and when you get the meat idk but anyways your gonna be distracted and get folded by an alligator which is the whole problem with adhd today to its non confirming we as adhd people can’t conform to the environment others or even ourselves when people say these things I think they are thinking of an adhd person who is only governed by themselves and their own wishes and interested in hunting and gathering ignoring that 90% of the time that is not the case and describes only what we dream our lives were like doing what we are interested in when we are interested in it and it being deemed benefiting, skilled and worthy the only reason I subscribe to these ideas that they are “useful” (major quotations) is that I recognize the potential of greatness in them as I have done great things and had major progress when hyper-focusing for 8hrs straight BUT it was on a game and I had work at 6 a.m and didn’t get off till 2 so despite my major progress and heightened abilities (yes I do believe it heightens productivity and achievement just from personal experience playing high level competitive games I’ve learned to differentiate between flow, hyperfocus, baseline and not focused and see major differences in my performance I do find flow the most consistently beneficial with hyperfocus having a higher potential yield in results meaning when it’s right place right time it’s more beneficial but flow is way more consistent and yields more overtime I’d describe flow as a hypo-hyperfocus and hyperfocus affects my personality to I’m more impatient and irritable and damages my communication due to only wanting to discuss this one thing and get frustrated quickly when people try to talk to me about unrelated subjects I take it as them trying to distract me and react intensely to that but hyperfocus like that only happens when performing a reactive tasks which is why I see it as related but different from perseveration as in adhd hyperfocus is almost like the rape baby of hypo-mania adhd perseveration and flow just like how adhd is the result of mutated normal genes hyperfocus is like a mutated flow get the picture that’s just my ignorant theory on the subject as from being highly competitive gamer growing up (not so much anymore) i got to experience all these state of minds and I would say there’s a meaningful enough difference plus i find it rare that people make up contructs out of nothing despite it being romantical oversimplified and out of context they are 99% of the time based in truth so i really just try to learn the truth of the things but i understand how extremely difficult it is to research these episodes as unlike mania its completely reactive depending on the interaction between the patient and his environment so that’s all i have to say about it ik i made generalizations and baseless claims within this dont @ me im in a hurry and just wanted to ramble my opinions and thoughts but also i think my experience gaming has affected the way I veiw this things looking at it like a fallout build or as ability weighing strengths and weaknesses not to say it has many but rather even if you are playing an F teir character if your good enough with their abilities and are smart you can make big impacts so i think that shapes the way i think about it

[@theheadshot360]

great video as always i am a bit confused about the following though kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYPUaYmEfs93iKM when you say "genes that arises from newer genetic variation (e.g. language, social cooperation, self-regulation)", what exactly do you mean by early? early in human evolution or early in primate evolution. because later in the video you do mention kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYPUaYmEfs93iKM "these genes were much more prolific in primate and early human times, but have been selected against over time" and that would kinda contradict(?) with the idea that ADHD genes are new

[@amiran5273]

Great analysis. Dr. Barkley, a.k.a Aging Baby Boomer (btw your efforts for "continued relevance in late life" are highly appreciated!) - is there any data on a more numerous (or earlier) offspring among people with ADHD as a result of lower risk aversion? That could be additional factor balancing out, to some extent, higher mortality.

[@Forkroute]

What about the positive correlations? Like ADHD and creativity?

[@pavlova717]

Is it not within the bounds of possibility that some phenotypes can be generally maladaptive but lead to unique successes? Mutation may not always be a disadvantage, or some genes could be group selected. It seems natural to guess that nature sometimes makes tradeoffs. For example, if empathising trades off with systemising, then autism could be generally maladaptive but lead to unique success and perhaps be adaptive in some circumstances or for a group. It's been observed that many geniuses were born premature.

[@roro3793]

I've been following your content here and there. It seems like your perspective is that ADHD doesn't offer any benefits at all. Is that a correct assessment of your perspective? I was diagnosed with adhd/pi and personally I don't know how it's been an advantage at all despite so many people trying to spin it into a positive. When I was diagnosed as a child apparently it was also determined that I had a very high IQ which may have been an advantage for me. The only adhd/pi advantage I can think of is that I generally was not getting into trouble as historically i was low energy & very obiedient, but even that is a bit of a double edged sword. As a side note, I speculate that my adhd/pi is due to having the val/val varient of the COMT gene.

[@Wyocaster]

What do you think about nicotine use during pregnancy causing ADHD? I know that there has been a link between the two. This is completely speculative but unless I'm mistaken the earliest cases of potential ADHD diagnosed were in the late 1700s, nicotine was widely used by that point, and the number seems to be increasing. I always look at the early 20th century when they told pregnant mothers to smoke because the child would be smaller allowing for an easier birth. Again this is highly speculative but my hypothesis is that the introduction of tobacco use during pregnancy created ADHD and its been passed down throughout the centuries.

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

There is a relationship between maternal tobacco use during pregnancy and ADHD in offspring but later studies controlled for maternal ADHD and the relationship became nonsignificant. So the relationship was really a genetic one and smoking was just a marker for maternal ADHD that then in teased risk in the offspring. Thanks for watching.

[@lagomorphia9]

@@russellbarkleyphd2023 That makes total sense!

[@piotr780]

I have believe that people with ADHD works better then normal people in times of crisis because they are optimaly stimulated (think about covid epidemy if you have ADHD) - so in past times when wars, famine and epidemies where frequent - mayby those events were increasing frequency of ADHD risk genes ?

[@JessieThorne886]

Isn't the increased mortality among the ADHD population countered by the fact that we are impulsive sexually and forget contraception, thus having children at a younger age and more often?

[@aTinBird]

well, I don't know anything about approximate baeysian computing with deep learning, so if the other paleogeneticists are happy with the study's methods, then I guess that's that

[@aTinBird]

however, increased mortality in ADHD is not inconsistent with the adaptationist view. A few individuals with ADHD in a hunter-gatherer community could contribute to their larger community's survival by helping optimize the explore:exploit ratio (and then accidentally walk off a cliff).

[@madshorn5826]

Us not being adapted to society doesn’t mean society shouldn't adapt to us :-) We need equal treatment by acknowledging that everyone should be treated differently according to needs and skills. Yes, that may mean that productivity takes a hit, but our problem isn't low productivity right now; it is over consumption and adherence to the fairytale of eternal growth.

[@jonasbrinkworse5436]

I wonder how ADHD mutates further down the conveyor belt. If your particular version of the genes doesn't die off, will they mutate eventually into the grotesque, unsurvivable (for genes)? Instinctively I feel that would be nescessary for the conveyor metaphor to hold up. Otherwise any small change in society (like say, a technological revolution) or other external factor that makes ADHD less "mal"-adaptive, makes ADHD less of a opponent to daily function, would result in an accumulative display of cases. Even if it is still maladaptive. In short, the balance must be maintained, through both the inside and the outside of the .. clash along the conveyorbelt. Sorry, not native english speaker here.

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

It likely would help to read the actual paper by Keller in which he goes into great detail about this idea.

[@Artistofun]

Belt theory implies that new mutations rate mist be hi or even prevalent source of adhd cases. But in other video you mention that new mutations are only a small fraction of cases.

[@executivelifehacks6747]

To me that is also not particularly compelling, it seems that true mutations are likely too low to explain ADHD prevalence.

[@Ellipsis115]

14:45 That's a little harsh on himself :/ I hear his works pretty well known XD

[@Jamahl_Cross]

Do you think SCT is also caused by genetic mutation?

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

As my lectures on CDS, formerly SCT point out, what little research exists on the issue show. dS to be nearly as genetic as influenced as ADHD but not quite. So, yes, it can apply there hypothetically as well.

[@maryrykert-wolf1725]

Does impulsivity have any significant function in contributing to ADHD remaining in the population through increased birth rate? (Is there any evidence younger pregnancies, more pregnancies for those with ADHD has any offset on younger age at death?). Also, does this mean there is evidence that impulsivity in ADHD did not necessarily lead to more savagery in the past? It would be nice to think that those of us with ADHD are no more likely than others to make even mre violent decisions in war. Also, I'm scratching my head on how up to 50 % of people in prison may have ADHD. Is this thought to be more related to society's failing these folks at an early age? Can you suggest a specific lecture that you've done that addresses some of these questions? Thanks, I really enjoy your channel, although now I geek even more like damaged goods😮

[@ThomsonBR42]

Did Dr. Barkley get distracted? This isn't answering the original question.

[@flubberghosted2472]

I want to watch this, but I’m afraid you’re just gonna say that ADHD is indeed good for nothing. Am I right? I can’t handle that right now because I already feel like crap.

[@SimonClarkstone]

I have an analogy that might reassure you here (🤞 I hope): Even in that worst case, it would be like colour blindness, severe wheat allergy, lactose intolerance, multiple sclerosis, congenital deafness, etc - a genetic disability that people live with (with a few minor upsides). If you want something more optimistic, there are other lectures where the Dr R B points out it's one of the most treatable conditions in psychiatry. (Where I first encountered his work, on other KZbin channels, from many years ago.)

[@executivelifehacks6747]

Color blindness is actually very useful in distinguishing certain types of camouflage, btw

[@paullewis6070]

I know what you're saying is true, however can I just pretend it's a positive caveman adaptation to make me feel better? Because "I'm part of the conveyor belt of maladaptive genes to be slowly selected against" doesn't sound so sexy.

[@monky_dust]

I, Dr Barcley's strongest supporter, have just witnessed the weakest arguments in support of a theory. It's OK. There are many heroes (he is one), but there are no superheroes.

[@harpiaxp8300]

Does anxiety cause adhd drugs to not act or become inefficient, Mr. Russel Barkley and dear Audiences

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

For some people, probably but it’s not consistent. See my lecture on comorbid disorders, the one about anxiety.

[@harpiaxp8300]

⁠@@russellbarkleyphd2023 thank you Mr. Russel I will definitely read

[@socrat33z]

Thank you so much for this, these videos really mean a lot to me. I think it it a little sad (as someone diagnosed).The evidence that natural selection acts against the variants from Culcalla, as this doesn't seem straightforward to show and this branch of research seems quite new. Selection pressures also seem to change so quickly. I certainly don't agree with the hunter/farmer theory, but it seems that what ADHD lacks in natural selection, it may make up in sexual selection. So there could be a some fitness benefit similar to what a sociopath may gain.

[@nonyobisniss7928]

The evidence you present at 14 minutes in is stupid for the argument you make. Of course the ADHD associated genes were more prevalent in the past and have been selected against as the world has changed, but this is the very argument you paraphrase and attempt to debunk at the start of the video - the argument that ADHD related genes were more beneficial and less harmful to someone's success in the environment of the past. It doesn't mean there wasn't a time when those genes were successful. It actually strengthens the argument they once were much more successful given the higher prevalence in the past. Of course there's a benefit to being able to plan for the future and focus for extended periods of time on long term goal oriented behavior, but not everyone in a tribe needs to have that responsibility. It is particularly with individualism and the deluge of decisions of the modern world that those with ADHD are particularly disadvantaged. It also seems ridiculous to think ADHD mutations happen at anywhere near the level required to sustain a stable population if they are maladaptive to successful reproduction. I'd find it more plausible that while the genes existed at higher levels in the past, there is an environmental trigger of the modern world which has actually led to the traits we see manifested in those diagnosed ADHD. Has there been any study of modern day reproduction rates for ADHD adults versus non-ADHD? Obviously it won't be representative of the historical rates, but it certainly seems in the current day and age it is those with the most foresight who are choosing not to have children.

[@muaz5039]

You sound like a lot to be around, sheesh.

[@nonyobisniss7928]

​@@muaz5039 You sound like someone who can't make meaningful contributions to a discussion. Why did you even pipe up?

[@brechtkuppens]

Commenting to compensate for the negative remark someone else made: you have some valid points. I too got the impression his logical deductions were biased

[@jimikrakorn6132]

Could there be a social factor that might select for the maladaptive gene? To put it awkwardly, might “macho” males be attracted to “dizzy” females for instance?

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

There is evidence in some disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, for what is called non assortative mating. it simply means that people with that disorder are more likely to mate with others who have the disorder at a higher frequency than the disorder occurs in the population. While that is possible for ADHD, I have not seen any studies of this with adults with ADHD. Nor have I seen any research on whether or not prospective partners view ADHD traits as more desirable in mate selection. As you can imagine, that would be a very sensitive subject to study but not impossible.

[@CapnSnackbeard]

Consider the fate of the world in the hands of obsessive westernism. I recommend reading "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Human Kind." By David Graeber and David Wengrow. You might also enjoy the works of Noam Chomsky, Peter Kropotkin, and particularly Emma Goldman, who wrote "The Child and its Enemies." Paramount among works to consider is the book "Wretched of the Earth," by Frantz Fanon Any psychologist who can't answer the questions drawn out in the first chapter (or even just the forward) can't answer for psychology at all. Western psychology has an unhealthy obsession with an impossible (and ridiculous) notion about humanity: that a global, monocultural system contrived to manipulate it is somehow "correct" and that there is a "normal" that satifies that system. Neither of these things is true.

[@user-yq1bs4is6y]

While I appreciate you sharing the information, I am concerned with your assumptions and value judgements. It is not very scientific to assume that the "adhd traits" are maladaptive. If they were, then they would have been selected against (conveyer belt metaphor might have merit, but it was not supported by any evidence). The claim that ADHD was a beneficial adaptation might lack scientific backing, but the assumption that it is maladaptive is equally tenuous. The pathologization of ADHD frames it's traits as maladaptive, but as other commenters have stated, there are many factors of adaptation (beyond an individuals ability to survive sans culture) that have not been addressed that could convey beneficial or neutral traits for survival. So until there is some good evidence one way or the other, the genetics are simply there, existing and getting passed on, otherwise it starts to sound like eugenics

[@jaeminko4286]

But ADHD is linked to social isolation, academic & career failure, substance misuse and increasingly obesity. I'm with you that ADHD symptoms is a strong bias against reproductive success (because ADHD is linked to promiscuity) but ADHD is absolutely maladaptive. It's not "pathologization" when unmedicated ADHD leads to ~13 years shortened lifespan with significantly impaired quality of life markers. ADHD is clearly a seriously impairing disorder just like how Type II diabetes or moderate hypertension is - they themselves are not directly life threatening, but they induce so many crippling comorbities to one's life.

[@user-yq1bs4is6y]

@@jaeminko4286 I think we are in agreement. I also think that we should support ADHDers to improve their lives. I was referring to evolutionary adaptation, specifically the ability to pass on a gene. I am not claiming that ADHD isn't disabling, particularly in our society, or that it does not result in higher mortality, etc. But with evolution, an adaptation is anything that allows survival in a given environment in order to pass on a gene, whereas maladaption is the opposite. E.g. A peacocks tail feathers are adaptive, because even though it makes them vulnerable to predation, it increases their chances to reproduce (sexual selection, cultural adaptation?). E.g. Sickle cell anemia is an adaptation, because, even though it led to a certain percentage death rate, it made those that survive resistant to malaria, thus able to survive a malaria infection to pass on the gene. It could perhaps be argued that ADHD, peacocks and SC anemia have become maladaptive with changes in our adaptive environment. Also, it should be noted that the idea of maladaption has become somewhat antiquated. However, just because we don't like the implications of a gene does not make it evolutionarily maladaptive. I think you could argue that, in a society that values productivity, ADHD has become increasingly undesirable (maladaptive, if you wish), but that is a commentary on our society. What I was trying to argue is that, since it has stuck around all this time (and does not seem to be going away), maybe it did have an adaptive function for survival, or maybe it was just good enough to be passed on. But making value claims on whether or not genes are good or bad is the essence of eugenic ideology. Furthermore, it is a cultural claim of what is and is not valued in our society and Dr Barkley is not any more qualified to make such a claim than I am. And so, I am using my voice as an individual in our society to say that I think that all lives have value, whether they have genes for ADHD, Autism, blindness or (gasp!) Frenchness(😝); that they have equal value and should all be treated as equally human. I think most (👀😮‍💨) people, including Dr. Barkley, would agree with me on that, but in practice, we consider the behavior of people who are different from us as weird, inferior, primitive, barbaric, sinful, maladaptive, etc (choose you own slur), so we treat them as less than. The language we use to describe the minority is important in how we treat them, so I do not like when people say that ADHD, etc is maladaptive, because it is dehumanizing and it refuses to take responsibility for how our society has failed people who do not or cannot conform. I hope that makes sense, and sorry for the length 😭! Also, probably was a little hot headed when I used the E-word in my original post, but as an example of a maladaption in the gene pool😉, I do not feel comfortable with how much we haven't addressed the eugenics in our very recent history, especially in the field of psychology!

[@jaeminko4286]

@@user-yq1bs4is6y Hmm. I still have some issues with your argument. 1. I'm an immigrant - I grew up in a very different society compared to the US society which I am living in. I can quite confidently say having undiagnosed ADHD growing up was *very* traumatizing in a lot of different ways. I don't think it's a society-dependent phenomenon. Executive dysfunction and impulsivity is overwhelmingly a negative trait for any industrialized society. 2. My guess for how ADHD genes survived is paradoxically because of its symptoms, more specifically for hyperactive presentations. We know that ADHD individuals are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and teenage pregnancies. So even though ADHD itself is a maladaptive trait, it may not have a strong preventive effect on one's reproductive success (and from this perspective, successful reproduction means it won natural selection, so..). Maybe ADHD have been an *adaptive* trait because of risky sexual behavior? After all, sometimes taking risks pays off. 3. I agree that we should jump and start sterilizing *unfavored* genes like the Nazis did - no way. However, parenting itself is hard for healthy individuals and it's so obvious how difficult it would be for someone with ADHD. What's even worse is that the said ADHD parent(s) will give birth to ADHD-disposed children, who will tend to behave poorly, struggle academically and socially, and will likely develop other psychiatric disorders. Every life is valuable, yes, but as one with ADHD themselves, I think ADHD individuals should *really* reconsider if they want to be a parent. I think we have two separate cases of "maladaptation" here. From an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think ADHD itself is "maladaptive" as in it prevents one's reproductive success like ASD does - yes, perhaps social difficulties will work against their reproduction, but risk taking, unprotected sex or in extreme cases sexual violence (where ADHD is overrepresented) might work in favor for reproduction. From a social standpoint, I think we are in agreement that ADHD is maladaptive. You are implying that ADHD has become maladaptive because of the societal shift towards productivity, which I guess is true, but in which society is productivity not desirable?

[@Stefan-vc2ef]

So people with ADHD shouldn’t breed?

[@andrewclark3157]

This was the impression I got when he was going through the conveyor belt theory. Not that he himself necessarily believes that, but that other people (parents, governments, etc…) might look at that and say these people with these mutations need to be controlled/eliminated for the betterment of the parent’s own life, or society as a whole in the case of a government. Left me with a bit of a knot in my stomach.

[@jaeminko4286]

@@andrewclark3157 As horrifying and eugenics-esque the notion is, I don't think this conclusion is unreasonable. Adults with ADHD are often socioeconomically behind, and the poor executive functioning obviously make them harder to be better parents. Combine this with significantly higher risk of psychiatric disorders, accidental deaths, emotional dysregulation (which may traumatize the child), substance use, obesity and many other serious issues that stem from ADHD, it's not very surprising parent(s) with ADHD would likely be poorer parents. Now put that with their children, who's extremely likely (~50%!) to have ADHD predisposition. ADHD in children is very often comorbid with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder and social problems, which means that these children are significantly harder to parent even for healthy parents - extra more so for already impaired ADHD parents. Children / Adolescents with ADHD are much more likely to struggle academically (though not all), struggle socially and develop antisocial behavior. ADHD is *extremely* impairing, and I - as someone with ADHD - believe that it's just a recipe for a disaster for an ADHD individual in this increasingly difficult modern world to have kids. Whether this eugenics / genetic optimization whatever turns out though, probably not. ADHD is an impulse control disorder, which means that ADHDers are more likely to engage in risky behaviors - violence, drugs, and indeed, sex. Dr Barkley asserts that ADHD genes die out more quickly due to higher chance of reproductive failure, but I'm not very sure if this is true. We know that ADHD correlates with unprotected sex, teenage pregnancies and what not, so perhaps a mild, not-super-impairing ADHD with hyperactive presentation (hey, taking risks pays off!) might even be an advantage in a reproductive standpoint?

[@bbartukoglu]

Adhd can still be good for something despite not being selected by evolution. G Not everything good is associated with having progeny. Good information in this video but philosophically reductionist in some ways.

[@PLAIDSHORTS1]

So what's ADHD good for?? Lol 😅😅

[@blanebellerud5811]

Interesting that if you read the final line of the abstract of genetics paper you refer to it states that their findings are compatible with the mis match theory, though the prevelance appears to have declined since paleolithitc times. Also found a paper, Swanepoel, A., Music, G., Launer, J., & Reiss, M. (2017). How evolutionary thinking can help us to understand ADHD. BJPsych Advances, 23(6), 410-418. doi:10.1192/apt.bp.116.016659, that refers to a study that found in a population of hunter gatherers people showing ADHD characteristics were better nourished. The basis of your conclusions is unclear to me as the primary evidence you cite reached the opposite conclusion. Your grasp of evolutionary biology and population genetics seems sketchy at best

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

I would respectfully disagree, as often happens in science. The paper you mentioned is largely speculative continuing to cite an evolutionary psychology explanation with its only genetic evidence being studies of a single gene variant, DRD4, as being related to both ADHD and novelty seeking, thus having some potential adaptive value, especially for migratory populations. While that might be so, ADHD is polygenic arising from the combination of multiple gene variants and thus must be evaluated from the context of gene variants coexisting with other unusual variants that, in combination, can be pathological. Consider sickle cell disease as an example of what can happen when a single allele can be adaptive but the double allele is harmful. So citing single genes and their potential adaptive value does not rule out my point that multiple gene variants in combination can prove pathological. Thanks for watching and for your thoughts.

[@blanebellerud5811]

@@russellbarkleyphd2023 Interesting that you bring up sickle cell now, it would have been a better example than Tay-Sachs(sp.?) that you used in your lecture. I am well aware of the complexity of polygenic inheritance, most traits are not the simple mendelian genetics that they are often presented as. However, the fact still remains that you still reached the opposite conclusion as the authors of one of the key papers you cite. Additionally, that paper is a bit ambitious, looking for relatively rare genes in such a limited sample size of ancient (and often degraded) DNA? A single gene study, providing there is a strong association between that gene and ADHD is really no worse than a multiple gene study, especially if the genes are passed on in a "linked" fashion. These are also all studies based on correlation rather than causation so they face those limitations as well. I was able to find these things based on a quick perusal of available publications, I will dig a bit deeper but your arguments still look pretty weak to me. As for the importance of the validity of this hypothesis to the treatment of ADHD in the current situation, I am unsure why you are so concerned about it. Given the nature of available data it is unlikely that any very decisive conclusion will ever be reached. Are you concerned that people with ADHD will use it to "normalize" their condition and not seek out help?

[@oysterchampion8998]

​@russellbarkleyphd2023 can you explain how switching some of your words in your comment (like the following -Consider ADHD as an example of what can happen in a multi-allele variation being adaptive while being maladaptive when the multi-allele is harmful. Doesn't make as much sense as your sickle cell argument?) To me it sounds like you are saying only single allele mutations can be responsible for phenomena following the sickle cell mutations pattern of being adaptive or maladaptive depending on the copies solely because it's a single allele and if it were multi-allele it would be out of the question.

[@lakkakka]

As an autist with comorbid adhd I am wondering have you ever seen or done research between the main difference of how adhd impacts the autistic and non autistic brains?

[@russellbarkleyphd2023]

No, I haven’t done that sort of research but there are some neuroimaging studies on the differences in brain networks and development between them. I imagine the combo of both would show both types of disruptions to the neural networks. Try using Google scholar to search journals for this kind of research. Be well.