> Why would a huge chunk of the population have a imbalance of brain chemicals?

That's what I think about from time to time as well. I have ADD and take meds for it. But I'm pretty sure that I only need these meds to be able to work in an open-space, corporate IT environment with dead-lines, responsibilities etc.

Without meds I get overwhelmed and panicky quickly, when taking them they turn me into kind of an office robot who's able to work without getting too stressed out or distracted by other things.

I suspect that I wouldn't need the meds if I had a different job. Which feels weird, because it sounds like I'm trying to fit into an environment, instead of being in an environment which fits me, if that makes sense. Then again, maybe everyone has to do that and it's just my biased perspective that I'm the one who's not made for it.

Which sucks, because I love IT, also as a hobby.

The easiest examples for that: Sometimes I do an IT project at home, maybe build a PC, configure a homelab, try out Stable Diffusion or edit videos from time to time. If I do these things at home I can easily sit in front of the computer for 5+ hours and loose track of time, but I don't seem to be able to be as focused for IT projects at work if I'm unmedicated. Unless they really interest me.

I believe the same thing. In fact, I believe people with ADD have a natural advantage in pre-modern settings. We are built to run long distances, outsmart prey, and forage. A distraction isn’t a distraction on that environment, it’s awareness and quickly thinking through possibilities and avenues of success.

> I believe people with ADD have a natural advantage in pre-modern settings

Totally, yeah. I can't prove it of course, but I've noticed countless of times that I seem to be extremely more aware of my surroundings than my friends etc. I hear and see more compared to them, which has positive and negative sides.

If anything it is more of an attention surplus than an attention deficit.

This is a point that Dr. Richard Barkley, one of the major researchers in ADHD in the last few decades, has stated slightly differently. In a sort of jest, he mentions that [ADD] should be called “intention deficit disorder” as there is plenty of attention to be given to things, sufferers just lack a lot intentionality behind their actions. This ultimately manifests as an executive disfunction which prevents this slice of the population from subconsciously knowing how to prioritize or assess the importance/value/urgency of stimuli.

Same here, man. It’s for the reason you described in your first paragraph. Working in a soul sucking corporate office space is so painful for certain personality types.

For me at least, I’ve always thought it would be cool to be a delivery driver or someone who’s out and about everyday moving around… but I stuck with IT because it makes astronomically more money.

So sitting at a desk all day will require me be medicated because my baseline preference is to be up and moving, working with my hands, talking to people, etc.

I think a lot of people with ADHD that’s severe enough to require medication are just people who don’t do work that truly fits their personality.

Which if we’re being honest, sitting at a desk all day is not natural. I never needed Adderall when I was working in a warehouse in college, or when I was a city guide that was supposed to walk around downtown and greet people.

tl;dr Unnatural lifestyles require unnatural supplements.

As your sibling post pointed out I think our adhd was a benefit in preindustrial times, or at least in preagricultural times.

And a desk job with a fun coding project to do (fun coding usually doesn't pay as well) was fine for years. Hyperfocus was nothing but upside except for having to do taxes or do he occasional tedious task.

But when you get too good at your domain, and you have 10 unrelated coding projects, even if they are all fun, adhd is no longer your friend. #include wife and kids and doctors appointments and birthday parties and ... Adderall helps now. I need to turn off my hyper adaptation quite often now.

By will alone I set my mind in motion, but I need amphetamines to slow it. It is like we were born as mentat and instead need drugs for everything except that.

Hear, hear. There's a lot of us in this same boat. These asocial, sedentary IT jobs + hectic lifestyles are out of sync with our biology and psychology.

I didn't know it at the time, but I was in the same situation for years. I started doing blue collar work at mine sites and oil/gas pads. For me, it's a good fit. And the people are real.

> what‘s the reason so many of use are anxious, depressed, neurotic, autistic, ADHD, etc. without obvious cause?

Because modernity hasn’t been an unmitigated success. In the pursuit of abundance, we’ve made all sorts of trade offs that we are now realizing have had unintended consequences to mental and physical health. Every leap forward has felt like progress but has underlying negatives. The world has trade offs!

The move from agrarian to industry to service/knowledge based economies, as an example, has produced countless benefits, but as another commenter mentioned: sitting at a desk certainly isn’t as healthy as moving in the fields. Being in big urban environments to facilitate the new economy has produced amazing culture and a more inclusive community, but at the cost of tight-knit lifelong social networks, noise and air pollution, crime, etc.

I’m not saying yesteryear was better - I’m pointing out the trade offs that were made and how we are now recognizing some of the costs. Perhaps the pendulum needs to swing back to some degree to ease these costs if we as a society aren’t happy with the price paid. There is a return policy!

Mental illness is not a byproduct of modern society, its study and treatment is. Why is the rate of mental illness going up? It's because the stigma over mental healthcare is dropping rapidly and more people are getting formally diagnosed. That's like saying schizophrenia didn't exist in antiquity, people were just attacked by actual demons and everyone else was "normal".

"Mental illness is not a byproduct of modern society, its study and treatment is. "

If you have data on the incidence of depression in hunter gatherer societies we can compare to modern societies feel free to share it.

"Why is the rate of mental illness going up? It's because the stigma over mental healthcare is dropping rapidly and more people are getting formally diagnosed."

So in your mind the functioning of a society has no impact on the rate of mental health problems?

>Mental illness is not a byproduct of modern society, ...

I didn't state that it is solely caused by modern society.

> Why is the rate of mental illness going up? It's because the stigma over mental healthcare is dropping rapidly and more people are getting formally diagnosed.

Source? Or is this just a theory like mine?

Exactly this and I have suspected for years now there is a huge gut connection. I am not saying it is the only cause (or even the sole cause) but I do believe for a lot of people it is exacerbating the issue significantly. The gut also has tons of opioid receptors and there are some scholars who now consider the spinal cord to be a serious part of the brain - and the spinal cord directly branches out in very large nerves all over the gut.

I personally notice a large positive change in my mental health when my gut is functioning properly and I am eating the right fermented foods. I do not take SSRI's and have not been diagnosed with major depression. I also find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that as a species we have been eating and making fermented food for so long and so suddenly discontinued its use in a widespread way and are now seeing increases in many types of disease. Although lack of exercise may very well also be a huge contributing factor.

You assume a lot of competence on the part of these large actors to collude and conspire at the macro level.

Let’s assume, for sake of argument, the conclusion of your assertion is true in that we are being poisoned and offered medication to mitigate the effects of said poison. This is more likely the effects of independent actors acting upon their respective self-interests.

Food companies try to drive costs down to sell cheaper products at the same price, which may end up having poor health consequences by virtue of untested substances having mass exposure. Pharmaceutical companies respond to market forces by developing drugs they can get funding for, which usually ends up being ailments that a lot of people have. There are way more efficient ways for them to team up and make money, this is just a side-effect of large institutions acting in self-interest.

That's quite a huge accusation, do you have any evidence to back that up at all?

Cause if I understand the implication correctly, you're basically saying that the 2-3 megacorps who control food production (which is already far from true, IMO) are literally poisoning people to cause them to need antidepressants.

Is there anywhere outside their reach that doesn't involve giving up all the other benefits of the industrial revolution? I'm not a Luddite, I like labor saving devices andblife saving procedures, and even some medicines.