I have been married for 6 years to my wife. We have 2 children, one is 4 1/2 yrs old and the other 7mths. We have known about add for maybe a year and I have seen many doctors and tried diff meds. We started having some troubles 3 moths ago and she asked for a divorce. We decided to try and work it out by going to marriage counselling and I enrolled into school for a carrer change. Counselling was going well in my opinion and we were getting along better, even the counselor saw this and told us if we ever needed help to just call. My wife took this as we were being dropped by the counselor, not that we were taking her advice and using it. I am not ignorant to believe that we had a perfect relationship by far, we have had issues that were unresolved to long. There were issues my wife brought up after she asked for the second divorce. I was very shocked to hear this because she never brought them up to the counselor and I was under the impression thats why we were GOING to counseling. I aked why she didn't tell me what was going on but she insisted that the signs were there and I should have seen them. I am thinking to myself that this is supposed to be a marriage not a puzzle book. She also told me she didn't tell me things becuse she didn't want to gwet me angry and start a fight. After telling me she was done, she left that day, rented an apartment and has already consulted an attorney in the matter 4 days. All this has happened so fast that I am in a whirlwind of life altering decisions in the matter of days. To make things worse I moved from out of state with her to work in her family business. Now I am faced with do I stay for the kids or do I move home. I also lost my job because I worked for her family. I appoligize for being speratic about the details but thinking about it makes emotions run very heavily. I really don't want to leave my children, I love them very much and pride myself on what a good father I am to them. It seams as everytime I try and make up my mind about what to do I feel sick and confused about what is the right decision. I am not asking for answers to my problem but it just feels good sharing all this with you. Out of 6 yrs in Missouri all of ourt friends wer eher friends and I have had 1 person from up here call and ask how I am doing, pretty sad huh?

Thanks for listening, it helps me a lot to know people care :)

Welcome to the Forums so glad you have come to share with us. We will be here listening always. There is a part of the forum that is for journaling which might help you keep track of your thoughts and feelings. Check it out. So sorry to hear about your pain but remember this, What does not kill us makes us stronger! Hang in there and do what you know is right for your children.

I am sorry for what you are going through. I can relate to both you and your wife. I can't speak for all women but I know that this is what I went through and a councelor at the time told me that it tends to be the norm. When a woman says she wants a divorce she has thought about it for a very long time, by the time she verbalizes it, it is usually to late for the marriage. Very unfair I know. But I begged for counceling for a very long time before my ex agreed to it, he didn't agree to it until it was way to late for me. Those unresoved things that I begged to have resolved weren't that important to him when we really needed to have them dealt with. It seems like she moved ahead quickly but it has probably been a reality to her for a long time.
I can relate to you because my husband and I owned a business and obviously when I left he didn't want me working for him anymore. There also was no one to insure that he give me any support so I went without income for a very long time. Most of our friends were his, I had lost contact with most of mine. I think being a good Dad to your kids now is so important this will be difficult on them too.
I don't really have any advice on what to do but I just wanted to let you know that I can relate to what you are going through. Somehow you will come out on the other side.
Good luck

I have been married for 6 years to my wife. We have 2 children, one is 4 1/2 yrs old and the other 7mths. We have known about add

We decided to try and work it out by going to marriage counselling and I enrolled into school for a carrer change. Counselling was going well in my opinion and we were getting along better, even the counselor saw this and told us if we ever needed help to just call.

There were issues my wife brought up after she asked for the second divorce. I was very shocked to hear this because she never brought them up to the counselor and I was under the impression thats why we were GOING to counseling. >>>I aked why she didn't tell me what was going on but she insisted that the signs were there and I should have seen them. <<<

I am thinking to myself that this is supposed to be a marriage not a puzzle book. She also told me she didn't tell me things becuse she didn't want to gwet me angry and start a fight.

I really don't want to leave my children, I love them very much and pride myself on what a good father I am to them. It seams as everytime I try and make up my mind about what to do I feel sick and confused about what is the right decision. I am not asking for answers to my problem but it just feels good sharing all this with you. Out of 6 yrs in Missouri all of ourt friends wer eher friends and I have had 1 person from up here call and ask how I am doing, pretty sad huh?

Thanks for listening, it helps me a lot to know people care :)
Your situation is exactly like mine was! Please send me a message if you want to chat about it because I have been there. 2 kids, School to move forward in my career...etc.

I added arrows to something that is very important to understand about ADD:

>>>I aked why she didn't tell me what was going on but she insisted that the signs were there and I should have seen them. <<<

Do not beat yourself up with this..I did and after lots of thinking and seeing where communication has failed in my life, I came up with a model describing why we often do not see the "signs" as ADDers, even if we look for them.

Society tends to view ADD as a "disorder" of bad short term memory, impulsivity, and general all around flakiness. Most of us ADDers really are salt of the earth type people with deep compassion and love for our family...where does it go wrong?

Read the intro to my theory "Internal vs. External reference" (It is a thread on here)

We do not pick up subtle communication. We also have a hard time communicating because of our "Internal referent" nature. Notice all of the "small talk" arround you? Did you ever wonder how people can stand to talk about nothing?

It is not "nothing" it is subtle nuanced communication with "small talk" as a carrier wave. Externally referenced people understand it...we do not.

Your wife probably felt like she was screaming at you...and you did not hear her. You were trying to talk to her and she was searching for that nuanced info and she did not hear it.

She speaks with communication between the lines (You do not comprehend)
You speak and she reads things between the lines (Things you do not mean)

This is a vicious cycle leading to hurt and frustration. It even happens with 2 ADD people...although we generally find ways to understand each other's personal carrier waves.

Our ADD radios are all tuned to different frequencies and we all broadcast to different frequencies.

In non-ADD culture...they may be out of tune a bit (They hear the broadcast with a bit of static) but there is more understanding. (We often don't even tune in the broadcast..or we do but it is sporadic)

I hope this helps... it is just a matter of learning how to tune in so you are on the same frequency as your wife...This is no small task. Since non-ADDers don't even have to think about this "tuning" it takes a special one to meet you half way with it. :) (Don't think you can do it all!)

My divorce has given me a new lease on life as painful as it was... I can be me for me and my children now :)

Well said Chain.

Warm welcome to the forums thkpaul. I'm sorry you're going through this. But there's a good reputation here for good listeners and nice people. Hope you find the info and support you're looking for.

I hope the family business let you go with some kind of severence (sp?) package. It's a shame that you have no income to be a Dad to THEIR grandchildren/niece/nephew/etc. I recommend you get a good lawyer to protect your rights. Men should not be the only ones stuck with alimony and child support. Just do what you think is best for your kids, I think the love will count for a lot, to them and to the courts.

Keep us posted.

You have articulated really well something I've noticed with my ADD friend.

I read it and say: YES YES YES! I understand this point!

Well done, chain, and thank you for that.



thkpaul, do not stay sad too long, cuz all things feel better in time. that is the law of the universe.

keep talking here if you feel better about that, everyone here is so wonderful and supporting it is really incredible and you are a good person.

Well, here's a bit of counterpoint…

First, not to burst that counselor's bubble, but the thing about women having an idea all worked out for a long time before bothering to mention it isn't really an established fact. The counselor that said that isn't doing his/her job very well, IM(NS)HO.

That does a disservice to women, and we've never seen it to be true. If you watch people do things like this, you'll see lots of different pictures of how the decision comes to bubble up to the surface.

But there isn't much evidence to support any idea of what's happening behind the scenes other than the usual: people are pretty confused for a while before they begin to sort things out, and at that point, they find themselves able to speak to their feelings for the first time.

That doesn't mean that the conclusion is correct, just that it's gelled into a form that can be talked about. And the single most common reason for haste is the desire to lock the logic in once it's formed. It's really a sign of how confusing things have been previously, not that they were solid but hidden.

Chain picks on the one piece of his theory we're still arguing about, the thing about ADDers generally not picking up subtle communication. In particular, there's the point about how "small talk" is seemingly talk about nothing, but is really nuanced communication that we miss.

There are two problems with this, and we believe that we'll get them hashed out in the near future. But briefly:

First, there is specific information content in the 'small talk about nothing', and it's not the nuanced communications Chain is referring to. It's low level stuff that keeps our reality models converged, specifically so we can all talk and understand each other.

We can pretty well prove that this content exists, and subtracting it from the hubbub of a cocktail party doesn't leave much room for other stuff to be tacked on. It is true that we tend to dismiss it, but that's because of the nature of the communication, and the fact that it doesn't pertain to us to the same degree that it does to normals.

But that doesn't mean that we miss anything; we can ignore it because we don't need it. Our reality models are kept in a converged state by other mechanisms, when we chose to be converged. And we do choose; there isn't any part of normal human communications that is closed to ADDers.

Secondly, the idea that we miss nuances in communication isn't true; the idea that it seems to us like we do, however, is true.

This is the internally referent view of this externally viewed scenario:

- You use a certain type of logic to understand your universe;

- another person uses a different type of logic;

- (without placing any value judgment on the quality or appropriateness of a particular type of logic),

- we can be certain that any decision made with different logic will seem illogical, or (more likely) alogical.

So your picture inside your own head of the process is one in which you don't understand what has been decided, or how, and the common conclusion (to which we ADDers are all vulnerable to a fault) is that we must have missed something.

We all feel like this, at one time or another, and the most difficult part of jumping out of the groove it presents us is recognizing that we didn't miss anything at all.

I think that's exactly where Chain's theory and our work will meet to bang heads and begin to influence each other. We're pretty sure that the external view is necessary, and that the conclusion that we aren't missing anything is inevitable and also necessary.

In our experience, it certainly represents a pretty big mound in the local geography that, once you roll over the top and start down the other side, makes all the difference in a thousand little ways. Many complex and convoluted models of ordinary interactions become simple, reliable and completely sensible.

And that, in itself, is all it needs to recommend it. If it seems more complex at first to think that it only seems that we miss nuances of communication, the power of that basic assumption to illuminate even the most mystifying circumstances will quickly convince you that it's the better choice.

I should say that most of the rest of Chain's descriptions match closely what we have seen in our research, especially things like


She speaks with communication between the lines (You do not comprehend)
You speak and she reads things between the lines (Things you do not mean)
On the surface, you should recognize that this just says you don't understand each other. But note that any mechanism that leads to mutual misunderstanding fits this description.

The real test is how it predicts other aspects of the big picture, and here we don't find it productive to assume that the misunderstanding occurs specifically because men (or ADDers) are missing stuff, and women (or normals) are providing it where it wasn't meant.

For example, we don't find the gender differences that this requires; gender differences exist, but they're on a completely different level.

And the difference in the way that we ADDers use our brains, compared to the way that normal's do it, doesn't lead directly to this sort of misunderstanding except through the model in the example, where there are two different types of logic in use.

In the end, we weren't able to really begin unraveling either AD/HD or gender differences in human communications until we convinced ourselves that going over that hump is a necessary first step.

We don't misunderstand these things, or miss subtle nuances of communication; they don't follow our logic, and underneath, they really are as simple as they seem. Figuring out how that's possible is the way out.

On a different, more practical note:

There is a common misunderstanding about divorce and divorce law that sometimes makes it hard to pick your way through the thicket. Many attorneys have lost track of the basic principles, too, so you can easily wind up on your own figuring out the local details.

Specifically, the standard picture of divorce is that it's not a good thing, and the family unit should be preserved as integral and essential to a healthy society. This is usually reflected in the law, although it's tough to pick it out in many states.

Here in PA, the standard no-fault quickie has been around for a long time, and everyone pretty much assumes that you can jump in and out of marriage as simply as you pick a tie to go with your new suit.

But that only applies to uncontested proceedings; the 'no-fault' label literally refers to the fact that both parties agree that divorce is necessary. If either party chooses to contest the divorce, the whole picture changes.

I know the typical Hollywood scenario of private detectives and pictures in motel rooms probably comes to mind, but that's not the reality. That's a bad representation of how the system needed to be massaged when no-fault didn't exist, and it's pretty much the reason for the reform that swept through most states sometime in the last fifty years.

What happens here is that the judge will suspend the proceedings for some period of time, set up almost arbitrary (meaning you don't get to argue too much about it) temporary financial arrangements, and may order counseling, especially if one party requests it.

That is not the picture that some lawyers will portray when you ask for a consult, but it's the reality of the law, and a good attorney will walk a client through it pretty much as I've laid it out.

(We are not trained in this particular bit of the law, and we're not competent to offer legal advice on this subject at all, so please don't take it as such. It's meant to be descriptive of the philosophical basis of the law itself, as an aid to understanding the process.)

Every state is different, but behind every state's version is the idea of the sanctity of the family unit, and the utility of any effort to preserve it.

Many recent changes in divorce law were meant to better protect women from abandonment. But in practice they often have a less gender specific character; they serve to preserve the status quo until there can be a more complete and level headed sorting out of exactly what the circumstances are.

That means that snap decisions aren't held in high regard, unless you fail to speak your own mind about them. It's worth the effort to research the local laws before things get too far, as painful as that is.

And certainly don't give up without any objection, if you feel that there is something worth preserving. It should be well received, even by the most jaded attorneys and judges, and even though it's painful to open your heart and appear vulnerable in front of strangers.

Whatever you decide, it's in your own best interest (and the children's) to not allow yourself to get caught by the hurt feelings that are sure to surface if things actually get into the legal system.

Remember, you're trying to preserve your relationship with your wife, too, not just your children. The object is to re-establish that closeness, not rend a jagged hole in the ground between you. You'll have to learn to let go of things that seem insurmountable if you want to reach that goal.

The statistics are on your side, though, even after the dreaded 'she talked to a lawyer' stage. If you can stay focused and not give up, keep yourself from giving in to the impulse to break away and toss everything as fatally flawed, these things usually wind down in a few weeks.

Just keep trying, and then try again, and stay true to your heart. Not fun, but better than disaster.

And when it works, the real job is just beginning: fixing the bent bits and shoring up the relationship against a recurrence.

We feel for you, and wish you all the luck in the world. Please don't be afraid to ask for help here keeping your equilibrium; the forums are full of compassionate people who have all been there, in one form or another.

Hang in there. –Tom and Kay

Chain picks on the one piece of his theory we're still arguing about, the thing about ADDers generally not picking up subtle communication. In particular, there's the point about how "small talk" is seemingly talk about nothing, but is really nuanced communication that we miss.
There are two problems with this, and we believe that we'll get them hashed out in the near future. But briefly:
First, there is specific information content in the 'small talk about nothing', and it's not the nuanced communications Chain is referring to. It's low level stuff that keeps our reality models converged, specifically so we can all talk and understand each other.
But that doesn't mean that we miss anything; we can ignore it because we don't need it. Our reality models are kept in a converged state by other mechanisms, when we chose to be converged. And we do choose; there isn't any part of normal human communications that is closed to ADDers.
Hey guys! I was starting to miss your presence here :).

Before I start, please understand that I am mostly talking about cultural reality...not if we agree a red alarm clock is sitting on the night stand.

Here is where I think we might be having our own miscommunication and it may be one area where I am building out my model that dovetails with yours.
First of all, I agree that we have "access" to nuanced communication but we do not have fully "built in pattern recognition" to deal with it. The ADD brain with built in pattern recognition and building (through experiential context) does not "need" to have the cultural templates passed down the "stream of external reference".

Non-ADD brain:

1) Language is heard... voice and pitch show status and position of speaker. Language combined with pitch (or intonation in non tonal languages), body movement, facial muscle changes, breath patterns, Skin tone, hand movements, body position, distance, slouching, eye movements, blinking...it goes on and on...and for the most part is influenced by culture (a series of patterns to create common "social reality")

2) These factors are matched up with known patterns stored in the brain. This takes lots of "sub aware" processing. (The main reason we have a massive neo-cortex). Some of these patterns are matched at a level of near awareness (assumptions).

3) This is where it gets complex (The final result of the pattern matching can either go through another level of pattern matching that adjusts for context of the situation... memory of patterns based on experience with that person or gender, social class...the first level of meta-awareness. This is what I call "observation". Many people do not do this. Some can even take it out to further levels of matching based on experiential context. This is happening in the non-ADD mind of a very intelligent person. (There is a contextual matrix with cultural patterned templates or patterns connected)

4) There is a response back from the listener indicating that the communication was understood (see number 1)
This is what I have called "nuance" in these posts. It is the "real communication" that happens. Small talk just gives us voice tones and the opportunity to stand next to one another to allow this communication to take place. Some language patterns also contain verbal nuance.


"Do you want to go out tonight?" (As stated...maybe :) )
"I am pretty tired... what do you want to do?" (No)


That was the non-ADD communication. It is my contention that external reference allows for something that complex to happen (Since the contexts are built outside and planted...processing power can be devoted to finding one's place in the scheme of things).


Another main component is the way memory is stored and accessed. These patterns must be passed down to the developing child. They are also rewritten slowly in response to changes in culture or environment. At some point the patterns "fossilize". (Main patterns "fossilize" earlier (3 or 4 years depending on individual (read about these in Piaget)...detailed sub patterns "fossilize" later (Middle age to never (why old people hate change ;-)) LM (Linear Mind) Memory is hierarchical in nature mostly with a section of contextual memory from early childhood that is used to store experience. It is often dominated by (or accessed through) the pattern matching hierarchy memory (You can tell, I am still working out the names for these things)

ADD or contextual mind (CM):
The base cognition (structure of the brain and manner in which the neurons connect) of the child (Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny) or animal matures slowly. Early pattern fossilization does not occur and the "immediate term memory" storage times do not increase.

1) Language is for communication of ideas and small talk is not understood

2) Understanding of the external built patterns is based on observation not pattern comparison.

3) There is very little return on investment for an ADDer to follow these patterns. Since the early fossilization has not occurred, the processing time benefits that detailed pattern comparison offer are not gained.

4) The contextual memory "file system" in the externally referenced child gradually is suplanted or dominated by a pattern recognition system that is very efficient for storing memory. In the internally referenced mind...the base memory "file system" remains the same into adulthood. Because it still has the flexibility of the base cognition, it can be rebuilt to a degree...

5) All of the things that are sub cultural communication (ie Universals) are understood.

6) Culturally specific information can be understood but it is routed through experience response memory instead of cultural patterned memory.
Examples:

CM experiential response or contextual memory

When I pick my nose in public people laughed the last time I did that..Sally's face turned red and she called me "booger boy", that hurt my feelings.

Picking nose in public = hurt feelings...ouch


LM pattern recognition or externally reference pattern matching

Idiots pick their nose in public = I am not an idiot.


This is all pretty vague, I know, but it is getting closer. I have it all in my brain...it is just taking a while to translate it. Language is not my first language ;-). Like I said 3 books so far and growing and this is just a thread in a forum. I have to use "questioned reductionism for the sake of communication" here.



Secondly, the idea that we miss nuances in communication isn't true; the idea that it seems to us like we do, however, is true.
Agreed here, we may not miss it completely but we do not have the externally built patterns to do quick "on the spot analysis". Our minds are not geared for it.


I think that's exactly where Chain's theory and our work will meet to bang heads and begin to influence each other. We're pretty sure that the external view is necessary, and that the conclusion that we aren't missing anything is inevitable and also necessary.
And that, in itself, is all it needs to recommend it. If it seems more complex at first to think that it only seems that we miss nuances of communication, the power of that basic assumption to illuminate even the most mystifying circumstances will quickly convince you that it's the better choice.
I should say that most of the rest of Chain's descriptions match closely what we have seen in our research, especially things like
On the surface, you should recognize that this just says you don't understand each other. But note that any mechanism that leads to mutual misunderstanding fits this description.
The real test is how it predicts other aspects of the big picture, and here we don't find it productive to assume that the misunderstanding occurs specifically because men (or ADDers) are missing stuff, and women (or normals) are providing it where it wasn't meant.
For example, we don't find the gender differences that this requires; gender differences exist, but they're on a completely different level.
And the difference in the way that we ADDers use our brains, compared to the way that normal's do it, doesn't lead directly to this sort of misunderstanding except through the model in the example, where there are two different types of logic in use.
Yes... Pattern recognition through external reference vs. contextual memory built on experience response...(a pattern that is contextual by its very nature)



In the end, we weren't able to really begin unraveling either AD/HD or gender differences in human communications until we convinced ourselves that going over that hump is a necessary first step.
We don't misunderstand these things, or miss subtle nuances of communication; they don't follow our logic, and underneath, they really are as simple as they seem. Figuring out how that's possible is the way out.Gender plays a much bigger role in external reference than it does in internal. That being said, IT DOES play a role but that role may be more confined to mating and offspring rearing roles. Since the body types of male and female humans are actually quite similar...this may not be a very big difference for internally referent people.


The "way out" is, in my view, entering what I call the "positive state".
In existentialism it is a profound concept. I will point out some specific ideas by Heidegger. Heidegger missed the mark (and therefore decided to join the Nazis) by missing the concept of internal reference completely. He saw culture as the ultimate context. If you go with your culture, you are living the "authentic existence" if you buck it or stray from it, you are in a state of "throwness".

So Martin... lets throw in internal reference for good measure…what is the authentic existence for an internally referent person with no strong links into their culture? What is the proper place for our "dasien"? I call it the "positive state". All people in all conditions of life can live in the "positive state".
With the "contextual mind" the positive state can lead to great things. For the externally referenced person, the positive state can allow them to be happy with their place or movements in the society. A blind person will love the sounds and smells and not concentrate on the lack of sight.


An ADDer will function in their creativity and in their happiness, find ways of communicating that will bridge the gap. They will drop the chain of disorders and love themselves. It does not matter if we fit in. It does matter if we are compassionate and make a positive mark in the world you live.


In the end it is about attitude :)

I really like the advice and comments so far, please don't stop.

I just feel it's my obligation to remind you that we are not qualified to give legal advice so please do not take it as such. Just in case something gets misinterpreted.

Thank you. (moderator exits stage right, the show continues where it left off with no editing)

We're here; we’re just overbooked for the moment.

For whatever reasons (and there are many) we tend to misunderstand the quality of ordinary communications. It's not a matter of not having built in pattern recognition, but rather one of having a different interpretation of the pattern's importance, and perhaps to an extent, its meaning.

That might sound like we’re on the same road at least, but if we are, we're traveling in opposite directions.

The practical effect of having/being AD/HD is a kind of proactive rejection of the strict interpretation of meaning in communication in different contexts.

We don't see ourselves actively rejecting the standard interpretations, though, because we don't understand why they seem to slide out of sync with what we see. The reason is that our world view is much more rigorously structured than normals'; we ADDers tend to enforce a consistency between different areas of our lives, and that is not the norm at all.

Normal communication is context sensitive because the context can shift. (Ken Lay is my standard example; I'm certain he was a fine upstanding family man. At home.)

We don't do context shifts; that breaks rules that arise from the need to keep our common reality stable. We also don't need the rules, but who thinks that way? (Other than me and Kay and perhaps a few others, that is.)

Instead, we hold on to the impression that maintaining a uniform, consistent context across all aspects of our reality is somehow dangerous, and we tend to cooperate when others suggest the same.

Regardless of that, you can see that there are clear implications on the quality of communications. We are going to disregard the bits that vary by context, but it is a proactive decision on our part to do so.

We understand the meaning, and the context, just fine. We modify it to match our consistent reality model, and if we were really distressed by that, we wouldn't do it.

There are lots of normals that don't. They all have the same choice we do.

* * * * *

Your specific examples of communications aren't too far off the mark; they could stand to be a little more orthogonal, in the sense that one bit of neural mass is pretty similar to another, and so we should expect to see the same principles apply to different functions, ideally.

Once you see a smooth application of the underlying organizing principles of neural networks, the whole chain (NPI) of connections leading from the outermost raw sensory levels to the innermost abstract conscious perceptual levels can be seen to be regular, simple and elegant.

Conscious (and other) experience takes place in an easily understandable way within that hierarchical chain of connections. There isn't much more needed, and so not much to it; any mysterious bits are elsewhere, I'm afraid.

Fortunately, there's plenty of mystery to go around, and the immutable sense of being is at the heart of all of it. But from the purely logical perspective, it really is only a meat engine, not doing a thing that isn't already well understood.

So we don't see much need for complex schemes to identify different levels of understanding, because the underlying reality of neural operation already has a simple scheme that pretty much defines all of it already.

And just as in the case of short term memory (from another thread), there isn't much to see of it; it's pretty much just a pattern in the background, not really subject to our control by definition.

Why by definition? Because our personal existence is defined by the experience generated by implication of the existence of the structure itself.

It's like the infinitesimal interface between the surface of your skin and the outside world; you can't find it, no matter how closely you look, yet you can easily see it. But if it disappeared, you would, too, in contextual terms.

* * * * *

I don't mean to downplay the importance of the explicit examples you give, like the thing about going out. But they don't go far enough, and we would rather go beyond them, to where the whole game of communicating in these ways seems silly and crippled.

It's easy to push a little further out. For example, who doesn't have an idea about why she said no? And it just goes on and on; we all know why we're in the situation, how we got there, where we’re going, and so on.

The whole thing reeks of meaning, and that is exactly what we bring to the table with being in our conscious context. In my experience, for the restricted circumstance of your example to be interpreted the way that you laid it out, I would have to be fighting my preconception that she wouldn't want to go out long before the words got out of my mouth.

If I didn't do that, I would be confused to be sure, and constantly surprised by the actions of others. But that does happen, all the time; how can that be?

It turns out that it's far easier to suggest the existence of a general selective filter mechanism (that doesn't have anything to do with AD/HD) than to propose a complex series of perhaps unrelated mechanisms.

There's a pretty good body of evidence to suggest such a mechanism exists, and also that it exists in a more drastic form in males than females. It's not too hard to find, either: it's simply the reality modeling mechanism at work.

What is a bit difficult for the uninitiated is the incontrovertible fact that reality isn't real, in the sense that it seems to be at least an accurate and dependable reflection of the external world.

Instead, we see a barely stable and highly rationalized subset of what we might expect to be represented. We can't help filtering selectively, choosing the elements that will populate our particular version of the world.

Every copy is necessarily different, if that's true, and so you might wonder how we persist. Shouldn't our common reality models, on which we depend for communication, be highly congruent by necessity?

The answer is yes and no. In a surprisingly restricted subset of reality, the models are maintained in good agreement, at least among closely located individuals within the same cultural group.

But the rest varies to an amazing degree, and we don't see that variability directly, but rather through experiences that arise from the differences. The only way that variability could remain hidden from our ordinary view of ourselves in our context is if we have a mechanism that does just that, hides it.

This isn't the 'black holes' that Kay and I talk about. Instead, it's a natural consequence of the way that we model ourselves in reality, and achieve consciousness within the mental context. We just shed stuff that isn't relevant, or would take too much energy to juggle along with the stuff that actually interests us.

In other words, we tend to live in different worlds, and also miss that little detail, all because we humans can focus. And note that focus plays a pretty big role in how we are different from normals in how we interact with our own reality.

So is it really so strange that ADDers might be a bit different, when it comes to communication that depends on two people 'seeing' the same reality?

To us, it's a wonder we keep it together as well as we do, and it's no wonder at all that we are a bit stressed out by the effort.

* * * * *

I can't stress too strongly how unimportant it is to look for patterns in how interpretation takes place. Without a context, they're useless; we have to understand how the whole of experience arises first, and once we do, the details seem obvious.

But it is useful to begin there, because where else would we go? We can't do it from the outside in, and there isn't anyone out there to tell us what's going on. So we go out there ourselves, and to get there, we start in here.

It's the usual path to the bigger picture, not to be taken lightly or dismissed as insignificant. It's just important to not get stuck along the way. The object is to get out, and bring that view back to help figure out the rest of what's inside.

* * * * *

I'm all for 'the positive state', but wonder if there's any reason to accept restrictions on where we can go to enjoy it. AD/HD places no inherent limitation on individuals; individuals' limitations are, well, individual.

And there isn't any individual that can't exceed the common model of what's possible. There is no reason to accept limitations, regardless of whether they seem to be associated with AD/HD.

Situations might exist, but they don't define us.

That's our positive state.

We're here; we’re just overbooked for the moment.

For whatever reasons (and there are many) we tend to misunderstand the quality of ordinary communications. It's not a matter of not having built in pattern recognition, but rather one of having a different interpretation of the pattern's importance, and perhaps to an extent, its meaning.

That might sound like we’re on the same road at least, but if we are, we're traveling in opposite directions.We are on the same road heading in opposite directions but we have not passed each other yet.

I have one word for you: Lambda

choice vs. chaos...there is both. That is where we will meet on the road.



The practical effect of having/being AD/HD is a kind of proactive rejection of the strict interpretation of meaning in communication in different contexts.

We don't see ourselves actively rejecting the standard interpretations, though, because we don't understand why they seem to slide out of sync with what we see. The reason is that our world view is much more rigorously structured than normals'; we ADDers tend to enforce a consistency between different areas of our lives, and that is not the norm at all.

Yes...In not spending "tons of energy" trying to figure out "our place" in the society we "can" be freed to build a consistant structure throughout our lives. We are not slaves to the templates that come down via external reference.

In short..we are "coded closer to the metal". Computer analogies here...

We are given a "bootstrap" and have to build our own OS and "software" to run on it.



Normal communication is context sensitive because the context can shift. (Ken Lay is my standard example; I'm certain he was a fine upstanding family man. At home.)

We don't do context shifts; that breaks rules that arise from the need to keep our common reality stable. We also don't need the rules, but who thinks that way? (Other than me and Kay and perhaps a few others, that is.)

Instead, we hold on to the impression that maintaining a uniform, consistent context across all aspects of our reality is somehow dangerous, and we tend to cooperate when others suggest the same.

Regardless of that, you can see that there are clear implications on the quality of communications. We are going to disregard the bits that vary by context, but it is a proactive decision on our part to do so.

We understand the meaning, and the context, just fine. We modify it to match our consistent reality model, and if we were really distressed by that, we wouldn't do it.

There are lots of normals that don't. They all have the same choice we do.

* * * * *Ok, this is where "choice" hits lambda. In asking "why are we different" you are tossing in the lambda "choice". My lambda is chaos. This is actually very ironic because I am choosing a "harder line" than you in my model. I am building down from some core philosophies or constructs that have really helped me to understand biology.

Chaos is the non biological structure found in dynamic systems (so far the universe is this). A cloud is not biolocical but it has structure. There is not a fuzzy haze of water vapor everywhere but clumps of cloud...Why? Why not...

Biology is a sub-pattern within the chaotic "structure" of the universe. Chaos produces orders. Why would water spiraling down your drain take on a shape similar to something as massive as a spiral galaxy? This is because there are patterns and they repeat...not exactly the same, but they do repeat (This is where someone can argue that the similarity is just a product of our minds trying to order the universe...I always laugh and tell them that the universe got there first!)

Biology is a pattern of intense feedback loops. Inter special, intra specia, inter individual...and here is what I am talking about: intra individual. The patterns form and in biology these are called "function". Patterns that are "successful" settle into "more stable" "attractors". The anthropoid form is one example. As our environment changes...dynamic elements are introduced changing the feedback systems thus the form. Humans are in an extremely dynamic environment...mostly from our own "doing".

I follow strongly something that is called "functional typology". (Most typologists do not even think about chaos...I am CM so the need to define structure (as you put it across my life) is pretty important to me. I do not like the separation of "hard", "soft science" and "theoretical sciences".)

Functional Typology simply says that types (or patterns) that re-occur, do so because they are functional. (My theoretical translation is: attractors (types) form at points where the system is less dynamic (functionality is present))



This is where my base view of types comes in (Highest metaleval starts at 1...I am only talking about biology):

1) Species (functional types) within ecosystems

2) Roles (functional types) in social species (this is supra culture...culture is simply a tool to organize a "common view" and is in itself a functional type of organization)

3) Organs (functional types) in individuals

4) Cells (functional types) within organs

5) Subcellular material (functional types) within cells.

So...the big picture is: The "metamodel web" is consistant across the board (how simple and elegant...yet how complex to communicate) but there are types... It is not flat.



There are two main attractors in human cognition. CM (base animal cognition with extra brain) and LM (Most people. The vast amount of mental energy is spent "sticking into" and moving around the cultural roles)

CM really does not need the extra brain... but since it is there...

LM really needs it in order to form cultural structure.

LM and CM formed a feedback loop that originally created technology...now CM is hitting its stride. It needs LM "to keep the lights on".



Your specific examples of communications aren't too far off the mark; they could stand to be a little more orthogonal, in the sense that one bit of neural mass is pretty similar to another, and so we should expect to see the same principles apply to different functions, ideally.

Once you see a smooth application of the underlying organizing principles of neural networks, the whole chain (NPI) of connections leading from the outermost raw sensory levels to the innermost abstract conscious perceptual levels can be seen to be regular, simple and elegant.

Conscious (and other) experience takes place in an easily understandable way within that hierarchical chain of connections. There isn't much more needed, and so not much to it; any mysterious bits are elsewhere, I'm afraid.

Fortunately, there's plenty of mystery to go around, and the immutable sense of being is at the heart of all of it. But from the purely logical perspective, it really is only a meat engine, not doing a thing that isn't already well understood.

I have lived in 3 cultures other than my own. I have learned near fluency in three languages other than my own. I graduated in linguistics (that does not mean much)

I started by asking myself "what is language?" and ended by asked "what is language not?". That built out one point of reference for this current CCM event.

I have spent much time observing differences in culture...trying to suss out the universals. It dawned on me...I am a living universal. In the original ADD CCM event...

I found intense similarities between myself and other ADDers accross genders and cultures. This lead to the Internal vs. External CCM event.

The web builds...



So we don't see much need for complex schemes to identify different levels of understanding, because the underlying reality of neural operation already has a simple scheme that pretty much defines all of it already.

And just as in the case of short term memory (from another thread), there isn't much to see of it; it's pretty much just a pattern in the background, not really subject to our control by definition.

Why by definition? Because our personal existence is defined by the experience generated by implication of the existence of the structure itself.

It's like the infinitesimal interface between the surface of your skin and the outside world; you can't find it, no matter how closely you look, yet you can easily see it. But if it disappeared, you would, too, in contextual terms.

* * * * *

My schemes are simple, just complex to communicate.





I don't mean to downplay the importance of the explicit examples you give, like the thing about going out. But they don't go far enough, and we would rather go beyond them, to where the whole game of communicating in these ways seems silly and crippled.

It's easy to push a little further out. For example, who doesn't have an idea about why she said no? And it just goes on and on; we all know why we're in the situation, how we got there, where we’re going, and so on.

The whole thing reeks of meaning, and that is exactly what we bring to the table with being in our conscious context. In my experience, for the restricted circumstance of your example to be interpreted the way that you laid it out, I would have to be fighting my preconception that she wouldn't want to go out long before the words got out of my mouth.

If I didn't do that, I would be confused to be sure, and constantly surprised by the actions of others. But that does happen, all the time; how can that be?

It turns out that it's far easier to suggest the existence of a general selective filter mechanism (that doesn't have anything to do with AD/HD) than to propose a complex series of perhaps unrelated mechanisms.

There's a pretty good body of evidence to suggest such a mechanism exists, and also that it exists in a more drastic form in males than females. It's not too hard to find, either: it's simply the reality modeling mechanism at work.

What is a bit difficult for the uninitiated is the incontrovertible fact that reality isn't real, in the sense that it seems to be at least an accurate and dependable reflection of the external world.

I have gone beyond them but, again...it takes more fingers than I have to type them out...I am giving you very simplistc examples. They may not be the best ones to choose.

There is a general "filter" mechanism. In ADD (IRCM) it is general. In non-ADD (ERLM) "normals" it has very specific uses. In ERLM it is the cultural feed insertion point. IRCM does not have that.

In ADD (IRCM) women, the general filter will be different than ADD (IRCM) men because we have different physiologies and different functions. Base cognition is very similar amongst CM. With intelligence...the filters can be altered.

Gender roles have cultural basis that is founded on biology...but is much more complex in ERLM and is far more culture dependant.

IRCM "can" have a closer view of reality because:

1) Processing time is devoted to understanding context of the individual in the environment (as opposed to the culture)

2) We are run closer to the "chaos engine"





Instead, we see a barely stable and highly rationalized subset of what we might expect to be represented. We can't help filtering selectively, choosing the elements that will populate our particular version of the world.

Every copy is necessarily different, if that's true, and so you might wonder how we persist. Shouldn't our common reality models, on which we depend for communication, be highly congruent by necessity?

The answer is yes and no. In a surprisingly restricted subset of reality, the models are maintained in good agreement, at least among closely located individuals within the same cultural group.

But the rest varies to an amazing degree, and we don't see that variability directly, but rather through experiences that arise from the differences. The only way that variability could remain hidden from our ordinary view of ourselves in our context is if we have a mechanism that does just that, hides it.

Reality modeling is a strange one. I had to ask myself.."why are other ADDers (obviously highly individualistic in society) so similar in their reality models. I also asked "Why are non-ADDers so different between subcultures... I grew up surrounded by ERLM (External Referenced Linear Mind) People. They fit in but are so different. I was not like them and could not be. Then...I meet ADDers in completely different cultures and different genders... (because I quickly get people to lower their pretense (Most IRCM have tons of it to keep safe)...I see the similarities). There is no culture to bind us....there is base cognition.



This isn't the 'black holes' that Kay and I talk about. Instead, it's a natural consequence of the way that we model ourselves in reality, and achieve consciousness within the mental context. We just shed stuff that isn't relevant, or would take too much energy to juggle along with the stuff that actually interests us.

In other words, we tend to live in different worlds, and also miss that little detail, all because we humans can focus. And note that focus plays a pretty big role in how we are different from normals in how we interact with our own reality.

So is it really so strange that ADDers might be a bit different, when it comes to communication that depends on two people 'seeing' the same reality?

To us, it's a wonder we keep it together as well as we do, and it's no wonder at all that we are a bit stressed out by the effort.

* * * * *



Well, language is not our first language...is it? Think about it...we have senses and feelings, shapes and colors, even sounds and odd patterns. Think carefully...much energy is spent trying to use language...but there are the base thoughts and they are more experiential in us than linguistic.


I can't stress too strongly how unimportant it is to look for patterns in how interpretation takes place. Without a context, they're useless; we have to understand how the whole of experience arises first, and once we do, the details seem obvious.

Here is where the bigger picture comes in...context is a biological contstruct used to simplify and reduce our processing time and help create common models. Patterns are a function of reality. Without them...there is no differentiation in the "real world". Might as well disappear into the "thermocline" (the final and ultimate attractor).

Better to take a "meta-jump" above context... can this be done...yes and...no (it is a paradox) Oh well a paradox is just a feedback mechanism.

I humbly disagree with you here and even suggest that you are taking patterns into serious consideration in building your models.

Again, I probably might need to know what you mean by "importance"...they are not everything and you can not stick to them like they are predictable.



I do agree that I am tackling issues with memory and lower level stuff maybe a "bit prematurely" but I am not linear...so the picture becomes clearer as a whole.



But it is useful to begin there, because where else would we go? We can't do it from the outside in, and there isn't anyone out there to tell us what's going on. So we go out there ourselves, and to get there, we start in here.

It's the usual path to the bigger picture, not to be taken lightly or dismissed as insignificant. It's just important to not get stuck along the way. The object is to get out, and bring that view back to help figure out the rest of what's inside.

* * * * *

I'm all for 'the positive state', but wonder if there's any reason to accept restrictions on where we can go to enjoy it. AD/HD places no inherent limitation on individuals; individuals' limitations are, well, individual.

And there isn't any individual that can't exceed the common model of what's possible. There is no reason to accept limitations, regardless of whether they seem to be associated with AD/HD.

Situations might exist, but they don't define us.

That's our positive state.Yes, agreed. The Elephant tied to a stake concept. but always remember...no leading a horse to water. The ROI is not there for most ERLM unless they make it such. There is incredible ROI for IRCM to stop trying to be ERLM though....Baby steps...I personally don't care that I cannot flap my arms and "take off"...knowing real limitations often allows you to melt artificial ones (existentialism in a nutshell)

Agreed... >>Situations might exist, but they don't define us<< unless we are in the "negative state"

In the end ALL is illusion... but that does not generate enough illusory dopamine for my brain :)

THKPAUL -

Your wife is playing dirty. It sounds like the situation is "all your fault" because 1) you have ADD, and 2) you're not a mind-reader. Being suddenly bushwhacked by someone who has carefully premeditated their actions is hurtful and humiliating. I really feel for you.

Does it make sense to be married to someone who doesn't like you, doesn't respect you, and whom you can't trust? Given time, you'll likely feel that this was an opportunity to have a better life. (And no, I'm not a bitter divorced guy, but if I ever found myself unmarried, I wouldn't do it again.)

-SB

Thkpaul,is there a seat in your boat ,I am traveling alone through these very perilous waters alone also .
just remember to take care of yourself ,eat right ,get sleep ,and get out in life

hey william tell.

you must have felt totally stunned and betrayed.

Don't know what you've decided, but maybe you can buy some time by finding shortterm job to cover finances.

Just a thought. I have no idea what I'd do in your position, cept be incredibly upset.

(i've managed to avoid the whole marriage gig altogether)

very good luck and take care of yourself

Hey it really could be worse..you could initiate the divorce like I did about ten months ago, because your spouse was self centered, egotistical, unable to communicate in a reasonable way, and was the noisiest person I've ever met (no joke! that man was constantly using tools, and office tools mind you, not the real ones, such as the pencil sharpener, the paper shredder), that I could not study, do my research, or try and write papers, when he was in the house....and then you file for divorce, and thanks to the lovely court docket system, he's not even close to being served yet.
Funny.. when you don't want to leave, they leave you, and when you want to, you can't seem to leave fast enough..
Nova

Chain and Stabile-your arguements are intriguing ang thought provoking. You two should have your own sub-forum. Wow.

Just curious though, did you two notice you lost the original poster? :D

thkpaul-so sorry you are going through such a hardship. My best advice would be to focus on the kids. They will need you and your soon-to-be-ex more than ever now. Everything else will eventually work itself out. And it might surprise you how much concentrating on them will help you get through this.

Good luck. Love yourself.

Chain and Stabile-your arguements are intriguing ang thought provoking. You two should have your own sub-forum. Wow.

Just curious though, did you two notice you lost the original poster? :D
.
LOL, I know... whoops ;) ADD topic switches!

I wanted to thank you all for taking the time and helping me with my situation. It feels good that people care and I haven't met one of you. I have had more people turn there backs on me that I have known for years. I have decided to focus on my children and spend as much time with them as I possibly can. All my troubles seem to drift away when my two girls are giggling because there dad is spending time with them. With the infamous words "there is no try, only do" I am going to stay where I am for my girls. Things may be rocky for me but its not there fault all this happened and I am going to make sure that they know that the rest of there lives. Thank you again for all of you support :)