Association between polygenic risk scores for ADHD and cognitive outcomes
ije.oxfordjournals.org
ije.oxfordjournals.org
Most of these people do fairly well in life. Their skills are extremely valuable and prized. They also almost always (95-99%) did not do very well in school. There are a couple of explanations:
1. Studies like these simply track educational achievements, which do not necessarily correlate with success in life.
2. I only ever see/meet the success stories, each of which there is a much larger amount of failures for.
3. There are multiple conditions that are all erroneously grouped under the moniker of ADHD. Most, if not all, of the successful ADHD people I know lean more towards the inattentive side of things.
4. Some combination of the above theories.
Also, the thing you've observed in your friends is similar to something I've observed in myself (this can be pretty fraught, so big grain of salt). I tend to see patterns or connections between lots of little bits of seemingly unrelated data where others don't. I'm not sure if this is because I'm better at discerning patterns, or if it's because I tend to collect and store all these little odds and ends more than others normally do. It's also possibly a 'involuntarily trained' skill: quite a bit of the time I find myself scrambling to deduce what is going on based on contextual clues, because I'd been daydreaming and all of a sudden I find someone asking me "so what's you opinion?"
Frankly it's more of a curse than anything. I sometimes feel as if I'm pleading with someone to "step off the train tracks" because I can see a train bearing down on them, and they adamantly refuse because they see no such thing.
This gets my vote. I've met brilliant ADHD hacker-types, overall average normal folks, and drop-out homeless people. They all did poorly in school but the rest seems up in the air.
I suspect there are several comorbid complementary/incompatible genetic mutations, which lead to above-average or below-average mental faculties, and a nurture component of learning how to effectively manage the condition. We're probably observing evolution in action here.
>What must be discovered is a way out of the motivation/ demotivation binary, so that disidentification from the control program registers as something other than dejected apathy. One strategy would be to shift the political terrain - to move away from the unions' traditional focus on pay and onto forms of discontent specific to post-Fordism. Before we analyse that further, we must consider in more depth what post-Fordism actually is."
Mark Fisher - Capitalist Realism
its not fair to conduct these studies solely on educational outcomes because educational outcomes in the west largely depend on how well you conform to the mean societal expectation of a successful archetype. many people have unique educational styles (ADHDers included). I myself personally learned more from the internet and reading books than I ever did in school.
I suspect successful engineers, start up CEOs, hacker types have higher prevalences of "learning disorders", ADHD, etc. Many did poorly in school, though many also excelled. I also suspect the same demographics are true of musicians and other artists.
The MAJOR caveat here, is that while these groups probably have higher prevalences, and these fields are more or less supportive of people with these issues, very few ADHDers can break into these fields and the average ADHDer probably will perform worse in life than the average person without.
Mostly conjecture, based on my own anecdotal evidence, but worth consideration.
In the UK/IE system GCSEs morphed between 1990 and 2010 with exams replaced by coursework - which is quicksand for ADHD types. This is a coursework cohort from 2007-2008.
Now and before 1990, GCSEs at 16yo are memory tests in an exam hall almost designed for hyperfocus. It is relatively easier for a ADHDer to "wing it".
What would be more interesting, is to see how many fell down on mainly course-work assessment versus mainly exam assessment. Also, comparison between 16yo GCSE results and 18yo A level results.
[Disclaimer: ADHD PhD who failed A Levels]
The challenge in the end, I suppose, is to overcome yourself. Being 10, you're only starting, and things will get better, especially mid-twenties, so you've a good road to walk. Step by step :)
Focus on how you can utilize your mental makeup to shape your life rather than bend others. Reduction of zero-sum dog eat dog thinking would help ameliorate any social aspect of your anxiety. I didn't have much to go off of from your post but I hope that helps.
There are tons and tons and tons of publications that keep on getting published on running similar datasets with the same methods (PCA, regression or MLM, done) and then reporting the associated SNPs. In humans these papers are getting huge with massive datasets, like this one: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/05/27/019885
There was also this interesting paper which relied on a very specific configuration of a human population, you cannot do that with for example Brits: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/11/12/031518
By its very nature GWAS cannot prove a causal relationship, I'm now hoping that CRISPR-Cas9 can provide for that - use GWAS to find candidate SNPs, use CRISPR to introduce those SNPs in an unaffected population, measure phenotype changes. Of course with sequencing getting so cheap you can start with SNP calling and get a much more comprehensive picture by looking at large scale insertions and deletions by just looking at the whole genome, like this paper for 10,000 (!!!) humans: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/01/061663
- do the SNPs cause changes in a gene of interest? are the changes synonymous (cause base change, but the protein amino acid is identical since several codons code for the same amino acid, but this can cause problems in mRNA folding)? Are the changes non-synonymous (cause base change, and a different amino acid)? How strong are the non-synonymous changes? It could be that you get a shorter protein because a SNP introduced an early STOP codon, or changes a hydrophile to a hydrophobe amino acid, etc. From there you can check whether this change influences the phenotype by introducing this changed protein into another individual to see whether the phenotype is reproduced, this rarely works in more complex species as you don't have a single gene -> single phenotype cause
- you can use the ratio of synonymous/non-synonymous SNPs to approximate selection: genes under positive selection show more non-synonymous changes, these are usually genes involved in resistance who have to keep up with fungal/viral invaders, or venom genes, etc., genes under negative selection show more synonymous changes, these are usually housekeeping genes or other single copy genes that are important
- are the SNPs closely upstream or downstream from a gene of interest? It's still a bit hard to find binding sites for transcription factors (esp. outside of model species), so the SNP could be in a binding site where the whole transcription apparatus binds - do we see different transcription level for this gene in other individuals without the SNP?
- after DNA folding, is the SNP close to an interesting gene? Only with new HiC data can we test this, SNPs that were >10,000 base pairs away are after folding right next to the gene
- is the SNP in Linkage Disequilibrium with something interesting? In other words, is the SNP inherited together with something interesting? This could point towards selection
So, ADHD is frequently heredity based on certain genes?
Why oh why oh whyyyyyyyy must academics write like this still?? (I know the answer, doesn't stop me from complaining)
Jargon in academia is definitely overused, but in this case the terminology they're using has specific meanings, that this is meant to communicate to people within the field, that are lost or obscured when you attempt to simplify them.
I had shitty marks in HS too, didn't go to college and am highly successful
Be CEO of something, dress sharp, get fit. How you look, act, and dress is your UI most hackers have a really shitty UI. Get a good logo, great cards and a good website / brochures. Pay others to make these things, use fivver, put everything out to bid, some people are really cheap, don't be afraid to hire people undercharging for their services. Tip them so you get prioritized.
Sell something repeatable, anything you can pay someone else to do, pay them. Get a lawyer, a good accountant, create your own contracts, run any serious changes by them.
Make sure you have quotes from your subcontractors, double it. Triple it. 10x it. Charge that to your clients. The more you charge the better you are.
Basically be the fucking man. Don't apologize for it.
Read everything by Robert Cialdini. It's a hacking guide to the masses. Read how to win friends and influence people it's a guide to hacking individuals.
Realize everyone is winging it and actors are doctors when they wear lab coats, lawyers when they wear suits and bikers when they wear leather. It's not hard to pass for anything wearing the right clothes.
Don't be afraid to bill $500 for something you paid $24 for. Never tell people how much something cost you or where you sourced it from.
Be really nice and highly complimentary to people.
I had passed off Cialdini's books for dirty salesman tactics, but I'll get to it now.
A pretty much universally reviled dirty salesman is the President of the United States and most of the people who hate him are not.
Cialdini was also Obamas Comms guy so people you might like also use him.
The question is do you want to not use cialdinis tactics or do you want to be President, both are honorable choices.
Many people who don't want to use his tactics will be your employees.
Also read / listen to Thomas Sowells basic economics and understand the short and long term debt cycle.
I've picked up all the books you recommended and I'll get through them tomorrow.
Is business at that level all about working people?
If you price everything based on living in a dorm, underpaying yourself, etc your business would fail.
If I didn't charge $500 for something with $24 in direct costs I wouldn't have time to meet with clients, go to networking events, pay for my time for all these things, pay for insurance, pay for nice clothes, pay my trainer, etc, etc, etc.
Initially it's best to think of things as massively over charging because it's way too complicated to actually figure out what things are really costing you. Plan for future expansion, etc.
But yes at a higher level people are going to try to get you to undercut yourself, if you give into the idea that you are over charging you'll end up being taken advantage of. So initially you need to be very strong in your boundaries until you have full time staff to do a proper analysis.
If you roll up in a Mercedes and a nice suit people take you much more seriously than in a beat up Toyota and some rags, you'll also project more confidence, people are buying you, not your product.
Also with all this stuff learn body language, slow down how fast you talk, slow down how you walk, do everything as if it's just a sure thing that's going to happen
I've picked up The Silent Language of Leaders and What Every Body is Saying for body language, and another for persuasion: The Like Switch.
Would you recommend learning how to shake hands/assert dominance like Trump, or is that something that might start being fazed out?
Also, when you get "fuck you money," will toning down on the theatrics hurt you in a major way, even if you've already shown you can be a BSD and preform?
I dunno, I think if anything fuck you money will make me up the antics