Ever think about what "normal" really means?

Who decided "this is normal" and "that is not". Why do we strive to be normal? If we're considered abnormal, people just like us less and talk about us more. So we really DO care about what people think, don't we?

If we didn't care about what people thought or said, then no one would try to be normal. We'd all just be wierd and wouldn't have to worry about getting wierd looks from other people because they would be just as wierd as we were. But then, I suppose, if this were the case - weirdness would be normal, wouldn't it?

And now we're back to where we started. Any thoughts on this?

Wow that is way to much for my brain to get hold of at once. I think it is a very interessting idea but if I say what I want to say I will suck all the fun and mystery out of it so see ya.

That is really the question we should be asking! The same thing goes for "disorder"...How can you have a disorder when you do not have a description of "baseline" (normal and healthy)?


I think we are normal. We have our own challenges but we also have the capability to be very powerful in our creativity.

Then again... I think normalcy is a construct of the culture. The culture is a vast illusion... so normal... Hmmm.

Normal means something different in every group or culture you are in. In ADD Our primary group is the "human race" (not the culture we live in) so our definition of normal is the most correct ;)

Chimera, it is... normalcy

Normal....hmmm I don't know what that means. I'm into art so oddity is normal but some oddities I find are not so authentic and I can relate to others on strange levels so it would seem your conclusion is correct weird is normal. Check the quote-----

I think being "normal" is being average. I have never considered myself anything but above average. So I guess I'm above normal?

I think instead of trying to be "normal" we should strive to be ACCEPTING.

I would much rather wake up everyday and be able to accept myself for who I am, including all of my failings in life, rather than try to be like someone else.

Accept what makes you you and find ways to embrace your unique self. I found art and I love it. Maybe sports or acting or dancing or anything that makes you active just to force you to get out there and don't be afraid to be yourself. People will like you for your differences.

Jane

Ever think about what "normal" really means?

Who decided "this is normal" and "that is not". Why do we strive to be normal? If we're considered abnormal, people just like us less and talk about us more. So we really DO care about what people think, don't we?

If we didn't care about what people thought or said, then no one would try to be normal. We'd all just be wierd and wouldn't have to worry about getting wierd looks from other people because they would be just as wierd as we were. But then, I suppose, if this were the case - weirdness would be normal, wouldn't it?

And now we're back to where we started. Any thoughts on this?
My take on it is I do not think the word 'normal' exists.
Sure,it exists as a word,but as a definition it is nothing but elitist and fake.
Everyone has their own definition of 'normal',and often people will assume they are the 'normal' definition,and anyone who acts different to them,is not normal,
but is there one person who can claim to be perfect-whether neurologically,mentally,healthily,genetically etc?
I do not believe it would be possible,so the definition of 'normal' is based on opinion rather than being based on truth and factual evidence IMHO.

I think the word is there,purely to make one group of people feel good about themselves,and to make the other groups feel inferior to them.

This question has been one of the foundations of these forums. Regardless of how it's stated, it always means pretty much this:

"Why are we being compared to some arbitrary standard, this idea of 'normal', and why do others expect us to be 'normal'?"

There are some perfectly good scientific answers to the question, which we'll get back to in a bit.


I think we are normal…
Not really. There really is a 'normal', and you are not it; none of us here are.

Nobody else on the planet is, either, but we all are still born and grow up with the original definition and the impulse to conform to it.

Those of us who are trying to escape that definition are ADDers. Those that are trying to maintain it are normals. We all have a choice, although few of us have bothered to develop a deep direct sense of that yet.

There is only one way to resolve the inner pressures that lead ADDers to ask these questions: recognize and accept that we define normal, that we carry the template for it inside ourselves, and that we are all fighting the compulsion to conform to it.

Simply put, we beat ourselves up internally just as badly or worse than others do.

Can't escape that, no matter how hard you run or how many words you try to bury it with.


We have our own challenges but we also have the capability to be very powerful in our creativity.
Well, here's where we differ big time. We don't see any difference between that statement and full-blown AD/HD bashing.

When it comes to individual challenges we actually are all the same, normal and ADDer alike.

There isn't any less a challenge for a normal to deny his/her nature that it is for us to embrace it. S/he has a constant inner struggle with challenges to a carefully constructed web of denial.

We have a constant inner struggle with the knowledge that we’re supposed to be something we're not. In terms of trying to get by, they're pretty much equivalent.


Then again... I think normalcy is a construct of the culture. The culture is a vast illusion... so normal... Hmmm.
This could have been cut after the 'vast illusion' part.

If we’re going to talk about the details (and I'm not sure that was the point of the thread), it's critical to recognize that the 'illusion' of culture isn't one of our choices.

We don't get to construct it to our own arbitrary specification. The 'illusion' is standardized; it takes one rigid form that we are all required to adopt.

We all do, too, or we can't have these kinds of conversations with others, either directly or in forums like these.

Like it or not, anyone who can post here has completely accepted the illusion. It's a critical component for understanding how we communicate and experience conscious reality, but it doesn't help much here.

The 'cultural illusion' is not the template for being normal we all carry around. It's more properly described as the 'social context', but that's a hard thing to see, in the same way that a fish wouldn't feel wet if it could think about it.


Normal means something different in every group or culture you are in.
OK, but this isn't the same kind of normal that the question was about. This is a statistical thing, equivalent to saying that people are different, and different groups of people are therefore also different.

The normal that ADDers struggle with is uniform, a relative measure that is locally defined in exactly the same way everywhere, for exactly the same purpose.

It doesn't matter what the definition is; what matters is the expectations of others and ourselves that we should conform to the definition.

That's the key issue.


In ADD Our primary group is the "human race" (not the culture we live in) so our definition of normal is the most correct…
Not really. It's a sweet idea, but there isn't any scientific support for it, and it isn't really very helpful.

We're all human, and anyone that can speak coherently is 99.999% normal. It's that other 0.001% that we’re talking about, not much of a difference unless you have to deal with it, as we all do.

This isn't about the 'correct' definition; slipping in the idea that there is a correct way to define these elements of ourselves is going backwards.

Thinking that way is normal, though. It reveals the built in compulsion to compare ourselves to the template we all hold and criticize ourselves on that basis, i.e., the drive to be normal.

Which is the thing we’re trying to understand. Whether it comes from inside or someone else, it's the same instinct at work.

Briefly, the science behind it:

The social context, our internal idea of what our thoughts and actions mean to others (and therefore ourselves), is critical to our ability to communicate.

If we don't know what another person will think about something we say or do, it's impossible to put together words to communicate anything.

Common experience in that context is what creates culture. The context for culture is the social group.

We must all maintain the same exact model of the social context, which we’re persuaded to adopt during the first five or six years of life.

So we have built-in behaviors to accomplish this, instincts that cause us to constantly compare our internal ideas with those of others, usually without being conscious of the process.

When we see a difference in how we see reality, as compared to another's view, we have instincts that cause us to act to correct the problem.

Much of the difficulty presented by having/being AD/HD stems from these processes, including the universal questions about what normal is, and why do we have to conform to it.

Cheers. –Tom&Kay

I think that the good lord made us all different so that we would need to work together. Some people have characteristics that are more common than others and they may like to use the term normal, but without others with less common characteristics where would civilization be. Look in any history book and you will see that all the people mentioned are not normal. They are the leaders, scientists, artists, musicians, authors, designers and philosophers. ADDers should pride themselves because they have been gifted with the ability to see the world in a different way and therefore they can be a catalyst for change. Any list of famous people with ADD should convince anyone. Just because we have not been given some common characteristics doesn't mean we are any less than anyone else. It just means that we need others just as much as they need us. And don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

Normal is instinct?


Normal seems subjective to me.

I consider myself to be normal.
Having AD/HD is normal to me.
I don't set myself apart from others who don't have it.
I don't call my family members who are nonADD normies.
I'm just as normal as they are I just happen to have AD/HD.

I consider myself to be normal.
Having AD/HD is normal to me.
I don't set myself apart from others who don't have it.
I don't call my family members who are nonADD normies.
I'm just as normal as they are I just happen to have AD/HD.

But how do you define normal? What does that word mean to you?

Tangerine
What I'm saying is we all have our own sense of what normal is to us.
Being AD/HD thats my normal.
When you accept who you are. And the way you are.
You don't have to think about the word normal.

Walking into a room and not remembering what I went in there for.
That's normal to me.
If my sister did that it would not be normal for her.
Does the fact she remembers why she went in there make her more normal then me?
No it doesn't at all.

But how do you define normal? What does that word mean to you?

I know you didn't ask me directly but after reading the posts and hearing the question it dawned on me that I consider myself normal....I guess.

So, when I'm telling my 12yr old son that I think everyone has an innate psychic ability and we're talking about telekenetics I think that is a normal conversation. I tell him I believe it is possible for people to read others thoughts and even be in two places at once. I have not managed to do these things (well, all of them :D) but I feel that this IS normal.
The fact that I forget things at random and then remember other things in such startling detail is also normal.

When I try to describe normal I remember back to a 9th grade social studies project we had to do once (And I mean WAY back!). The teacher had us team up and take an entire week in groups of 5 to design every minute detail of what a 4th dimension would look like. After hours and hours of excruciating details and designs we came to the startling conclusion that we could only create 3 dimensional representations of the 4th dimension.... because that was "normal" to us.

Now, where the heck did I leave my keys? (Oh yeah, right pants pocket like always for the past 35 years.... :p )

I liked Stabile's explanation....but I had to take a nap in the middle of it to get through it..... is that normal?

I think that the good lord made us all different so that we would need to work together. Some people have characteristics that are more common than others and they may like to use the term normal, but without others with less common characteristics where would civilization be.

Look in any history book and you will see that all the people mentioned are not normal. They are the leaders, scientists, artists, musicians, authors, designers and philosophers.

ADDers should pride themselves because they have been gifted with the ability to see the world in a different way and therefore they can be a catalyst for change. Any list of famous people with ADD should convince anyone.

Just because we have not been given some common characteristics doesn't mean we are any less than anyone else. It just means that we need others just as much as they need us. And don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
That doesn't really help much; maybe it's a reasonable rationalization for you personally, but it doesn't address the question at all.

It has nothing to do with religion, and we’re not really concerned with the fact that everybody has a unique range of talents.

That is normal. The question is about understanding the ways that ADDers seem to not be normal, even to ourselves.

Creativity is often mentioned, but it isn't a part of the puzzle at all. We’re not more creative than anyone else; it just sometimes seems that way.


Normal is instinct?

Normal seems subjective to me.
Good point. But we didn't say normal is instinct, we said we have an instinct to be normal, and a built in template for what that is.

Exactly what that template looks like varies broadly among social groups, reflective of the culture. It varies among individuals in a minor way, exactly because we are all individual and different in some important ways.

The reason it varies and yet can still be considered normal when it's perceived and processed in our brains is because it is a template, not an image. We have to process it with what we've got to produce the result that others see, and they automatically take our individuality into account when they look at us and judge how normal we are, or aren't, as the case may be.

The fact that we’re individual is built into the system. The instinct to conform and to seek conformity in others drives the process, but the result is all over the map. The key is whether we did it right.

That's the 'normal' the question is about; it's the 'normal' that bites ADDers every day. And while it is subjective, it's still required.


I consider myself to be normal.
Having AD/HD is normal to me.
I don't set myself apart from others who don't have it.
I don't call my family members who are nonADD normies.
I'm just as normal as they are I just happen to have AD/HD.
And in every way that you mean that, we're certain it's so. Good for you.

We wish it were as simple as pointing out the obvious facts about what really matters in a person, normal or ADDer of whatever.

Focusing on this kind of benevolent viewpoint can create small groups in which the problems associated with having/being AD/HD seem to temporarily fade into the harmonious and nurturing context.

But there isn't any wall high enough to hold back the inevitable clash with groups that choose to implement the traditional normal view of what we are and how we should behave.

Kay and I are still torn between these competing principles:

Should we isolate and protect children so that they can develop in a harmonious way, unencumbered by the experience of being discriminated against?

Or should we gently and gradually expose them to the discrimination, so they can develop the tools necessary to deal with it when they inevitably encounter it?

* * * * *

Before we get too far, we need to point out why there will never be a wall high enough to keep unpleasantness at bay.

As we said, the instinct is to conform and to seek conformity in others. But we’ve skipped over the details of how that's accomplished, especially the 'seeking conformity in others' part.

It turns out that this is one of the deepest and most primary instincts ever documented in humans or any animal. It apparently transcends all ordinary social, cultural and political boundaries.

We have rules, but when we see the particular kind of nonconformity that we ADDers betray (a different way of seeing reality itself) the rules are suspended. Correcting the nonconformity takes precedence.


Tangerine
What I'm saying is we all have our own sense of what normal is to us.
Being AD/HD that's my normal.
When you accept who you are. And the way you are.
You don't have to think about the word normal.

Walking into a room and not remembering what I went in there for.
That's normal to me.
If my sister did that it would not be normal for her.
Does the fact she remembers why she went in there make her more normal then me?
No it doesn't at all.
Right. That's not the kind of normal that causes us problems. That kind of normal might even be chalked up to individual differences.

The kind of normal that does make a difference might be at work in your example; it might be fundamental differences in how you perceive reality that causes the difference, you forgetting, her not.

And that will trigger the nonconforming alarms. It's not the behavior itself, but rather what it reveals about how you think. And that's the important bit, the fact that you think differently.

Nobody cares about us forgetting stuff, really. The only time it's a big deal is when someone wants to make a point about how the way we think is messing up our lives.

There aren't many ADDers that are bothered by that kind of forgetfulness if they're left alone with it. It just is, just as you said.

…I liked Stabile's explanation....but I had to take a nap in the middle of it to get through it..... is that normal?
It's normal for me…

Seriously: Kay kids about the reason that it took us thirty or so years to get our work to the point we can talk about it

is exactly that.


It's just exceedingly complicated stuff, and not very exciting. It does seem important, though.

Ever think about what "normal" really means?

Who decided "this is normal" and "that is not". Why do we strive to be normal? If we're considered abnormal, people just like us less and talk about us more. So we really DO care about what people think, don't we?

If we didn't care about what people thought or said, then no one would try to be normal. We'd all just be wierd and wouldn't have to worry about getting wierd looks from other people because they would be just as wierd as we were. But then, I suppose, if this were the case - weirdness would be normal, wouldn't it?

And now we're back to where we started. Any thoughts on this?

The question is not as to why abnormal people strive to be normal, but why do people strive to conform. Conformity is often seen as an easy path to success. Success in the contexts of short-term socializing and long-term survival, that is.

Most people in existence can be placed in two categories: leaders and followers. Leaders make the rules and followers obey them (not literally, by the way). Followers tend to be analytical and uncreative, and therefore conform to the leaders ideas in order to seem intelligent. Leaders are either creative or uncreative, depending on whether or not they are a follower as well. This forms a hierarchy. Those who do not follow are seen as unintelligent. We are a part of the third group, individuals. We neither lead, nor follow.

http://mdk187.freeshell.org/nt.gif

If we don't integrate into the left side at all, life tends to be difficult.

The question is not as to why abnormal people strive to be normal, but why do people strive to conform. Conformity is often seen as an easy path to success. Success in the contexts of short-term socializing and long-term survival, that is.

Most people in existence can be placed in two categories: leaders and followers. Leaders make the rules and followers obey them (not literally, by the way). Followers tend to be analytical and uncreative, and therefore conform to the leaders ideas in order to seem intelligent. Leaders are either creative or uncreative, depending on whether or not they are a follower as well. This forms a hierarchy. Those who do not follow are seen as unintelligent. We are a part of the third group, individuals. We neither lead, nor follow.

http://mdk187.freeshell.org/nt.gif

If we don't integrate into the left side at all, life tends to be difficult.
HF, Very good stuff. It explains a lot about why it was so hard for me as a Sales Manager. I was trying to follow even though I didn't agree with the direction I was being told to go. When I was leading I was leading in the direction I thought we SHOULD be going..... after a while the big dog caught on and that was the end for me....trying to be integrated on the left while also maintianing my individuality.......I think that only fits in the working world under self employment.

Maybe I need to get a life outside of working, huh?

HF, Very good stuff. It explains a lot about why it was so hard for me as a Sales Manager. I was trying to follow even though I didn't agree with the direction I was being told to go. When I was leading I was leading in the direction I thought we SHOULD be going..... after a while the big dog caught on and that was the end for me....trying to be integrated on the left while also maintianing my individuality.......I think that only fits in the working world under self employment.

Maybe I need to get a life outside of working, huh?
No? maybe? I've wondered this same thing. I just hate giving my time to something I don't believe in when there are so many millions of other things I could be doing that would give me more satisfaction.

Unfortunately, it's this same attitude that makes me an unsuccesful person at what I do. I can never settle for one idea or one media it always has to be more and it ends up being nothing. I have a feeling you are the same way. Never satisfied but this is unintentional, of course.

My significant other has a different view of work he says you "put in your time." I'm uncertain about this attitude because working your way up the ladder doesn't happen like it used to. He has hopes of working independently. I obviously encourage this.

I think I've found my path that will give me satisfaction at my job in the future. I'm taking a difficult route I just hope I follow it through.

Long story short- was going for BFA in Graphic Design realized it was to structured and wasn't independent enough. Took ceramics this year loved it! Something with working with my hands, involving more of my senses made me more satisfied. Maybe has to do with ADD? Eventually, I hope to teach and work as a studio potter on the side. This is my dream. And it's a difficult one to follow because everyone wants to smash it. One word! Will!

Most people in existence can be placed in two categories: leaders and followers…
What's wrong with this picture, folks?

We can start with the 'left brain / right brain' stuff. It's entirely bogus, and if anyone wants to discus that old wives tale (again) let's take it somewhere else.

But the leader / follower idea is really disturbing stuff, and what does it have to do with the question of what normal means?

This kind of simplistic analysis demeans everybody; it isn't remotely applicable, no matter how much flash you wrap it in.

Before anybody falls into paroxysms of relief and admiration, why don't we talk a little about how this wonderful division occurs?

Because we don't see it, and we don't buy it. When we peel the layers back on this kind of 'system' all we usually find is a hidden agenda.

Anyone care to explain how we naturally become so polarized? If not, all we can say is caveat emptor.

What's wrong with this picture, folks?


I am sorry if that sounded like I was pigeonholing people into two distinct categories. If you looked at the diagram, you see that there are various levels of both characteristics in people.


We can start with the 'left brain / right brain' stuff. It's entirely bogus, and if anyone wants to discus that old wives tale (again) let's take it somewhere else.


Well, this is ADDForums.com, and this topic does come up quite often. You do sound awfully decisive in that such theory is bogus. I don't believe that left/right brain dominance is very significant when compared to an actual analysis of the individual/combined functions of each hemisphere, but it is something well known here (which allows for effective communication). I don't see how left/right brain comparison is at all inappropriate to this discussion.


And by the way, I didn't actually do a comparison between left and right brain. I did a comparison between hierarchial and unstructured modaltities. And yes, hierarchial is typically related to left brained reasoning, etc, etc.



But the leader / follower idea is really disturbing stuff, and what does it have to do with the question of what normal means?


Normal is subjective. It is defined with respect to a particular context and opinion. Maybe you live on a different planet, but I live on a planet in which most people are rather conformist and acquiring beliefs and information from other people (followers recieving information from leaders, whether directly or indirectly (people of high social status and are trusted)). I am rather individualistic and would want to neither blindly accept the views others, nor preach to/control others. I live and deal with conformists on a daily basis, and their attitudes toward us "rebels" aren't that peachy. Thus, with respect to the set of such people and their opinions, we would be abnormal.


This kind of simplistic analysis demeans everybody; it isn't remotely applicable, no matter how much flash you wrap it in.


I am sorry that you do not like my graphical representation of what I was trying to show. It is there because some of us don't recept ideas well reading text. I guess I will have to start writing my posts in hexadecimal.


Before anybody falls into paroxysms of relief and admiration, why don't we talk a little about how this wonderful division occurs?

Because we don't see it, and we don't buy it. When we peel the layers back on this kind of 'system' all we usually find is a hidden agenda.

Anyone care to explain how we naturally become so polarized? If not, all we can say is caveat emptor.

Well, if you take left/right brained as one being completely pigeonholed into one category or another, I pity you. At least before you flame people, you could at least share your theory (meaning a theory that doesn't conclude all other opinions are simply wrong).

Looking through many of the ideas that are posted in the forum, it often seems to me as though various synonymous ideas are being put forward.

The words change but the basic idea remains the same.

The idea of 'Left brained' NonADDers vs 'Right brained' ADDers, of conformist nonADDers vs non-conformist ADDers, of IRCM ADDers vs ER NonADDers, of NP personality types being overrepresented in ADDers ..... and many other representations of the same basic small handful of ideas .............................

The fact that these ideas occur and recur with such frequency suggests that there is some truth to them.

Is it more important to reclassify these differences with yet another name or to work out what is the cause of these differences?

Being part of what we classify as the creative, non-conformist, unstructured, free-thinking, idea generating, society rejecting class is lovely for our ego -- but is this where it stops?

Any nonADDer reading these descriptions is likely to be thinking to themselves -- there's another bunch of guys with a disorder painting their disorder in a positive light to throw off the chip of their stigma from their shoulders.

In fact, I've seen these comments made in other ADD fora.

Do we just pat ourselves on the back and get on with life?

Or do we dig a little deeper and ask *WHY* these differences appear to be there?

My guess is that only if we can dig that little bit deeper and work out whether there's some mechanism to explain these observations, will we truly believe that ADD is not a disorder and will we be able to strengthen the foundations of the higher behavioural space in which all of the ideas listed above inhabit.

So are we just massaging our own egos or is there some basis to it all?
If so -- how so? :-)

SB.

Is it more important to reclassify these differences with yet another name or to work out what is the cause of these differences?


Maybe we should classify what differences are exclusive to ADD/other disorders. Most of the problems mentioned here are not exclusive to ADD, but tend to appear in more pronounced forms.


Being part of what we classify as the creative, non-conformist, unstructured, free-thinking, idea generating, society rejecting class is lovely for our ego -- but is this where it stops?


Society rejecting is not intrinsic. It is an acquired characteristic because of the other mentioned characteristics in conflict with others.

It depends on what definition of non-conformist you mean. I consider myself non-conformist, but that doesn't mean I proactively seek to differ. I do not proactively seek conformity either.

Some of the characteristics you mention are useful in R&D and related positions, various arts, etc. And yes, they are lovely for our ego's. It is a compensation factor for rejection.


My guess is that only if we can dig that little bit deeper and work out whether there's some mechanism to explain these observations, will we truly believe that ADD is not a disorder and will we be able to strengthen the foundations of the higher behavioural space in which all of the ideas listed above inhabit.


One question could be what issues are related to ADD and what issues are related to societary norms. Here is an example:

Being late for work can be a significant problem for your employer. One must ask if one's being late is really a problem of ADD or acceptance:


* Being late by an hour definately is a problem, ADD or not. Productivity is lost, not only what the respective employee would have accomplished in that time period, but a link of communication is missing for the time period as well.

* Being late by five to ten minutes in most cases is not harmful. Moreover, if one is worried about losing five to ten minutes of productivity, I am sure it can be made up at the end of the day. The problem here is nonacceptance.

It depends on what definition of non-conformist you mean.

Apologies High.

I was simply relaying on some of what I've read on this and other ADD fora.

I guess the only real question that I have is not whether these are truly solely (or overrepresented) ADD traits, or whether ADD-specific traits can be identified .... but more, what is the fundamental difference between ADDers and nonADDers.

Does one exist?

We won't identify a behavioural characteristic that completely discriminates
normals from ADDers.

What could give rise to some of the behavioural characteristics defined above?

It would have to be more fundamental than behaviour, and by that I mean, it would have to underlie behaviour.

Something different about the way that ADDers think, that is common to ADDers, that is different to nonADDers, that could lead to the spectrum of conditions that we have been discussing above .... apparent inattention, creativity, inspired ideas, disillusionment with the expectations society bestows upon us, hyperfocus, propensity towards anxiety/depression, apparent disorganization, meditative thought.

I have just spilled out the first few examples of behaviour associated with ADD that leapt to mind - not a list of the characteristics of my ADD.

If one were to try and identify this fundamental difference -- where would one try looking first?

Everything flows from this difference - so surely it's worth us expending a little effort in trying to locate it.

SB.

There is no "average" and there is no "normal" per se. Just man created designated ranges of characteristics within which incredibly unique people operate.

Only a very few people fit exaclty "average", so being average is actually not average. This may seem trite to say, but its true.

e.g. the average of 1 +2+3 +4 +5 is 3....

There is no "average" and there is no "normal" per se. Just man created designated ranges of characteristics within which incredibly unique people operate.

Only a very few people fit exaclty "average", so being average is actually not average. This may seem trite to say, but its true.

e.g. the average of 1 +2+3 +4 +5 is 3....

Actually there are really only people below average and above average.

I like to think of humans as the "upper half" and "lower half". Now, hold on to your PC comments for just a sec!
Each of us fluctuates in and out of the upper and lower half.
When you see someone cut you off on the road you can think "they are obviously operating in the lower half right now." When someone lets you into a really long nasty line of traffic and waves and smiles...they are in the upper half right now.
Every choice you make determines whether you are in the upper or lower half on a daily basis. Now, whether or not what you choose to do is conforming or "normal?" Uh, I don't know how that part fits in......

I do know that I see a lot of people operating in the lower half everyday...so, if that's "normal" I wanna be Abnormal=above average is "normal" to me!

Apologies High.


Thanks, but totally unnecessary! I was mostly making comments in correlation to yours, not directly addressing you (although it did look like that...)

There is no "average" and there is no "normal" per se. Just man created designated ranges of characteristics within which incredibly unique people operate.

Only a very few people fit exaclty "average", so being average is actually not average. This may seem trite to say, but its true.

e.g. the average of 1 +2+3 +4 +5 is 3....


I don't like to use the word "normal". I like to view such as more of a bell curve. To me, it's more about how everyone has differences, but a good portion share a lot of charactersitics. Normal cannot be actually be quantified, as it is an entirely subjective measure, but I would like to (at a very abstract level) at least see the ways in which I am different from others that are not common deviances in most of the population, if that is at all understandable.

I really despise statements like "everyone is different." It makes me feel like I am like everyone else!

Sure, you might mull over whether you fall outside plus/minus 2 standard deviations from the "norm". Its an interesting idea.

I understand that you despise my belief that people are unique, but a lot of people disagree with what I say anyway and I'm certainly used to it by now. No biggie.

cheers

I don't like to use the word "normal". I like to view such as more of a bell curve. To me, it's more about how everyone has differences, but a good portion share a lot of charactersitics. Normal cannot be actually be quantified, as it is an entirely subjective measure, but I would like to (at a very abstract level) at least see the ways in which I am different from others that are not common deviances in most of the population, if that is at all understandable.

I really despise statements like "everyone is different." It makes me feel like I am like everyone else!

I understand that you despise my belief that people are unique, but a lot of people disagree with what I say anyway and I'm certainly used to it by now. No biggie.


I'm not saying that you are wrong, as you are correct. :) I just hate it when people use that phrase to mean that everyone is in the same positions as far as being different, as in, "being different to the same level of deviation." I don't like to be put in the same category as someone who decides to die his/her hair a color that is typically not seen elsewhere.

Hmmm. Well my best friend until very recently had a very unusual hair colour/style. It was all about his brain, you see? ADHD.

Myself, I'd be honoured to be in his category, but he's a pretty special person to me.:)

Hmmm. Well my best friend until very recently had a very unusual hair colour/style. It was all about his brain, you see? ADHD.

Myself, I'd be honoured to be in his category, but he's a pretty special person to me.:)

But that doesn't count! He has ADHD too!
(Note: my post was meant to be taken as an analogy. The hair color part is arbitrary)

ooooooooooooooohhhhh!!!! So one can only be valued if they have some form of ADD!!!!

(my my MY!!):) :) :) :)

what a saucy thought!:p

:: HF shakes his head and beats it on his desk ::

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

you made me laugh just now!



:: HF shakes head and beats it on the desk ::

I think being "normal" is being average.

You hit it bang on with that observation. 1 and 1/2 deviations and 2 for sure puts you in the abnormal range.

Well, if you take left/right brained as one being completely pigeonholed into one category or another, I pity you. At least before you flame people, you could at least share your theory (meaning a theory that doesn't conclude all other opinions are simply wrong).
You can save your pity for somebody else.

We've posted lots of stuff describing our work; as far as I can remember the principle that other people's ideas are wrong has never been a basis of any of them. Maybe you could spend a bit of time looking at some of them, or ask a question or two, before you fly off the handle at what we wrote.


You do sound awfully decisive in that such theory is bogus. I don't believe that left/right brain dominance is very significant when compared to an actual analysis of the individual/combined functions of each hemisphere, but it is something well known here (which allows for effective communication). I don't see how left/right brain comparison is at all inappropriate to this discussion.
Effective bah! Well known isn't meaningful, and claiming it makes an idea valid or useful as an aid to communication is silly. We all know better than that.

Maybe you have a wonderful scientific basis for your idea that people can be classified as left- or right-brained, or that their personality characteristics can be correctly (or even just usefully) described that way.

If you do, you forgot to mention it, and we apologize for our assumption that this is the same nonsense that once gave rise to phrenology. There's a lot of it out there, and it is all claptrap.

There is no scientific basis for mentioning the left and right sides of our brains when we are talking about how they appear to function, unless you want to discuss data about a particular area in an experimental subjects brain under specific known conditions.

Anything else is just speculation or worse. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there hasn't been any connection correctly established between function of a particular area of the brain and personal characteristics.

There hasn't even been a correctly established relationship between low level function and specific areas of the brain once you get away from obvious regular structures like the cerebellum and the visual system.

Lower stuff, like the limbic system and so on are correctly associated with certain functions but the mechanisms proposed are usually inconsistent with well understood neural function.

Since we’re pretty sure that neurons are doing the work, we doubt most of these mechanisms are what's really going on. We had to construct our own models of these mechanisms based on ordinary neural behavior.

The whole idea that you can delineate logical and emotional reasoning, and relate that to hemisphere dominance is silly. The idea of hemisphere dominance is even sillier. If you know something that supports such an idea please tell us, because it is truly new.

This is not how neurons and brains work, not how neural mass gives rise to behavior, not how any of us achieve conscious being, not in any way a useful structure for understanding behavior or ourselves.

And remember, that's what we're talking about. The idea of hemisphere dominance and left and right-brained characteristics has not a single thing to do with normalcy. We aren't complaining about being pigeon-holed, or seeing the world as black or white, or whatever you imagined.

And we’re not complaining about the graphics, either; we have plenty of graphics we could throw up in a post, but none of them address the idea of what normal is, or how it's defined, or what that has to do with AD/HD.

Jeeze. Lighten up a bit. We’re actually trying to offer information here. Flaming doesn't enter into it.


Normal is subjective.
Maybe. Depends on exactly what normal you mean. Sorting out that was going along fine for a while, but it's always a problem in these discussions.

Some of what we ADDers talk about when we discuss normal isn't subjective, and we don't mean mathematical definitions, either.

We’re talking about the processes by which you and me and Kay and SB and the rest of us converge on a common model of reality. This is deeply involved in the typical ADDer's interest in the idea of normal, and it isn't subjective because of the magic filter of convergence.

It isn't really absolute, either; it's just common.


It is defined with respect to a particular context and opinion.
Who's worried about stuff that's a matter of opinion? That's gravy. We ADDers have problems with stuff that seems to not be a matter of opinion, stuff that's forced on us. That's the problem with normal, really: you don't have a choice, and it doesn't fit us very well in some important ways.


Maybe you live on a different planet, but I live on a planet in which most people are rather conformist and acquiring beliefs and information from other people (followers receiving information from leaders, whether directly or indirectly (people of high social status and are trusted))…
In the first place, get a grip - you can't isolate us with stupid verbal tricks. We're from the same planet you are; we just happen to see a much broader view of the process you're describing.

When you take in a bit bigger picture, you probably won't find those descriptions so compelling. You assume that information flow is pyramidal and all downhill; it's not. You assume that the hierarchy inherent in that view is enforced by status. It isn't.

The restricted subset of beliefs that we acquire by processes that might appear similar to what you describe aren't significant. You make the point yourself…


I am rather individualistic and would want to neither blindly accept the views others, nor preach to/control others…
…you don't seem to have any trouble dealing with it. I guarantee that in this regard, you’re nothing special; we’re all individuals in the same way.

This stuff isn't the problem. This is the gravy, no big deal. The problem comes from stuff we're bombarded by, steeped in, forced to deal with even from within.


I live and deal with conformists on a daily basis, and their attitudes toward us "rebels" aren't that peachy. Thus, with respect to the set of such people and their opinions, we would be abnormal.
Dang, son, that isn't a conformist, that's a normal. There isn't any more leadin' and followin' going on in them than there is in you, and it's mighty uncharitable of you to see it that way.

It's hard to comprehend, we know, but you need to accept this little fact: normals converge on a perfectly appropriate and proven model of reality. It just happens to be different from ours.

Our ADDer model is also appropriate but not yet proven, at least not in the same cauldron of tens or hundreds of thousands of years of trial and error development. But there's a trick: ours includes theirs as a subset.

Why this way of modeling reality causes problems that we wind up discussing in terms of being 'normal' isn't too hard to understand, and the nature of the experience can be described in many ways, including the way that you’re trying to present it.

That's basically what SB is saying, or asking:


The fact that these ideas occur and recur with such frequency suggests that there is some truth to them.

Is it more important to reclassify these differences with yet another name or to work out what is the cause of these differences?

…

Do we just pat ourselves on the back and get on with life?

Or do we dig a little deeper and ask *WHY* these differences appear to be there?
We don't think that there is any choice; we are compelled by our nature to ask the deeper question, to look for that pattern that fits all of the data. (That is a characteristic of our ADDer way of modeling reality, by the way. We literally can't abide contradictory elements, because we don't have a way to isolate them from each other.)

As is often the case there's something bigger just over the horizon that's creating the appearance that there are several unrelated or competing classifying principles at work. That bigger thing is about how the brain functions, how neurons work, how behavior and conscious awareness arises and the rest of it. We’ve posted a bunch about these theories.


Society rejecting is not intrinsic. It is an acquired characteristic because of the other mentioned characteristics in conflict with others…
Right there is the error that's skewing your view of this stuff.

'Society rejecting' (as the phrase relates to the discussion of 'normal') is intrinsic. It's not acquired at all. In fact, it is remarkable in that it cuts across all social and cultural boundaries, a characteristic it shares with only one other drive, the drive to procreate.

It is, as far as we can tell, most likely hard-wired. It has a formal name, the social impulse. You and I and the rest if us dance to it's tune, like it or not. It’s about as intrinsic as it gets.

If you take this little fact into account, your analysis will probably straighten right out. We might even find ourselves agreeing about something here. (Yikes!)

It's just a mistake. We all make 'em. This is truly new stuff; it's not a big deal.

* * * * *

The significant difference between ADDers and normals is entirely in our models of reality. The idea of 'normal', as it relates to the pressure we ADDers feel to conform to the normal's model, is built in.

It is purely functional in a very pedestrian way, intended to ensure convergence of the common logical models of reality we all carry around in our heads. In terms of those models, which are the very definition of subjective, there isn't much that is truly subjective or left to the individual to control.

Change it much at all, even in the tiniest of ways, and you won't be recognizable as a member of the club. We won't be able to speak; not talk, just speak. You wouldn't be recognizably human, other than in form, much like a severely disabled or autistic child.

If that idea gets your AD/HD back up, well, you're not very different from the rest of us after all. But there's not much we can do about that.

Welcome to the monkey house.

--Tom&Kay

Being late for work can be a significant problem for your employer. One must ask if one's being late is really a problem of ADD or acceptance:


* Being late by an hour definately is a problem, ADD or not. Productivity is lost, not only what the respective employee would have accomplished in that time period, but a link of communication is missing for the time period as well.

* Being late by five to ten minutes in most cases is not harmful. Moreover, if one is worried about losing five to ten minutes of productivity, I am sure it can be made up at the end of the day. The problem here is nonacceptance.
Great example. I thought the same thing, too, until about the third week of my first full time job after Kay and I were married.

I don't know whether you had the nerve to argue the point, but I did.

And I was flabbergasted to hear one of the guys I worked with speak up: he minded if I came in ten minutes late. He had to do it, and everybody else did it, too. It was the rule, and it would stick in his craw a bit if I was going to be allowed to be an exception.

Once I was manager of the place (a few months later) I took the lesson in this way: I never forgot that my people were individuals, but they all deserved to feel they were being treated equitably.

So I tried to never let the appearance of inequitable treatment creep in; when I gave someone a perk, I made sure that everyone knew it, and that they could expect the same treatment, if not the same perk, when their turn came.

But the lesson I took that day was different, and much more significant: I didn't have a clue, and I didn't have a clue about that little fact, either.

After that I tried a lot harder to see what other people were seeing in my own behavior; just because something made sense, and I could prove the sense of it, didn't mean that I had taken everything into account.

I had to see that it made sense to the rest of the people that were involved, and if it didn't, figure out why. That doesn't mean I gave up being different, or conformed, or even decided I was wrong.

It just means that I learned a new way to look into other people's heads, by looking at myself through their eyes, and a new way to judge my own impulses.

Now that's a pretty useful tool, don't you think?

You hit it bang on with that observation. 1 and 1/2 deviations and 2 for sure puts you in the abnormal range.
My statistical friends seem to get excited at 3!
and often use the jibe - you're 3 sds from intelligence.
It was never phrased as a compliment.

SB.

Reading through this thread I asked myself, "How did humans get to this point?".

Progression ...

If you look at the entire history of ADHD, you see it has always been treated as a disorder. It's just changed names over time.

For example:

Prior to 1902 - brain damaged/insane/crazy/possessed
1902 - "Defect of Moral Control"
1922 - "Post-Encephalitic Behavior Disorder"
1960's - "Minimal Brain Dysfunction"
1980 - "Attention Deficit Disorder +/-"
1987 - "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder"

As technology advances, so does the name. Will it get to a point where it is not classified as a "disorder"? Who knows. Probably not. In a way, society has become dependent on it. Look at all of the research, all of the jobs, all of the investments.

I think another reason the way those with ADHD think is not considered "normal" is because those with ADHD are in the minority. When you are in the minority you get grouped outside the normal.

Also, look at the "bell curve" and the whole concept of "grading". It's completely inter-woven into a society. This is where "normal" gets defined. It starts as soon as you are concieved. Prenatal visits to check for "abnornmalities", directly after birth to check for "abnormal" reflexes or "abnormal" birth weight, during pediatric visits to measure height and weight, in school to measure IQ and learning performance, and in employment to decide who gets promoted or who gets a raise/bonus. It's every where.

You hit it bang on with that observation. 1 and 1/2 deviations and 2 for sure puts you in the abnormal range.
Correction "puts you in the above average range." :D

I think another reason the way those with ADHD think is not considered "normal" is because those with ADHD are in the minority. When you are in the minority you get grouped outside the normal.

Also, look at the "bell curve" and the whole concept of "grading". It's completely inter-woven into a society. This is where "normal" gets defined. It starts as soon as you are concieved. Prenatal visits to check for "abnornmalities", directly after birth to check for "abnormal" reflexes or "abnormal" birth weight, during pediatric visits to measure height and weight, in school to measure IQ and learning performance, and in employment to decide who gets promoted or who gets a raise/bonus. It's every where. Sad, is it not?

The only thing to do is learn how to be "functional"... Normal is a useless illusion.

When I was growing up... I lived in the heavily "European American" burbs... down the street the only "African American" family in our area moved in. I became quick friends with their kids.

Were they abnormal? Where they disordered? They were wonderful friends to me and I missed them dearly when they moved out (what I was told recently "because of racial tension").

Just because some people think that way... do we all need to?

Besides... what if AD/HD is a type of cognition with possible abnormalities/disorders within it... would it not be too confusing for doctors to figure out what is what without an understanding of what "baseline" normal was for AD/HD?

I know that is a recursive argument... but there are people who seem to function brilliantly with ADD and those who have issues with aspects of it.

Clearer picture makes for better medicine. It is what it is... and a word should not have full sway. Time will tell.

100 years is a blink of an eye.

Correction "puts you in the above average range." :D

I like your thinking lol. On the other hand 3 deviations has got to be abnormal. Using IQ that would put you at 145 or 55. On either end of the spectrum you just wouldn't fit in with the regular folk.

Me personally? I have no problem saying that part of me is abnormal. I knew that in grade 1 when others were soaking up information and me?...the info was running off of me like water off of a duck's bill. Accept it folks, part of us is abnormal. Heck most people have something that is abnormal about them.

If you look at the entire history of ADHD, you see it has always been treated as a disorder.
It has, but of all the disorders I know, central or peripheral, it stands apart as being quite different from the rest.

No clear pathology, no *direct* debilitating mental effects of the primary cause of ADD, environmental changes being sufficient (though perhaps impractical) to alleviate the problems associated with the secondary consequences of being ADD in a nonADDer world.

Of all the 'disorders' I know, this is perhaps the most enigmatic.

And for these reasons, it's funny that there isn't more discussion about the primary mechanism or the fundamental cognitive change that discriminates ADDers from nonADDers.

With a little discussion I am sure that we could come up with something reasonable. Maybe a change in name would ensue. And perhaps we'd lose the Ds from ADHD.

'Attention Hyperactivity' sounds good to me :-).

SB.

I like your thinking lol. On the other hand 3 deviations has got to be abnormal. Using IQ that would put you at 145 or 55. On either end of the spectrum you just wouldn't fit in with the regular folk.

Me personally? I have no problem saying that part of me is abnormal. I knew that in grade 1 when others were soaking up information and me?...the info was running off of me like water off of a duck's bill. Accept it folks, part of us is abnormal. Heck most people have something that is abnormal about them.

IQ? Yep! I got some of that! Last time I took a test I hit 157. I guess that pushes me a little past 3?

Also, I have proof that I have something abnormal about me: my head is so large I can't wear a regular men's hat. When the rest of my hair falls out I'll most likely look like Charlie Brown with a face full of saggy skin! :D

It has, but of all the disorders I know, central or peripheral, it stands apart as being quite different from the rest.

No clear pathology, no *direct* debilitating mental effects of the primary cause of ADD, environmental changes being sufficient (though perhaps impractical) to alleviate the problems associated with the secondary consequences of being ADD in a nonADDer world.

Of all the 'disorders' I know, this is perhaps the most enigmatic.

And for these reasons, it's funny that there isn't more discussion about the primary mechanism or the fundamental cognitive change that discriminates ADDers from nonADDers.

With a little discussion I am sure that we could come up with something reasonable. Maybe a change in name would ensue. And perhaps we'd lose the Ds from ADHD.

'Attention Hyperactivity' sounds good to me :-).

SB.
We could just change it to A.A.S. Above Average Syndrome!
Then when someone tells you that you're acting like an AAS you can say....yes.....I am the top AAS in the CLASS!

(Hey, I started Wellbutrin today. Think it is having any affect on me? I feel a limerick coming on...)

With a little discussion I am sure that we could come up with something reasonable. Maybe a change in name would ensue. And perhaps we'd lose the Ds from ADHD.

'Attention Hyperactivity' sounds good to me :-).
Isn't the DSM up for revision. Maybe we could influence a change in the name. :rolleyes: Yeah, right.

157!!!???!!! I took that online IQ test too!! But I never joined the $29 dollar a year Genius club. Add 10 points to my score!!

The rest of you folks don't need to reinvent the wheel. Dr. Russell Barkley has figured ADHD out for you. http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course003.php

Somewhere in that article it mentions low IQ correlates with ADHD.
Doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the anecdotal offerings that have been posted in this thread though.

He's probably wrong on other counts too. Perhaps most notably in the ADD aetiology section.

SB.

Somewhere in that article it mentions low IQ correlates with ADHD.
Doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the anecdotal offerings that have been posted in this thread though.

He's probably wrong on other counts too. Perhaps most notably in the ADD aetiology section.

SB.

"Reduced Intelligence

Clinic-referred ADHD children often have lower intelligence than control groups used in these same studies, particularly in verbal intelligence (Barkley, Karlsson, & Pollard, 1985; Mariani & Barkley, 1997; McGee et al., 1992; Moffitt, 1990; Stewart, Pitts, Craig, & Dieruf, 1966; Werry et al., 1987). Differences in IQ have also been found between hyperactive boys and their normal siblings (Halperin & Gittelman, 1982; Tarver-Behring, Barkley, & Karlsson, 1985; Welner, Welner, Stewart, Palkes, & Wish, 1977). The differences found in these studies often range from 7-10 standard score points. Studies using both community samples (Hinshaw, Morrison, Carte, & Cornsweet, 1987; McGee, Williams, & Silva, 1984; Peterson et al., 2001) and behavior-problem samples (Sonuga-Barke, Lamparelli, Stevenson, Thompson, & Henry, 1994) also have found significant negative associations between degree of ADHD and intelligence (rs = -.25-.35). In contrast, associations between ratings of conduct problems and intelligence in children are often much smaller or even nonsignificant, particularly when hyperactive–impulsive behavior is partialed out of the relationship (Hinshaw et al., 1987; Lynam, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993; Sonuga-Barke et al., 1994). This implies that the relationship between IQ and ADHD is not likely to be a function of comorbid conduct problems (see Hinshaw, 1992, for a review). "

I have no problem accepting a 7-10 point drop in IQ scores for kids with ADHD. It's common to see ADHD kid's IQ drop over time from one test to another. That is not something that is supposed to generally happen.

Personally I don't think kids with ADHD are smarter or dumber then regular kids. Kids with ADHD just don't do as well with 2 hour IQ tests and their will to do well falters the longer they sit. They are also more prone to errors.

…They are also more prone to errors…
OK, here's the problem in a nutshell, for this kind of 'normal'.

Are we more prone to errors? No, not at all. We produce a different class of error, which isn't taken into account. Standardized tests are constructed with the expectation of standardizing the conditions (Duh!), so that errors (perhaps due to fatigue, for example) are factored out over the population being measured, and so don't skew the results.

The tests aren't constructed to measure children with AD/HD correctly. They're designed to measure a specific cultural group, too, so there are differences among cultural groups that are heavily discussed in a different kind of forum.

It's the expectation of the tests being truly standard that skews this conversation. Scuro and maybe a majority of the rest of us pin down that little logical corner of our view, and mistake the skew in the test results as a valid representation of some characteristic of having/being AD/HD.

The appearance that children with AD/HD make more errors is only one way that the results are skewed; an even more obvious sign that the tests aren't valid when applied to ADDers are the numbers themselves.

That isn't mentioned here very often.

We strongly suspect that a correctly standardized test wouldn't show much difference between ADDers and normals. Once you filter the available data what we’re left with is a single significantly improved mental tool of a certain kind, which we attribute to the use of a specific logical structure in the brain.

Normals don't use this structure, or use it in a restricted way. This accounts for most of the differences noted here and elsewhere in ADDers IQ test scores, but it doesn't really mean much until you're in a situation in which that capability can be of some use.

Sorry to say it, folks, but what we see is that every person not suffering from actual physical brain damage has about the same mental capability as the rest of us, regardless of how brightly we seem to shine.

* * * * *

As far as changing the terminology goes, it's not as hard to get a change in the DSM as you might think. Kay and I were looking at the neural mechanisms underlying Multiple Personality Disorder pretty intensely for about a year, and as we began to understand them we started calling it Dissociative Identity Disorder because it's a more accurate description.

A few months later we were looking through the new DSM and noticed the official term had been changed, from MPD to DID, exactly the name we had been using privately. Others had been looking at the same things we had (although mainly in terms of diagnosis and treatment) and come to similar conclusions.

So if we want to see a different terminology in the DSM what we need to do is understand this stuff better and get that definition out there in a convincing way.

(Incidentally, prefacing it by telling people we’re smarter than they are probably won't help. It probably isn't true, either, just as Scuro and a few others have noted.)

As technology advances, so does the name…
Are you so certain that the view of AD/HD is fixed over time? Technology certainly has advanced, but we believe that the thing you're describing has changed over this period pretty dramatically, too.

If you take a look at the number of diagnoses you'll see that they've changed even more dramatically over that period than the name. And while increased familiarity and improved recognition probably play a certain role, it's not enough.

There's still a pretty dramatic increase not accounted for, almost as if AD/HD were due to an unrecognized very slow virus.

Now there's a scary thought; maybe we shouldn't kid about stuff like that…


Will it get to a point where it is not classified as a "disorder"? Who knows. Probably not…
You're right that the same crowd that defines the terminology depends on it for sustenance (ask SB_UK about that), but that doesn't mean things can't change. It only means we have to leave them behind before it can happen.

And that should be no problem. We believe it's already in the works. In that sense we are smarter, but the history of it will likely just look like progress.

Oh, well. 20/20 hindsight isn't really a clear view of the truth. It's more like a clear view of the story we told Mom about the broken vase…

Right across biomedical science there are a group of people that profit from uncertainty.

Often what one observes is that an individual will declare himself as an expert, usually throwing out language that sounds scientific, but using it in a very non-scientific way.
Often these guys gain from the house of cards they build, be it financially or through the benefits of becoming known as a 'leader' in that arena. Sadly though, as their foundations weaken, one rarely sees the individual put their hands up, claim that they've gotten the whole thing wrong, and then start again from sounder foundations.
Often, these guys simply make more elaborate theories, use more sophisticated jargon and thereby shelter their eyes from the weakness of the foundations that they have used to base their theories upon.
There's a dangerously strong element of subjectivity that creeps in, perhaps even without the individual realising it. It's almost as though the theories become the foundation of the individual, as well as the basis for their work.

The first or so example that leaps to mind, is in the current fad for geneticists to break complex multifactorial psychiatric conditions using standard genetic methodologies. I was quite happy to see a friend publish an editorial in Nature entitled 'A depressing story of manic depression.'
It was about the lack of concordance between human genetic studies in cohorts selected for bipolar disorder. The impartial observer might suggest that this is the wrong approach, the medical geneticist that only knows how to collect and type patient collections for this disorder, merely throws off the criticism, most often with flimsy words like power, heterogeneity and penetrance.
Being able to penetrate into the nonsense that surrounds these studies is difficult for the layperson, because it kinda' looks correct. In earlier posts, I described it as being a couple of stages beyond understanding a study -- more into the realms of critically appraising what somebody is offering and attempting to determine whether or not they're sailing a delusion.

Apologies if this post sounded a little pretentious. This whole subject and its pervasiveness within the so called 'hard sciences' is something I feel quite strongly about.

SB.

Defining IQ tests as a test of how well one does IQ tests and not a valid measure of intelligence. If you agree that there are many anecdotal stories of high IQ scores amongst ADDer adults (on ADDForums - I think there's an IQ thread around somewhere) and low IQ scores amongst children (your reference) - doesn't our justification of IQ tests being performed badly in children because of their inattention, also apply to adults. Apparent inattention appears to persist in the transition from childhood ADD to adult ADD. Consequently - shouldn't adults perform similarly below average? But certainly not better than average?

Wouldn't this all suggest that there's some process that the IQ test is providing a window in on, in the ADDer, that makes the transition from apparently sub-average to apparently above average with age? ... where the average is defined by the distribution obtained in a predominantly nonADDer age- and sex-matched group for these 2 populations.

SB.

* * * * *

As far as changing the terminology goes, it's not as hard to get a change in the DSM as you might think. Kay and I were looking at the neural mechanisms underlying Multiple Personality Disorder pretty intensely for about a year, and as we began to understand them we started calling it Dissociative Identity Disorder because it's a more accurate description.

A few months later we were looking through the new DSM and noticed the official term had been changed, from MPD to DID, exactly the name we had been using privately. Others had been looking at the same things we had (although mainly in terms of diagnosis and treatment) and come to similar conclusions.

So if we want to see a different terminology in the DSM what we need to do is understand this stuff better and get that definition out there in a convincing way.

(Incidentally, prefacing it by telling people we’re smarter than they are probably won't help. It probably isn't true, either, just as Scuro and a few others have noted.)

Please excuse, what does DSM and others mean?

Please excuse, what does DSM and others mean? It's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It has the description, diagnosis, treatment, and research findings for the different disorders.

Here is a link to some online content : http://www.psychologynet.org/dsm.html

The DSM is in version IV. It is currently going to be revised to version V.

Here is the link : http://www.dsm5.org/

Thanks :)

Wouldn't this all suggest that there's some process that the IQ test is providing a window in on, in the ADDer, that makes the transition from apparently sub-average to apparently above average with age?
Ohhhh, yeah! Good point SB. I think you nailed that one. We never saw it.

Chalk that up right next to the 'intimately converged' web.


* * * * *

One point that's regularly missed in our discussions about IQ and IQ tests is exactly what the various standardized test versions actually measure.

We believe that these tests are tweaked to be very sensitive to how well a person has recognized and absorbed the social and cultural common models of reality.

If so, that would help explain various cultural biases that have been widely reported and debated, and it would also signal something more interesting about the development of AD/HD.

Personally, I expect I would do better on standardized IQ tests than in the distant past, and I didn't do too poorly then. But if anything, I'm more alienated culturally; I was on the outside looking in, back in the late Sixties, but I was a member of a huge group of peers.

Now that whole phenomenon has dissipated, come back into phashion and died all over again. Here in the states the conservative movement is busy bullying everybody, even their own; it's all fallen into sheer madness.

There's only family and a few friends, many of whom I've never actually met face to face.

Hmmm.

So why would I do better at a test that measures how well you 'get' the common model? I believe we do understand it now, much better than we did forty years ago.

We just don't buy it.

157!!!???!!! I took that online IQ test too!! But I never joined the $29 dollar a year Genius club. Add 10 points to my score!!

The rest of you folks don't need to reinvent the wheel. Dr. Russell Barkley has figured ADHD out for you. http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course003.php
No, this wasn't an online test...it was a real copy of an officially issued and timed version actually ON paper....hey, it was in the 90's when using paper was still a big deal :D

Of course, with age and wisdom do you think my IQ went up or down?

I am getting older and actually think that I am getting smarter. Then again I have a developmental disorder which I take to mean that I am reaching my prime in my 40's!! :D