In the first part of the Evolution of AD/HD I explained my view that it was initially a genetic spread function.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18053

It is still being selected for in the human species.


The population starts to increase allowing for more mixing of tribal groups... culture started to promote the genetic spread function through arranged marriages between tribes and trade of the more "reproductionally valuable gender" (female). Patriarchy starts to take over as the dominant cultural paradigm. Hierarchy becomes more defined and roles increase. Lack of order is shunned.


1. AD/HD men and women start to lose their functionality in the "genetic spread" realm.
2. Because of the lack of culture processing, there is processing capability that is unused.
3. Boredom leads to hyperfocus
4. New technologies are created

AD/HD (IR) technology/culture Feedback system

a) Brain power developed for cultural processing gives the (AD/HD) extra-cultural individual more processing power for creation of art, music and technology.
b) Art, music and technology lead to more complex culture that leads to a).

5. Culture becomes more complex due to the technological advance of two things
a. The domestication of the horse
b. Agriculture
6. Smaller tribes become larger and stationary as villages form
7. Culture "breeds" humans for cultural complexity. Speeding up "brain power evolution".
8. With the increasing complexity of culture, more "mental processing power" becomes available to the "AD/HD" Brain
9. More technology is produced.
10. Dwellings, food and water systems become more complex because of the technology
11. Cities form
12. More roles and groups per individual leads to a processing power increase.
13. Technology allows for governmental and complex religious structures
14. Structured education is formed in order to support the weight of highly complex culture involving many sub-cultures
15. De selection increases for individuals that are questioners
16 Structural systems tend to be brittle and unstable.
17. Extra-cultural (AD/HD) individuals find a place in the volatility. Selection continues.
18. Extra-cultural (AD/HD) individuals are increasingly creating art, technology and dissent
19. Dominant structures start to label extra-culturals (AD/HD) heretics
20. Culturally biased science starts to see socially less functional individuals as disordered.
21. High levels of structure needed to keep complex rule, roles and governmental systems creates less functional situations for the extra-cultral (AD/HD)


This is where we sit now. A type of cognition that is less than functional in the structured society. This takes new ways of using our minds to increase our functionality and mental health. We still have a valuable role... In a sense we drive the culture.

So we need to be happy with driving the bus... not trying to get into the seats in the back. There is no room for us and the driver is needed :)
In AD/HD we process the world through a highly context dependant mind. The descriptions and predictions of what that entails is next :)

chain can you explain #20 more. Please
I'm not sure I understand that one.

chain can you explain #20 more. Please
I'm not sure I understand that one.
With 20... you have the field of psychology not removing culture as a factor when it starts declaring disorders...culture or lack thereof is a factor. It is hard for psychology to understand that there are people who do not process culture in the same way.

Also psychology is very gender biased... they do not see how women can be of certain types. For example until very recently very few women were dx'd with ADD... Women are almost viewed above disorder in psychology OR they have their own special set of disorders. I personally see that as silly and a sign that psychology as a science is heavily culturally biased. Observation through the filters of our culture.

Culturally biased = cultural agenda = bad science

IMHO :)

There ARE plenty of brilliant psychologists who are seem to be seeing this problem... I am not pointing the finger... just in general when humans look at themselves... we like to bestow upon ourselves some special status (we are above animals and nature). It may seem that I am doing this with ADD but in the end it is simply a functional type that was chosen for and has a purpose... it only seems like status because culture assigns positive values to many of the things that ADD seems to be filled with.

Couple questions:

First, why is it that Europeans have a lot less incidence of AD/HD?

Second, why are males roughly 3 times more likely to develop AD/HD?

Also, let me add this, it appears your theories are soley based on genetic causes. Am I correct? I personally feel that my enviornment also played a big role in my ADD development and I was predisposed for developing ADD like symptoms. My father was a physically abusive man and experiencing that stress on a daily basis contributed greatly to my eventual inability to process correctly. There is most certainly a connection between prefrontal cortex function and abuse/trauma.

http://www.lawandpsychiatry.com/html/hippocampus.htm

The above page links abuse/trauma with decreased funtioning of the hippocampus and lack of overall blood flow to the PFC, which are the same markers of many ADD sufferers, too. In other words, isn't AD/HD just a form of brain damage, genetic or otherwise? According to this article I would probably be labeled PTSD , but we share many of the same symptoms as those who are Limbic ADD. I personally feel that PTSD is a form of ADD that is induced through life experiences and traumas.

I'm new here, so just trying to add the perspective of those of us who feel our enviornment contributed greatly to the onset of ADD symptoms. Btw, my ADD didn't show up until puberty.

I'm new here, so just trying to add the perspective of those of us who feel our enviornment contributed greatly to the onset of ADD symptoms. Btw, my ADD didn't show up until puberty.
Sorry to hear about your traumatic past. I hope you are coming to terms with those events. There is a book I have on hold at the library, "Dare to Forgive", by Dr. Ned Hallowell. Dr. Hallowell is one of the leading experts on ADHD.

The DSM lists one of the main criteria as :

Some hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive symptoms that caused impairment were present before age 7 years.
You had mentioned your symptoms did not show up until puberty (12-13 years old?). I would agree that you fit the diagnosis of PTSD, which carry a lot of the same symptoms.

Myself and my son fit this criteria. According to my wife, my son exhibited the hyper-acitve portion in utero.:faint:

I also can also see that the effects of PTSD can permenantly alter the brain causing ADHD symptoms.

Have you read Driven to Distraction (1994) or Delivered from Distraction (2005) by Dr. Ned Hallowell? If you haven't please try to read them. In my opinion (and many others), they are the best books published on ADHD. If you can totally relate to the books and they answer a lot of questions as to "why you are the way you are", then this will reinforce the ADHD diagnosis.


Chain,

Are you taking into account these situations in your model?

Also psychology is very gender biased... they do not see how women can be of certain types.

the end it is simply a functional type that was chosen for and has a purpose... So, you believe that psychology as a discipline is better at defining the workings of the male mind, because the discipline doesn't have a grasp of the separate 'functional cognitive types' that women are characterised by?

But if ADHD "is an example of a functional cognitive type", then does that mean that each individual could potentially have lots and lots of different functional cognitive types?

SB.

So, you believe that psychology as a discipline is better at defining the workings of the male mind, because the discipline doesn't have a grasp of the separate 'functional cognitive types' that women are characterised by.

But if ADHD "is an example of a functional cognitive type", then does that mean that each individual could potentially have lots and lots of different functional cognitive types?

SB.
Psychology is biased by the culural myths that women are completely different than men that they have different levels of disorder. I think the differences are there but they are minimal. In culture, gender role plays an important part. There are cognitive types that process culture and the actual "look" of the "symptoms" is different (but the it is really the same type) Male NPD tends to show masculine and flashy... female NPD shows as Muenchhausen more commonly. In my theory NPD is extreme in its culture processing... same number of ADDers in men and women... simple genetics.

The brains are different but not in that way (Women may lean slightly closer towards CM... but ADD is almost full CM.. the diffences are not so big with us)

The cognitive types I define are base. We are genetically predisposed for a "type". It is really no more different than I am a human and not a bird (both functional in different ways but very clearly different) I cannot be 10 feet tall, I was born 5'7". I do have the type I call IRCM... I will never be ER...ER is a survival function and I have a different one. Birds fly and I walk. All different but not that different :)

functional cognitive type = survival strategies

Now the big question is... do I believe that IRCM is special... yes I do... because I am that and have to be what I am.

Do I feel IRCM is better than the other survival strategies? No... I don't.... in the end all we are is a degree of order. no disorders just different kinds of orders.

Do I feel that the other strategies are functional for the other cognitive types... can be... may not be. It depends on the individual.

We are all different and all alike... I am just saying that the differences do not come out of thin air or are some strange malevolent diseases foisted on us by unknown forces.

Can we be several base cognitives types at once? No... can we switch cognitive types? yes... it happens commonly and is considered "disordered"

Can we be members of multiple differing cognitive types...yes (Birds have feet... people have feet... we are footed animals)

Can an ERHM person become IRCM... yes through neurotransmitters... through volition...no

Can all cognitive types find self? Possibly... depends on the ROI
Can we all be enlightened.... yes! Do we all have CM? Yes... all humans have CM... self... emotion (It is hard for NPD and SPD to find it... but they are most likely able too... is there ROI for them?.... quite possibly yes.... but it depends on the individual)

Can IRCM become ERHM (ADD type to non-ADD type) No but we can fake it well with stimulants and antidepressents... but creativity is often lost with The ADs (CM is where emotion is stored in memory...)

It really does not matter if I am a bird or a human as long as I am functiional and living a life worth living... the diferences are only important in moving past the problem of seeing everything as a disorder. Fuctionalism and evolution do not only apply to non-humans...humans are animals too :) We are just caught up in our big egos.

We are all sentient... that, in the end is most important...

Base cognitive types are presumably the labels you place on your 2 continua.

So using your continua, you believe it's impossible to see a narcissistic ADDer, a sociopathic ADDer, a creative sociopath, a structured ADDer?
ie displaying both characteristics simultaneously?

SB.

Can an ERHM person become IRCM... yes through neurotransmitters... through volition...no

If 'ADHD is one of two main functional cognitive types' - isn't it amazing that a neurotransmitter (or more) can somehow result in a switch between the 'two main functional cognitive types'?

How does a neurochemical change result in such a profound switch?

How can a presumably simple change in the behaviour of a small set of our neurones, perhaps even in just 1 neurotransmitter, result in an entirely different set of higher level behaviours, ultimately giving rise to two mutually exclusive states - ERHM and IRCM ... or nonADDer and ADDer ... representing the 'two main functional cognitive types'?

Shouldn't that be the big question?

Incidentally are these 2 main base functional cognitive types ADDer (IRCM) and sociopathic narcissist (ERHM), or ADDer and normal (on your primary/secondary continua)?

SB.

Folks, this entire thread is logically bankrupt. It depends on the previous thread, which isn't supported at all.

It's deceitful to cite questionable material as authoritative, and pretend to build on it without addressing valid objections.

Several members of the forums, ourselves included, have been trying to engage Cory in an attempt to understand some of his 'theory' in a way that we can accept as actually being scientific.

He has refused to respond, instead ignoring our specific questions in favor of vague attacks, personal and otherwise.

Until he slows down long enough to talk with those of us who have legitimate questions (and the training and expertise to ask them), we have to consider these 'theories' to be no more than casual speculation.

Sorry, Cory, but this isn't making it. We're trying, but we're not getting anything like the response we'd expect from someone with actual science behind their ideas.

Argue with that if you want, but at least argue some point, dude.


In the first part of the Evolution of AD/HD I explained my view that it was initially a genetic spread function.

It is still being selected for in the human species…
Unfortunately, this hasn't been established. As far as we can tell, this isn't really a very significant factor, and the only reason we see for hyping it is to create an artificial division between ADDers and normals.

For example, in your original post you said:


It is a functional type of human cognition...

Here is what I have discovered. The theories and models are pretty tight at this point.


Why does AD/HD exist?

1. It started as a simple way of spreading genes across different cultural groups.

2(a). It ended up being a driver of innovation and technology as a secondary effect.

2(b). Therefore (it) continues to be selected for.


Back to that in a minute. Some more randomly chosen statements, which I'm certain you feel are obviously true, and for which you also offer no support:


Highly structured groups/culture tend to be xenophobic…
Sorry, but they don't. Xenophobia has a specific etiology. It has nothing to do with structure.


This creates an environment in which genetic material is not fresh...
Sorry, but no again. The terms 'fresh' and 'genetic material' aren't correctly coupled here.


Groups needed both fresh genetic material and xenophobia…
There isn't any way to tell what you mean by this; it's not obvious to those of us with formal training, and your refusal to address our questions and concerns is troubling.

However: regardless of how you meant it (if you did actually think it through) there is no valid direct relationship establishing that groups 'need' either 'fresh' genetic material or xenophobia.


A strict hierarchy must be maintained in order to provide the best protection…
Sorry, no, no, no. What the heck are you thinking? Are you trying to establish a logical justification for enforcing a hierarchy of your own design?

If this seems obvious to you, you need to slow down and think about what science actually is, how it works, and then begin to apply it honestly.


Foreigners bring new ideas and instability…
Equivalent statement: airplanes bring new ideas and instability.

There are a lot more: boxes delivered to your door, letters, learning anything new, catching mom unawares, and so on. It's just not relevant, and the instability isn't either.

Oh well. You get the point, or you don't; it doesn't really matter. The point is valid. We're not certain that your basic ideas are. These specific statements of yours are off to the side somewhere, in need of some resuscitation.


You originally stated "it is a functional type of human cognition." Unfortunately, that phrase has little or no meaning, regardless of what your degree might have been in.

Try this: AD/HD is not a type of cognition.

Read it again, and again, until you can hear what people with lots of training and experience have been trying to politely tell you: AD/HD is not a type of cognition, and treating it as such forces everyone to try to translate what you're saying into real terms.

AD/HD has an effect on cognition, but it affects everything else about how we use our brains, too. Why pick on cognition? Our guess is that you don't understand it at all, which is why we tried to explain something about it to you early on.

If you could 'see' cognition the way your writings imply, you wouldn't be saying that AD/HD is a class of cognition. AD/HD is in fact an entirely different class of logical object, which we thought should be obvious.

But I guess it's not. Too bad.


As long as we've on the subject of the flaws in your presentation, here's some more comments relating to just the tiny bit we quoted back at the beginning:


1. (AD/HD) started as a simple way of spreading genes across different cultural groups.

AD/HD did not start as a way of spreading genes across different cultural groups, simple or otherwise. Sorry, dude, but if your whole theory is based on this idea, it's all invalid.


2(a). (AD/HD) ended up being a driver of innovation and technology as a secondary effect.

Nope, sorry. AD/HD did not end up being a driver of innovation and technology as a secondary effect of (1.)

The 'driver' isn't of science and technology at all; that is the secondary effect. There is a mechanism that arises as our brains begin to adapt to the use of specific logical structures, not too hard a thing to understand.

The mechanisms themselves aren't too hard to understand, either, and once you spend a bit of time looking at how these things happened, anyone can see why they look like a driver of technology.

But you need to do that, specify a mechanism; you can't just blindly claim stuff happened because it seems to make sense to you.

If that's harsh, tough; you are completely ignoring our questions here, and a lot of us are beginning to suspect that you don't have answers.


2(b). Therefore (it) continues to be selected for.

Selection is selection, dude; what does your statement have to do with that? Is there some way that we’re supposed to assume a connection between your previous statements and the process of selection itself?

I don't think so. I suspect you meant to make a point, that there are forces that cause a genetic predisposition to AD/HD to select.

We've already covered that. We've proposed a solid model of the underlying mechanisms, which seem to be missing in your models.

Is there something more that you want us to explain, or are you trying to dismiss our understanding of the situation by ignoring it?

Either way, it's just rude, isn't it?

* * * * *

Actually, this is where the 'model' for this sort of thing is located, in offering an explanation for the underlying mechanism. Your 'models' don't do that; they don't even try.

And they aren't really models if they don't; they're just a bunch of unsupported statements. We’re trying to cut you a break, asking you to explain a bit of the mechanisms you apparently see at work, but to no avail.


Feel free to respond, if you want. We are serious about trying to understand what you're talking about, and confident that we understand enough to know that there are serious weak spots.

We’re trying to be polite, in the spirit of these forums that was established long before you joined in. If you really don't like our culture, you should say so. But I think most of us like it.

Why not join in?

Base cognitive types are presumably the labels you place on your 2 continua…
And right there is how things start to go south. SB's trying, but this little conversation is already doomed.

AD/HD Is not a class of cognition. We're being drawn into a discussion using false terms, and there is no way out once it begins.

I suggest Cory address this difficulty right here and now, so the discussion can proceed honestly.

AD/HD Is not a class of cognition. We're being drawn into a discussion using false terms, and there is no way out once it begins.
Let's break this down a little. First the definition of cognition :

The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.
That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.
Based on this definition, I would agree that AD/HD is not a class of cognition. But, AD/HD definitely affects one's cognition.

So it actually is a <blank> of cognition. Any ideas?

That's a pretty interesting definition, Tim. Just out of curiosity, where did it come from, or is it your personal gestalt based on your background?

We use a functional definition derived from well understood and generally accepted models of neural function. That's a bigger stretch than most tend to make, but it gives it a solid base.

It also makes our definition seem a bit slippery sometimes, because we’re always referring back to the neural level. It can seem like we’re avoiding the details that show up in stuff like your definition, but we’re not. We see the stuff you cited as artifacts of the underlying processes that give rise to cognition.

If we needed to sum our model up, it would be something like this:

Cognition is the active process of modeling being in a logical context that is itself a model of the physical context, i.e., the external physical world. This process feeds back, affecting both the model of the context and the model of the active process itself. So in a sense, cognition is an interactive process.

There's a lot of support out there in the CS community for this view or something similar. It’s sometimes described using a 'film' metaphor, but that doesn't capture the way that it's an interactive process.

It doesn't directly suggest an appropriate neural expression, either, which is how we came by our model. We went from the bottom up, asking how do these things work first, and then figuring out how they might make something that looks like, say, consciousness experience.

Or, not so coincidentally, AD/HD. We weren't looking for it; we were trying to explain certain differences between people, and AD/HD was something we needed to understand and eliminate from the equation before we could understand the specific differences we were targeting.

That's a pretty interesting definition, Tim. Just out of curiosity, where did it come from, or is it your personal gestalt based on your background?

Not my personal definition, just Webster's defintion.

Here is the American-Heritage definition:

The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment. 2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.

If you think about it, AD/HD is only a label for the way a persons mind operates. One of the major classic symptoms of this style of thinking is "racing thoughts".

For example, "Gee, look at that cat over by the tree, did I feed the cats this morning before I left for work, I hope someone brings donuts to work today, boy I need to stop eating junk food, where can I go for lunch, Oh yeah, I am supposed to meet Bob at Chipotle for lunch, I hope he doesn't talk about his health problems the whole time, I need to schedule a doctor's appointment....." This also happening all within seconds time or less.

Could it be that AD/HD is a "style" of thinking, while thinking is a "catalyst" of cognition.

No scientific basis here, just ideas. :)

Based on this definition, I would agree that AD/HD is not a class of cognition. But, AD/HD definitely affects one's cognition.

So it actually is a <blank> of cognition. Any ideas?

How about?


ADHD is the name for individuals with the visible consequences of an altered structure of mind. All processes of mind are affected by this altered structure, including cognition.

Could it be that AD/HD is a "style" of thinking, while thinking is a "catalyst" of cognition.
So this altered structure of mind permits a different 'style' of thinking.

Is the second part related to the intimacy between cognition, thought and language?
By that what I think I mean is that one can only become 'cognitively' aware of something if one can 'think' about that thing using 'language'.
So --> Mental models of 'things' with associated 'names and properties' (describable using language) combine in thought [an example of a cognitive process].

SB.

Base cognitive types are presumably the labels you place on your 2 continua.

So using your continua, you believe it's impossible to see a narcissistic ADDer, a sociopathic ADDer, a creative sociopath, a structured ADDer?
ie displaying both characteristics simultaneously?

SB.

It does sound off, doesn't it? The spectrum defined (Internally referent contextual minds vs. Externally referent hierarchal minds) should probably be taken as it is: IRCM vs. ERHM. When we mix in ADD and normals, we should (like in most other cases) think of magnets at each end. Really, I don't think it is appropriate to even compare "normals" to ADDers on this level anyway. Even though ADDers (though, the correlation here is higher with AS, I would imagine) tend to be pulled torward the IRCM side of the scale, and even if there is a correlation between IRCM and ADD, the ADDers are a part of a broader spectrum of people anyway. It is like comparing a Chevy 350 assembly to a connecting rod or crankshaft out of a Ford 427W (stroked, just for fun :)).

As far a narcissism/sociopathism goes, if we disconnect ADD vs. "normals" from the described spectrum, it would make a bit more sense. If an ADDer went narcissistic, the ADDer also went towards ERHM. Again, the magnetic aspect of the spectrum (not that this is chain's view, I am simply adapting it a little bit).


:: HF switches context to entire topic ::

Are chain's ideas scientific/purely scientific? I would assume a "no" here. Are they intended to be? That is the real question... (I seem to view chain's posts as more of meaning of our existence than an actual scientific explanation. I may or may not be correct on this.)

Are chain's ideas scientific/purely scientific? I would assume a "no" here. Are they intended to be? That is the real question... (I seem to view chain's posts as more of meaning of our existence than an actual scientific explanation. I may or may not be correct on this.)
Good point HF. I agree Chain is just giving an opinion. Even though he did say something about publishing in another post. This would be the deciding factor.

It does sound off, doesn't it? The spectrum defined (Internally referent contextual minds vs. Externally referent hierarchal minds) should probably be taken as it is: IRCM vs. ERHM. When we mix in ADD and normals, we should (like in most other cases) think of magnets at each end. Really, I don't think it is appropriate to even compare "normals" to ADDers on this level anyway.
OK, there's a statement we can work with.

What level are you talking about? Can you define it? I don't care how, just put any discussion of it on the table.

Seriously. I know (from private discussions) quite a few of us would love to approach this on some concrete grounds, and if we're going to use terms like 'level' and 'continuum' we should be able to define at least what ballpark we’re in.

So maybe this is a place to get a finger hold on what Cory's presenting.

How about it? Any ideas?


Incidentally, we're not sure why you suggest a polar view of ADDers vs. normals. We can't see the utility of it, even though we've tried.

You do know when you cut the poles off a magnet, you get more magnets each with the same set of poles, regardless of how small you make them?

In the magnetic domains on your hard drive the poles are so close to each other you couldn't split a hair fine enough to fit between them, and that domain can easily be subdivided again many times.

Maybe the 'ends of a magnet' analogy is closer than you thought, or perhaps you meant it that way and we misunderstood.


Are chain's ideas scientific/purely scientific? I would assume a "no" here. Are they intended to be? That is the real question... (I seem to view chain's posts as more of meaning of our existence than an actual scientific explanation)
So they're a philosophical system rather than literally a way of analyzing ?personality types?, or whatever property it is that we imagine the continuum is defined over?

That makes more sense, but I don't think Cory sees it that way; he clearly intends that the system he presents can help people with their AD/HD problems.

We don't see that, yet, though we assume that understanding one's self is an important part of the equation. But it's a mistake to suggest that a philosophical system is any less rigorous than a purely scientific model, or that there is even a very great logical distance between the two.

Pure philosophy is, if anything, more rigorously subject to the constraints of formal logic than any other discipline. When Bertrand Russell wrote Principia Mathematica he was well into the second volume before he established enough of a basis for arithmetic to show that 1+1=2.

That was Russell reaching out of the purely logical domain of philosophy into the scientific domain of pure mathematics. Philosophy doesn't get easier, it gets harder, if for no other reason than there's less concrete stuff to lay your hands on.

That said, we generally agree with the idea that these posts are an attempt to organize in a systematic way Cory's subjective impressions of conscious being.

There are several different classes of problem with that approach, and they are bound to become intertwined and confused unless we're very careful.

One obvious point is that our subjective experience isn't necessarily the same as Cory's. There is a surprising amount of it that can be shown to be common, but you have to do that before you charge on into suggesting how other people's subjective world should be interpreted.

We did just that, but the way we established the extent of commonality in subjective experience also reveals that it isn't possible to directly show it.

So you can't (for example) directly prove to another person that you see what they do in the universe, yet most of us are convinced of the fundamental truth of that. This can be very frustrating, particularly because the patterns that one perceives in their subjective view of reality seem as if they must be due to reality itself, rather than the view.

That brings us to another class of difficulties that arise when constructing an organizational scheme based on subjective experience. The problem of showing that perceived patterns are due to nature and not perception is complicated: it’s trivially simple to show that all patterns are due to perception, but it's extremely difficult to even propose a mechanism by which the perceived pattern can be thought of as due to nature itself.

The logical seam that allows us to attack and unravel that problem is that we humans are due to nature itself, too. By careful consideration of how perception takes place, it's possible to gain some confidence in both the fact that some patterns are truly related to nature, and also that some are generated by the process of observing one's self in the process of observation.

Those patterns are like the eddies in a stream around your hand; move your hand, and the pattern follows. Worse yet, they’re different for every individual hand, even though they arise from the same underlying forces. What we're looking for is the flow itself, and the eddies are only a clue, not the real thing.

We don't want to be tied down to a descriptive scheme that addresses the eddies. We believe that there is much of the flow in what Cory's presenting. We just want to nail down what parts address that, and orthogonalize the pieces that don't.

Really, I don't think it is appropriate to even compare "normals" to ADDers on this level anyway. Even though ADDers (though, the correlation here is higher with AS, I would imagine) tend to be pulled torward the IRCM side of the scale, and even if there is a correlation between IRCM and ADD, the ADDers are a part of a broader spectrum of people anyway. It is like comparing a Chevy 350 assembly to a connecting rod or crankshaft out of a Ford 427W (stroked, just for fun :)).

HF,

Would that be a Chevy 383 vs. the Ford 427W? :D Or would the Ford be stroked, as well? :D Either way, they would both be "stump pullers". ;)

Sorry about that.

It does seem that this model is placing the "ADDer" and the "Normal" as two types at the very top or center and then building everything else below or around these two types.

Would it be possible for Chain to break this down into smaller subjects?

Maybe we could help by defining or posting what is already proven and then try to insert some of Chain's ideas.

If this sounds like a good idea could someone start a thread with these "proven" concepts that would help Chain?

Hi,
I think we can build ourselves some idea of how ADD arises, and what ADD results in .. but think it may be difficult to graft anything onto Chain.
Chain has the idea of functional typology central to his theory of ADD. I think it may be difficult to work with functional types, unless we have some idea of what causes them, and how they differ (under the hood).
No comment either way on whether I believe there's any mileage in pursuing functional types as a tool in gaining any insight into ADD.

SB.

Hi,
I think we can build ourselves some idea of how ADD arises, and what ADD results in .. but think it may be difficult to graft anything onto Chain.
Theories and models are not built by consensus. You may not be able to graft anything on to mine. Since you can with Tom... please present us the model. This is not an insult. If you can explain it in simple terms...I am sure it will add a great deal to this :)

Chain has the idea of functional typology central to his theory of ADD. I think it may be difficult to work with functional types, unless we have some idea of what causes them, and how they differ (under the hood).
Actually it central to my theory of all cognitive types. Hmmm under the hood? Like nuerotransmitters... Yes... I have a model for that.

It comes down to two things:
Do you believe there are differences between people?
Do you believe that differences have functionality?

Nature shows it over and over again... are we different?

Functional typology maps right ino evolutionary theory

My models deal with >>some idea of what causes them, and how they differ (under the hood)<< CM and HM are under the hood. Engine (CM) and transmission (HM)


No comment either way on whether I believe there's any mileage in pursuing functional types as a tool in gaining any insight into ADD.

SB.
Please create a model or theory to show what you think will give us mileage. What do you think?.. not what do you think about what I think. That is the spirit of this thing.... right?

Here is what I am asking...
Real responses. I am trying to present these ideas clearly. I do not care if you agree with them. I will change them with real evidence or better models.
(My ego is not in this...it is fun for me. A dopamine generator.... as well as something I feel is important to explore. I have children... you see... these are genetic things. My daughter already shows ADHD and my son has a very high chance that he will be NPD (My father and my ex wife's father were... my ex wife shows all the classic signs))

I want to see your models on cognition or ADD ADHD. It is easy to shoot mine down with the "subjective" argument. Show me how they are subjective.... tell me how they do not match your experiences or knowledge. Tell me why functional typology is not useful (It is boiled down Darwinian concepts...)

Tell me why humans are different than animals.


I have a fully laid out model and scientific philosophy behind it with simple bullet points and axioms.
http://www.contextualmind.org/wiki/index.php?title=Theory_of_functional_typology

Give me the same...ok? What are the axioms behind the meta-model web? Tom... how did you explain it to Chomsky?


My goal here is to get useful feedback. Not be swirled into some strange argument over the nature of individual truth that I had repeatedly at college parties. I will not answer questions that aim at that...ok?

Here is what I am saying in a nutshell:

1. There are patterns and forms (types) in nature
2. Patterns repeat through different forms
3. These forms are functional (functional types)
4. There are functional types in animals
5. Humans are animals
6. The human species does not escape from natural patterns
7. Social species have patterns with functional types (ants, bees...etc)
8. Humans are a social species
9. Humans have types that helped them survive (cognitive types)
10. I am defining these types in continua: http://www.contextualmind.org/wiki/index.php?title=Continua
11. I have functional models that show these types: http://www.contextualmind.org/wiki/index.php?title=Triangle_Model
12. I have an evolutionary theory about how one of these types evolved: See linked thread
13. I am currently working on the genetic theory
14. I will be providing the external data that supports or does not support these models on my web site.
15. I will be working on tests/surveys to help make this more data centered
16. It will be published and others can attack it
17. Look like the scientific method to you? It does to me

Here are the definitions (as well as I can put them in words):

IR vs. ER
Internal Reference:
Humans who don't process culture (group membership) on a sub-aware level.
Animals that do not conform with group behavior .

This is done to promote genetic transfer between subpopulations (Demes) in social species.

In this category the "DSM disorders" are AD/HD, Asperger's and Autism
Internal reference is created through:

1. Forcing loss or degradation of HM function (ADHD)
2. Forcing loss of learning culture by reading faces and body language (Aspergers, Autism)
3. Forcing loss of verbal communication capability (Autism)
4. Forcing loss of learning body behaviors of peers (Autism)

External Reference:
Humans that process culture (group membership) on a sub-aware level
Animals that can conform with and understand below awareness the behavior of their birth herd, school, pack, pod, flock

In this category Narcissism is the only "disorder" that is fully externally referent. It is so extreme that it almost appears like internal reference (It is ego eclipsing self)

Sociopaths can be externally referenced... most are. There is a kind of sociopath that is IRHM+ (Very very small set of Asperger's... probably smaller subset than is found in the population at large). Since AD/HD is CM (it might even be defined as CM+) It is the opposite.

CM vs HM
Contextual Mind:
The main source of processing and storage for the animal. It is individual centered and stores information in memory based on sense data. It process senses, feelings and emotions. It does not store abstractions (things that are removed from their context) unless they are "tagged" with a sense. It is slow but very accurate.
DSM "Disorders": ADHD is highly context and sense based through CM (CM+). Dyslexia and synesthesia are CM based.
Some Aspergers and Autism are in the CM range.

Hierarchical Mind:
This stores abstractions. It is iconic and does not store sense, feelings or emotions information. It is connected to primitive spatial memory. It is fast and is below awareness. Culture is stored and processed here. It tells the individual where they are.
It is structured for speed and is not as accurate as CM.
DSM "Disorders": Sociopath = HM+ (Structure eclipses self... emotional/sense encapsulation)

HM connects with CM. CM gives HM "emotional connectivity" for ego presentation.


OK... that is what I am talking about. It is very predictive. There is a lot of external data that suggest such a functional "division". (The models are very predictive at this point)


SB, I explained why there are switches in this thread:
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=186158#post186158


This is all I can offer. Tom... if you feel this thread is illogical... what is your goal in commenting on it?


Why not start a logical thread on your own... why do you rarely do that? You have a model... put it out there in simple language with bullet points and axioms. You are currently not adding much by asking all of these questions that are confusing. ( I am confused by them...not what they ask but how they are pertinent)

Everything you write is so vague that every person can construe it in their own way. If you feel that is an attack... all you have to do is read your own writings to find similar "attacks".


Put yourself out there man :) I promise, I will ask constructive questions.
If you guys feel this is BS... I need to know why... honestly! Not that it is some subjective view that only "Cory sees"... It is based on personal observation and anecdote but that is how theories are born... A stork does not drop them off at your front porch.

Chain,

What is you definition of a "functional type"?

Is it, "Every thing has a certain function or purpose within the universe (as we know it today :D )"?

If this is the case, then you can easily break humans down into two functional types...FEMALE and MALE. They each have their purpose in the universe. One is not better than the other. As a species, they each have a specialties. This is built into their genetic codes and present throughout the history of humans. Isn't this nature's way of operation? Can one do the other's role? Sure! Can they be specialists in that role? Sure! I think the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" does an excellent job at explaining the cognitive differences between women and men. It doesn't cover everything, but it's a good start.

Are you trying to link ADHD as having a specific evolutionary "functional type" within the human race?

Just trying to understand? Thanks.

Let's hope Tom is wrong about the slow virus thing.:eek:

HF,
Would that be a Chevy 383 vs. the Ford 427W? :D Or would the Ford be stroked, as well? :D Either way, they would both be "stump pullers". ;)


A 427W is a stroker motor. It is a bored and stroked 351W. Hence, the "Windsor" at the end. :)

I created another difference between the two (other than engine assembly vs. part) to make the comparison seem more absurd. ;)

Are you trying to link ADHD as having a specific evolutionary "functional type" within the human race?

Just trying to understand? Thanks.

Let's hope Tom is wrong about the slow virus thing.Male and female are perfect examples... they are functional types. They have a function that is vital.. the sharing of genetic material in order to create offspring that have a better chance of survival. Asexual reproduction is not viable in the long run. Even bacteria have hedge against this by swapping genetic material. When scientists announce a new species as the first example of viable long-term asexual reproduction... it is usually disproven within a couple of years.


Male and female are a "species level" survival strategy. There are individual survival strategies and social ones as well. This is the function I am talking about...survival.


Humans employ a social survival strategy. Look at it... we are furless fragile creatures... why are we successful?

There is functionality in us. Hands did not just form for no reason... they are a copy of many other things that are like hands... marsupials have something similar.... patterns of functionality. Why can't our brains be the same?


There are four main individual survival strategies in the wild
1. Hunt
2. Forage
3. Herd or school (what humans do)
4. Find a host (pets and parasites)



Humans form tight knit social groups for survival

pros: group survival is increased over individual survival.
Members have roles that benefit the entire group.
pack hunting is more efficient... more food increases survival odds

cons: Groups are too small to support genetic viability. Over time inbreeding results and the group dies due to genetic illness (Muller's ratchet)

Individuals will not leave the comfort of the group and their group bonds
Foreign individuals are shunned because they would promote instability in the group culture.

Because no one leaves the groups (demes)... there are no foreigners (pollinators) to freshen up the genetic stock in the group

Solution: Internal reference... individuals that have no attachment to the group and in fact feel uncomfortable in group settings. This individual must either be kicked out of leave because of wanderlust.

This type must be spread through the population (demes) to work.
This type is impulsive, questioning and looks to the horizon

Nature just needs to do a throwback to the solitary forager... and a new cognitive type is born (ADHD)

ADHD, Asperger's and Autism were all originally gene spreaders.With ADHD, Asperger's and some forms of autism, that function became "innovator types" at a later point (currently our function)

functional cognitive types (related to the 4 individual survival strategies...patterns repeat... nature is a lazy OOP programmer)


1. Sociopath (Extreme HM) is either a solitary hunter or as tribes grew... a warrior or leader of warriors. This individual needs to be highly structured with low emotion. (HM eclipses CM)

2. ADHD (IRCM) follows the forage pattern... survival of the individual after leaving the comfort of the tribe is paramount. Context is constantly needed in order to avoid predation and find food and shelter. It probably attracts to leaders of foreign tribes thus ensuring safe transfer of genetic material (foreigners would be treated like slaves otherwise) Self is the main component of this individual. (CM)

3. Most people (I call this type ERHM) follow the herd or pack. They need to have a degree of internal reference to survive and external reference to be functional in the hierarchy of the tribal group. They also need to share basic assumptions that can not be questioned. These assumptions are abstract (not real) and help maintain the tribe by assigning roles based on gender, age and capability. They need to have both structure and context. (HM and CM integration)

4. Narcissism (extreme ER) follows the "find a host pattern". In humans this individual is very aware of culture and seeks attention and status. The social function of this type is probably leader with an internal referent person at their side for counsel (most likely a mate). This individual needs to become what the tribe needs. Self is sacrificed to culture (ego). Ego must be the sole purpose for this individual. (Ego eclipses self)


In order to explain ADHD...I need to give it context in terms of functionality. It needs the other types. Humans are those base "functional types". Can we became aware of our base type and change? Yes... we can but it is expensive. These things are "soft wired". We can change it... but why? It is so much easier to accept who you are and live a functional life.

I like gazing at the horizon and I don't want to join the group... too boring :)

I don't think ADHD is a viral infection :) I know that Tom was just making a point though...

…it(s) central to my theory of all cognitive types. Hmmm under the hood? Like nuerotransmitters... Yes... I have a model for that…
Are you trying to say that a neurotransmitter is a 'cognitive type'?

Assuming that a 'cognitive type' addresses cognition in some way (and I don't believe you've been clear on this), then 'cognitive types' and neurotransmitters are members of totally different classes.

This isn't like comparing apples and oranges; it's more like comparing fruit and molecular weight.

How do you make a connection between cognition and neurotransmitters, in a way that allows a type of cognition to be compared to a neurotransmitter?


…Functional typology maps right into evolutionary theory…
Really? How? Please try to be specific, because we can't see any connection here at all.

We've looked at what you've written, trying to decipher what you mean by 'functional typology'. We're not unfamiliar with the term, but you're making a much different leap than classifying shovels and rakes as gardening implements.

We at first assumed that you merely meant to make a logical connection to the simpler bits of evolutionary theory by asserting that functional types select. But surely you must know that this is completely incorrect; this personification of the process of selection is the classical beginner's boo-boo.

Selection has to do with nothing more than statistical reproductive success. The idea that some factor has importance because of what it appears to mean to us is demonstrably incorrect, and will get you every time.

If you really want to understand how high level behavioral effects factor into selection, take a look at how standards of female attractiveness co-selected with actual invisible underlying biological factors.

The classical example is the more or less hourglass shape: relatively prominent breasts, wide hips, slim waist that sets them off visually. The obvious argument is that the overt secondary characteristics are directly related to a woman being a good baby machine.

But this is entirely misleading, and we’ve periodically protested the example because of that. The appearance of these overt characteristics that may or may not be related to the likelihood of reproductive success had nothing to do with their selection as standards of female attractiveness.

Instead, it was a purely random co-selection with biological factors that do affect success. Look at the standards for facial beauty and you'll see one of the extreme examples: most facial preferences are strongly centered on the statistically average face, about what you would expect if we started a purely statistical process off on a level playing field.

A neural model of a face in its initial state is the definition of average. The pattern that matches it is the one that will catch your eye. If there is any random chance that the person attached to the face will be more successful, the average standard for facial beauty is on its way to stardom.

To confuse things more, if we all start with an average pattern we’ll fight for the right for the average face. It doesn't matter if the female is actually more likely to successfully reproduce; the fight over her will guarantee the stats are skewed in the right way.

Present day, the 'average-ness' of a woman's facial configuration actually is strongly related to entirely abstract measures of a woman's suitability as a prospective reproductive partner, things like the strength and quality of implantation of the blastopod in the uterine wall, and so on.

That's co-selection, and in general all selection is blind and abstract in exactly this way. What we think about things has little influence on the process, and where it does, nature often works to remove the interference.

We may see the dance we do, but most don't really understand it, and we are not in control of the tune. Even the most obnoxious personality types manage to get their genetic material into play in the next generation without too much trouble.

So whatever your typology is trying to organize, it isn't going to play into selection in any obvious way. And selection is the easy part of the theory, too. The real fun begins when you get to speciation itself.


…CM and HM are under the hood. Engine (CM) and transmission (HM)…
OK, we'll try to deal with this right here and now.

Presumably, by loosely invoking the phrase 'under the hood', you mean to imply that CM and HM are some sort of logical models of the mechanisms that give rise to cognition (as you use the term).

But the metaphor escapes us. How is CM equivalent to an engine, and HM a transmission? We suppose that you mean that CM is a process that gives rise to cognitive behavior, and HM is some process by which that cognitive behavior is ?related to the outside world? in some way.

Is that at all in the ball park? It's tough to understand exactly what you mean by these terms, but lets suppose for the moment that you do mean them to describe real mental processes.

We are curious as to how you propose these processes arise. If you don't have any concrete idea of how you might coax neurons into performing the function, that's fine with us. That is a long hard trip for anyone, and we’re not certain that we aren't the first to take it in some respects.

All we would like is some vague idea of how the function of CM and HM arise. Do you have a rough idea of an active region, or an analogy that goes beyond the 'engine-transmission' thing a bit?

How does this fit with other structural schemas, like the one that Barkley likes to use that includes assigning the prefrontal cortex responsibility for instantiating what he calls the 'executive function'?

Any parallel here would help. We can walk you through exactly how the experience of conscious awareness arises from the underlying neural activity that supports all functions of the brain and mind. The patterns of mental activity that you call cognition are in there somewhere, because there isn't anything else.

So if you can pin down what you mean by CM == 'engine' and HM == 'transmission', we can roughly pin down for you where and how it happens in neural terms.

What person trying to model something like cognition wouldn't want to know that? It has to be in there somewhere. Doesn't it make you the least bit curious?

Our biggest difficulty is trying to imagine why you would want to understand one part of the puzzle, and be completely indifferent to a different part that could tell you how the 'engine' and 'transmission' really work, in real brains.

Does that not seem like it would be helpful?


…Please create a model or theory to show what you think will give us mileage…
How about this: let's understand how neural structures give rise to (fill in function here).

There are other takes on the problems we’re discussing, but they're all equivalent in the sense that we want to understand the underlying mechanisms, and make a concrete logical connection between what we experience and what happens at some level inside our heads.

If the neural model we’ve presented doesn't qualify, please tell us how. And if you think that mileage is related to something other than raw understanding, let's hear that, too.

We are trying to understand the things you're describing, but it's tough. We need you to explain them in ways that actually relate to what we already know, or explain why what we know is invalid.


…Here is what I am asking...
Real responses. I am trying to present these ideas clearly. I do not care if you agree with them. I will change them with real evidence or better models.
Do you actually classify our responses in terms of whether they're 'real'?

That seems pretty insulting, and a bit out of touch with reality. Do you really think that we're not serious, or that we've all succumbed to a case of Dumb Disease?

Look, let's be serious for a minute. Of course you care what we think of these ideas, and we care what you think of our responses. You can't get away from that as long as you consent to be a member of the species; the impulse is built in, and far stronger than you or I.

We’re trying to avoid the appearance of anti-social behavior here, but it sometimes seems like you want to make up the rules as you go along.

What that does to us is set of our b******t alarms. Most of the people that you need to reach here with your ideas are trained academically, and one of the classical tweaks that signifies a complete lack of rigor is the free floating interpretation of how we’re allowed to interact.

By complete lack of rigor, I mean that people who present themselves this way are usually so dedicated to one world view that they've developed an ability to warp their definition of the world rather than adjust their models (which are always imperfect) to reality.

Please don't think that we're saying this description fits you. But the way that you’re presenting yourself is setting off these academic b*****t alarms, in Kay and me and SB and a lot of other people here who I have come to respect for their ability to get this part right.

It's darned difficult to keep working at understanding you with these klaxons blaring. A lot of what we’ve been trying to say goes to exactly that.


…I want to see your models on cognition or ADD ADHD. It is easy to shoot mine down with the "subjective" argument. Show me how they are subjective.... tell me how they do not match your experiences or knowledge...
See? You say stuff like that, and it pretty much makes sense, even though it's mildly confrontational. So we try again. Who knows? Maybe this time we’ll get somewhere.

Some of this is simple. Your descriptive terminology is entirely subjective in nature. Cognition is a logical abstraction, regardless of how you define it.

You can only describe your subjective experience of cognition, and the experience of describing it is just as purely subjective: you believe you're communicating with another being of a certain type that is similar to you, but as long as we're speaking in terms of cognition, neither of us can do more than suspect that this is what's really happening.

You see patterns in how and what we all communicate as a result of that cognition, but those patterns suffer the same fate, because they derive from the subjective experience.

The closest we can come to non-subjective first principles is to accept that everything might be illusion, even the experience of being, and look to anything that might be taken as absolute if it’s not.

The only thing we know that meets that requirement turns out to be related to exactly the pattern you feel must be real, so how could going down this path for a moment or two be a bad thing?

I'm speaking, of course, of the nature of logic itself, which (if we are all do indeed exist) derives directly from Nature, or more properly, is an inherent property of the nature of Nature itself.

If we accept that we exist and are powered by neurons, we can look at the relationship of neural mechanisms to logic, or how logical mechanisms are expressed in neurons. The patterns you perceive that allow you to classify different types of cognition arise as a consequence of that logical operation of neural structures.

So we’re pretty certain that the patterns you perceive do exist, and we’re all interested in how they arise. But they don't arise in some magical process external to reality, at least not in the sense that they appear fully formed inside your head. That would be hallucination, not modeling.

We don't think you're hallucinating, so we’re trying to reach an understanding of what you see in terms of what we already know.

But we said that once already. Here’s some concrete stuff:

If you want a pretty straight description of how conscious experiences (and other kinds of experience) arise, look for our posts in the thread about NLP in the professional coaching forum. That should satisfy your request for a model of cognition, with perhaps a little bit added.

(*****Scratch that, they don't go back that far now; it looks like they were wiped just a few weeks ago. But we have a copy of everything we ever posted, so if you want I’ll edit and repost them here.)

We have never 'hidden' our models; they were right there all along, and we welcome any kind of questions, even serious ones. And the model of cognition is particularly simple, in our opinion. Easier to grasp than Relativity, anyway.

I should be clear that we’re not trying to shoot your models down with the charge that they're subjective. What we’re trying to do is understand a way to interpret them. Subjective isn't bad, or wrong; it's all we have, in an important way.

The trick is trying to transcend it, which (if you want to characterize it that way) is forming theories and models by consensus. On this level you're stuck with it, no matter what; it’s what you have to do, because you’re modeling the processes that gives rise to subjective experience.

In that sense, we’re trying to be objective about subjective experience, in an appropriate way that allows us to apply the models to everyone, the general objective case of subjective.

So you do need us, and a consensus, or it doesn't apply. And we're just trying to do our part.


* * * * *

Incidentally, one way that your models don't match our experience is this: we don't know how to reject out of hand the cognition of others. We depend in the fact that any normal neural model of something we can see is valid in some way, if anything exists at all. The appearance of a difference is always exciting, because it signals free information about ourselves and the external world.

You depend on the same, more than you seem to realize. We all do; it’s what binds us to our species.


More later. To recap, we’ve asked you to explain:

- how you justify comparing neurotransmitters directly to cognitive type;

- how you see functional typology as 'mapping' directly to evolutionary theory;

- in what way is CM like an engine, and HM a transmission. We’re looking for a comparison with any existing models of mental processes, even the less well established stuff currently popular.

Ok... Tom here you go

Functional typology: (I am still ironing this out...but here is the first attempt to do that)

A time slice of dynamic systems reveals a gradient of predictable and less predictable structures.

Biology is highly ordered. "Nature forces solutions that are highly form dependant and distinguishable". There is a gradient from "highly functional" to "less functional".

All forms are:

Functional types (Types that are functional in the system that they are in)
Transitional types (Types that are moving to or from a type that was functional in a previous context)
Artifacts (Non-functional forms (mutations) that do not result in the genesis of transitional types)

Axioms of Functional Typology. These consist of 3 elements. Environments that contain Systems made up of Functional Types. These systems are recursive but not predictably so.

Axiom 1: Functional types exist at all levels and in all types of biological structure.(from molecular to multi-special)

Axiom 2: All functional types exist in systems with other functional types.
Level 1 Single functional type with 1 or more individuals.
Level 2 Single functional type with multiple individuals that interact.
Level 3 Systems are symbiotic relationships between two individual functional types
Level 4 Systems involve feedback systems with many functional types and transitional types

Axiom 3: All contextual environments are dynamic to varying degrees.

Axiom 4: The more dynamic a contextual environment is, the greater the number of transition types and the fewer the number of functional types.

Axiom 5: How dynamic an environmental context is, is relative to the stability of a functional system.

Axiom 6: A stable system is more functional than an unstable one.

Axiom 7: Functional systems form more functional types to deal with a dynamic environmental context.

Axiom 8: Non-predictable recursion increases as systems evolve.

Axiom 9: Types that are functional are repeated

Axiom 10: New types are created by extending functionality or removing it.



Nuerotransmitters themselves do not map to cognitive types but they are part of "creating" these types. It is why taking stimulants helps us focus and taking SSRI's reduces our anxiety and creativity.

CM is like an engine in that it is the brute power behind experience. HM is like a transmission because it orders that power into useful "shifts" for people to survive in culture. The energy is harnessed for the drive train.
It is a sad analogy... but there it is.

I am sorry if you feel insulted or attacked. I do not feel that way from you... maybe because you are more graceful than me in expressing your frustration.

But that is just the way it is. I am sorry... I am ADD and it is hard from me to sift through your long statements. I can read them several times and they become even less clear.

And you are right... I am not an academic like you... just a silly little ADDer with one of those theories we like to come up with. You certainly seem to know that these theories are garbage and will be roundfiled the first minute a white bearded man sitting in his tenured position looks at them and say "this guy is not even an academic...what does he know?"

Oh well... it won't stop me. I don't care...

Foolish dopaminery for me... happy dopamine... silly models and theories... keeps me out of trouble.

So what is the meta model web? I know we are going to be hearing a lot about it on the news. But for now please give it to me in bulleted and clear points.

I am reading lots these days... and if I cannot atomize it and store it in context...it is unhelpful.

Anyway, I certainly do not think you are a fool at all... and I know I am one for sure!

Oh yeah... I do not believe in "selection" but it is easy to discuss it this way...I want people to understand...in the end it does not matter whether it appears that nature is volitional or is not IMHO.

It does seem that this model is placing the "ADDer" and the "Normal" as two types at the very top or center and then building everything else below or around these two types.



Well, one thing I think is wrong with this (and I didn't mean ADDers only) is that ADDers and "normals" aren't at opposite ends of the spectrum. Both are near the middle, I think.



IRCM |==========================================| ERHM
LFA HFA AS ADHD NOS NPD Sociopathy

* NOS means Not Otherwise Specified ("normal")



I'm sure we could put more labels, but that is irrelevent for now.

When I put labels on the spectrum, I am not trying to do a comparison between the labels. I am simply stating where each group is generally tied to. The correlation is not 100% (far from it). Deviant NOS people could be tied down at the ADHD mark. Some ADDers probably belong at the AS mark. Again, the only "true" comparison here is IRCM vs. ERHM.

I don't think we should be thinking magnets. How about bungee cords? Lets say each person is tied down to a particular point on the spectrum. Since they are tied down by bungee cords, they can move around. The farther one deviates from their initial position, the harder it is to continue deviating.

Maybe instead of humans being tied to the spectrum, we could think animals. Different animals that do not get along very well. The level of coexistence between different species would relate to how near or far apart they are on the spectrum. Cats on the IRCM end, bees at the NOS mark, superfluous queen bees on the other end (in nature, this does happen), and everything in between. I know using different animals for this comparision is not realistic, but I do hope you see the picture. (* Though the thought of trying to tie mini bungee cords to bees is quite entertaining *)

I think the whole point of ERHM vs. IRCM is merely a comparison of how "connected" (systematically, not emotionally) one is to a culture. Both ends influence the culture, whether ERHM [directly] (power, control, manipualtion, social engineering, etc.) or IRCM [indirectly] (new ideas, innovation).

Ok, maybe my explanation is totally off track. It is just my interpretation of IRCM vs. ERHM, nothing more. In fact, an "educated" (barely) guess as well.

Thanks Highfunctioning... it is close but I really needed 2 continua to do it.

Here are a bunch of types to show you why (Mainly internal reference can be caused by things other than CM... Asperger's has a different mode of creating it)

Asperger's
IRCM
IRHM (along a continuum extremely variable)
IRHM+ Asperger's with sociopathy (Rare but often hyped by media)

Narcissism
NPD = ER+ with continuum from CM to HM
ER+CM Cerebral narcissist (Can be dx'd as ADD but this is a mis-diagnosis as the Narcissism is a primary issue)
ER+HM From cerebral to somatic
ER+HM+ Sociopathic narcissism (very rare and highly dangerous... Hitler was one most likely)

Sociopath
HM+ with IR to ER continuum
IRHM+ (see above)
ERHM+ (In dividual to Social manipulator)

ADHD
IRCM (CM+) It does force internal reference but there is often incomplete false external reference to cope, especially in strict culture.
Some dx'd ADHD may not be IRCM.... but mostly it is.

"Normal" is a really big stretch in types due to nurture. ADHD doe have nurture but it does not create identity (nurture caused ID needs strong ego or integration of ego and self)

We can change the line to a square...

We can change the line to a square...
A square might work :)

I got four triangles out of it :)

I forgot to add... we are all on bungee cords (in response to highfunctioning)

It is all potentials... not cut in black and white.

Lack of Mind Highly
Structure of Mind Structured
(CM) (HM)

+---------------------------------------------------------+ Not really influenced
|************************* \ / ;;;;;;;; | by existing norms/accepted
|* +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\++++++\+;++++++;+ | ideas (IR)
|* +ADHD * Autism \ / ; ;+ |
|* + * \ \ ; ;+ |
|\ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\+++/+;++++++;+ |
|*\ * \ \ ; ; |
|* \ * \ / ; S ; R|
|* \ ########################\\ ; o ; a|
|* \ # * #\ ; c ; r|
|*****\**************#**** NOS #\\; i ; e|
| \ # #/ \ o ; |
| \ # #\ ;\ p ; I|
| \ # #\ ; \a ; R|
| \ # #\ ; t ; H|
| (Rare \ # #/ ; h\ ; M|
| Zone \ # #\ ; y \ ; |
| ERCM) \ # #/ ; \; |
| \ # #\ ; \ |
| \ #########################/ ; ;\ |
| \ \ ; ; \|
|\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ; ; |
| \ ; ; |
|""""""""""""""""""\"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" |
|" | \ NPD ;;;;;;;" | Driven by existing views.
|"""""""""""""""|\"""\"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" | Concerned how one is
+---------------| \---------------------------------------+ viewed by other people (ER)
| \
| \
|.='^
\\
\\
\\

"Danger Zone"
(ER+, HM+)


A square.

I think we have a 2D continua as opposed to two distinct continua (as the two factors really aren't independent, completely). Just an opinion (rather subjective) (it probably doesn't make any sense to anyone).

Again, we are dealing with tendencies.

Although we can plot where we think ADHD is here, I don't think we can isolate ADHD with this model.

(* Darn 30 minute edit rule *)

:: A continuation of the previous post ::

Although we can plot where we think ADD is here, I don't think we can isolate ADHD with this model. There is too much overlap (even though I didn't draw it that way) between NOS and ADD (Actually, NOS technically should have been the open areas, so please substitute NOS for NT). Here is an interesting question:

What is the definition of ADHD in this argument/theory?

* The disorder as it is diagnosed today (the set of formally diagnosed people)?
* A collection of impulsive/inattentive people (that inattentive, creative, "non-ADD" set) along with the existing ADD set?

And what does the area ERCM (not ER+CM) represent?

I think the whole point of ERHM vs. IRCM is merely a comparison of how "connected" (systematically, not emotionally) one is to a culture. Both ends influence the culture, whether ERHM [directly] (power, control, manipualtion, social engineering, etc.) or IRCM [indirectly] (new ideas, innovation).
Cory:

Why can't you stick to stuff like this? It isn't necessary to propose outlandish stuff like actual mechanisms that define and enforce social engineering, for just one example. It's just a pattern.

I'm certain we could slide the idea that social engineering is viable (or must occur, or rules our lives) all over the place. But nobody is going to complain too much and argue that some foundation of our experience of being depends on social engineering actually taking place.

In a sense, it’s just a phrase, and I don't think anyone would mourn it's passing from the discussion, should the objections seem relevant.

In contrast many of us are getting the distinct impression that you aren't willing to entertain any idea that some of your phrases might be misleading. And that is troubling; I've been willing to be a sort of spokesposter, in an informal sense, but the job isn't any fun.

The latest posts are fine, structural stuff without the compulsive need for connection to stuff like 'ensuring genetic diversity'. It's just a classification scheme, multidimensional too, and this sort of thing is useful as both a graphical communications tool and as a sort of mantra for getting beyond habitual views.

But that's it, pretty much what we saw that was interesting in the first place. There isn't anything here that predicts personality or behavior or dictates what we’ll wear or eat or whatever. Leave that stuff out of it.

As far as your terms for types are concerned, read on. There's a lot still out of whack.

And to be clear, I'm reasonably certain you're capable of hacking through my stuff, and I'm pretty well aware of how it flows, and the manner of expression.

I'm trained to write, particularly technical stuff, and I know how to read it and see how it's written. I believe your problem is just that you don't want to put in the effort required.

We aren't insulted in the way that you imply, but you are ignoring smart people who are speaking plainly to you about problems in your work.

So we’re insulted for their sake, as we should be. Some of you're expression is going way out of bounds lately, too.

As I said, read on. I’ll try to get time to address the previous post directed to me first thing in the morning.

... please present us the model.
This thread was posted by you in an attempt to get feedback on your words. It's important to be constrained within the world that you are creating in order to define its validity. And to define where your world diverges from the real human world - which I guess you believe it doesn't, because you're defining functional typology as being a fundamental aspect of the 'real world'.


It comes down to two things:
Do you believe there are differences between people?
Do you believe that differences have functionality?
What kind of differences?
What do you mean by functionality?


Nature shows it over and over again... are we different?
Does conscious awareness count?
It's ridiculous to reiterate the fact that we're animals. But we do have something that animals don't have. Do you believe that the origins of the basic difference between man and cow, arose so that we were better adapted to becoming a 'functional type'?


Functional typology maps right ino evolutionary theory
This statement is impossible to dissect.


Engine (CM) and transmission (HM)
Metaphors are useful. So does this mean that CM can't exist without HM and HM can't exist without CM? How deeply do you intend this metaphor to be taken?


Please create a model or theory to show what you think will give us mileage. What do you think?.. not what do you think about what I think. That is the spirit of this thing.... right?
...wrong?
This thread was posted by you in an attempt to get feedback on your words. It's important to be constrained within the world that you are creating in order to define its validity.


Here is what I am asking...
Real responses.
What kind of responses do you think you are getting?


I am trying to present these ideas clearly. I do not care if you agree with them. I will change them with real evidence or better models.
Now that HighFunctioning has attempted to change your models, will they change? Will they be referred to as our models (to acknowledge the contribution of HighFunctioning)?


I have children... you see... these are genetic things. My daughter already shows ADHD and my son has a very high chance that he will be NPD (My father and my ex wife's father were... my ex wife shows all the classic signs))
You are introducing an emotional aspect into this discussion; this is out of place in a discussion of the validity of your words.


I want to see your models on cognition or ADD ADHD.
This thread was posted by you in an attempt to get feedback on your words. It's important to be constrained within the world that you are creating in order to define its validity.

Apologies ... Have to go into work now :-)
Would you like me to continue this later?

SB.

Male and female are perfect examples... they are functional types…
Only in the sense that you see this pattern as significant.


…They have a function that is vital.. the sharing of genetic material in order to create offspring that have a better chance of survival…
Nope, sorry, this is wrong. Male and female are not necessarily an optimal solution, nor can you say that sharing genetic material has the purpose of 'creating offspring with a better chance of survival'.

It doesn't have any purpose at all, in the sense that you can speak of purpose. That is a completely inaccurate characterization of selection.

All you can say is that male and female are a sufficient solution. There is no 'un-selection' mechanism, and stuff that works sticks around, even after it stops being useful.


…There is functionality in us. Hands did not just form for no reason...
Uh, yeah, they did. That's how it works. If they stick around, you can begin to talk about 'reason'. But it is still anthropomorphic; the are no 'reasons' in nature, only in the mind of man.


…they are a copy of many other things that are like hands... marsupials have something similar.... patterns of functionality…
Nope. You can't say that they are copies, either, although it sometimes seems like that might be the minimal energy path to some traits.

In particular with things like hands, there is a lot of research into stuff like differentiation and bilateral symmetry that suggests pod-like appendages might be expected to arise naturally, as a consequence of the way that biological mechanisms are expressed.

When you were diagnosed, didn't they look for birthmarks, or ask you about them? Skin develops at the same time from the same stage as the nervous system; defects in the skin signal the possibility of defects in the nervous system. An AD/HD diagnoses requires eliminating all such possible physical causes first.


Why can't our brains be the same?
Because none of it what you’re citing is correct. Your presentation of selection is just plain wrong, so your models of the mind suffer by association.

We don't doubt that you see these patterns, but seriously skewed supporting ideas like this don't help.


There are four main individual survival strategies in the wild
1. Hunt
2. Forage
3. Herd or school (what humans do)
4. Find a host (pets and parasites)
This isn't a standard model, and there seems to be a significant bias, but we’ll reserve the argument until later…


Humans form tight knit social groups for survival…
…to get directly to this.

(We're going to ignore the 'tight knit' for now, because it's totally out of whack with reality.)

Dude, you can't blithely make this statement without support. Much of the justification of your ideas is predicated on statements like this, and it's problematical for many of us.

You seem to imply that there is some significance to this idea, beyond the simple mindless statistical mechanisms we’ve described.

And that is just plain wrong.

There is a lot of chugging along that occurs both within and between human social groups, but very little of it is exposed to the kind of reasoning you imply.

Even though there may be survival value in forming groups, that does not in any way imply that we form them for that reason. If we had done that, it would be a remarkable counter-example to Darwin.

In fact, there are two distinctly different classes of 'reasons' for forming groups, neither of which ever operated at the level of an actual reason, as we humans use the term.

All animals that form groups are an instance of the first class, beneficiaries of statistical accidents that resulted in advantages that are not at all obvious, for the most part.

It is true that me and my buddies can beat you up unless you bring some friends, but that is by far the least of even the obvious advantages. It’s likely that social presentation of patterns of behavior is a far more important stabilizing influence in the group.

There are subtle advantages that more directly affect reproduction, something occasionally seen when zoos try to breed endangered species. There are many examples of failures related to the lack of a social group.

There is only one example of the other class, and that is us. We initially formed groups for all of the same 'reasons' that other animals did. But here selection piggybacked again, pure serendipity with no purpose to it, and 'used' the instinct to form social groups to enable the development of complex abstract communication.

If social groups can be thought of as having 'purpose' today (incorrect as that idea is), it is to enable us to speak using modern language. There is a lot more piggybacked on top of that, all if it also purely statistical in nature.

But we don't form groups with a purpose, unless you mean to cite weak examples like this forum. I don't believe you mean that; I think you mean hard-core social groups, extended family stuff and like that.

And that we don't do on purpose. We do it because it selected, no conscious reasons involved, no intent, nothing but going along for the ride.

I know this is hard to accept, because we all feel so free willed and self deterministic. But this is the standard (and provably correct) interpretation of modern evolutionary theory, and I'm certain you can find many books that describe it.

In a way, it’s a lot like quantum mechanics, in that you have to be rigorous in suppressing all of your physical instincts in understanding the truly cold and uncaring, unreasoning nature of the statistical processes at work.

Every time you find yourself thinking in terms of a reason, you're in trouble. You really need to put some effort in understanding this.


pros: …(nothing particularly relevant here, mainly discredited experiential arguments; selection doesn't have a thing to do with conscious experience)

cons: …(long discredited argument about 'stale' genetic pools here)

Solution: Internal reference... individuals that have no attachment to the group and in fact feel uncomfortable in group settings. This individual must either be kicked out of leave because of wanderlust…
Without getting into a knife fight over dropping in 'internal reference' without any supporting reference, we can discard this solution on two counts:

1) It doesn't actually address genetic diversity; no conscious mechanism to date does; and

2) There are existing solutions to this problem which are demonstrated in most primates; nature doesn't usually bother to select two mechanisms for the same task in this way.

Most of us here don't have a problem with the idea of internal reference, but the way that you're spreading it around on everything you see is suspicious.

These arguments invoking natural selection aren't remotely applicable, and we don't exactly understand why you keep insisting on them. Is there something wrong with your idea about a particular pattern in how we experience reality that requires inventing a justification of it and spreading it everywhere you look?

You're really only describing a pattern, one that you perceive. We believe it may be valid, mainly because of the way that you describe it and your experience in seeing it.

But it isn't nature itself; it's what you see in nature. Before you want to go invoking things like selection and the genetic history of the species you need to connect it to real stuff, like underlying patterns in the structure of the brain, or neural structures themselves.

It's confusing because it's out of sequence. Things like 'internal reference' don't select, and they probably never will. You have to look lower, at real stuff that supports it, things that nature expresses directly.

Descriptions of things that select all end with "…and they didn't die."

This is nature, dude. Thinking has nothing to do with it.


…Nature just needs to do a throwback to the solitary forager... and a new cognitive type is born (ADHD)
Nope, sorry.

No matter what your theory, or how correctly you've interpreted the meaning of the patterns you see in nature, they will never have any significance in nature.

Nature doesn't do throwbacks; we perceive a pattern that looks like it could be described that way, and the description works for all kinds of deep intellectual discourse about the pattern and the thing it describes.

But it is not nature, nor an accurate description of what happened to bring the pattern about. You want chaos? Here it is. There isn't any reason for any pattern like this to arise. There aren't any reasons at all, out where this stuff happens.

I know people have problems with the truth of natural selection and modern evolutionary theory, and some of it is grasping that purely statistical 'non-model' model; as we mentioned above, it’s somewhat akin to learning to let go of your physical intuition when you study quantum mechanics. 'Spooky reality' applies here, too.

But the bigger difficulty, in our experience, is the fact that our free will is nowhere to be seen. Unfortunately, that view is substantially correct; free will does not enter into the history of the species, although there now seems to be a slim chance that someday it might.

People expect to see human history written in terms of what we did to create it by our own free will, misguided or not. In species terms any appearance of such an effect is an illusion.


ADHD, Asperger's and Autism were all originally gene spreaders…
Nope, nope, and nope. How can you say this, without any offer of support?

We've already said this, but it's important enough to repeat: stuff doesn't 'unselect'. Traits compete, or they just lay there like a lazy dog. So there are lots of things that we’d rather not have around that persist across generations nonetheless.

And this is important, too: it is entirely unlikely that autism could ever be thought of as a 'gene spreader'. Autistic kids don't reproduce in any socially acceptable sense, and genetic markers have only been around for a short time. You just can't predict it by looking. No significant number of people ever modified their conscious reproductive behavior because of autism.

The idea of autism as a 'spreader' of genetic material is just plain repugnant to us. I don't know how this kind of stuff gets past that little logical guy that checks before it's let out. This is not AD/HD.

You have to realize that the appearance of a correlation is just that, an appearance. It doesn't establish or even suggest that any correlation exists. At best seeing a pattern gives one a reason to look in a particular corner, but only to determine if there is a reason to look closer.

This particular corner isn't going to pan out for you, I'm afraid.

* * * * *

Here’s our take on autism and Asperger's; you're always hinting that we don't give you any detail, so here's a bit, sketchy as it is. Anybody that wants should feel free to skip over it (as if y'all don't already):

Neural networks in our brains form logical representations, models of our external world, our selves and others, and our perception of our experience of being in that world.

There isn't much question of this. There is some interesting discussion of fine points of organization and so on, but everybody of consequence has accepted at least this much and moved on.

One of the details that is just beginning to be recognized (over the last five or ten years) is the crucial role that these models play in determining how we are able to interact.

We were this first to identify the primary purpose that dictates the extent to which these models must be synchronous between individuals. That purpose is the use of complex abstract language. But there are many others working along these lines today.

An ability to use complex abstract language is exactly the kind of thing that can select. (In contrast, an ability to say a particular thing, regardless of how correct or critical to survival, will not select. Nature doesn't care if we get it, particularly in an individual case.)

The nature of the 'defect' in autism is that the model of reality fails to take a form that is sufficiently synchronous with the common form; communication with these individuals is impossible in ordinary terms.

The effect of that 'defect' is terribly deep, causing all manner of secondary defects due to that fact that most of the ordinary models of our social circumstance cannot be imparted. So there are big pieces of our reality that we take for granted as intrinsic to being that never form in the autistic mind.

When we interact with an autistic child, the experience is one of a person that has a valid non-conforming basic model of reality, but is missing many of the more complex pieces. We can't interact socially; for example, it's extremely unusual to find an autistic child in a romantic relationship.

By contrast, direct defects to the brain's raw ability to form models (perhaps due to injury or prenatal drug or alcohol use) have a totally different effect. A much broader continuum is evidenced in damage of this sort (often called mental retardation) and there are many cases of such developmentally disabled persons forming close lifelong romantic relationships, and even marrying.

Asperger's appears to be different from autism in an important way, not a part of a continuum, but similar in that neither fits the common picture of a developmental disability. In Asperger's we expect to find the first direct evidence of the 'intermediate logical layer' that we hypothesize underlies most of our higher neural functions.

In effect, we see logical neural structures that themselves perform modeling, but on a purely logical level, well above the level of the modeling of reality that fails to form correctly in an autistic child.

There are many reasons to believe such an intermediate logical layer exists, the most compelling of which is the need for (and existence) of short term memory. (Most of you have probably heard us speak of that; if not, just ask.)

We might characterize the experiential difference between models on the higher logical level and those on a lower more basic level in terms of the kind of thing that is modeled.

On the level of an autistic child, the relationships that are incorrectly modeled serve to make sense of things like whether a person might turn and speak to us. On the higher logical level, they serve to make sense of things like why someone might speak to us. The possibility that they might blends seamlessly into the social context, even if there is a certain anxiety about it; it makes sense.

And that sounds a lot more like Asperger's to us. There are more details of what we see going on, some of which we may have an opportunity to verify eventually. But we’re not actively pursuing it right now.

* * * * *

functional cognitive types (related to the 4 individual survival strategies...patterns repeat... nature is a lazy OOP programmer)
No she is not. You've got to straighten out your sense of how selection works. The patterns are of no consequence at all, and our perception of them is particularly of no consequence.

The Jefferson Airplane might have said it best: "You call it proud, but the human crowd doesn't mean s**t to a tree."

But what does that do for your four types? The strategies themselves are bogus; I'd love to hear where you got them. But regardless, the 'patterns repeat' thing doesn't create the circumstance you imagine, so the whole thing is bankrupt.

If you haven't noticed, most of us are focusing on the meat of your ideas, the patterns that you see and the classification scheme that you base on them.

Frankly, we’re not certain why you persist in trying to extend them to smother all of reality, past, present and future. It's distracting at best, and sometimes seems to border on self-aggrandizement.

There isn't any need for you to explain how people spread genetic material as far as we can see. And we’re not certain what it has to do with AD/HD.

We are certain that it sullies the validity of your basic ideas. These models based on the action of natural selection never happened.

Sorry. Reality bites sometimes.


1. Sociopath (Extreme HM) is either a solitary hunter or as tribes grew... a warrior or leader of warriors. This individual needs to be highly structured with low emotion. (HM eclipses CM)

2. ADHD (IRCM) follows the forage pattern... survival of the individual after leaving the comfort of the tribe is paramount. Context is constantly needed in order to avoid predation and find food and shelter. It probably attracts to leaders of foreign tribes thus ensuring safe transfer of genetic material (foreigners would be treated like slaves otherwise) Self is the main component of this individual. (CM)

3. Most people (I call this type ERHM) follow the herd or pack. They need to have a degree of internal reference to survive and external reference to be functional in the hierarchy of the tribal group. They also need to share basic assumptions that can not be questioned. These assumptions are abstract (not real) and help maintain the tribe by assigning roles based on gender, age and capability. They need to have both structure and context. (HM and CM integration)

4. Narcissism (extreme ER) follows the "find a host pattern". In humans this individual is very aware of culture and seeks attention and status. The social function of this type is probably leader with an internal referent person at their side for counsel (most likely a mate). This individual needs to become what the tribe needs. Self is sacrificed to culture (ego). Ego must be the sole purpose for this individual. (Ego eclipses self)
We have real problems with your use of these terms, and now AD/HD is a part of it. We've said this before.

You put a term in bold face and then proceed to describe something else. That isn't reality, and what you’re describing is getting further from the center by the day.

Let's look at narcissism, for example: your portrayal of narcissistic individuals as 'needy' is directly contrary to what actually takes place. Narcissistic individuals exhibit a lack of appropriate integration of others into their private internal world. They misjudge the needs of others and the effects of their own actions on them, apparently because they don't correctly interpret these things as significant compared to their own needs.

Narcissus was in love with himself. His defining characteristic was that he didn't need others.

You're describing something else entirely, almost like you picked the term 'narcissism' out of context somewhere.

How about the ordinary old 'most people', that you term 'EHRM'? You suggest that 'most people' are subject to, nay, seek out arbitrary rules (presumably impressed on them by outside sources), need structure and can only be comfortable as a member of a hierarchy in a role that is assigned.

Well, s***w that, dude, on behalf of all of us ordinary 'most people' out here. You should definitely get a life, and read your stuff more carefully before you post it. This is also repugnant; I stopped reading it to Kay because she was literally starting to sputter.

Incidentally, I'll stake all of my training in sociology on this: there isn't any social group anywhere that functions the way you describe, and there never has been. You display no understanding of what 'hierarchy' and 'status' means in terms of the social group. That makes sense, since it's related directly to the passing of genetic material, and you don't get that, either.

Read a few texts on social strat and small groups. It'll open you eyes. If you can't initially make the connection between things like Bale's description of small group interactions and sex, that's OK. Just ask. Until then, chill with the descriptions of how we interact socially.

You just don't get the big picture of it, even the simple version.

Dang. OK, what about AD/HD? This starts out OK, but you're not describing anything of our experience. Again you throw in the idea of context, almost as if you snarfed it out of, well, context. It almost seems to make some sense, what we we're originally trying to understand in your posts, when you begin to drool all over the page again.

What the heck are you talking about with this 'random travelers are OK with the chieftain next tribe over' garbage? Where did you get the idea that we wouldn't have some training that directly contradicts this idiocy?

Here, we'll try this: Do you have any source for this? If so, name it.

This isn't a valid description of anything that we have ever heard about how strangers interact socially with isolated groups, and we’ve heard a lot. And it is particularly weird that you would throw slavery into the mix; I don't think you understand it very well either.

FYI: there are two types of slavery, one based on the idea that one class rules another, all of whom are potential slaves, and one based on the idea that a certain group of people don't achieve the status of human, and so can be treated as animals.

The first kind is what historically was most commonly found in the kind of social groups we presume you’re describing, and there's a particular problem here: there isn't a special class for strangers. Strangers are assumed to be subservient, potential slaves like the rest of the population.

Strangers that represent themselves as belonging to the ruling class were generally considered threats, regardless of whether they had AD/HD or whatever else you threw in here. They weren't treated nicely.

So: what are you talking about, and when and where do you imagine it happened?

OK, what’s left? Oh, right, sociopath.

Jeeze. OK, look at it this way:

A psychopath (roughly speaking) is a person who is deranged mentally, in the sense that their internal logical representations are incorrect. A psychopath isn't broken in the sense that he can't put a coherent chain of logical connections together, but the logic implicit in the chain is corrupt.

That might mean that it doesn't get from point B to point A in a way we recognize, or it might be that the things represented are wrong.

So: a psychopath might think he's feeding a kitten when he stabs his mom,

or he might think he's doing the logically correct thing with the knife.

or he might not be able to formulate the logic that determines a correct connection at all, and finding himself holding a knife, he randomly formulates the model of stabbing his mom and is unable to unravel it in time to avoid doing it.

The first example is probably the least common; most are likely to be split between the last two.

A sociopath (again, roughly speaking) is a person who has a defect in their model of social interactions, what could be properly termed 'social logic'. There is a much wider range to the continuum of expected examples because the social context is a much richer and more complex field to play in, and it is at the same time much more restricted.

Overt acts like stabbing mom don't cut it. The logical facility that allows us to not do that routinely has to be substantially intact in the sociopath, because it's necessary for entry into the social context.

But within that context (and with the limits implied on behavior by the necessity of staying there) the same pattern holds, just as we described for the psychopath. There are several ways that social logic can be broken; missing models, incorrect models, incorrectly formed faculty for manipulating them to predict the outcome of a possible act, and so on.

The key here is to realize that we have a common class of problem, characterized by individuals that do the right things with the wrong tools. We believe a large percentage of psychopaths are correctly grinding out logical models of behavior using malformed logical prototypes; they reach for the right thing and put it together correctly, but the basic building blocks themselves are broken.

And we're certain that the majority of sociopaths (perhaps approaching 100%) are following exactly the same pattern, only the failure is in their social logic.

You could look at a narcissist in terms of his inability to correctly gauge the effect of his actions on others or to see that it matters. This is the same kind of grinding through things correctly using broken logic we just described.

So in this sense, a narcissist is considered sociopathic; if you ask around, you'll likely find a lot of agreement on this, with dissent generally coming from those that would reserve the term for only the worst examples. (We haven’t asked in several years, but we have done it. Have you?)

So now, we see that narcissism (which was incorrectly described anyway) is a particular mild form of sociopathy.

What happened to your categories? They aren't really categories after all, which is what we tried to tell you several times over the last month or two.

Shoot, we didn't like them much anyhow. Which one did you imagine described you? How about us, or HF, or Tim, or SB? This game isn't so funny when you play it like that, is it?


* * * * *

OK. I'm going to try to reset this. I see there are a bunch more posts, and I still haven't gotten to the rest of what we wrote over lunch about the first post…

and there really doesn't seem to be a point. Too much of what Cory is posting seems obviously mean spirited, and we don't believe he means it that way. I guess it's a bit like AD/HD to catch a bone and not let go, but this isn't even funny anymore, let alone fun.

We are objecting to what you write in support of your ideas, and how little support your words actually provide.

We object to your lack of understanding of selection and modern evolutionary theory, and the way that you refuse to respond to our statements to that effect.

We don't particularly appreciate the way that you casually present silly characterizations of the function of social groups, or the way that individuals function within the group, or of individuals themselves. There is ample common ground for this sort of discussion, and none of it is in agreement of how you 'see' society working.

We originally thought that you were presenting new models of all of this stuff, but that's not how it's currently presented. You simply make statements as if they were fact, anthropological, sociological, psychological, biological, medical,

and they're not.

They're not even in the ball park, and some of them are starting to wander towards insulting. We’re sure you don't mean to do that. We believe you see a pattern that is interesting to us still, and we assume SB and a few others unnamed would agree.

So please, stick to that for a while; I promise you only good things will come of it.

(Narcissism. Dang. What is everybody's problem with that word lately? Flavor of the month…)

One of the details that is just beginning to be recognized (over the last five or ten years) is the crucial role that these models play in determining how we are able to interact.
We were this first to identify the primary purpose that dictates the extent to which these models must be synchronous between individuals.

and

The nature of the 'defect' in autism is that the model of reality fails to take a form that is sufficiently synchronous with the common form; communication with these individuals is impossible in ordinary terms.


From a news article posted by Greg a few days ago.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17248

e.g.
Gallese contends that when we interact with someone, we do more than just observe the other person’s behavior. He believes we create internal representations of their actions, sensations and emotions within ourselves, as if we are the ones that are moving, sensing and feeling.

and

...of autistic individuals are somehow impaired or deficient, and that the resulting "mind-blindness" prevents them from simulating the experiences of others.

SB.

(Credit to HighFunctioning for the graphics)



IRCM |==========================================| ERHM
LFA HFA AS ADHD NOS NPD Sociopathy

* NOS means Not Otherwise Specified ("normal")



Now, this isa bit of fun.

The important point here is that this is a logical spectrum. It's incorrect to take the terminology too literally, and I think that has been one of the biggest problems with these discussions.

The idea that autistic kids are lost in an interior world is just a popular characterization, not meant literally. The truth is they're not lost in an interior world, but a different one with pieces missing.

In the sense that an autistic child lives in an interior world, we all do. You can see it in autism because their world is different and incomplete, but it's just part of the background to us.

To put it into perspective, we must look to them just as lost in our own interior world (if they see us in this way at all).

So when we say internal reference, we can't literally mean interior, as in deep inside our heads. Everything is deep inside our heads.

The same applies to external. The only correct way of taking the term has to be with respect to interaction with others, and here the continuum of the simple line graph is consistent with autism, up to a point.

Note we don't literally mean outside our heads vs. inside our heads. It's all inside, even the 'external' stuff. All of it, including the apparent external world in which interactions take place.

The problem for us comes when we get to sociopath, because on this graph the line should fold back over on itself. Sociopaths are just as lost in a logically different world as someone with 'mild' autism or Asperger's.

We've tried to interpret this differently, as if 'internal' refers to models of self, and 'external' refers to models of others and the external world, and this way, it makes some sense that sociopath would be out at one end and autism at the other.

But it still seems weak; for example, one valid way of characterizing narcissism is overdeveloped self models and/or underdeveloped models of others and the social context, in a logical sense. And that belongs on both ends, yet narcissism is mild sociopathy.

And regardless of how we interpret 'internal' and 'external', AD/HD seems to cover the map from one end to the other, because it’s not really related directly to the kind of defect that we see at work in autism or sociopathy. It's not the same kind of defect we see in MR, either, which would also be all over the map.

In essence what we see is that this graphs a continuum from internal to external in a way that is valid for some particular kinds of differences, but not others (and depending on what you mean by the terms themselves, of course).




Lack of Mind Highly
Structure of Mind Structured
(CM) (HM)

+---------------------------------------------------------+ Not really influenced
|************************* \ / ;;;;;;;; | by existing norms/accepted
|* +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\++++++\+;++++++;+ | ideas (IR)
|* +ADHD * Autism \ / ; ;+ |
|* + * \ \ ; ;+ |
|\ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\+++/+;++++++;+ |
|*\ * \ \ ; ; |
|* \ * \ / ; S ; R|
|* \ ########################\\ ; o ; a|
|* \ # * #\ ; c ; r|
|*****\**************#**** NOS #\\; i ; e|
| \ # #/ \ o ; |
| \ # #\ ;\ p ; I|
| \ # #\ ; \a ; R|