View Full Version : Why is it that ADHD affects brain development differently depending on a person's IQ


acdc01
11-25-15, 09:54 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335015/

I was reading about how ADHD affected people differently depending on their IQ. That there are actually neurological differences.

Anyone have any ideas on why that is?

Is it cause the higher IQ brain was different to begin with (I read that high IQ folks literally see the world differently focusing on moving objects more and being more likely to miss bigger static objects)?

I'm not sure if there really is a scientifically proven answer this question yet but thought I'd ask.

dvdnvwls
11-25-15, 04:03 PM
Maybe there really are different types of ADHD that have different causes?

Maybe it's what you said.

Maybe it's backwards - maybe the IQ is an effect rather than a cause?

I'm very sure that I don't know. :)

aeon
11-26-15, 08:08 AM
Thank you for the link you provided. I found it fascinating, and the documented processes for 1mm voxel volume calculations based on MRI with a blurring kernel for mesh vertices really got my inner computer graphics nerd excited.

As to your questions, I have no idea whatsoever.

As a result of my having had an infarction within the flocculonodular lobe of my cerebellum (a stroke), affecting my vestibular nerve, the function and structure of my brain has been studied in some depth by means of CT scans and MRI.

Aside from the discovered infarct, all structures of my brain were described as normative as found on my medical record.

I know my IQ score, having been tested as a child, and again, as a young adult. Given the parameters of the study, I would be grouped in the above-median set.


FWIW,
Ian

SB_UK
11-26-15, 09:34 AM
h (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335015/)

Is it cause the higher IQ brain was different to begin with (I read that high IQ folks literally see the world differently focusing on moving objects more and being more likely to miss bigger static objects)?



Sensitivity again

Just 1 selected trait - increased sensory informational upload ?

It all comes down to an evol mechanism for 'learning' intrinsic quality through a reward system which rewards increasing informational complexity/subtlety ie sensitivity in all of the usual suspect senses which give rise to what we consider as the finer things in life.

Simply - internal mechanism for capturing more information - happiest when becoming intrinsically better.

Reward though can be obtained elsewhere eg meds where no personal improvement need (though meds may facilitate) occur.

HSP perceptivity does virtually guarantee high I.Q. scores for most of us
http://sensitivity-hsp.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/top-ten-myths-about-highly-sensitive.html

Make sense ? HSP - Sensitivity to patterns = intelligence ?
Is intelligence sophisticated pattern matching ability ?

Certainly the case in artificial intelligence - the ability to train recognition in patterns.

Idea ^^^ interesting because from the early days people wanted to associate intelligence with wealth ie the rich were intrinsically better - the epigenetic argument of selection for sensitivity (ie the HDAC argument) - suggests that it's not those that have the most but pretty much those who don't - where selection will occur. Conditional on ability to apply oneself though ie if there's no capacity to learn in poverty then enhanced capacity for sensitivity will turn from intelligence associated to distress associated ie enhanced distress exposure of sensitivity to insensitivity.

Simplest summary - increased capacity to recognize sensory informational complexity evolving as genetics hands over the reins of betterment to brain.
Intelligence is an effect of Increased sensitivity when applied.

high IQ folks literally see the world differently focusing on moving objects

SB_UK
11-26-15, 10:31 AM
Rather than rich vs poor -
better way to put it - is a volitional asceticism which immerses the individual within broad-sense (forget academic qualifications) learning - compatible with poverty - results in intelligence via neural restructuring
- enhanced sensitivity etc
- but that wealth which chooses that path - can follow it also.
And that poverty which doesn't - will similarly fail to achieve the enhanced sensitivity which belies intelligence.

So - more to suggest that a principled and directed asceticism which may be taken regardless of wealth is the goal.
A reward system of unrelentingly striving towards personal betterment in the interests of improving the collective macro-[people, animals, insects, micro-orgs, the Universe]-environment.

Human beings are even dumping satellite waste into space. (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html)

For a supposedly intelligent species how dumb is that ?

-*-

Why is it that ADHD affects brain development differently depending on a person's IQ ?If you're smart you move out of the path of moving traffic.

Intended meaning of 'smart' - working in the best interests of one's own health
'Move out of the path of moving traffic' - personal insight into what one finds distressing

Human beings soldier on towards increasing money, power even when it's clear that it's doing them no good.

If we take IQ to mean 'smart' (which is doesn't) - then ADD disorder element (ie distress) will be alleviated if one listens to one's 'smarts' defined as capacity to develop personal insight into what one finds distressing anf to avoid distress.

So -

ADHD [distress exposure- disorder element of ADHD greater as distress exposure increases] affects brain development [distress stunts intrinsic [neural correlate or equivalent] quality development] differently depending on a person's IQ [= insight and then action resulting in distress-avoidance]
- we need to lose the stick (addictive reward) and embrace the carrot (intrinsic betterment).

Can't tell the difference between a fine wine and vinegar unless one educates one's palate; the reward is in the taste and not the Facebook selfie taken with the picture of the price tag.

acdc01
11-30-15, 01:02 PM
Thanks for your input guys.

I found your personal experiences interesting Aeon - thanks for sharing that.

It's possible one study's results might not be accurate - probably more research would be required but I would think this wouldn't be an area that receives a lot of funding. Also, I wonder if when they say brain size is smaller, if that "smaller" size is still within the low range of normal in which case your doctors wouldn't have commented on it during your scan.

SB_UK
11-30-15, 01:59 PM
I think things can get smaller as level of interconnection increase eg a well-packed suitcase can store more than a poorly packed one.
Before we equate big to good - I guess it's important that we spare a moment to the dinosaur.

If we're all about quality - if it were me - I'd make human beings as small as possible - as quality is human size independent. A truffle would go a thousand times further if we were a thousand times smaller - but not really knowing if truffles are nice to eat - I'll refrain from making a decision on whether that's a good thing or not.

aeon
11-30-15, 02:45 PM
Also, I wonder if when they say brain size is smaller, if that "smaller" size is still within the low range of normal in which case your doctors wouldn't have commented on it during your scan.

That could be the case in the study.

In my case, I am near the top of the range considered normative. I don’t know what that number actually is...they didn’t make note of that in their notes. That said, my doctor describes my degree of impairment as “severe.”

I agree that this is the sort of thing that wouldn’t receive much funding for further study.

My sense is there are multiple causes which can lead to a diagnosis of ADHD. If that is the case, it might provide some explanation for the various subtype presentations.


Cheers,
Ian

acdc01
11-30-15, 11:45 PM
My sense is there are multiple causes which can lead to a diagnosis of ADHD. If that is the case, it might provide some explanation for the various subtype presentations.


I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. Bummer we can't know the answer. Maybe someday.

KarmanMonkey
12-01-15, 03:26 PM
My feeling is that an IQ test isn't a measure of intelligence so much as it's a measure of specific skills.

So saying ADD develops differently based on IQ is like saying that ADD develops differently based on the individual's unique strengths and qualities.

That's why we see so many different backgrounds and lives and people here; like with mental illness, dealing with ADD is closely tied in with how we approach problems, how we respond to the world, and how we see ourselves. Someone who is a strong book learner will likely do more research about ADD and the science behind it, and find solutions there. Someone who is a more tactile learner will likely avoid the research and focus on the more practical solutions.

FogNoggin
12-01-15, 03:54 PM
Karman Monkey means that because we have our ADHD's and ADD's, we have learned to cope with the world in a different way and look at it in a different way, and because we weren't paying attention to the instruction, we are forced to figure it out on our own.

I can't count how many times I missed instructions on something, and had to figure it out on my own, and fast.

Someone can show something to someone about a part in a system, but they will learn more about the whole system if they weren't shown a thing and had to service the system with limited knowledge.

To summarize, I wasn't paying attention about the job, but I need to do the job as if I did pay attention, that's where my brain steps in to cross the 'i's and dot the 't's.

Pilgrim
12-01-15, 05:03 PM
Use it or loose it.

acdc01
12-01-15, 09:27 PM
My feeling is that an IQ test isn't a measure of intelligence so much as it's a measure of specific skills.

So saying ADD develops differently based on IQ is like saying that ADD develops differently based on the individual's unique strengths and qualities.

I don't see anything wrong with saying that ADD might develop different based on specific strengths and qualities (if that's what you want to call IQ). Each of us have inherent strengths/weakness given to us by nature (even if we nurture some more than others).

Shouldn't there be some biological difference that causes each of us to have these different strengths/weaknesses? And perhaps certain biological differences cause us to react differently to different diseases/disorders? Or different disorders can cause us to have biological changes that can affect our different strengths/weaknesses?

SB_UK
12-02-15, 02:05 PM
Surely the best measure of true intelligence is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better ?

And in a strange way - the level of disorder should be proportional to the level of 'intelligence' as defined above - because anybody motivated to express their intelligence in this world will find it simply frightfully difficult petunia. All people seem to want in this world are loadsa dosh (slang for moolah), a fancy title, a bag load of stuff that other people don't have and to be an A-lister for the power and network it subsumes.

I prefer to hang with the low :-) life; far nicer they are.

sarahsweets
12-03-15, 06:59 AM
I might have said this already but I always do terrible on IQ tests. If anyone were to see a score they would wonder if I was related to Forrest Gump. Yet put me in a situation that needs some out of the box thinking, problem solving and quick response and I am Einstein.

acdc01
12-04-15, 01:40 AM
I might have said this already but I always do terrible on IQ tests. If anyone were to see a score they would wonder if I was related to Forrest Gump. Yet put me in a situation that needs some out of the box thinking, problem solving and quick response and I am Einstein.

We don't test well sarahsweets. I wouldn't be surprised if your "IQ" is a lot higher than your test scores show.

I'm not trying to put "IQ" on a pedestal by the way and valuing it more or anything. I'm just wondering about biology here and how ADHD affects us.

Oh and SB_UK, I would love it if the world thought of intelligence the way you describe.

SB_UK
12-04-15, 05:01 AM
I might have said this already but I always do terrible on IQ tests. If anyone were to see a score they would wonder if I was related to Forrest Gump. Yet put me in a situation that needs some out of the box thinking, problem solving and quick response and I am Einstein.

ADDers won't solve a problem unless they want to know the answer.

No - that can't be right - why should wanting to know the answer to any given problem alter the ADDer's attendance rate ?

Because wanting means reward gained and we don't half suffer from locating reward in life ... ... suffer stress instead - and then have to spend our life self-medicating to overcome the stress of failure to achieve personal reward - when in fact - simply separating ourselves off from societal convention - is all we need - ie freedom from co-ercion - to achieve a state of mind - where we're sufficiently rewarded
- potentially from the exact same things that are not rewarding when co-ercion is involved.

It's funny that thought - that the exact same thing can shift from personally rewarding to aversive and back again simply based on whether we're told to vs whether we choose to do it.

SB_UK
12-04-15, 06:26 AM
So - I'd suggest that the true mark of intelligence is somebody who is actually and intrinsically incapable of taking an IQ test because it's wholly pointless.

Intelligence should be roaming the streets helping people - not seeking a certificate.

Just about sums up Western education - a life of learning facts of no intrinsic value for a certificate which doesn't qualify an individual to do anything - simply serves as a filter to separate people who can do the job from other people who can do the job.

Where the job isn't worth doing in the first place - as anybody with any intelligence would know.

Little Missy
12-04-15, 09:40 AM
I have no idea what and IQ test or an SAT test is. Never had one, been offered one nor asked to take one.

Probably wasn't trendy back in the days of really cool looking and super fast cars.

Fuzzy12
12-04-15, 10:58 AM
Surely the best measure of true intelligence is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better ?



SB, your definition of intelligence is completely arbitrary. You might as well say that the best measure of being tidy is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better or the best measure of being tall is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better or the best measure of height is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better or the best measure of obesity is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better, etc :scratch:

SB_UK
12-04-15, 11:11 AM
I have no idea what and IQ test or an SAT test is. Never had one, been offered one nor asked to take one.

Probably wasn't trendy back in the days of really cool looking and super fast cars.

From memory of the 80s - there was an awful lot of Mensa certificates helping to unlock the door to Oxford and Cambridge places for positions in banks for bonuses which can buy 'really cool looking and super fast cars'.

Apparently banks only want the smartest people (I heard that on an episode of Sherlock last night) -

- and what better way to find intelligence than a certificate.

SB_UK
12-04-15, 12:00 PM
SB, your definition of intelligence is completely arbitrary. You might as well say that the best measure of being tidy is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better or the best measure of being tall is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better or the best measure of height is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better or the best measure of obesity is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better, etc :scratch:
Define a mind and you determine what intelligence is.
As simple as that.

All you need to do is define what a mind does.
And the better it does it - the more mindy a mind is.

Clue - what can human beings do that animals can't and which is good.

Formulate useful abstract thoughts.

So useful thought capacity = intelligence.

So useful thought capacity == the extent to which an individual is oriented [ie state of mind dependent] towards making life (collectively) better

Why is the bit about useful == making life better important ?
Because eg nuclear bombs are fairly clever but life would be immeasurably worse if we all started pinging em off in the near or even far vicinity.

It's not mindy unless it's some level of abstract idea which is objectively and rationally constructed towards collective improvement - where the individual's reward in expressing their own mind into activity and making the world 'better' is reward in itself.

It's such an obvious idea that I'm finding it hard to type it out - a bit like telling people that if you don't breathe you'll die.

Nobody should ever need to be told this.

And yet nobody seems to realise.

Fuzzy12
12-04-15, 12:12 PM
Define a mind and you determine what intelligence is.
As simple as that.

All you need to do is define what a mind does.
And the better it does it - the more mindy a mind is.

Clue - what can human beings do that animals can't and which is good.

Formulate abstract thoughts.
And what determines what the thoughts are useful.

So useful thought capacity = intelligence.

So useful thought capacity == the extent to which an individual is oriented [ie state of min ddependent] towards making life (collectively) better

I like your way of equating intelligence with abstract thought (or rather abstract thinking). I guess, that's how I would use the word intelligent (even though the aspects of abstract thinking that IQ tests evaluate are very, very limited.)

I don't necessarily agree though that

1. the usefulness of your thoughts is an indication of how intelligent you are
2. that there is a single, fundamental, easily determined definition of "usefulness"

I think, there's a difference between being moral/ethical/invested in the well being of your fellow humans and being intelligent though they are not mutually exclusively of course.

I think what you call intelligent, I'd probably call "nice" (and that is fairly arbitrary as well) and I guess that for the sake of the world, it might be better if people were nicer rather than necessarily more intelligent.



Why is the bit about useful == making life better important ?
Because eg nuclear bombs are fairly clever but life would be immeasurably worse if we all started pinging em off in the near or even far vicinity.

It's not mindy unless it's some level of abstract idea which is objectively and rationally constructed towards collective improvement - where the individual's reward in expressing their own mind into activity and making the world 'better' is reward in itself.

It's such an obvious idea that I'm finding it hard to type it out - a bit like telling people that if you don't breathe you'll die.

Nobody should ever need to be told this.

And yet nobody seems to realise.

I'll get back to this bit..but first thoughts: Maybe it's because it's not obvious at all and depends on a lot of assumptions. :scratch:

Little Missy
12-04-15, 01:18 PM
From memory of the 80s - there was an awful lot of Mensa certificates helping to unlock the door to Oxford and Cambridge places for positions in banks for bonuses which can buy 'really cool looking and super fast cars'.

Apparently banks only want the smartest people (I heard that on an episode of Sherlock last night) -

- and what better way to find intelligence than a certificate.

Oh, this was long before the 80's.

And we worked for our cars and we liked it!

SB_UK
12-04-15, 02:07 PM
Oh, this was long before the 80's.

And we worked for our cars and we liked it!

Yes - the 80s was the decade when all people were lead to believe they could have it all - at least with the right certificate.


Nobody realized that the point was to *want* to give it all away as in ALL.


Don't have to give it all away.
Must not give it all away if you don't want.

The point was to *want* to give it all away.

- to *want* to give it all away
because you had it all - all that you needed to be happy
... ... were complete
- without any artificial title, item of belonging, status, bank balance size or CV.

SB_UK
12-04-15, 02:12 PM
I like your way of equating intelligence with abstract thought (or rather abstract thinking). I guess, that's how I would use the word intelligent (even though the aspects of abstract thinking that IQ tests evaluate are very, very limited.)

I don't necessarily agree though that

1. the usefulness of your thoughts is an indication of how intelligent you are
2. that there is a single, fundamental, easily determined definition of "usefulness"

I think, there's a difference between being moral/ethical/invested in the well being of your fellow humans and being intelligent though they are not mutually exclusively of course.

I think what you call intelligent, I'd probably call "nice" (and that is fairly arbitrary as well) and I guess that for the sake of the world, it might be better if people were nicer rather than necessarily more intelligent.



I'll get back to this bit..but first thoughts: Maybe it's because it's not obvious at all and depends on a lot of assumptions. :scratch:


You can't be nice without a mind.
You need to know (abstract understanding of reality) if something is in another person's best interests, before giving it to them ... ... otherwise you simply find the usual nice bozos who think they're nice if they lay out a whole body organ failure alcohol, animal product and cake spread for you to die painfully in.

You can't be nice unless you sport an intelligence of sorts
- one which permits objective reflection and which strives (at that point by definition) - to do what's right.

In short data + wisdom structure of mind == intelligence.

How do I know hat wisdom structure of mind is important ?

Because it defines a change in an individual's relationship with data - in thst it seeks to incorporate rather than ignore data.
It has no self-definition and so no 'fixed' posiion against which it itself raises any subjective objection.
And rather does fancy (seee KD) the prospect of being wrong.

Subject of being wrong with no fixed allegiance is problematic - personal plight - the desire to be right makes all of an individual's views 'works in progress' ie there's no way of being wrong as one hasn't any association with 'right'.

What's the relationship between wisdom and being wrong - you can't become better unless you're proven wrong.

What's the relationship between having no mind (not wisdom structure of mind) and being wrong - the self fights to maintain its flimsy individual perspective and so objects to opposing viewpoints.

-*-

So what are IQ tests ?

They're some sort of game which evidence shows can gained (skill in) via training.

What is intelligence actually ?

As close to an internally consistent model of abstract logic which takes all available data and presents it in one package which reports back a single path for people (the individual) to take to make the world better; each individual will be different but the thread which unites will be the motivation (positive social) which comes with that form of mind ie whatever you do - you're doing for personal reward - for the benefit of at least some 'thing' and the harm of 'no' thing. Dedicate your life to a scientific model of increasing the life quality of your pet tortoise by growing him a special type of grass - you've increased the quality of life of some thing, participated in life in a manner in which you've derived reward and not allowed anybody to suffer in your personal lifelong plight to have a happy tortoise.


It's important to note that you don't need to know it all - just enough ie when one realises that law is pointless - you don't actually have to read a single legal rule - the entire body of statements of law are simply garbage.
PS Law's just an easy subject to pick on because most people do know it's useless - but this idea spreads far beyond law and economics and takes in so many areas - infested with 'experts' who're cringing behind their sofas - completely naked - because they know that they're fraudulent - simplyhiding behind an esoteric language which prevents others from peering into and seeing the lack of information content from the perspective of intelligence (definition that I'm using).

That kinda' logic.

SB_UK
12-04-15, 02:35 PM
Why is it that ADHD affects brain development differently depending on a person's IQ
Simply the more intelligent you are (using my definition ie oriented towards moral behaviour, social reward etc)
then the more ADH disordered (since disorder is just a distress reaction)
you'll be
in a world such as ours full of zombies
who're only interested in their own self-gratification and not the wellbeing of others
through a form of addiction which is partly borne in self-medication using addictive substances the pain of living amongst zombies.

The simple solution is to investigate and apply morality within society as an individual's growth medium - resulting in intelligence (my definition) flourishing.

-*-

As simply as possible - enjoy learning what doing good is and then enjoy doing good - generates an intelligent individual. And this form of education leads to wisdom - a state of mind in which you are free.

-*-

even easier
a life without point * makes for pointless lives

* point defn - see my defn intelligence

-*-

The great flaw in mind - it can't see that it should ONLY occupy itself with making things NOT worse <- this should be so obvious that people should be yawning - instead I think that people are scratching their heads in consternation.

This is the single directive underlying human motivation and therefore the pattern of development of the human mind:
that it [individual [hands] <-> mind] should ONLY occupy itself with making things NOT worse

It's not easy to be nice/intelligent/moral - it requires genuine effort to know what is in the best interests of people.

Where killing people, beating people, making people pay for their home, making people clean your toilet is ALL wrong <- all aspects of life which are rewarded in current society ie the man who has a woman clean his toilet has 'made it'.

Anybody with any decency should feel shamed at the prospect of somebody else doing something demeaning like that for them; not too great a distance though from the landlord charging rent on property though ie all human interactions in this current world are variations on toilet user - toilet cleaner.

A world without intelligence which defines intelligence by a metric which the MOST stupid of people can score highly in - creating the illusion that the pointless wealthy (self-professed intelligent) are justified in wreaking abuse on those with less.

I'm richer than you and so more intelligent than you and so clean my toilet.

Not just toilet cleaners - but chefs, janitors, secretaries, kitchen porters, delivery drivers and odd job men - all just human-sized toilet brushes

SB_UK
12-04-15, 03:22 PM
Here's a simple but opposing argument

Why is it that ADHD affects brain development differently depending on a person's IQ ?So argument above -
true intelligence -> most disordered in current society

Why is it that ADHD affects brain development differently depending on a person's IQ ?Argument used above elsewhere -

true stupidity -> ability to pay attention and do well in pointless IQ tests -> least disordered in current society.

Why is it that ADHD affects brain development differently depending on a person's IQ ?
Gets even worse though - as 'intelligence' can lead to more disorder or less disorder (as above) - but can also lead to NO DIFFERENCE IN disorder ie put somebody in an environment free from exposure to the average human being with craving for money, power
eg in a monastery -
- and one's level of disorder whether intelligent or stupid (by my definition) - won't affect one's level of distress - as the individual is in a distress-free external environment.

So - the answer to the question is it'll totally affect it in one way, will totally affect it in the exact opposite way, and can possibly not affect it at all - with all of the infinite number points in this spectrum in between - being possible also.

-*-

The problem here lies within the definition of words which the individual uses.

It's much more difficult than passing out a dictionary and forcing people to be consistent - because - what we also require is a working model of the mechanism underlying intelligence and the mechanism underlying the qualities assessed in an IQ test - neither of which are provided by a dictionary which does not offer actual mechanistic definition.

ie just vague descriptive instead of precise mechanistic

mctavish23
12-04-15, 07:42 PM
Simply put, ADHD represents, among other things, a developmental delay; including cortical

development, which is entirely consistent with some of the earliest research on cerebral

glucose metabolic activity (1990 & 1993).

Perhaps the easiest way to put this, would be to refer back to the old adage that "ADHD is

doing what you know, and not knowing what to do." In other words, IQ has been, and re-

-mains, a terrible barometer for gauging ADHD, because ADHD impairs the ability to apply

what you know in the real world.

Hope that helps.

tc

mctavish23
(Robert)


PS
Nice to be back

SB_UK
12-05-15, 05:00 AM
So if we're on a train to meet somebody at a specific time - we'll miss the guy if the train is delayed.

All we need is a mobile phone so we can call the guy when we arrive.

A society constructed in that image is not possible in a society where all people are [academically] assessed at the exact same time.

The developmentally delayed ADDer will be discarded by a society in which persistent deadlines 'll mean that your train won't even make it to its first destination - since it's impossible to get to Z [wisdom] if we miss the lesson on A [learn to use words].

Just the irony - that we may end up being disordered if we fail to make it to A, or make it prematurely to Z - because although these 2 states offer differing roots to distress - whether you're enforcedly (by an inflexible educational system) stupid (and distressed as a result) or enforcedly distressed as a result of bearing a mind in a violently immature society - in both of these cases - distress as the principal agent of preventing healthy brain (NOBODY learns when under duresse) development will reign - and the individual will not be well.

One can't learn (broad-sense) ie adaptive brain development (ie the thing the brain does as we grow and learn) if one feels oneself to be [perpetually on route to A] or sees all others to be [out of the window at station Z] stupid (== behaving out of consistency with collective improvement).

To behave consistently with collective development do you have to hold people's hands, sing to them and generally behave like a damp dishcloth ?
No - one has to concentrate on improving oneself and others without needing a constant pat on the back and without enjoying seeing poverty (those less fortunate than you, mostly through what you're doing) suffer.

So - it's more a model for auto-rewarding tireless and unrelenting work for personal/collective improvement which we need - where all people in this current society want (people in the dirty bog brush model of society (as described above) cf delegation)) also ie current society's a Marxist pyramid of foul smelling toilet brushes without access to washing facility) is to get somebody else to work for them.

People negatively characterize a world of self-directed betterment where the work is reward in itself - as having to 'carry' the deliberately lazy on one's back - when it's actually the deliberately lazy who want to be carried on other peoples' backs.
Problem is - is that human beings aren't designed to be carried - the body and mind withers - people need to stop carrying other people - for both the slave and the withering (bring an image of Mr. Burns from the Simpsons or Gollum from the LOTR movies) slave master's benefit ... ... decrepitude in somebody else's finery.

SB_UK
12-05-15, 05:42 AM
Simply put, ADHD represents, among other things, a developmental delay; including cortical

development, which is entirely consistent with some of the earliest research on cerebral

glucose metabolic activity (1990 & 1993).

Perhaps the easiest way to put this, would be to refer back to the old adage that "ADHD is

doing what you know, and not knowing what to do." In other words, IQ has been, and re-

-mains, a terrible barometer for gauging ADHD, because ADHD impairs the ability to apply

what you know in the real world.

Hope that helps.

tc

mctavish23
(Robert)


PS
Nice to be back


As McT knows - there's a problem with the developmental delay model - as it very definitely applies - but there are people here who were accelerated (academic achievement) and others who were delayed.

I think that in ADHD - we're either accelerated in emotional intelligence / delayed in standard intelligence - or the other way around.

So- this describes Sherlock and Dr Watson in the new series.
Also - is the usual characterization of man and wife - though the roles can switch.

So developmental delay (failing at school) accurately describes one of our kids - the other one though finds schoolwork trivial. The one who finds schoolwork trivialis naturally non-empathic - whereas the other is more friend oriented.

So - just the suggestion that having the mind of a 7 year old in the body of a 10 year old (one of our kids is like this) or the emotional intelligence of a 7 year old in the body of a 10 year old (ie tendency towards blundering into hurting the feelings of others) (other kid is like this) - are two representations of cortical maturation delay.

A 'schizophrenic'-tendency and an 'Asperger's'-tendency type.
The 2 poles of the mental health spectrum - defining what a mind is.

Intelligence [male archetype can be found in woman gender also] -<- rationally
Emotion [female archetype can be found in man eg Dr Watson] -<- socially

ie conjunction of to do what is rationally / socially right as the definition of mind.

Define a mind and you determine what intelligence is.
As simple as that.

-*-

So relationship of a standard interpretation of intelligence (ie capacity to say something meaningful) and ADHD is difficult to make.
Though in the environment of an inflexible schooling system intelligence defined delayed will develop in a manner which will make them appear (ie incapacity to say anything meaningful ie loss of abstract idea handling capacity) - what would be mistaken for stupid.

mctavish23
12-05-15, 08:21 PM
SB_UK,

Excellent points. IQ is only a measure of what someone knows at the time; which can obviously vary within certain (statisitical) parameters.

tc

Robert

TygerSan
12-05-15, 10:16 PM
So developmental delay (failing at school) accurately describes one of our kids - the other one though finds schoolwork trivial. The one who finds schoolwork trivialis naturally non-empathic - whereas the other is more friend oriented.

Developmental delay... perhaps developmental deviance is a better term for this? Being out of sync with what is considered normal, with uneven skills.

Personally, I'm quite empathetic in some ways, and completely tone deaf in others. My emotional regulation (or lack thereof) is what really hurts me still. I did well in school but did not find schoolwork trivial, but rather terrifying at times, wanting to please everyone else to please myself (after all, I was "smart" and good at learning).

SB_UK
12-06-15, 04:52 AM
IQ test
http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20121218/iq-test-really-measure-intelligence?page=1
relating to paper in Journal Neurone
According to the findings, there are at least three components that affect overall performance on tests. These include short-term memory, reasoning, and verbal recall.
Lifestyle factors count, too. For example, gamers -- or people who play a lot of computer games -- score higher on tests of reasoning and short-term memory. Smokers do poorly on tests assessing short-term memory and vocabulary, while test takers who have anxiety (http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/default.htm) don't do as well on short-term memory tests, the study shows.So if we played computer games - we'd develop higher IQs.

The problem here is that even the best capacity at oure maths, knowing the definition of all words having a great memory can develop in the absence of morality.

Quite easily - we may observe an individual with excellence in any and all of these areas - without any social conscience eg the mathematician where famously - as the mathematician 'excels' they tend towards making no reference to other people's work ie there's some level of anti-social wrapped up in excellence in systematizing intelligence.

Are they inconsisctent ?

The problem with having a social conscience is that there needs to be a socail rationale to any system which one strives towards excellence in.
So - to excel in any system which has no impact on social improvement - would not carry with in 'reward' ... ... the question would become - 'all well and good - I'm the world expert in nothing of any consequence' ... ...

So - can systematizing excellence exist in the presence of empathizing excellence ?
It's hard to believe that we're not able to use the mind to generate complex abstract ideas which're consistent with species betterment.

So - what would these types of ideas look like ?
I'd suggest that an understanding (not application of the understanding) of reality ie how the gene works, how the chemical works, how the atom works ie 'understandign for the sake' wrapped up into simple teaching methods would be one example of the use of mind in a socailly beneficial way ie to understand how stuff works but without any desire to fiddle with evolutionary systems - and ESPECIALLY without any desire to persoally profit in any way from fiddling with evolutionary systems.

The elegant solution - can tend towards being a complex system - though the trick is to generate a complex system which is simple.
So - it's hard to see us discarding the computer - but it's similarly hard for us to see the continued existence of computers as is - ie lumps of waste after a couple of years when the CPU no longer cuts it.

-*-

tone deaf

knows at the time

Intense world theory of autism

mental health disorders - schizophrenia to ADHD to autism

If we put these 4 pieces of information together.

We could generate a model in which an ADDer individual inherits the mechanism described by Markram in some cortically defined capacity (from their genetic line) - giving rise to a natural capacity which the individual will tend towards - and which will tend towards making the individual appear to be similar (at a mechanism of brain/mind rather than genome) to their parents in what we'd call a personality characteristic.
So - we might find that a child will inherit enhanced capacity in music (TS tone deaf) or language or spatial reasoning (eg a mechanic) ... ... ...

So - if we can simply put in inherited capacity for 'excellence' inherited in child by a tendency for that specific neural capacity to express itself - then we arrive back at Simon Baron-Cohen's theory of autism ie increased levels in academics - naturally enhanced in systematizing and degraded in empathizing capacty.
We're looking to drive reward from confluence of sensory, empathizing and systematizing reward simultaneously to be balanced.

-*-

So - summarising.

Wondering whether ADDer child may inherit ENHANCED (Markram model) capacity developed in parents for specific cortical characteristics (broadly speaking - some measure of systematizing ability partic esoteric language usage, some measure of empathizing ability partic simple/clear language usage, some measure of sensory ability eg musical capacity, visual capacity).

Interesting observation - esoteric language, communicative language and eg poetry/lyrics are all variants on language usage - where the acquisition of the capacity for abstract language must be considered key in understanding the human mind.

-*-

According to the findings, there are at least three components that affect overall performance on tests. These include short-term memory, reasoning, and verbal recall.


-*-

Summarising

It's hard to discount the idea that language is of key importance in the development of humans and then ADDer.
Language must have some relationship wth the 3 factors above relating to IQ ie
short-term memory (initialy acquisition fo language)
verbal recall (short term to long term transfer of words)
reasoning (each and every sentence we construct is an act of reasoning ie the individual betrays their reasoning capcity by the words they use)

-*-

Language usage/excellence is very definitely trainable with use.

Systematizing capacity could be used to develop a complex understanding of words - which then, through an understanding of the complexity - allows an individual to use simple language ie you can't navigate an individual through a minefield unless you can see the mines (places where an individual will misinterprete you).

-*-

So what is mind ?
A moral framework littered with logically connected definitions atached to labels (words) which the individual uses dependent on the state of their mind.
The individual's intelligence develops as this framework fills in a logically internally consistent way.

So - we can travel back to this as a mechanism for:
http://www.addforums.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1773672#post1773672) Surely the best measure of true intelligence is the extent to which an individual is oriented towards making life (collectively) better ?

An internally consistent framework of logically consistent meanings attached to what we call words - which are expressed by virtue of the interconnection defining mind - by the individual (depending on the nature and completion of the framework) in an individual being more (or less) oriented towards making life (collectively) better.

-*-

Why are you concentrating on words ?
Because the word may cross the 3 major subsets of empathizing, systematizing and sensory reward.

ie the power of lyrics (or is poetry perhaps a better choice) to drive reward

- noting that in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - the individuals with the least intelligence were the Vogons - who wrote bad poetry (Adams pointing at the the lawyer bureaucrat ie people who introduce pointless rules for everybody to follow under pain of death (YOU MU$T PAY!!)).

-*-

Morality needs to be built into word usage - or all we end up with is a legal or mathematical system which nobody understands because -
It says nothing to me about my life

- hang the blessed DJ (http://calvarychapelabuse.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/judge.jpg).

-*-

From this idea - we jump into the idea above - that all that human beings need to understand is that in the absence of coercin (judge, lawyer, police, army, money) - people will do things based on naturally occurring reward ie that co-ercion is the problem - not work.

-*-

Finally - wrapping all of this together.

Under the banner of intelligence.

Overall summary
We use language to communicate.
We need to understand what words mean before we can communicate.
All meaning hangs together in an individual's mind - and words are labels in this interconnected structure of meaning - in such a way, one finds oneself logically consistent with oneself when one talks.
The weaker this structure - the more easily an individual can be subjectively logically consistent but objectively logically inconsistent.
Word capacity is very definitely a novel human characteristic.
Word capacity fulfils the 3 major subsets of human behaviour (empathizing, systematizing and sensory) - but it has to be emphasized that it's possible to use words in just 1 of these 3 subsets ie that using words across all three is not a given.
Now - if we have an inherited capacity in either empathizing, sensory and/or sensory - then we have the basis (much as genetics provides us with physical similarity to parents) to personality inheritance ie if you're naturally better at running - in this society and partic in children who want to win - the individual will train their inherited characteristic and not their weaknesses - back to the idea from previously - of generating a balanced and not an imbalanced individual - required from education.
So ... ... we've knocked out the basis of mind, inheritance of personality, basis to ADHD as inherited excellence by Markram's model in empathic, systematizing or sensory capacity - and described - through development of empathic, systematizing or sensory usage of words - the generation of intelligence.

-*-

What don't I like ?
This is a wholly word-based model of intelligence.
It feels as though we're disadvantaging those who do not like words - but in actual fact - these people may only be disadvantaged in systematizing word usage .

What do I like ?
This is a wholly word-based model of intelligence.
It's very simple.

SB_UK
12-06-15, 05:31 AM
Sorry - out of time

Where do I want to get with these ideas ?
[1]
Connection of Markram model of autism with a basic evolutionary mechanism involving the neurone - which leads to enhanced sensitivity.
[2]
Enhanced sensitivity expressed in sensory, empathizing and systematizing paradigms.
[3]
Only when all 3 are developed simultaneously - does the individual shift towards morality - eventually wisdom (freeedom).

Current society topples individuals into 1 EOR 2 EOR 3 and not 1 AND 2 AND 3 ie if you're good at:
**SENSORY - woodwork you spend all of your time becoming a carpenter or associated sensory heavy (because you're naturally gifted / trained in these) tasks.
Also eg in SENSORY - the common finding of organizations labelled 'X and son' ie the excellence followed by training inherited - a neural mechanism for inheritance of personality traits ... ...

EMPATHIZING - talking to other people - you spend all your time becoming a counsellor or associated empathizing heavy (because you're naturally gifted / trained in these) tasks.

SYSTEMATIZING - doing maths - you spend all of your time becoming a mathematician or associated systematizing heavy (because you're naturally gifted / trained in these) tasks.

From an ADDer point of view - we also need to tie in the idea that reward system activation comes about through development of the:
SENSORY
EMPATHIZING
SYSTEMATIZING
capacities.

ie that reward system activation is of course key in driving an individual into some pursuit.
Not a bad thing unless tendency in 1 EOR ... ... drives the individual to neglect 1 AND ... ...

-*-

** Particularly attractive idea - have been trying to work out why I've ended up meeting a large number of individuals that like to do car mechanic work, building work and cooking ... ... SENSORY associated -
- where in all cases - the individual also appears to be disabled in the other two balancing qualities of mind.

This is a challenging model - because it describes a complete failure in all of the world's institutions - in generating lop-sided and not balanced individuals - where the key to freedom comes from balance - because morality cannot be generated if only one of the three aspects of what it is to be a human are developed - in the absence of the other two - the individual does not develop social/moral motivation.

-*-
- the individual does not develop social/moral motivation.

-> LEADS TO ->


The only idea that a person need understand ... ... is that ***if*** we're not free to find a personally rewarding path through life and are forced to 'earn' a living then that all that we should do - shall inevitably be tainted.
Co-ercion necessarily pre-empts social collapse on a global stage.
The only rationale for work is all-inclusive collective betterment ... ... ... absolutely not exclusively personal self-gratification which is all that a world of money can offer.and so in the absence of co-ercion and the capacity to develop social/moral motivation

->

The individual is not exposed to distress

->

diStress exposure leads via cortisol to pro-inflammatory processes

->

pro-inflammatory processes underlie ALL disorders of Western style living.

-*-

Conclusion
The basis to all Western style problems (particularly the diseases of premature pain, disease and death) can be traced back to Western style co-ercive infrastructure.
We're all different - and we need a society which permits differences in development and not a society which insists that we're all the same at specific time-points.
We need balanced individuals as the path to morality, wisdom [individual personal freedom from the need for reward].

SB_UK
12-06-15, 10:58 AM
So - thepath to wisdom is to simultaneously develop 3 reward systems.

IF empathizing AND systematizing AND sensory reward activation THEN freedom (eventually)

The importance is the confluence of the three - which guides each individual one into proper development.

3 basic reward paradims.

A society in which imbalance in 1 implying social collapse occurs.

The agent of social collapse is of course the individual who through poor teaching into violent lop-sidedness - is simply taught to be miserable.

In the absence of 3 keys turning - the doors to wisdom remain closed and the individual is driven into addictively appointed reward in one of the three (in isolation).

IE excessive systematizing (cf mathematics excellence serving no social function), excessive empathizing (the social butterfly who wants to be liked regardless of their effects on others) or sensory (the materialist who collects sense objects with no regard to the material needs being met of other people).

That's very good.

Confluence of 3 reward systems necesary for freedom (from the need to acquire reward).

3 keys which must be turned smultaneously to unlock the doors to ... ... ... happiness ... ... ...

-*-

So model of intelligence -

as individual pursues development in
IF empathizing AND systematizing AND sensory reward activation THEN freedom (eventually)
the individual becomes more and more intelligent.

A high quality loving, rational, social mind - where excellence achieved in each alongside one another is REWARD in itself <- an individual who strives towards BETTER in everything that human bengs would like BETTER in.

-*-

So intelligent just becomes the capacity of an individual to make things better.
But 'better' is defined using the SENSORY, EMPATHIZING and SYSTEMATIZING qualities.
And this fits nicely into the tri-une evolutionary psychology model in which the 3 layers of brain represent reptilian - Sensory, mammalian - social (Empathizing) and uniquely human - systematizing.

IE 3 Evolutionary systems which must (to drive an animal to comply) co-opt reward.

Human beings simply need to ramp up the 3 reward systems simultaneously - ie 3 keys - which take the individual from lack of knowledge to a point where freedom from need to activate these 3 reward systems is reached when the systematizing model (uniquely human) completes.

Key - in developing the systematizing model to completion is to have the SENSORY and EMPATHIZING models running simultaneously as SYSTEMATIZING guide.

Otherwise we simply end up with 'clever' lawyers confusing people, 'clever' scientists making bombs which kill people, 'clever' bankers driving violent inequality.

Confluence of sensory quality, empathic nature and systematizing integrity -> 3 reward systems <- resulting in freedom from need to achieve activation in any <- overcoming addictive propensity

SB_UK
12-08-15, 07:10 AM
That's it.

Simplyt - intelligence has 3 components.

Systematizing ie the system - can be complex - reward from complexity eg mathematics
Empathizing - reward from making other people happy
Sensory - reward from some sensory capacity eg musical skills, sporting skills

So - 3 components and we MUST employ 3 reward systems simultaneously - otherwise we fail.

EG systems (SYSTEMATIZING - TICK) which don't improve quality of live (SENSORY - CROSS), injecting people with drugs (sweet, fatty foods) (EMPATHIZING - TICK) which make them happy but are not in the individual's best (SYSTEMATIZING [medical epidemiology] - CROSS) interests or becoming a musician (SENSORY - TICK) so that you can be richer than other people (SYSTEMATIZING [social epidemiology] - CROSS].

Just a fancy way of saying that the measure of Intelligence is the capacity for an individual to act intelligently.
The word intelligence needs to be defined.
Definition - the confluence of SYSTEMATIZING, SENSORY and EMPATHIZING qualities - as evidence from the 3 layers of the brain (tri-une model) - intentional connection to the 3 branches of education eg primary school

arithmetic - SYSTEMATIZING
play time - SENSORY - co-ordination ie sport, art and music
reading/writing - SYSTEMATIZING and EMPATHIZING

The obvious question from above is what the role of mathematics is ?

Answer - mathematics is simply a language.
Anybody can speak it - if they're so motivated.
There's nothing clever about it.

The core problem though - as we see in maths - is that the language appears to diverge into becoming a communication medium which nobody shares ie one ends up talking :-) to oneself.

-*-

So - we have the peculiar observation in that:
language excellence (just one is required) - can satisfy all of SYSTEMATIZING, EMPATHIZING and SENSORY (Sensory = poetry,lyrics,to imagine) desires ... ...

but that the key measure of Intelligence is the capacity of the individual to act intelligently - meaning the confluence of systematizing, empathizing and sensory reward systems

-> giving rise to the most rational [SYSTEMATIZING] model for happy people [EMPATHIZING COMPONENT] becoming intrinsically better [SENSORY COMPONENT].

-*-

That idea is unbreakable.

-*-

Next we need to move on to another perspective on - what is intelligence ?

From ADDF/meadd823
QUOTATION 1 (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72361-any-fool-can-know-the-point-is-to-understand)
QUOTATION 2 (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins136888.html)

We need to 'understand' reality in order to 'prevent' problems ... ...

Core conclusion
The only problem with human beings - is the individual human mind.
In the absence of enforcedly sticking to a logic which sees rational, social, quality in all people as the goal -
- individuals subjectively and addictively pursue just one of these ie

SYSTEMATIZING
- the individual who wants most titles, fame, power, money for being good at some academic subject ie selfish attribution of 'systematizing' -- not in the best interests of ALL people
EMPATHIZING
- the individual who wants most titles, fame, power, money for having a social network ie selfish attribution of 'empathizing' -- not in the best interests of ALL people
SENSORY
- the individual who wants most titles, fame, power, money for being good at some co-ordination (art,sport,music) subject ie selfish attribution of 'sensory' -- not in the best interests of ALL people

-*-

Concluding

Educational path
sensory AND empathizing AND systematizing reward system activation and personal improvement simultaneously activated
->-
Wisdom acquisition (in the 30's)
->-
Use of mind which is now enforcedly sensory AND empathizing AND systematizing
- as self definition.ie you become all three.
Aha! That doesn't seem right - why would you want to reach a stage where you have to behave in a way which you could behave in before ?Sadly - the goal is to reach that stage - to be happy without pre-condition.
You need to reach a place (a dev stage) where you're 'complete'
- this then eliminates the need for reward via other mechanisms all of which lead to addiction.

OK - so what is ADDer ?
Simply a type which is predisposed towards the path to wisdom.

How is ADDer generated ?
Simply predisposition to quality in those 3 cortical spheres - making inequality impossible.

SB_UK
12-08-15, 08:19 AM
The simple conclusion is that I don't know if there's anybody particularly who has intelligence.

There is only wisdom where one finds oneself characterized by intelligence - and the more one investigates the more intelligent one becomes - ie the more - through excellence in SYS AND EMP AND SEN qualities - the more one can contribute towards collective improvement.

So - that's about it.

We live in a SYS heavy world where EMP and SEN are marginalized.

SYS without EMP and SEN simply generates confusing mathematical, legal systems - overburdened 'languages' - too many computer languages - too many esoteric languages

- just (basically) - confusion is all that occurs.

Key need - for people to walk to walk the SYS AND EMP AND SEN reward systems into wisdom - and for wisdom to characterize a global social infrastructure so children walking the path to SYS AND EMP AND SEN excellence (reward system activation) do it as enjoyably (these paths are defined as enjoyable ie see reward system defn)

-- as possible.

The life-cycle of man (CNS-centric)
Learning - enjoyable.
Learnt (wisdom) - happy.
life's should be fun
{{{END}}}

And the genome ?
We're neurone not nucleotide people.

Nucleotide only bodges when neurone (SYS AND SEN AND EMP reward system path) doesn't do its job.

How 'bodge' ?
Self-medication - mostly food - eliminates autophagy - the individual doesn't clean himself up on the inside - physical distress (mitochondrial) from blood glucose fluctuation
- disease - eg cancer.

We (the cellular house-keeper) need to be neat and tidy.

-*-

How is intelligence assessed ?
By the capacity to act intelligently.

Define intelligently ?
The capacity to make everything better.

How does one become intelligent ?
Excellence (practice) in SYS AND EMP AND SEN qualities

So - summarising - all of my posts on site.
Simply - one needs to pursue the three TOGETHER - any imbalance (which is driven by Western style education ie driving enhanced capacity/preference into lop-sided imbalace) destroys individual and society - from the strict and only important aspect of acquiring wisdom and reaching a point in life where reward is existence in itself.
You have nothing further to prove.
Have no further NEED for reward.

What is ADDer ?
Simply sensitivity (see KD) representing complexity (see Markram model for mechanism) referencing reward in these 3 areas - making it absolutely impossible for us to pursue any path which doesn't relate to the SYS AND EMP AND SEN qualities
- explaining why we need to take reward / stress-relief in a bottle to comply with the pointless 'things' which current society requires us to do in life.

You're not meant to be able to pay attention to thoroughly pointless pursuits.
Pointless is as pointless does.

Reward/stress-relief ?
Simply the absence of reward relates to the existence of distress ie if we do anything that doesn't bring about reward we feel stress.
Dexedrine operates as reward and also as stress-relief.

Zenod_ADHDi
01-24-16, 02:03 PM
I have done an IQ test in which I scored... Pretty high. And the neuropsychologist recommended me to read four books, which basically changed my life. Uhmm as a TLDR since I'm distracted at work, a high IQ individual does not "develop" ADHD differently, as the same neurotransmitters are affected, but it affects him differently. Diagnosed "gifted", I was explained to that my brain is different, my thinking process, understanding of things, the way I learn, assume, etc.. It's not quantity, it's qualitatively different. As different as the other extreme of the average IQ, a mental deficiency. Gifted individuals (132+ IIRC) have specific problems/characteristics/traits just like mentally deficient people (under 80? I forgot). The way my brain work, or so I was told, and its "high potential" made it easy for me to go through age 3-18 as the brain power and capabilities "compensate" for the problems ADHD brings. Which explains why I suddenly struggled SO MUCH in college and why my life went downhill from there. Behavior, reactions and social interactions are different to me, there's a bunch of things I could lost, but I was mainly told that ADHD, depending on the IQ, is mostly because people's personalities and thinking etc differ the more points away they are from the "average" IQ. The IQ test/other tests I did at the neuropsychological evaluation took a total of 6 hours, and no it's not really "biased" or "isn't a true test". There's a LOT of different exercises which don't necessarily require a mathematics background, or general history knowledge.. I did fail some history questions, aced the math/logic part, and the test (and subsequent tests) is/are based on your gender, age, first language, country, average of results of people with matching criteria, your academic background.. It's not just "some test". It's very exhaustive. So the higher IQ you posess, until you reach the "gifted" range (usually over 130, you ARE a different individual compared to everyone else)... The more your ADHD will be "compensated" by the potential yoir beaun has. It's honestly very interesting and I'd be happy to go through my books, should anyone want to pursue this conversation.

P.S. I was diagnosed gifted/ADHD-i in november 2015, it's still very fresh and new to me.