ADD *most likely* is the storage of all (or the majority) of knowledge in context as opposed to abstraction.

1. Context = sensory input of knowledge and knowledge through observing complex patterns. All knowledge needs base knowledge to build upon.
2. Abstraction = Things not experienced and devoid of base knowledge. Iconic simplifications of real world experience


Memory is all we have and there are two kinds of neuronal connections known as synapses that store memory.

1. Slow chemical connections
2. Fast electrical connections

http://www.lexicon-biology.com/biology/definition2_113.html (http://www.lexicon-biology.com/biology/definition2_113.html)

1. Gray matter contains densely packed chemical synapses (synapses are where the information is stored)
2. White matter contains loosely packed mylenated electrical connections (these are akin to on/off type connections)

(scroll to section 7)
http://courses.umassmed.edu/mbb1/2003/CNS_overview/CellularAnatomy.cfm (http://courses.umassmed.edu/mbb1/2003/CNS_overview/CellularAnatomy.cfm)

My model says that.

1. Experiential context is stored in gray matter with a significant number of "slow connections" (like a hard drive with "all experiential information interconnected) (Sights, smells, sounds, feelings, emotions..gradations of experience, learning, complex patterns)
2. Abstraction is stored in on/off switches (Left/right, before/after, good/bad, right/wrong, male/female, older/younger...lists of unrelated information, linear time, dates, hierarchy)

This would then predict that the ADD brain has more gray matter involved in storage of contexts:


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031129/fob1.asp (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031129/fob1.asp)

With a greater number of connections in the brain, there is more gray matter and more supporting glial cells. This predicts that the great minds have ADHD (often with high functioning autism).

http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_einstein.htm (http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_einstein.htm)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040720090419.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040720090419.htm)


Interesting thing is...gray matter due to its chemical nature is more tightly packed (electrical wires need distance for extra insulation). This predicts that the ADHD brain is smaller. Almost all human brains have a very similar count of neurons.

http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/cercrtx.htm (http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/cercrtx.htm)
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218391839&language=english (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218391839&language=english)

In this case...smaller is better!


The contextualmind model simply states that ADDers think and understand the world in contexts as opposed to abstractions.

Culture is an abstraction...it demands highly functional abstraction processing in order to work. Cultural abstractions are called "assumptions". ADDers do not store assumptions as abstractions...we store them as "contexts".

1. Contexts exist at an aware level (we feel them..see them..etc.)
2. Abstractions exist at a sub aware level (very much like walking..you do not need to "think about moving your legs" to walk)

The model predicts that we tag simple abstractions with sense cues in order to store them.
Most ADDers can answer this question "What color is the number 2?"


---What does this have to do with taking meds?--------------

----------The Neurotransmitter model of ADHD-----------------

Part 1 Dopamine and Abstraction --------------------------------------------------

Abstractions are not experienced but they play a major role in the human survival method of sharing resources called "culture".

Culture demands that Abstractions known as "shared assumptions" be followed. We know that the smell of food when hungry will drive us to eat. We know that the sight and smell of an attractive partner (or an available one) will drive us to procreate and form pair bonds.

How do we deal with abstraction...what about things that are not real or are iconic? Why do people die for the flag? Kill for the cross... share values and can join political parties, clubs, tribes? These are things that are not "experiential" a group of people is abstract. One on one connections are not.

In my models: The neurotransmitter that drives pleasure for abstraction is dopamine.

The brain follows a "use it or lose it" paradigm.

1. Un pruned neural networks are gray matter rich (context)
2. Pruned neural networks are white matter rich (abstraction)

http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/ADHD%20Presentation.htm (http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/ADHD%20Presentation.htm)

Because there is a lack of dopamine (or increased dopamine uptake, Or malformed dopamine receptors (1) (many different routes to ADHD)) in the brains of ADHD children...there is a lack of seeking and storing abstraction...(this is a "chicken or egg" kind of thing). This leads to a lack of "pruning" (2) neural networks that happens in the development of the "cultural participant" (non-ADD)


1. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/mp-tdr112603.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-12/mp-tdr112603.php)
2. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/18/15/5901?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Ernst%2CM&searchid=1057917301473_9720&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=1/1/1998&tdate=12/31/1998&journalcode=jneuro (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/18/15/5901?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Ernst%2CM&searchid=1057917301473_9720&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=1/1/1998&tdate=12/31/1998&journalcode=jneuro) (search on page for pruning)

http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/NEONATOLOGY/DPC/brain.htm (http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/NEONATOLOGY/DPC/brain.htm)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=977 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=977) (search for "dopamine rich")


When we take stimulants...we are more able to focus on abstractions (things that do not have immediate reward or help us meet a biological imperative)

The opposite of a gushy over-feeling/emoting ADDer is the psychopath/sociopath/APD.
The model predicts that they would have more white matter and be more attracted to abstraction than most people.
Their brains are "over-pruned" due to a lower amount of serotonin (feeling, sensing neurotransmitter) and/or an increase in dopamine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=20127380&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=20127380&dopt=Citation)


Conclusion: Dopamine is enhanced by stimulants such as amphetamines and ritalin (similar to cocaine)
In non-ADD people, they cause intense pleasure and mania. In the final stages of a period of abuse...there is often psychosis and lack of feeling (or a disconnect with experiential senses).

http://www.rnceus.com/meth/methpsych.html (http://www.rnceus.com/meth/methpsych.html)



Part 2 Serotonin, Norepinephrine and Anxiety----------------------------------------------------

In my model:

The experiential pathway has two main neurotransmitters with many "sub NTs" performing non cognitive functions.

1. Serotinin is primarily the "feeling/sensing" neurotransmitter. The main function is to provide the individual with detail information of the status of "needs" in the body/mind. Hunger/Satiation is the primary function from which this complex system arises. It is the assembler of sensory input into a general "sense of being" ("well being" or "ill feeling")

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web1/Byrd.html (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro99/web1/Byrd.html)

2. Norepinephrine is a flag that a "biological imperative" (mating/eating/avoiding predators) needs to be met.
Fight/Flight from danger or Excitement towards meeting an imperative such as obtaining food, shelter, a mate.

It causes butterflies in the stomach...triggers the serotonin pathways to start triggering rapidly... the mind monitors the body...

1. Serotonin is "fine tuned" and encompasses many "feelings"
2. Norepinephrine is a sledgehammer.



These two NTs in combination are responsible for two conditions...anxiety and depression. Hence the use of SNRIs and SSRIs to combat depression and anxiety. In ADD they ARE our main transmitter pathways. In most people norepinephrine triggers dopamine release as well.

Part 3 Conclusion ----------------------------------------------

In my model:

1. Dopamine

Dopamine increasers are used to create focus in ADHD due to the fact that they allow non-biological imperatives to receive focus as well as biological ones (learning is a biological imperative that is highly increased in ADHD when other imperative do not take up our time). Cleaning dishes... doing taxes... etc... now can be (somewhat) raised to the status of biological imperative in the ADHD mind.

Different types of dopamine "increasers" do different things. Since ADHD is so successful in human evolution..there are many coexisting variants that were selected for in different populations. Some forms of ADHD are dopamine uptake based (ritalin works best) Some forms are lowered dopamine production or many more receptor sites (Adderall works best for them). Some forms have receptors that dopamine does not stick to or the dopamine that is produced does not stick to the receptor sites...most likely lowering norepinephrine will "re balance" this out (Combination SSNRI (Wellbutrin), Adderall or an SNRI (Stratera)).

There are many combinations of genetic "changes" that create ADD.
http://www.genome.uci.edu/onlinejournals/010100.pdf (http://www.genome.uci.edu/onlinejournals/010100.pdf)

2. Serotonin

Prolonged stress causes the Serotonin "thermostat" to shut down. This sends a message that the individual needs to find shelter from the elements that are causing the stress. By cutting serotonin transmission...SSRI's and SSNRIs allow the individual to "shelter internally". Likewise SNRI's cause the anxiety to lessen..thus putting the Serotonin "thermostat" into standby.

Creativity is the desire to create driven by feelings. The serotonin pathway is our major source of "inspiration". Norepinephrine just causes simple reactions, dopamine drives the desire for abstraction...so we are left with Serotonin.

3. Psychology and Antidepressants

Antidepressants are wonder drugs. They have improved the lives of many people and they work regardless of the source of anxiety and depression.

1. If depression is a chemical imbalance (actually rare)... then antidepressants are perfect
2. If the depression is environmental (very common)... the body is telling the individual "get away from this situation!" Antidepressant work against the best interest of the individual by keeping them in harm's way while turning off the alarms. This is not a functional use of the antidepressants.


In ADHD:

SSRI and SSNRIs

1. There have been very few studies on what causes depression in ADHD (it could be chemical in a small population and environmental in most others)
2. ADDers are not comfortable in group situations...repetitive attempts to "force oneself" to join groups causes depression
3. ADDers often come from or are involved with emotional abusers (Boundary creation is very difficult for ADDers... we are often overly compassionate...allowing emotional abusers in...not to mention a possible evolutionary cause)
4. Lack of acceptance for who we are + inability to "join groups" on an emotional level and difficult primary care giver and partnerships cause severe depression (often dx'd as rapid cycling bipolar)

At the very least... understanding a person's relationships, fear and anxiety goes a long way towards "healing" the depression in ADHD. The antidepressants can stunt this process *if* they are used as a substitute for therapy and life changes based on what is functional for an ADDer.

It comes down to loving yourself and standing up for "you". This is very tough for people who never have learned boundaries OR set boundaries so vast that nobody is let in.

Stimulants and SNRIs

Pleasure for abstractions is driven by dopamine. This allows for focus on uninteresting tasks, better prioritization and better understanding of "other people's need for abstraction". Abstract memory storage is improved allowing for better understanding of linear time and abstract sequences.

All of these things can be done through contextual means. This is something I am working on currently.



This is the neurological foundation of the contextual mind model. I am still working on it and it will be much more "verbose" with more examples in the book.
-----------------------------------------


ADHD is forced contextual mind through changes in the dopamine pathway in the brain. It is still functional to this day.

I'm very impressed you covered all the bases you did with your model! Reading this makes me wish I'd stuck with cognitive psych a little longer...

If I catch your drift, you're saying that the ADD brain has serious trouble with abstraction, but if this is the case I'm having trouble with either how you think processes efficiently handled with abstraction by the non-ADDer are handled by this context-intensive model, or what you mean by abstraction in the first place!

I could see how trouble with abstraction could seem like it fits in with an ADDer displaying deficient performance in tasks that don't have the "context" of immediate consequences. I think many of the highly empathetic and "overthinking" ADDers could have trouble agreeing with this idea, though. Many would argue their thinking is highly abstract, but at the same time they could fit into your model as intensely responding in the "context" of a set of foreseen future consequences and possibilities.

Your ideas intrigue me though. Although I was quite talented in concrete math when I was younger, I encountered huge difficulty when I had to deal with the abstract concepts in higher math that required using formulas... I couldn't remember even simple formulas for the life of me and often had to derive them from basic axioms at the beginning of every exam. Many recent models of ADD attribute this to problems with working memory, but it could be seen as a need to do things based on context as opposed to abstraction.

One snag I have though is that I have no problem abstracting IN context. I study theology and have no trouble whatsoever dealing with the most "abstract" ideas. Yet when I deal with secular philosophy, sometimes it is complete absurd gibberish to me no matter how "cohesive" the thinking allegedly is. Is it because many of these thinkers fly in the face of tradition and build models of humanity from top to bottom independent of anyone else's ideas? Possibly, because I know how often I think to myself "what a waste of time, this guy thinks he's got the whole world figured out, why trust some person tries to explain the world anchored in nothing but his own ego?"

Alright, that was a bit of a tangent. How would the difficulty abstracting account for an ability to provide great examples when trying to explain something, doesn't that require abstraction in its most difficult form, providing creative output?

Maybe you can elaborate more on this context vs. abstract thinking for someone like me to understand better.

Again, very impressive though.

. One snag I have though is that I have no problem abstracting IN context. I study theology and have no trouble whatsoever dealing with the most "abstract" ideas.Once it is in context...it is no longer an abstraction. When I am talking about abstraction...it is on the most atomistic of levels...disconnected, with no surrounding experience or knowledge. These abstractions drive culture.

For ADDers Abstract thinking is a given...in fact it is our forte...once you have a broad context, the sky is the limit. Abstractions are not. Here are some examples:

Abstraction: that which cannot be experienced and/or is not questioned and is not in a context.

Examples:
A dollar bill is not abstract but money is
"Next to" is not abstract but "Right side of" is
Before, After and 10 feet away from are all abstractions.
Unquestioned cultural assumptions are abstractions but ideas (models of reality) are not.
Age is abstract but experience is not
A list of unrelated items is abstract but a story is not
Good and Bad are abstractions (all true binary oppositions are abstractions)
Male and Female are internally abstractions but externally not.
Feelings are not abstract.

So, these abstractions are stored below awareness...the are in context when we discuss them. Language is a container of abstractions for ADDers...but even then...if I say the word "square"...you will have a mental picture (most likely with a color) It is vivid for us...but in most people...it is an abstraction.

We all "store" the same things...it is just that ADDers do not have a special "abstraction storing system" so we store everything in context. Abstractions are fast and vastly simplified...contexts are slow and accurate.


.Alright, that was a bit of a tangent. How would the difficulty abstracting account for an ability to provide great examples when trying to explain something, doesn't that require abstraction in its most difficult form, providing creative output?

Maybe you can elaborate more on this context vs. abstract thinking for someone like me to understand better.

Again, very impressive though.So...we can come up with great example once we have an abstraction stored in context...even then language is tricky. ADDers tend to speak and understand metaphor and allegory much better than than most people.

abstraction is illusion and context has form...even on the level of ideas.

I say to you that there is a thing called a "flobberjocket that is square"...unless it can be stored in a context...because you are ADD...you forget it. Most people can store this...for lets say...a test

If I show you a flobberjocket...it is comitted to context.

All people have context and abstraction...but in ADD...abstraction is eclipsed by context. In most people...contexts are small and boxed in. In ADD our life is one big context.

This is one reason we have a hard time following rules until we get burned by ignoring one ;-)

It is a tough thing to explain...abstraction...but it is by no means the same as "an abstract idea" or "abstract thought"...in fact abstractions do not involve thought...they are the simplified ghosts of something that was once a context. Most people turn their immediate contexts into abstractions. We do not.

Window is square....that is what a square is? ok...context turned into abstraction.
In ADD...we still see the window...in fact many of us ADDers still see the colors of the letters and numbers on our toy blocks. (Letters and numbers are abstractions.)

1 is black
2 is blue
etc...
A is red
B is dark blue
C is light blue

Most people do not :) We stored our letters and number in an experiential context complete with a color.

Does that explain it a bit better?

This explains why we are slow to learn (at first) but then achieve mastery quickly once something is linked into our context.

Age is abstract but experience is not
A list of unrelated items is abstract but a story is not



I will have to re-read on medications but the un-medicated ADDer in me has one sily question.....

Age is abstract.....?????? How..... I see it as absolute.....I know old is relative....21 is old to a 12 year old(relatively speaking) but not to a 30 year old......(relatively speaking)


List of unrelated items usually remains on the frig when I am in need of it at the grocery store..... :o

Quit being silly Tammy :eyebrow:

Really I am trying to understand here....list of unrelated items are dis-connected.....not in order....absolute each word means what it means nothing more nothing less nothing to compair it to......what makes these words relative is how the word are related to eachother how and what order these unrelated items are assembled....grocery list turned story book???? :rolleyes:

Told my meds were gone......think I'll sleep on this one. I would like to know how abstract, contexual relate to relative and absolute or am I connecting unrelated dots again???? :confused:

P.S. I have always had problems with left, right, north, south ,ect......

Abstraction: Something that exists "because I said so".
Context: Something I know exists because I experienced it... or the pattern that surrounds it.

Love cannot be measured...but I feel it and know it is huge....and very real.
Wine tastes so much better....if I can have the pretty bottle and candles.
If I can't "feel" it or "know" it, how can it be?

We know the meaning of a new word if we can read it in a story or it is used in a conversation. If I read "We must learn the fundamentals of basketball", and I don't know the word "fundamental" and don't see it in context, I might conclude that "fundamental" means the fun things about basketball. Remembering it as a written definition from the dictionary is not our way of learning.


How do we link up and get our contextual thoughts working for us? Because I don't see the world changing any time soon.
Just to let you know...I still ain't joining no groups.

Chain, correct me if I am not hearing you right.

~gourmet~
ps ..I'm like so bored out of my gourd.

I will have to re-read on medications but the un-medicated ADDer in me has one sily question.....

Age is abstract.....?????? How..... I see it as absolute.....I know old is relative....21 is old to a 12 year old(relatively speaking) but not to a 30 year old......(relatively speaking)

Age is abstract because linear time is abstract. This does not mean that you will not know the difference between a 12 and a 30 year old... or see the relative difference. When I am talking about age...I am talking about it on a very subjective level. I feel as though I am a teenager...a young man...an old man...a child...all in one body.

That is where experience is not abstract...experience tells you more than "I am 12", "I am 21" or "I am 30".


You can see age in a person's face...but experience tends to guide me. I have met 25 year olds that are wiser than 40 year olds...in that case, it is abstract.

maybe the wording should be "chronological age" is abstract for the individual :)

Abstraction: Something that exists "because I said so".
Context: Something I know exists because I experienced it... or the pattern that surrounds it.

Love cannot be measured...but I feel it and know it is huge....and very real.
Wine tastes so much better....if I can have the pretty bottle and candles.
If I can't "feel" it or "know" it, how can it be?

We know the meaning of a new word if we can read it in a story or it is used in a conversation. If I read "We must learn the fundamentals of basketball", and I don't know the word "fundamental" and don't see it in context, I might conclude that "fundamental" means the fun things about basketball. Remembering it as a written definition from the dictionary is not our way of learning.


How do we link up and get our contextual thoughts working for us? Because I don't see the world changing any time soon.
Just to let you know...I still ain't joining no groups.

Chain, correct me if I am not hearing you right.

~gourmet~
ps ..I'm like so bored out of my gourd.Yes... this is what I am saying :)

Abstraction is very hard to describe because it is such an odd thing. We ADDers do not store things as abstractions and most people cannot examine their abstractions. We use contexts.

Contexts are linked to many other contexts.

Experiences are stored in contexts.
The warm sun on your face brings back memories of other times that warm sun was on your face... Maybe the article you read last week on solar radiation...a friend who likes sun...feeling like a cat in the sun.
A new idea... a new theory...these are heavily context driven (yes...even abstract ideas).

Blue is a color that you see {sky, lover's eyes, cover of a book you are reading,...}

Think of a tree...all or many of the branches must be climbed down to get to the trunk...It is much slower to do this...and once at the trunk...we often realize we are still in the branches. This is how we ADDers process things.
Each tree is a contextual "model" of reality. They are in-turn linked together at the level of the smallest branches...and the trunks.

With time...we get faster at "descending" the tree by moving in many directions through the branches...we have a vast amount of information at our fingertips at all times. Our tree grows throughout life.

Abstractions are stored in hierarchy.
Hierarchy is organized in a very simple way.

Parent{(child1), (child2), (child3)}
child1{(aspect1{...}), (aspect2{...}), (aspect3{...})}

abstractions are stored this way.
Shape{(Angled{(Square{(Rectangle{}...)}), (Triangle{(Equilateral{}...)})}),(Smooth{(Circle{} ,...), (Oval{}),......})}

Think of a tree....in abstraction it is from the "trunk to the branches" Up the tree. It is fast because the path to the furthest branch is simple.

Shape//Angled//Square

For us ADDers abstractions are stored as contexts (thus they are not abstractions).
Numbers..are abstractions for most people, many of us see colors associated with them...and an ADD mathematician would see forms as well. They must be tagged with experience to be stored.

in ADD: Square{window, red, glass pane, clouds reflected in the window, flying in the sky....}

Now you can see why we are so distracted...we work with "gestalts". You can also see the creativity and the ability to observe VERY complex real world or theoretical patterns that are turned into models. As our contextual models become more mature... our ability to learn becomes very fast...as all we have to do...is store something in a context. These models are flexible (abstraction hierarchies are stiff)...invention is simply a matter of extending these complex contextual models.

New ideas or skills that have no context...need to be stored in a pre-existing context (very very fast) or built into a new context (very very slow)

Slow on the uptake...VERY fast once a context has been built.

The CM/HM continuum:


CM+ <-------+-----------+----------+---------> HM+

ADD most people Psychopath

Lots of Gray Matter Lots of White Matter
Low Dopamine High Dopamine


In the continuum above...you can see that all people have a mix of abstraction storage (HM) and Experiential Storage (CM)

We are on one extreme...feeling, experiencing, sense driven, context building
On the other extreme is...low emotion, Abstracting, rule driven. Hierarchy building.


So...Why do I feel that Abstractions are stored in hierarchy? Because all structures that humans "call man made" are heirarchical in nature. We project what is in our brains outward in the building of everything from our culture to our cities. Context...is nature.


ADDers can model hierarchy as well (and we must to live in this world)...but it is still a contextual model.


What can you do to get by in this world? Stop clinging to ego. Learn to create functional patterns that work for you. Set boundaries. Learn the patterns of the other cognitive types and realize, they have different impulses...and they are not better or worse than yours. Find patterns that work with theirs.

What these models call for is: ADD (CM+) based education, cooperation and psychology. We are a cognitive minority...we are due this. That doctor that drives the fancy car and tells you that you have a disorder would be in a cave right now without our influence. We invented everything he has...same goes for the big pharma companies. MONEY is an abstraction! :-P

What these models call for is: ADD (CM+) based education, cooperation and psychology. We are a cognitive minority...we are due this. That doctor that drives the fancy car and tells you that you have a disorder would be in a cave right now without our influence. We invented everything he has...same goes for the big pharma companies. MONEY is an abstraction! :-P

Well, that settles it. We can start planning world domination right now ... or how about next week. We'll show the world that we mean business!!! :faint:

Well, that settles it. We can start planning world domination right now ... or how about next week.
Yeah, just as soon as I finish reading my email and playing a few video games.

Well, that settles it. We can start planning world domination right now ... or how about next week. We'll show the world that we mean business!!! :faint:Ummm sorry to ruin your plans...HM+ has us beat as far as planning goes (hell...they really want the place too) :)


We just invent stuff, lol.... or play video games and go to Star Trek conventions...Think I will watch Revenge of the Nerds tonight and blow off some of this steam.

Atom bombs for HM+ and ER+

Ummm sorry to ruin your plans...HM+ has us beat as far as planning goes (hell...they really want the place too) :)

Unfortunately, yes. You can't blame me for trying, though. We don't need to rule the world. We just need respect. Oh well. Maybe we can build and program robots to rule the world for us while we invent things.


Atom bombs for HM+ and ER+


Using them, yes.

New ideas or skills that have no context...need to be stored in a pre-existing context (very very fast) or built into a new context (very very slow)

Slow on the uptake...VERY fast once a context has been built.


This would explain my learning pattern. I am like s....l...o..w.... until all the "slots" are filled. Once these unseen "slots" in my brain are filled my learning branches out rapidly.

Mom used to say I had the head of a mule mind of a steal trap. To get a concet into me brain was like hammering a tooth pick into concrete. Once I learn a concept it branches out to encompass other simular concepts, with little or no effort. Plus I don't forget I remeber things forever and ever and ever!!!!

I have the ability to re-call visually, auditoy, and kinetically, well every thing but spelling which must pass through broken brain processor (they quit making the part so long ago I can't even find one in junk yard)


Because all structures that humans "call man made" are heirarchical in nature. We project what is in our brains outward in the building of everything from our culture to our cities

Excellent point well said!!!!!


Stop clinging to ego.

This would mean to stop basing value on myself based on how well I fit into groups or how well I succeed based on others definations?????



Learn to create functional patterns that work for you.

I agree and have refered to this as "education about self" all the knowledge about the latest research and/or taking a mountian of medications will not be of benefit if we do not educate our selves about how our ADD effects us and has an effect on those with whom we share our lives, which in turn effects us.

The one biggest difference I found with taking medications was being able to control my emotions and thoughts long enough to gain some "insite". Learning to not only feel and accept my emotions but to be able to ask my self why??? Focus long enough to generate an answer!!!!!

Set boundaries.


A must....another concept I struggled with but once learned it expounded and allowed me to accept responsibility for my emotions and behavior and refuse to accept the responsibility for others. With practice I have learned to see where my words or behavior may have had an influence upon others without accepting responsibility for another persons behavior.



Learn the patterns of the other cognitive types and realize, they have different impulses...and they are not better or worse than yours.


I find this a facinanting aspect of human behavior. How differently people can respond and I feel it is a privlege is they are willing to share their view with me. The vastness or prespectives is mind-boggling.


Find patterns that work with theirs.

I see it as approaches...finding the correct approach to people has allowed me to become flexible and I have been fortunate enough to become "a part" of many differnt cultures. I think it is because I am accepting and flexible plus I "feel" others.


Thanks for the great response and taking the time to answer my questions and expound upon your concepts.

So far I find your models pretty accurate you have observed well!!!!!


Well, that settles it. We can start planning world domination right now ... or how about next week.

No world domination until after my first pot of coffee and breakfast!!!! Nice to see the playful side of you HF!!!!

Using them, yes.
Yes...we invent them and they use them.

Very few HM+ or ER+ could build such a thing...but it is easy for them to use...because they are still behaving in the context of the tribe. It is only a bigger spear. (ER follows them because they are the leaders of the group.)

We invent those things...goaded on by our mucked up egos and those who convince us we should.

"We knew the world could not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: "I am became Death, the destroyers of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."
J. Robert Oppenheimer (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jrobertop132045.html)

This would explain my learning pattern. I am like s....l...o..w.... until all the "slots" are filled. Once these unseen "slots" in my brain are filled my learning branches out rapidly.

I am so glad that you see this too :)

With ADD...we see things that are there, but because nobody else can see them....we are told we are insane.

Most people see things that are not there, but because they all see them together, they are sane.

People who see things that are not there and nobody else sees, are either leaders and/or insane.



The reason I post these models is for validation (or invalidation). The thing that indicates that this is a part of human reality is the principal of Occam's razor. A definition of ADD can be stated in one sentence and through extension...all aspects of it can be explained.

Most of what is diagnosed as ADD can be summed up as:

A brain that primarily stores experiences in context over abstractions in heirarchy.

or (from the standpoint of the majority cognition)

A brain that stores abstraction in context as opposed to hierarchy.



Our place in the world (this came together for me while chatting to a dear friend)


This is an allegorical explanation of the 4 main cognitive types
(ADDers understand allegory better because it fits into our contexts so well :)

"The world is a room"

In the room there is a poorly drawn picture of the room itself.
There is a table in the center of the room with an amazing feast on it.
A mirror stands in the corner.

There is a group of people in the room and three people who stand apart from the group. The group only looks at the picture and discusses its together. They are trying to build a consensus about what is in it. They will look or go nowhere else. They each refuse to leave the company of the others.

Of the three that stand apart.
One of them is looking in the mirror.
One of them is looking at the table.
One of them is looking the group and maintaining order.

The person who is looking at the table says "I see a bottle of fine wine!"
The group answers "there is no bottle of wine (in the picture)! What ARE you talking about?"

The one that is looking at the mirror is drawn towards the commotion.
The "mirror man" stands next to the "table woman" who sees a bottle of wine.
"I look good standing next to her" he says to himself.

The "order man" who is watching the group says "This is not the hour of discussion, that happens at 1:00!"

Again, the woman looking at the table says "I see a beautiful glass to be filled... right next to the bottle!"
The crowd shouts in rhythm "You are a fool!, There is no glass and there is no wine! It is clearly not there (in the picture)!"

The "mirror man" gets an idea, when looking in the mirror, it is hard to know how truly amazing he is.
"If I convince the people in the group of the existence of this bottle of wine by sketching it in the picture, then the group will truly see how magnificent I truly am!"

He talks to the "order man" and says... "I bet they would pay money to hear about the wine on the table..."
The "order man" agrees... "Money to be made! I like that idea!"
The "Mirror man replies... just get me a fine suit with some of it"

While the group is looking at a corner of the picture, ordered by the "order man", the "mirror man" quickly sketches in the Bottle and the Glass on the table.
The "mirror man" says "You see, just like I said before... there IS a bottle of wine and a glass on the table!"
The crowd gasps "Can you tell us all about it?"
Finally in his element, he says "First give the "order man" some money, and I will tell you everything." He smiles broadly...

The woman who looks at the table says "There are beautiful candles on the table too!"
"Hush with your madness!" says the crowd "This handsome man is telling us about the bottle of wine!"


I could write a play around that...I think :)

Hi, chain,

Abstractions and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. :faint:

It seems to me what you're saying about ADHDers and their need for context is simply that ADHDers need to be able to visualize and not merely verbalize what they remember. That is, they are more adept at using the right hemisphere of the cerebral cortex instead of the left one.

From the research I have read, people with the combined and predominantly hyperactive-impulsive types of ADHD do tend to score higher on performance IQ than verbal IQ on IQ tests. Performance IQ is associated with good visuospatial reasoning. Verbal IQ is associated with audition, sequential thinking, analysis, and vocabulary.

Although I have received a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome over the older diagnosis of undifferentiated attention-deficit disorder, some of the symptoms of ADHD (inattentive as well as hyperactive-impulsive) seem to apply to me even though I was never the prototypical hyperactive kid in elementary school. Maybe it's just laziness; I don't know. My verbal IQ (134 on WAIS-III), though, is much higher than my performance IQ (94). I usually do not visualize what I'm thinking of.

Does this mean these symptoms are causally different? Who knows.

Hi, chain,

performance IQ (94). I usually do not visualize what I'm thinking of.

Does this mean these symptoms are causally different? Who knows.
ADD itself is a very suspect diagnosis (according to the models).

Actually you are most likely what the models would call IR+CM or HM

This translates to "Asperger's" or AS with larger context capability but not forced like it is in ADD (CM+). You have abstraction storage...you just did not learn to store "cultural abstraction".

It does look very much like ADD (CM+). Impulsivity is there (bad term...all humans are impulsive...just some are not impulsive the way "they should be") but all of the "backend abstraction storage" still exists. This leads to patterned behaviors that are like those in "normal cultural people" but are not synchronized with the culture.

The distraction found in IR+ is different in that "paying attention" to cultural cues is diminished but there is a capability to focus on things that might be "boring" to an ADDer. (ADDers are urgency and interest focused)

You would have a high attraction to "side cultures". You can join these groups. Many ADDers have a hard time even doing that.

Some examples:
SCA
D&D
Online Gaming
Wicca
Spiritualism
Manga
Movie Fan (Science Fiction and fantasy)
Collector Groups

also often:
Attraction to Pirate Symbology

Many ADDers are also attracted to these things but not to the level and life incorporation that IR+ (AS) is. This is because with a place to store culture, joining groups is still the major impulse in IR+...but "mainstream cultural groups" reject AS people as odd or geeky. "Mainstream cultural groups" in turn are frustrating for AS people because their rules seem arbitrary and their language is so nuanced as to be impossible to understand. (All of the groups above are driven by clear rules that are written down...not spoken)

I have recieved both diagnosis and am most likely both AS and ADD. (IR+CM+)
The ADD (due to the reduction of clear patterned repetition from abstraction) is much more powerful and stands out. Therefore ADD + AS individuals are not seen as AS but as ADD. There is a whole other layer of culture interpretation missing in me...and it may be one reason that I have been a bit more positive in my life than many ADD or AS...I cannot read faces on the emotional level.

A smile in another person...does not "feel" like anything...a frown does not either. I am perceptive to voice intonation to a degree.

These things define IR+. Culture is learned through ego wich is very influenced by the ability to read faces, gestures and voice on an emotional level.

You would have a high attraction to "side cultures". You can join these groups. Many ADDers have a hard time even doing that.

Some examples:
SCA
D&D
Online Gaming
Wicca
Spiritualism
Manga
Movie Fan (Science Fiction and fantasy)
Collector Groups

also often:
Attraction to Pirate Symbology Ugh, no! I hate all those things except I did like playing Warcraft II and Diablo I online for a while years ago. I am a computer-science major, but I consider myself more artistic, creative, and free thinking than the typical computer-science major. Also, my interests tend to change very frequently; I'm not really interested in my major at all anymore.

Ugh, no! I hate all those things except I did like playing Warcraft II and Diablo I online for a while years ago. I am a computer-science major, but I consider myself more artistic, creative, and free thinking than the typical computer-science major. Also, my interests tend to change very frequently; I'm not really interested in my major at all anymore.That might plant you firmly in the IR+CM... (Highly questioning)
CM+ is "forced questioning"... IR+HM is still group driven...but not within the mainstream

If you can remember lists and store abstraction but have a hard time joining groups and have trouble reading faces emotionally...

Then again...the models cannot predict the patterns of people...just the major impulses and brain structure of the types. There is always extreme complexity in chaotic systems like the human race. I am surprised that these models are as predictive as they are :)

I am so glad that you see this too :)

With ADD...we see things that are there, but because nobody else can see them....we are told we are insane.

Most people see things that are not there, but because they all see them together, they are sane.

People who see things that are not there and nobody else sees, are either leaders and/or insane.


In my current line of work, the pattern of learning that usually takes place involves people essentially learning the same thing over and over again, with each repetition happening because one process/concept is slightly different than the next. It's a lot like someone with a computer science degree needing to be retrained in computer science if one needs to learn a programming language that wasn't covered in their education. The rate of learning of most people tends to be constant (a straight line), whereas my rate of learning tends to be exponential, depending on the the relationship between what I already understand and what I need to understand.

Many people comment that I make connections between topics that would be best left disconnected. I beg to differ.

Many people comment that I make connections between topics that would be best left disconnected. I beg to differ.
I got nailed on another board for including "dopamine" in what is psychoanalytic theory...lol!

I sent them this link:
http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html

The more you link...the closer to reality you are ;-)

We know the meaning of a new word if we can read it in a story or it is used in a conversation. If I read "We must learn the fundamentals of basketball", and I don't know the word "fundamental" and don't see it in context, I might conclude that "fundamental" means the fun things about basketball. Remembering it as a written definition from the dictionary is not our way of learning.


This totally makes sense to me and explains why I have so much trouble writing papers in school sometimes. I'm really good at writing reflective essay's though. I recently had a test question in my social problems class that said something like, Describe the structure of society using all 3 of the major sociologic perspectives. The word structure threw me off big time. I looked that word up atleast 50 times in the dictionary. I know structure more or less means how it was built and I can tell you all about society using all three perspectives but the word structure is not in my explanation. I spent days on just this part of the test. (take home test) I ended up withdrawing from the class over this question because of the frustration. If the question would have been describe how scoiety is formed using all 3, I would have turned my paper in and still be in the class. Is this what you were talking about?

I might conclude that "fundamental" means the fun things about basketball. Remembering it as a written definition from the dictionary is not our way of learning.
...
If the question would have been describe how scoiety is formed using all 3, I would have turned my paper in and still be in the class. Is this what you were talking about? Yes (this is exactly what I mean by abstraction)...but take it even further...
Time: out of context...we cannot remember things. You only remember your keys when you see something that reminds you of what you were doing when you put them down.

Directions: Left and right are abstraction...a linear sequence of direction to get to a place does not work. We need visible landmarks

Culture: Group joining is heavily based on believing and sharing ideas "out of context" these abstractions are called "shared assumptions"

So...we have all of the "facilities" other people do...but we access them differently. Learning how to teach to that...or even understanding that you do not store abstraction (things out of context) goes a LONG way towards showing you how to cure yourself :)

teach yourself using context
remember using context
plan using context
drive focus by creating context of urgency
create context around your "impulsive behavior"

create the context that there is nothing wrong with you...in fact you are a beautiful example of the simplicity nature uses to find solutions to problems. Love that...context is wonderful...larger contexts would mean wonderful things for all people on this planet.

Just imagine a leader of one country looking at his child and understanding that a child in his enemy's country is just as precious...THAT is context :)

all of it is related to 1 simple thing...ADDers need context.

executive function is a red herring....
and most people should be given "context" enhancing drugs...that lower their dopamine...mwahaha

The CM/HM continuum:

CM+ <-------+-----------+----------+---------> HM+

ADD most people Psychopath

Lots of Gray Matter Lots of White Matter
Low Dopamine High Dopamine
My understanding of psychopathy is that it is closely genetically related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, combined type. Please, see my post in the Personality Disorders forum listing the symptoms of psychopathy: Symptoms - Psychopathy (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20214). Impulsivity is one of the traits. Conduct disorders that develop in early childhood and persist into adulthood share many of the same genes as ADHD according to some of the research I've read.

Also, psychopathy basically has three factors: narcissism, callousness (e.g., cruelty, lack of guilt) and unemotionality (e.g., lack of fear or anxiety, little apparent emotion), and impulsivity (e.g., high need for external stimulation, poorly planned actions). So there's not even one prototypical "psychopath." All three factors in one person makes for a very dangerous and unstable combination.

When you say "ADD," are you referring to the predominantly inattentive type with few hyperactive-impulsive symptoms? In that case, I can understand your juxtaposing ADD with psychopathy.

I really don't understand how someone could think entirely in abstractions with no context. Without context, there's no meaning. I guess some people try to acquire money just to have more money, but that makes little sense to me.

By the way, your impression of psychopaths might not be too off. Even though the majority of incarcerated psychopaths are pretty much common criminals (they tend to be more of the impulsive variety), I imagine a psychopath to be a too perfect person: suit and tie, all the right social connections, has a way with words, always seems calm and ready with a plan, picture-perfect family, all the right credentials, etc. The new Chief Justice Roberts strikes me as one of these people, actually. Lawyers and salespeople in general are the archetypes for these nonimpulsive near-psychopaths.

Directions: Left and right are abstraction...a linear sequence of direction to get to a place does not work. We need visible landmarks
Actually, I am the opposite. I have a horrible time following directions here in Japan, because most streets do not have names; directions are all in terms of landmarks, and numbers of traffic lights.

Lord, I long for the days when I could use directions like this:
Left on Vine
Right on Maple (2nd light)
Right on Cherry and halfway down the block, 1345 blue house
Now it's more like:
Left at big intersection with Toyota car dealership
Right at brown twin condominium towers (2nd light)
Right at street with bent utility pole and 50 meters down, blue house
I get lost a lot. And I thank dog for car navigation systems.

Actually, I am the opposite. I have a horrible time following directions here in Japan, because most streets do not have names; directions are all in terms of landmarks, and numbers of traffic lights.

Lord, I long for the days when I could use directions like this:Left on Vine
Right on Maple (2nd light)
Right on Cherry and halfway down the block, 1345 blue house
Now it's more like:Left at big intersection with Toyota car dealership
Right at brown twin condominium towers (2nd light)
Right at street with bent utility pole and 50 meters down, blue house
I get lost a lot. And I thank dog for car navigation systems.
Well...Japan does not work, lol

all the buildings are the same...it is like navigating in the burbs :)

if they are written down...then I can follow them (I make Ls and Rs with my fingers) some ADDers do have great navigation :) It goes to show that there are no absolutes... and we can learn left right navigation through context. I have some skills of sequential memorization not predicted by the models....

thank dog? lol. cool. I love my dog, but I would not thank her for my good fortune....sorry.

Anyway I hope the following will add to this thread,

but how does one learn to use abstractions, then? How can we activate the abstractions to make sense in conversation, and such. Do we just "technically" think more during a conversation? Is this why the ADDer tends to get socially tired?

Our thinking is no more than anyone else's. We do not try harder. It's just more of a complex system, i suppose. I could think of anything. Say what I am going to wear tomorrow. I must go through a series of possibilities or consequences of wearing that outfit....Why? I do not arrive at the obvious truth of the simple decision. I am plagued with logic, and that's the way it is...

Going through a series of pathways to arrive at a conclusion translated into right or wrong, inside of your own mind.

So how does the majority think. In any given situation?

So do we change the form of our minds, through learning then? We change the way our minds are set, in order satisfy our needs=what's important to ourselves.

Much more I need to add, but this should be okay for now. Backasswards, I don't do it on purpose! Oh, and can someone tell me why!--when I think of the order of a sentence, it starts in backwords (haha) order.

Age is abstract because linear time is abstract.
This would explain why it took someone with ADD like Einstein to finally grasp that time is neither linear nor uniform.

The model in the original post seems very plausible. My only criticism is that I was under the impression that norepinephrine and dopamine were more closely related to each other, at least chemically, than either is to serotonin. But that's at the chemical level, and might not be related to their pharmacodynamics.

I can also come up with another example of abstract vs. contextual thinking: I was originally going to be a physicist before I realized my deep aversion to calculus. Calculus and abstract math have always given me problems, whereas I have absolutely no problem with physics, because it's conceptual, it's solid. A mathematical concept means nothing to me, while forces acting upon objects are intuitively obvious for me. Saying that an electron has a charge of -1 means nothing to me without the understanding that this is in relation to the +1 charge of a proton and the neutral charge of the neutron, and how these charges cause these particles to act upon each other via the electromagnetic force. This is also why Einstein found it easier to conceptualize gravity as a bending of space-time than through the ascetic mathematics of Newton. Also why I usually just made my own equations in physics class instead of using the step-by-step mathematics the teacher would write out on the board. It was just easier for me to figure out the context of the problem and write out one equation that fit it than to have to go through a million steps.

Similarly, pi as 3.14159 was always pretty meaningless to me. I mean, I could use it in an equation and all, but it was simply pointless until I was finally taught about it, not as a number or a variable, but simply as the ratio of diameter to circumference. After that, everything else made perfect sense.

From the research I have read, people with the combined and predominantly hyperactive-impulsive types of ADHD do tend to score higher on performance IQ than verbal IQ on IQ tests.
I would disagree, and think that the exact opposite should be the case, especially since I did better on the VIQ than the PIQ. That being said, I think the individual subtests are probably more important than the overall verbal or performance scores, but a lot of the performance scores are actually testing things like prospective memory and non-contextual thought, which ADD people tend to suck at. While verbal tests can be abstract, they are almost always in a particular context, since verbalization requires context. For instance, where a performance subtest might require repeating a string of numbers, which is abstract and non-contextual, a verbal test might involve arranging a set of pictures into a coherent order so that they make sense in context with each other.

Yes...we invent them and they use them.

Very few HM+ or ER+ could build such a thing...but it is easy for them to use...because they are still behaving in the context of the tribe. It is only a bigger spear. (ER follows them because they are the leaders of the group.)

We invent those things...goaded on by our mucked up egos and those who convince us we should.
It's not just our egos, it's that to Einstein and Oppenheimer, fission was the only context. The behavior of nuclei and the conversion of matter to energy were conceptual to them, but the people who would inevitably die in such an explosion were abstractions. This is different than the psychopath, for whom the deaths of others are real, but they have no care. For the ADDers, because the eventual use of such a device was abstract, it might as well not have existed, out of sight and out of mind.

Both types of thinking are essential to the survival of a particular civilization. One needs people who can focus on a particular concept such as an atom bomb, and simply ignore the rest as abstraction, and one needs others to order the use of such weapons, conceptually understanding what they will do but not caring. One group cannot perform the tasks of the other, however, in the same sense that the intestines cannot think and the brain cannot digest.

It's not just our egos, it's that to Einstein and Oppenheimer, fission was the only context. The behavior of nuclei and the conversion of matter to energy were conceptual to them, but the people who would inevitably die in such an explosion were abstractions. To a degree, yes...but in having contexts as large as they did...the deaths of those unseen people were not abstraction...people can only be related to what we know. My child is my context...I only know another child through that context...therefore, even unseen a child in a foreign land is not an abstraction. A nationality is an abstraction. In the context of their time...they were fighting a very dangerous force, therefore the decision was made. Both Einstein and Oppenheimer were haunted by the rest of their lifes by the contexts...coming back to them in the faces of people they saw. After the bombs exploded, there was a new context. HM+ and ER+ would not have such problems and would go to their grave knowing that they defended "their country" (an abstraction). In the sense that people can manipulate us through our ego...can we do their bidding. This was probably "part of" the reason for this invention.

Hyperfocus does generate a powerful context that can overwhealm others :)



This is different than the psychopath, for whom the deaths of others are real, but they have no care. For the ADDers, because the eventual use of such a device was abstract, it might as well not have existed, out of sight and out of mind.
For HM+ (in dysfunction, psycopath) Deaths are real...but abstracted. People are highly abstracted. A person and a peice of furniture may cause similar emotional reaction (if HM+ is not fighting or mating with them). They are so driven by abstraction that iconic shapes would generate more emotion (cross, swastika, letters, numbers) and abstractions such as identity are much more powerful than compassion, caring, feeling for others.

In a very functional state, they are so rule driven that they can be highly ethical...pillars of the community.

They do not blink very often and feel love through the exchange of possesions.


Both types of thinking are essential to the survival of a particular civilization. One needs people who can focus on a particular concept such as an atom bomb, and simply ignore the rest as abstraction, and one needs others to order the use of such weapons, conceptually understanding what they will do but not caring. One group cannot perform the tasks of the other, however, in the same sense that the intestines cannot think and the brain cannot digest.Yes! This is exactly what I am getting at here :)

the functional cognitive types are "functional" for the very reason that the human race cannot do without them. This means that they are not "disordered" but "part of the order" and no type is better than the others.

But in that the types are more intrinsic than even gender... we must love the type we are in order to find functional patterns to live by. All types can find functional patterns...that never involves "being" one of the "other cognitive types". Psychology is trying to subvert ADDers into the "group joining" type because it is the majority...

I say we need functional patterns to help us deal with the other types...but we should not attempt to change "our type" through medication. (This is not anti-medication...the meds can really help us find functional patterning with therapy)

My understanding of psychopathy is that it is closely genetically related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, combined type. Please, see my post in the Personality Disorders forum listing the symptoms of psychopathy: Symptoms - Psychopathy (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20214). Impulsivity is one of the traits. Conduct disorders that develop in early childhood and persist into adulthood share many of the same genes as ADHD according to some of the research I've read.

Also, psychopathy basically has three factors: narcissism, callousness (e.g., cruelty, lack of guilt) and unemotionality (e.g., lack of fear or anxiety, little apparent emotion), and impulsivity (e.g., high need for external stimulation, poorly planned actions). So there's not even one prototypical "psychopath." All three factors in one person makes for a very dangerous and unstable combination.

When you say "ADD," are you referring to the predominantly inattentive type with few hyperactive-impulsive symptoms? In that case, I can understand your juxtaposing ADD with psychopathy.

I really don't understand how someone could think entirely in abstractions with no context. Without context, there's no meaning. I guess some people try to acquire money just to have more money, but that makes little sense to me.

By the way, your impression of psychopaths might not be too off. Even though the majority of incarcerated psychopaths are pretty much common criminals (they tend to be more of the impulsive variety), I imagine a psychopath to be a too perfect person: suit and tie, all the right social connections, has a way with words, always seems calm and ready with a plan, picture-perfect family, all the right credentials, etc. The new Chief Justice Roberts strikes me as one of these people, actually. Lawyers and salespeople in general are the archetypes for these nonimpulsive near-psychopaths.
Here is what I am saying:

The majority cognitive type judges us based on their primary impulses and the patterns that they form.

Dr Russ Barkley calls them "Executive Functions". He is saying we have a disorder because our "Executive Functions" are not the same as the majority cognition's.

Once you take the "group joining" cognition into account, then you can divide out the differences.

ADD is only related to Psychopaths (Almost opposite brain structure) and Narcissists (Opposite ego structure) in that we are one of the "minority cognitions".

When you read the DSM...you can see the perspective it is written in (ERHM ("Group Joiner", committe style categories). The outward actions of the "disordered" are judged based on the "perceptions" of the judger. What they see as healthy for their cognitive type (We do the same exact thing, lol)

All of the "Issues" are non-group joining issues...and in the DSM...they are showing VERY dysfunctional versions of those. The types are everywhere and rarely "diagnosed".

The relationship is there...but it is just as strong a relation to the majority cognition as it is to the others...it is just that there are a lot more of them (in abstract group thinking...the more people that believe something...the more likely it is to be true :) (side note: this is severe fallacy))

I am posting the model for "group joiner" today. It is the majority cognition. We can them map the "Executive Functions" of mainstream psychology into it.

It is just best to be yourself...even the "group joiners" love you more for it. All humans respect someone who knows "who they are" and is strong in that while being respectful of others.

Chain, I would fully agree with you that ADDers ought to score better on sections of an IQ test that are the most contextual. I looked up the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scales quickly, and found this:


WAIS Scales


Verbal WAIS scales
1. Information: 29 questions - a measure of general knowledge.

2. Digit Span: Subjects are given sets of digits to repeat initially forwards then backwards. This is a test of immediate auditory recall and freedom from distraction.

3. Vocabulary: Define 35 words. A measure of expressive word knowledge. It correlates very highly with Full Scale IQ

4. Arithmetic: 14 mental arithmetic brief story type problems. tests distractibility as well as numerical reasoning.

5. Comprehension: 16 questions which focus on issues of social awareness.

6. Similarities: A measure of concept formation. Subjects are asked to say how two seemingly dissimilar items might in fact be similar.



Performance WAIS scales
7. Picture Completion: 20 small pictures that all have one vital detail missing. A test of attention to fine detail.

8. Picture Arrangement: 10 sets of small pictures, where the subject is required to arrange them into a logical sequence.

9. Block Design: Involves putting sets of blocks together to match patterns
on cards.

10. Digit Symbol: Involves copying a coding pattern.

11. Object Assembly: Four small jig-saw type puzzles.

Not knowing exactly what these questions were like, I would guess that 4-6 and possibly 3 on the Verbal scales are questions that test contextual thought. But aren't 7-9 and 11 arguably contextual as well? I can't imagine how you COULD complete a question requiring you to finish a picture with a detail missing if you didn't have a strong grasp of context.

Anyway I hope the following will add to this thread,

but how does one learn to use abstractions, then? How can we activate the abstractions to make sense in conversation, and such. Do we just "technically" think more during a conversation? Is this why the ADDer tends to get socially tired?
Yes...we are socially tired because from an early age...we were not built out "to be social (in a group)". We will never "learn to use abstractions" because they are actually "stored" in the brain. Much like a "fork" is not used to eat soup..our brains are not meant to store "abstraction".

It does live on a continuum...some ADDers can store abstraction to a degree. Adderall helps facilitate this...but cultural abstractions are so complex and so "below awareness" in most people...that they are akin to walking (in fact walking is stored the same way abstractions are)

I magine having to think every time you moved your legs when you walked (as in physical therapy)...you can see why cultural abstraction is so difficult. We often just ignore the inconsistencies in it...to get along...but even that is exhausting :)


Our thinking is no more than anyone else's. We do not try harder. It's just more of a complex system, i suppose. I could think of anything. Say what I am going to wear tomorrow. I must go through a series of possibilities or consequences of wearing that outfit....Why? I do not arrive at the obvious truth of the simple decision. I am plagued with logic, and that's the way it is...

Going through a series of pathways to arrive at a conclusion translated into right or wrong, inside of your own mind.
Yes...climbing down every branch in the tree...the secret is learning to move sideways from branch to branch.

Most people "move up" the tree to a branch...when we attempt to do the same thing...our brains do not work right. Take memory (verbal working memory) for example.

Most people "talk to themselves" in a linear list of things done during the day...this aids in planning...they can set forth a working abstract list verbally in their brains and follow it. This is aided by abstraction (a linear list of "unrelated items" is an abstraction)

We do not do this...when we try to...it is exhausting. So the key is learning how to create "context based" lists based on a "story" or experiential tagging (tying feelings and visual cues to "abstract" lists).

In the morning, I have mimicked the feeling of "not wearing my glasses" to tasks I must do...each task carries with it that feeling. If I leave the house and I feel like I am not wearing my glasses...I can then pinpoint the task missed. These are ADD specific patterns that I am learning based on the models...and they work.



So how does the majority think. In any given situation?

So do we change the form of our minds, through learning then? We change the way our minds are set, in order satisfy our needs=what's important to ourselves.

Much more I need to add, but this should be okay for now. Backasswards, I don't do it on purpose! Oh, and can someone tell me why!--when I think of the order of a sentence, it starts in backwords (haha) order.
My feeling is that we can learn "patterns" that keep us healthy and happy, while still meeting the needs of living in a cultural society.

I have posted "what most people think" on the board here today. This is a purely cultural understanding. I think the most vital thing we as ADDers need to do, is "just get used to not being accepted". We are "Rockstars" of creativity when we do that, instead of broken down "groupies" that follow the band. They are Rockstars of "group joining".

What would make you love yourself more...being a "groupie" or a "rockstar"?
;-)

the girl with the back stage pass...;)

the girl with the back stage pass...;)
Brilliant!! :D

the girl with the back stage pass...;)
That was a rhetorical question, stinker :P

It reminds me of a time when I went to an anti-nuclear demonstration in Nevada...Carl Sagan lectured in Las Vegas....he asked the question "Do you know how many nuclear weapons the USSR and the US have pointed at each other?"

A smart *ss in the back of the room said "billions and billions!" (with the Carl Sagan accent)

Carl Sagan turned a bit red and said "that was a rhetorical question!"

I love smart *sses :)

Hey.......I resemble that question.

Are you a bit red too....or are you a four cornered shape?
I love four cornered shapes :)

And I am pretty sure I resemble that statement. :eyebrow:

There are way too many leaps of faith in these conceptual schemes, as we’ve noted before. In particular, Chain tends to act as if mentioning two different abstractions in one sentence will render them connected, perhaps through the magic of language.

What connects ideas like the characterization of electrical and chemical interconnections in the brain with models of any type, or stored information in any form, models or otherwise? There is no model offered for the mechanism of this connection, most crucial to the basic arguments.

Stuff doesn’t just lump together and stick. You have to explain why, find the underlying reasons that two views of nature are related, before you can move on to making assumptions about any grand synthesis.


This would explain my learning pattern. I am like s....l...o..w.... until all the "slots" are filled. Once these unseen "slots" in my brain are filled my learning branches out rapidly.


In my current line of work, the pattern of learning that usually takes place involves people essentially learning the same thing over and over again, with each repetition happening because one process/concept is slightly different than the next. It's a lot like someone with a computer science degree needing to be retrained in computer science if one needs to learn a programming language that wasn't covered in their education. The rate of learning of most people tends to be constant (a straight line), whereas my rate of learning tends to be exponential, depending on the relationship between what I already understand and what I need to understand.

Many people comment that I make connections between topics that would be best left disconnected. I beg to differ.
Both of these observations are more completely and simply explained by examining the actual logical structures we use to store information in our brains. There are two related patterns, one that includes information about logical metarelationships, and one that does not.

The more traditional structure (without metarelationships) is simpler and thus quicker to form. But the more complex structure is also inherently interconnected with all other similar structures, so that the scope of the information being stored is far greater.

That contributes to both the initial delay to ‘getting’ a subject as well as the broad and robust nature of the result. It can also create that impression that understanding suddenly ‘snaps’ into focus, almost complete and ready to roll.

We have long used these two general examples of differences in learning in describing our work; in particular, the computer science example was actually one of our early subjects of detailed study.

Here are two questions for HighFunctioning: do your ‘inappropriate’ interconnections extend vertically as well as horizontally? (The comp sci equivalent of vertical would be seeing the relationship between COBOL and assembler as natural rather than a barrier. Horizontal relationships would be between COBOL and something like C or FORTRAN, which is enough of a barrier for some.)

And secondly, have you ever wondered why others feel these connections are inappropriate?

That last is where the real information about AD/HD is hidden.



…This is also why Einstein found it easier to conceptualize gravity as a bending of space-time than through the ascetic mathematics of Newton…
I assure you, Einstein’s math is far more twisted and abstract than Newton’s. The reason he discarded Newton’s model was it failed to describe real systems.

There is something singularly ADDish about the real details of Einstein’s work, though. And it’s interesting to compare it to that of another certifiable genius of the Twentieth Century, Kurt Gödel.

Einstein’s models embraced metarelationships as a sort of signpost to the problems with more conventional models like Newton’s. All he did was stubbornly follow his nose, asking himself what he knew to be true and letting the rest go. The Special and General theories were what were left, once he sorted it out and borrowed the math he needed to describe the warp (and more).

For reasons important to the best minds in math at the time, Kurt Gödel was trying to prove that metarelationships are a sort of illusion, not a requirement of nature. Using pure number theory, his brilliantly conceived proof firmly established metarelationships as fundamental to logic, like more common properties such as the operations AND, OR, and NOT.

Even though they both succeeded in truly remarkable fashion, Gödel felt as if he had failed miserably. Though less well known the impact of his work may be more important, significant to virtually every aspect of how we perceive reality.

* * * * *

We’ve noted before that Chain’s use of the term abstraction is not conforming to the standard meaning of the term.

In the current form of these ideas, the use of ‘abstraction’ seems roughly equivalent to models that are formed using metarelationships. The use of ‘context’ (also nonstandard) seems roughly equivalent to models formed without the inclusion of metarelationships.

For this reason, several forum members have wondered if Chain’s ideas are related to our theories. Since we both theorize about how the brain functions, they must be. But the transform from ‘Chain space’ to ‘Tom&Kay space’ is still pretty murky.

Much of what we propose has been rejected out of hand, sadly, including many of the bits that aren’t really theory (or even our work).

This distinction between ‘abstraction’ and ‘contextual’ is essentially the dividing line between the world of normals and our AD/HD world. It’s not a clean distinction, in part because models that include metarelationships are still models, and in every other way similar to models built with the older, simpler logical structure.

The older models are flat by comparison, and as noted earlier in this thread not inherently interconnected. But clearly, there must be a valid model of both types that represents any particular block of information. So how are they different?

In the simplest form, the flat model can be thought of as a projection onto a surface of the more complex multidimensional model. It’s similar to the shadows cast by the ironwork of a new building, before it’s enclosed. You can’t tell which shadow is cast by which beam, or if two shadows might overlap and obscure each other.

At some scale the flat view inherently suffers from ambiguity. But the multidimensional view goes beyond simply being able to represent more complex information, being inherently related at some level to all other information held in similar structures.

That’s why Hyperion is able to jump up into some more abstract conceptual space and formulate on the fly a new, nonstandard set of models for a physics problem. That space is metamodel space, and it’s the same place Einstein and Gödel went to ‘see’ the solutions to their little problems. Very cool company, up here in the high iron.

And don’t forget that this is us we’re describing here, actually how our minds function when storing information. It’s not really our theory, only our construction of existing accepted work. Pretty far out, isn’t it?

So whatever else may be true, Chain’s models are based in logical models using one or both of these two structural forms. And the form affects the character of the model, in deep ways.

One of the more significant social consequences of having/being AD/HD is due to internal mechanisms that monitor mental processes for how well they adhere to what is ‘normal’. One of the common effects of these mechanisms is an instinct to separate the ‘abstract’ and the ‘contextual’ models, and suppress the conscious acknowledgement of the ‘abstract’ (Chain’s terms used here).

This instinct was at the heart of Kurt Gödel’s attempt to do away with metarelationships.

Some of us are able to construct an inner world that seems to meet this requirement, and some of us don’t bother. Thus, the confusion about what is visible to the inner eye, some of us immersed in a fully conscious and ordinary way in the ‘abstract’, and some less familiar with these bits.

It’s fascinating to see comments along these lines to the effect of “Wait a minute – I can ‘see’ abstractions perfectly well.” The realization that we are truly different cannot be far behind.

We still get caught from time to time forgetting that some people literally cannot see the world we see, even though we surely must inhabit the same universe.

This realization is at the root of Kay’s principle of benevolence. It’s a crucial step in any ADDer’s life, key to learning to embrace and celebrate AD/HD, and to using the unique capabilities it offers.

--Tom and Kay