There’s an article that I read on this platform several months ago, maybe more, that talked about a lot of this, about how ADHD may actually be a form of extreme novelty-seeking or curiosity. The article was written by a researcher and it seemed like the idea being put forth was active hypothesis within the field, though I make no claims about its overall plausibility. (Awais Aftab has pointed out that ADHD might simply be another way of describing low trait conscientiousness; this hypothesis seems like it would suggest that, instead or in addition to low conscientiousness, ADHD is marked by very high openness to experience.). Part of the argument was that high novelty-seeking would be advantageous for hunter-gatherers (evo psych just-so story, so beware). IIRC this hypothesis also seems to be quite consistent with the pattern of behaviour you see in ADHD people as well, where there’s a constant desire for stimulation that results in frequent task switching, difficulties persisting with single tasks that require sustained focus and not a lot of variation in the character of the task, having a surfeit of energy and constantly being in motion, etc.
But I take your broader point that there is a sense in which this might be descriptive of all human experience and ADHD people might simply be a somewhat more extreme version of this. It is certainly true that a lot of people whom I wouldn’t describe as ADHDers seem to be voraciously learners and outliers in terms of curiosity. I wouldn’t, for example, describe Tyler Cowen, Dana Gioia, Nabeel Qureshi, Celine Nguyen, or Henry Oliver as ADHDers.
> In the paper, I define trait curiosity as the general tendency to seek out new information and experiences
Yeah I think a lot rides on the particular definition of curiosity we're using. "Loves learning new things" is somewhat different from "loves novelty," which I think resolves the non-ADHD superlearner thing you brought up. I don't love reducing curiosity to novelty on all occasions, so YMMV on this argument and MMMV depending on how I'm feeling / thinking.
> While these earlier theories focused on novelty seeking and vigilance as key traits in evolutionary accounts of ADHD
I've always hated the earlier theories on account of the whole vigilance thing. We are too distractible to be vigilant: ADHD's whole deal is attentional dysregulation...
> In our modern “captive-like” environment with fewer immediate survival pressures, the expression of curiosity may be less constrained by natural selection pressures that would have historically limited its prevalence and intensity. While this might have led to generally increased curiosity levels across the population, hypercuriosity may represent an extreme manifestation of this trait that contributes to what is now diagnosed as distractibility and impulsivity in ADHD within our modern structured environments.
This is probably my favorite argument in the article. It reminds me of how allergies (and other genetic problems) are spreading because modern medicine is good enough to save people and let them have kids--an obviously good thing that nevertheless comes with consequences.
> According to the hypercuriosity hypothesis, individuals with ADHD would show heightened curiosity towards motivationally salient stimuli—stimuli that have high incentive value and perceived potential for reward.
This actually seems somewhat wrong to me. I think ADHD individuals show heightened curiosity towards *emotionally* salient stimuli. I suppose you could call this motivational in some sense, but it is different from perceived value / potential for reward in some very important ways.
I really appreciate the falsifiability and limitations bits. Such a breath of fresh air.
My guess is that ADHD is largely an exaggeration of traits that are beneficial in reasonable quantities. In that sense, it's both an extreme version of all human experience AND an evo-psych just-so story. That being said, the one outlier here is the attentional dysregulation part, which seems unequivocally bad--and as you brought up, there are definitely classically curious people who don't seem to have these issues.
I think the vigilance stuff could be correct if framed in the right way. I notice with myself that I always seem to be aware of what’s happening in my environment. If somebody coughs, I hear it; if somebody is talking, I hear their entire conversation and can often tell you the details; if there’s a sudden change in my environment, I will jump, even in situations where other people don’t (eg, during an exam). Vigilance, defined in this way, seems like it could be accurately describing ADHDers.
On hyperfocus in response to stimuli, whether motivationally salient or emotionally salient, I can only say that I don’t think I have ever experienced this, so I don’t have strong feelings (not emotionally salient for me, I guess :-). For the purposes of the hypothesis articulated in the blog post, it seems like emotionally salient and motivationally salient would be interchangeable. Do you disagree? If anything, focus in response to emotionally salient stimuli seems more supportive of the hypothesis?
Hmm I feel you about the first paragraph. But also when I get hyperfocused on things I tend to do so to the exclusion of all else, which seems like the opposite of vigilance.
> For the purposes of the hypothesis articulated in the blog post, it seems like emotionally salient and motivationally salient would be interchangeable.
I agree! And yes I think it does. I find that ADHD people suffer more from this motivation-emotion gap than non-ADHD people, who tend to have an easier time acting on the basis of "I know this thing will be good for me" as opposed to "I feel like doing this thing," but that's a separate topic.
There’s an article that I read on this platform several months ago, maybe more, that talked about a lot of this, about how ADHD may actually be a form of extreme novelty-seeking or curiosity. The article was written by a researcher and it seemed like the idea being put forth was active hypothesis within the field, though I make no claims about its overall plausibility. (Awais Aftab has pointed out that ADHD might simply be another way of describing low trait conscientiousness; this hypothesis seems like it would suggest that, instead or in addition to low conscientiousness, ADHD is marked by very high openness to experience.). Part of the argument was that high novelty-seeking would be advantageous for hunter-gatherers (evo psych just-so story, so beware). IIRC this hypothesis also seems to be quite consistent with the pattern of behaviour you see in ADHD people as well, where there’s a constant desire for stimulation that results in frequent task switching, difficulties persisting with single tasks that require sustained focus and not a lot of variation in the character of the task, having a surfeit of energy and constantly being in motion, etc.
But I take your broader point that there is a sense in which this might be descriptive of all human experience and ADHD people might simply be a somewhat more extreme version of this. It is certainly true that a lot of people whom I wouldn’t describe as ADHDers seem to be voraciously learners and outliers in terms of curiosity. I wouldn’t, for example, describe Tyler Cowen, Dana Gioia, Nabeel Qureshi, Celine Nguyen, or Henry Oliver as ADHDers.
Sorry for the double reply. Here is the post: https://epsig.substack.com/p/the-hypercuriosity-theory-of-adhd?r=1g4uc&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true. There is some questionable stuff, eg the focus on particular genes (DRD4), but it’s still rather interesting.
> In the paper, I define trait curiosity as the general tendency to seek out new information and experiences
Yeah I think a lot rides on the particular definition of curiosity we're using. "Loves learning new things" is somewhat different from "loves novelty," which I think resolves the non-ADHD superlearner thing you brought up. I don't love reducing curiosity to novelty on all occasions, so YMMV on this argument and MMMV depending on how I'm feeling / thinking.
> While these earlier theories focused on novelty seeking and vigilance as key traits in evolutionary accounts of ADHD
I've always hated the earlier theories on account of the whole vigilance thing. We are too distractible to be vigilant: ADHD's whole deal is attentional dysregulation...
> In our modern “captive-like” environment with fewer immediate survival pressures, the expression of curiosity may be less constrained by natural selection pressures that would have historically limited its prevalence and intensity. While this might have led to generally increased curiosity levels across the population, hypercuriosity may represent an extreme manifestation of this trait that contributes to what is now diagnosed as distractibility and impulsivity in ADHD within our modern structured environments.
This is probably my favorite argument in the article. It reminds me of how allergies (and other genetic problems) are spreading because modern medicine is good enough to save people and let them have kids--an obviously good thing that nevertheless comes with consequences.
> According to the hypercuriosity hypothesis, individuals with ADHD would show heightened curiosity towards motivationally salient stimuli—stimuli that have high incentive value and perceived potential for reward.
This actually seems somewhat wrong to me. I think ADHD individuals show heightened curiosity towards *emotionally* salient stimuli. I suppose you could call this motivational in some sense, but it is different from perceived value / potential for reward in some very important ways.
I really appreciate the falsifiability and limitations bits. Such a breath of fresh air.
My guess is that ADHD is largely an exaggeration of traits that are beneficial in reasonable quantities. In that sense, it's both an extreme version of all human experience AND an evo-psych just-so story. That being said, the one outlier here is the attentional dysregulation part, which seems unequivocally bad--and as you brought up, there are definitely classically curious people who don't seem to have these issues.
Anyway, thanks for sharing the article!
I think the vigilance stuff could be correct if framed in the right way. I notice with myself that I always seem to be aware of what’s happening in my environment. If somebody coughs, I hear it; if somebody is talking, I hear their entire conversation and can often tell you the details; if there’s a sudden change in my environment, I will jump, even in situations where other people don’t (eg, during an exam). Vigilance, defined in this way, seems like it could be accurately describing ADHDers.
On hyperfocus in response to stimuli, whether motivationally salient or emotionally salient, I can only say that I don’t think I have ever experienced this, so I don’t have strong feelings (not emotionally salient for me, I guess :-). For the purposes of the hypothesis articulated in the blog post, it seems like emotionally salient and motivationally salient would be interchangeable. Do you disagree? If anything, focus in response to emotionally salient stimuli seems more supportive of the hypothesis?
Hmm I feel you about the first paragraph. But also when I get hyperfocused on things I tend to do so to the exclusion of all else, which seems like the opposite of vigilance.
> For the purposes of the hypothesis articulated in the blog post, it seems like emotionally salient and motivationally salient would be interchangeable.
I agree! And yes I think it does. I find that ADHD people suffer more from this motivation-emotion gap than non-ADHD people, who tend to have an easier time acting on the basis of "I know this thing will be good for me" as opposed to "I feel like doing this thing," but that's a separate topic.