A one time, 5g “heroic dose” did the trick for me. I’ve had a few more trips at that dose since that initial one but mostly because there’s a whole lot for me to explore in that space, rather than me trying to “cure” something.
It took me as a real surprise when, after that first trip, all my ADHD symptoms simply vanished, never to reappear.
>My hypothesis about this for a long time has been stimulants help everyone be more productive (with some tradeoffs)
Of course they do. They're stimulants, that's what they do. Some people just need them to be closer to normal, or whatever's considered normal in post-Industrial society. Modafinil promotes wakefulness in everyone, not just narcolpetics. Anxiolytics calm down everyone, not just the anxious, and psilocybin makes everyone feel euphoric, not just the depressed. It would be weird if stimulants only had an effect of ADHD patients.
> and ADHD is kind of a weakly differentiated diagnosis that could apply to most people.
I don't think we really understand it yet, but it's not something most people have. As the article mentions, people ADHD have a higher rate of transportation accidents, lower life expectancy, higher crime rates, higher addiction rates, etc. The differences show up in brain scans, performance tests, genetic biomarkers, heritability/twin studies, etc. Whether you think of it as a disability, or brain type, or whatever - ADHD is something real.
> Probably something like this was lost when people stopped smoking, obviously beneficial for health - but a huge amount of the public was taking stimulants regularly via nicotine until relatively recently.
Yes, and this is possibly why 35-55% of adults with ADHD smoke today, compared to 19% of the population. Studies have shown that nicotine is helpful for everyone but particularly helpful for those with ADHD. Nicotine-derived formulations are still being explored.
> It would be weird if stimulants only had an effect of ADHD patients
One example of this actually happening is the concept of a "stimulant nap" in people with ADHD, where stimulants actually make them sleepier. Also manifesting as "I tried coke once, it didn't do anything, I just felt sleepy"
I find the claim (repeated verbatim in some of the comments here) that people with ADHD process stimulants differently particularly specious. Are there any medical studies/not-reddit threads that suggest anything like this?
Essentially the idea is that there is an "optimal" amount of alertness (inverted U curve). People with ADHD start below the optimal point, and stimulants move them up towards the optimal point. People without ADHD are typically closer to the optimal point, and stimulants move them past it.
Someone with ADHD taking a large dose will therefore feel the same as someone without ADHD taking a small(er) dose.
> Compared to [non-adhd] controls untreated [adhd] patients showed increased nocturnal activity, reduced sleep efficiency, more nocturnal awakenings and reduced percentage of REM sleep. Treatment [of those with adhd] with methylphenidate resulted in increased sleep efficiency as well as a subjective feeling of improved restorative value of sleep.
I can't find a corresponding paper studying the effect of stimulants on sleep in healthy adults. I would assume it hasn't been studied because it's common knowledge and it's not worth the risk of making healthy people take stimulants. I also don't think that's the part you were disputing.
It doesn’t happen to everyone with ADHD, but the majority.
The effect itself was prominent/notable as early as WW1, as the drugs were widely used by all parties to help fight fatigue and drowsiness. However, a small percentage of the population would end up with the opposite effect - ending up tired, even sleepy, and often calmer instead of more alert.
It took awhile however, before wider implications of sub-population differences in drug effects like this were studied or applied.
ADHD is a well-established, highly heritable neurodevelopmental disorder. Large-scale twin, genetic, neuroimaging, and longitudinal studies consistently show distinct brain, behavioral, and outcome differences compared to the general population. While we don’t yet understand every mechanism or subtype, the condition is robustly characterized and recognized by all major medical bodies. The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement concludes: “ADHD is a genuine neurodevelopmental disorder with a well-documented genetic and neurobiological basis” and emphasizes that claims to the contrary are “contrary to scientific evidence and risk causing harm” [1].
Medical and psychological professionals are VERY confident that ADHD is a real condition—on par with the confidence they have in diagnoses like major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder.
Across psychiatry, ADHD, depression, and anxiety are all among the best-documented psychiatric conditions. There is more skepticism about disorders with fuzzier boundaries (e.g., “personality disorders” or “internet addiction”), but ADHD is NOT in that category.
I believe ADHD is stigmatized in our culture because our modern world makes us all feel distracted at times; therefore, it seems like people with the diagnosis are perhaps getting a “free ride” by blaming their poor behavior on a “condition”. But ADHD is so much more than just having a hard time focusing because of social media and phones. It manifests as a spectrum of extreme challenges that lead over time to sufferers having a significantly harder time navigating life than people without ADHD.
Merely having a hard time concentrating does not make you an ADHD candidate. You must experience a range of symptoms that interfere materially in multiple areas of life.
⸻
Reference
[1] Faraone, S. V., Banaschewski, T., Coghill, D., Zheng, Y., Biederman, J., Bellgrove, M. A., Newcorn, J. H., Gignac, M., Al Saud, N. M., Manor, I., Rohde, L. A., Yang, L., Cortese, S., Almagor, D., Stein, M. A., Albatti, T. H., Aljoudi, H. F., Alqahtani, M. M. J., Asherson, P., … Wang, Y. (2021). The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 evidence-based conclusions about the disorder. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 128, 789–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.01.022
Every single person who can effect change and publicly opposes the cartel gets killed. Every single one. There is a list [0] of the ones killed in 2024 alone. Even outside of politics, you can't even really joke about the cartel while in Mexico, no matter who you are. They torture and kill entire families over nothing.
>I don't trust AI to translate anything accurately to are from a language outside of maybe Spanish and German.
But you trust scanlation groups? Neither will give you perfect, professional-level translations.
>Chinese, from my limited study is a bit closer to English in grammar and structure so that might work
Mandarin is full of nuance, and it's no closer to English than Japanese is. It has the Subject-Object-Verb grammar structure, just like Japanese and Korean.
>But you trust scanlation groups? Neither will give you perfect, professional-level translations.
I often prefer fan level over professional level because they are targeting different audience. As far as quality goes, there is a range and sometimes I skip something because the quality is too low, but I see plenty that does a good enough job.
Part of it is that there is no such thing as a perfect translation because there isn't an exact equivalent in another language. For someone with no knowledge of the original culture or language, there is some translations that will probably work best, but the more one knows about the language and culture, even a small amount picked up just from consuming other items, the the more likely a different translation works better. For a definite concrete example, how should one handle honorifics like chan, san, and kun.
> Mandarin is full of nuance, and it's no closer to English than Japanese is. It has the Subject-Object-Verb grammar structure, just like Japanese and Korean.
This isn’t correct from what I’ve studied in both Japanese and Mandarin.
> For example, Chinese verbs are not conjugated and only have one form, whereas Japanese verbs have a wide range of conjugations and particles.
Plus, Chinese is an SVO (Subject+Verb+Object) language just like English, so sentences are easier to make and interpret.
Vice versa, Japanese is an SOV (Subject+Object+Verb) language, meaning you do not say: "I eat sushi" but "I sushi eat".
You're absolutely right -- though, while Mandarin’s SVO structure does align with English in basic sentences, what’s interesting is how flexible word order and grammar in general can become in practice, thanks to its reliance on context and particles rather than rigid syntax. For example:
Mandarin often moves the object to the front for emphasis, creating an OSV or SOV structure (e.g., 寿司你吃, "Sushi, you eat" or 你寿司吃了吗 "You sushi eaten?"). This isn’t true SOV grammar but highlights how meaning shifts through word order in ways English can’t replicate without rephrasing.
The nuance in Mandarin often comes from particles that take on very different meanings depending on how they are used (e.g. 了, 的) and contextual cues rather than conjugation. For instance, 吃 "eat" becomes past tense with 了 (吃了), future with 会 (会吃), or continuous with 在 (在吃)—no verb changes needed. But if you say 要吃了, it actually means future tense of "will eat soon"!
Meanwhile, Japanese relies heavily on verb conjugations (食べる→食べた) and postpositional particles (は, を) to mark grammatical roles, in a way making its structure more rigid and easier to interpret. Personally I found Tae Kim's interpretation of "Japanese isn't SOV, it's actually V!" to be useful.
Both languages share subject-drop tendencies (like omitting "I" or "you" when contextually clear), and compound-word formation in both languages from the use of Chinese characters (kanji) adds another layer of contextual interpretation.
I think this isn't about subtle nuances but blatant errors that require full multimodal input to notice. Most MTLs(including LLMs) are done by divorcing text from content and processing it in CSV-like lists, and there's just not enough data in text by itself. This routinely lead to outputs doing something completely different from input.
Not in manga space, but Microsoft had been notorious for nonchalantly shipping crazy MTL errors for past 3-5 years, e.g. "Copilot Child Adoption Kit", "Reply in cost estimate", or "Print in scenery". For manga and entertainments, more likely modes of errors would be wildly fluctuating pronouns, genders, personas, formalities almost in styles of Monty Python satire.
These are less likely to manifest with language pairs that are closer together like English and German, and less likely with human translators who can trivially go through pages to read with full context and/or write with consistency.
>IMO it's the other way around – because OpenAI doesn't focus on any particular market, they'll be launching stuff that later will be easily reproduced by market leaders that have not only know-how, but they have the whole platform where the AI can be easily added.
this is under appreciated. I remember people declaring Perplexity.ai doomed when ChatGPT search came out. Yet Perplexity is doing better than ever, with a service that lets you search with any major LLM, even DeepSeek R1.
Aidan McLaughlin, who now works for OpenAI, wrote a nice essay about this:
reply