I lean more towards the concept of ADHDers having evolved for the new environment before others.

Hi sos,

That's exactly it though :-)

Increased availability of increased information.
Translation of the evolutionary drive to survive into its new form -- to accurately model reality.
Development of The ADDer mind with capacity to better model this new reality.
The ADDer mind as nothing more (!) than a capacity to form a logical framework for a richer encoding ie modelling of reality.

All in all though, just exactly what you've written, is it.

ie 'ADDers having evolved for the new environment'.

At some point - and I'm guessing fairly soon -- and I'm hoping fairly soon -- we'll crash past the current 'narrow' definition of ADD -- into a broader definition which'll have components of what you've just written factored in.

And no - not a thread killer at all :-) ... just a thread which carries the recurrent theme of 'disorder' vs 'more than a disorder' which appears to polarize opinion into irrationality, this itself, in turn, killing threads.

SB.

Hi sos,

That's exactly it though :-)

Increased availability of increased information.
Translation of the evolutionary drive to survive into its new form -- to accurately model reality.
Development of The ADDer mind with capacity to better model this new reality.
The ADDer mind as nothing more (!) than a capacity to form a logical framework for a richer encoding ie modelling of reality.

All in all though, just exactly what you've written, is it.

ie 'ADDers having evolved for the new environment'.

At some point - and I'm guessing fairly soon -- and I'm hoping fairly soon -- we'll crash past the current 'narrow' definition of ADD -- into a broader definition which'll have components of what you've just written factored in.

And no - not a thread killer at all :-) ... just a thread which carries the recurrent theme of 'disorder' vs 'more than a disorder' which appears to polarize opinion into irrationality, this itself, in turn, killing threads.

SB.

But is this capacity to form a logical framework an evolutionary compensation for ADD deficits? Is this skill present in some people, but a much higher percentage in the ADDer population (and a much higher percentage in the Autism population)? Sort of along the same lines that ADDers require higher IQ's in order to survive? How about creativity? Couldn't creativity be a survival skill (as in creativity in general, not directed to a specific activity)?

The other day, I was wondering as to why there are stark differences in some people's personality (no, I'm not going into a ADD vs. personality type argument), especially in conjunction with thinking styles.

It seems often that each person has strengths to balance their weaknesses. People who live in the realm of disconnected factual information tend to accept and reject information based on the source's reputation (in a hierarchal scheme). Is this because they have difficulty connecting the information like many of us do? Are the qualities of needing certainty (because the information isn't truely understood), being confident about knowedge (because knowledge is either right or wrong), and debunking speculative reasoning in favor of certain "factual" information (to increase "reputation" so that other similar thinkers look to them for information, which increases status, which increases certainty)? This is a cognitive type, along with some of the neccesary support mechanisms to support survival of the particular cognitive types.

There are other cognitive modalties, and each set of support mechanisms to ensure existence are different from one another.

I think we can almost throw away the question of whether or not ADD is a disorder, because we end up with at least one significant difference that needs to be adjusted for, whether or not ADD is a disorder (for disorder ~= Dictionary::malfunction, not Medical::disorder). Whether ADD is a cognitive type C[Type[ADD]], or ADD is a cognitive modifier (disorder) C'[X] = C[X] + M[ADD] + many other factors for X := Type[1]..Type[N]. Not that cognitive type can be boxed like that... but hopefully you see the point.

Compensation would be required in these instances, which would happen over time. I see being logical, speculative, and creative as advantages in the case of being ADD, but I'm not sure if it is an inherent part (at least, in terms that disorder = Medical::disorder and disorder != Dictionary::difference<Neurological> in this case).

I hope I didn't push this thread further off track.

I hope I didn't push this thread further off track.

No but I found your algebraic analogy quit interesting. Judging by the grinding of my mental gears when I first ran across ADD explanatory possibilities in mathematical formula I need to check my transmission fluid (in my head as well as the car) :eek: .


I have always been viewed as an "odd ball" which bothered me when I was younger. I have grown to acceptance of my self with maturity. I find almost every person whom I have gotten to know personally has as many "odd ball" traits as I do.

In communication I think much of the difference is in perception. How we see our selves and how we think others see us. The other person has the same "formula" to deal with also. I believe that how we view ourselves has a lot of bearing upon how we present; which in turn has an effect on how we are perceived by others. I think too many people try to measure up to what they think other people are or want they think others want them to be.

Weather or not a particular social interaction is positive or negative depends greatly upon weather or not we are "mixing" with an environment that is suitable for us as people. Just like some chemicals do not mix well so some ADDers do not mix well in certain environments. Water mixes with a lot of things well however it does not mix well with every thing. Oil is a prime example of some thing that mixes poorly with water.

Just as we must determine weather or not mixing two chemicals is wise based upon their individual properties we must do the same for ourselves in social situations. Many of us are like water we mix well with a lot of different environments but NOT every environment. Personally I have found success in determining which types of environments suite me personally. I do not place a good/bad, right/wrong, normal/abnormal, judgment upon my social preferences.

I dis-like atmospheres where I must "be like every ones else". I do not like places where the people are incapable of being up front and honest. I don't enjoy the "keeping up with the Jones". I dislike head games but it isn't because I am unable to play them I am surprisingly well suited for them but find they are un-fun and usually destructive. Mind games are where the destructive portion of my ADD meets my creativity as it can be a lethal mix especially when I cloak it in goffy-ism!!!! :rolleyes: I do not desire these things in my life so avoid them if at all possible. :soapbox: Only when threatened or cornered will I engage in such an encounter. Then I kick as* and leave!!!!

My friends are out going, plain spoken, accepting, and generally caring people. I don't have large circles of friends but a few very close ones as I prefer the rare gems in smaller quantities over imitations in abundance!!! This is me neither good nor evil, right or wrong, normal or abnormal just plain me period!!! ;) :D

But is this capacity to form a logical framework an evolutionary compensation for ADD deficits?

Is this skill present in some people, but a much higher percentage in the ADDer population (and a much higher percentage in the Autism population)?

Sort of along the same lines that ADDers require higher IQ's in order to survive?

How about creativity?

Couldn't creativity be a survival skill (as in creativity in general, not directed to a specific activity)?

It seems often that each person has strengths to balance their weaknesses. People who live in the realm of disconnected factual information tend to accept and reject information based on the source's reputation (in a hierarchal scheme). Is this because they have difficulty connecting the information like many of us do?

Are the qualities of needing certainty (because the information isn't truely understood), being confident about knowedge (because knowledge is either right or wrong), and debunking speculative reasoning in favor of certain "factual" information (to increase "reputation" so that other similar thinkers look to them for information, which increases status, which increases certainty)?

I arrayed your comments above - just to make things a little easier for me ... :-)

I guess that the logical framework and what it *permits*, is the driver behind its appearance and growth. I see what you mean, but don't think that we needed a true disordered feature, to drive the formation of this new logical structure -- as a kind of compensation.
So here A->B and not B->A.

Funny word skill. I think that it's maybe better to call it a mental modality ... but I'm not too sure why. I see it as a potentially incredibly complex interlinked structure which we all may form (ADDers) - a complete template, an incomplete template with richly defined sections, a complete template with complete and many richly defined sections......the differences between people (and ADDers) representing the extent to which the structure is filled (two structures - different forms for nonADDers and ADDers).
And the difference between ADDers and non-ADDers, as simply the form of the structure. ADDers potentially generating a more efficient and cross-linked structure, which directly impinges on many of the ADDer traits -- we see creativity explained using this model (and lots more) -- but I mention creativity here, solely because we hear so much talked about it, and yet no speculation on a mechanistic basis underlying it ... not any more though ... :-)
Creativity runs as one of the many positive characters that occurs and r-e-c-u-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-s -- it needs an explanation :-)
Magically mysterious, but I suspect that most of us here will not be surprised to see a stab at a demystification of creativity ... which I hope though retains its magical feel.

Autism does indeed come into the story, but enters as we introduce communication into the equation.
Imagine how much better things'd be, if 'I really knew you knew what I meant' ... :-) Of course that's a general comment that is relected back onto me, when you write ... and is simply a statement of how richer and closer modelling of reality might allow us many benefits -- including tighter communication.

Some have a vested interest in maintaining a status quo - in terms of 'the current thinking.' Some develop an overly emotional relationship to these ideas -- and criticism is taken personally. Though the way I see it is that if you imagine that structure, and imagine a rich encoding in just one quadrant -- and then threaten to destabilize that reality model - well, the reaction, is the reaction of an individual on a rug, as it is pulled from under their feet. The issues, we have minds --- and whether we like it or not, ADDers and nonADDers alike are driven by the need to model reality ... and there are difficult areas, and these are boxed with words like religion, faith, scientific evangelicism ... all chocolate boxes of beliefs which we convince ourselves are not -- to fill the gap -- the gaps that are inadequately modelled aspects of our reality.
The problem -- fix a solution - and it throws up a partition, which prevents extension - at least in some directions.

Perhaps the most misunderstood part of these ideas, is that they don't represent an inevitability -- and the mental modality, though potentially a tremendous leap forward - may not form without feeding (at least richly).

With IQ - I see it as an A->B and not a B->A as ABove :-), and creativity just falls out -- I've described this earlier on in this thread ... sliding over the canopy of a rain forest.

Heck - I think I've switched the order and interspersed my points throughout; when it comes to bullet pointing and making my points tally with those others - I have grown used to my numbering system and the other ... just not ADDing up.

SB.

I dis-like atmospheres where I must "be like every ones else". I do not like places where the people are incapable of being up front and honest. I don't enjoy the "keeping up with the Jones". I dislike head games but it isn't because I am unable to play them I am surprisingly well suited for them but find they are un-fun and usually destructive.
In this new structure, I view the mind as taking back what's rightfully its own - and shifting the apparence of conscious control over the mind, back to where it belongs.
The mind as a more direct determinant of our mind-enriching activities or behaviour.
I view the mind as a reality simulation, model, structure ... and the mind (in the ADDer) as a more powerful, and happily less controllable entity.
The mind has an agenda -- and it is only through asserting conscious processes over the mind's agenda -- that we end up frittering away time in a manner that benefits us little -- but which ironically, in this thread, we might believe to be desirable - since it leads to a large component of that ADDer apparence of social ineptitude.

So -- why the paragraph above ... because what this all leads to is ...


I dis-like atmospheres where I must "be like every ones else".

I do not like places where the people are incapable of being up front and honest.

I don't enjoy the "keeping up with the Jones". I dislike head games but it isn't because I am unable to play them I am surprisingly well suited for them but find they are un-fun and usually destructive.


The ADDer mind through its altered structure, generating a richer set of internal reality models ... more deeply cross-linked, and without the propensity towards pointless endeavours :-)

So Meadd, your last post is very ADD.
And HF -- have another look at your post -- there's something a little special about it, as it feels, when I read it, and re-read it ... :-)
that I had to switch away from linear thinking (into metamodel thinking) in order to grasp your shading.
What am I saying --- I think that you have posted a map of how you have thought about those last issues -- but your pattern of thought isn't 'straight' -- and yet makes perfect sense, when the reader accesses the thought space or approximate structure that you used to generate these ideas.

Maybe you know what I mean ... if so -- that's cool ... and has nothing to do with what I've just written :-)

SB.

BTW the cure for eternal boredom is simple - give over to whatever your mind tells you it wants -- drop the reigns -- it feels kinda' like soaring.
And the feelings in this state of mind ...
you know the ADDer observation of giving over to auto-pilot, accomplishing loads ... and not so able to remember what went on in that time ... :-)
And ... don't worry about the memory thing -- what you need to remember -- you will ....

it's just a case of ... the mind taking what it needs, and nothing more ... :-)

SB.

propensity towards pointless endeavours

Maybe why ADDers dis-like washing dishes, ideal chit chat or any activity void of novelty or fun!!!!!!

Exactly :-)
And funnily enough - I think I suggested - around a couple of years ago here -- that we try to understand 'fun' :-)
I think in the 'ABF' thread.
I believe that fun and novelty describes a large part of the ADD experience -- for exactly the reason just given -- novelty allowing the mind to develop models in previously empty mind space -- the drive and feeling as this occurs -- being nice... in fact --> fun :-) ... and all of this placing us as perpetual fun seekers -- but where fun -- itself -- has a very real point to it.
So nobody regardless of ADD - wants to be bored -- we 're simply shaped with a mind that defines a lower threshold for boredom - ADD as eternally moderately bored :-) ... until we see all of this ... and then ADD becomes something quite different.

SB.

Exactly :-)
I believe that fun and novelty describes a large part of the ADD experience -- for exactly the reason just given -- novelty allowing the mind to develop models in previously empty mind space -- the drive and feeling as this occurs -- being nice... in fact --> fun :-) ... and all of this placing us as perpetual fun seekers -- but where fun -- itself -- has a very real point to it.


That point being, basically, what enables us to function properly... (internal stimulation resulting from external events)


So nobody regardless of ADD - wants to be bored -- we 're simply shaped with a mind that defines a lower threshold for boredom - ADD as eternally moderately bored :-) ... until we see all of this ... and then ADD becomes something quite different.


Fun isn't as much of a requirement for them as it is for us. In most situations, it doesn't seem to be a requirement at all for them. Certainty and security are much more important, especially if it is only fun that must be sacrificed.

Really, the interests of the majority of people usually do not include intellectual tasks. If someone told me, I probably wouldn't be suprised to hear that most people pick a career path out of a stack of cards, persue a higher education "just because", and mindlessly do their duty. Boring doesn't really bother them. Excitement is like desert to them. They only have it once in a while so that the next time they have it, it is just as pleasureable as the last time. Otherwise, they'd be "spoiled", as one's grandmother may say.

But, *is* that another trait that can facilitate an ADDer's survival? Having interests that are more productive than watching sports on television? If we need to have fun, wouldn't it be nice if those fun things to do overlapped with productive things as well?

But, *is* that another trait that can facilitate an ADDer's survival? Having interests that are more productive than watching sports on television? If we need to have fun, wouldn't it be nice if those fun things to do overlapped with productive things as well?

Here's the cool bit though -- for the nonADDer intellectual tasks as work, fun as hedonistic pleasure and work and not fun being associated with productivity.

I believe that many ADDers will raise an eyebrow to this idea of always on intellectuals -- but jump the stigma - and answer this question -- what do we find fun?

And similarly - skip the nonAdder definition of fun -- and we have two re-engineered ideas -- where, now, fun/productivity/intellectual pursuits and 'work' converge -- where before they were forced apart.

SB.

Here's the cool bit though -- for the nonADDer intellectual tasks as work, fun as hedonistic pleasure and work and not fun being associated with productivity.

I believe that many ADDers will raise an eyebrow to this idea of always on intellectuals -- but jump the stigma - and answer this question -- what do we find fun?

And similarly - skip the nonAdder definition of fun -- and we have two re-engineered ideas -- where, now, fun/productivity/intellectual pursuits and 'work' converge -- where before they were forced apart.


Well, I wasn't trying to place a direct link between ADD and intellectualism. I was just stating that I think intellectual ADDers are in a better position in life than non-intellectual ADDers. An ADDer is going to be attracted to what stimulates the ADDer, intellectual or not.

To most people, productivity (work acomplished) tends to be related (at least, in my tiny chunk of experience) to how long one performed work. The harder and more repetitive the work is, the more one percieves as being acomplished. Productivity is fairly certain. If one works for X amount of time, there's a good chance that at least Y amount of work is done. Veering off into the path of optimization (traveling the rough, dangerous country) or anything else that is not certain (if it's not certain, it's not a part of the task) is wasting time (screwing around). Veering off into something that is totally unrelated is screwing around, squared.

To me, productivity is how much work actually gets acomplished, not necessarily how hard or boring it was doing it. To some people, the definition of work is something that is hard and/or boring, and if it's not at least one of those, well, it's not actually work. As far as work is concerned, there's more than one way to do it, just like in Perl. Work *can* be made to be fun, provided that you are using an appropriate definition of "work". It all depends on what alternative, exciting method (programming is a good example, especially as it can scale quickly) is available that takes advantage of one's interests/intellectual pursuits.

Well, I wasn't trying to place a direct link between ADD and intellectualism.

To most people, productivity (work acomplished) tends to be related (at least, in my tiny chunk of experience) to how long one performed work. Veering off into something that is totally unrelated is screwing around, squared.
To me, productivity is how much work actually gets acomplished, not necessarily how hard or boring it was doing it.
As far as work is concerned, there's more than one way to do it, just like in Perl. Work *can* be made to be fun, provided that you are using an appropriate definition of "work". It all depends on what alternative, exciting method (programming is a good example, especially as it can scale quickly) is available that takes advantage of one's interests/intellectual pursuits. Apologies for the first point - my point being that I -am- saying that :-) ... but that there's a stigma associated with making that statement - and so as long as that's true - it's maybe easier not to phrase it in that way - but instead just to try and acknowledge that there's some sort of cerebral kick that we can get, that's fun -- that drives us particularly - and which, in a world in which the word 'intellectual' -- doesn't carry unwanted baggage -- it'll be nice to re-introduce, into context alongside ADD.

The intellectual ADDer.

And yes -- actively seeking alternative solutions -- so, for example seizing awk and sed, and emacs lisp --- for tasks that can be accomplished by perl -- surefire way to make text parsing or scripting -- just that little bit more -fun- :-)
Awk and sed, forming the historical perspective to Perl -- which is nice to learn and Emacs -- taking us into honest development environments.

More than one way to do things in Perl ... and now, whenever, ... I try and jump out of comfort in a targetted direction -- not randomly -- but with the express goal of being taken into other areas, which I hope will be beneficial.

I wonder whether we can text p.a.r.s.e. in Assembly :-)
Are we on for more binary ASCII art?

:-)

SB.

I wonder whether we can text p.a.r.s.e. in Assembly :-)


I suppose as long as we can write shell scripts that act as web servers (http://zshwiki.org/zshttpd), anything is possible. It's usually fun to test the limits of a language.

(Definately possible, but how many can endure the battle (especially without cheating (i.e. using a macro assembler))?)

It's usually fun to test the limits of a language.

Well, yes. But, isn't ADD a disorder (per medical standards) that is also believed to be brain-based? If it is brain-based, wouldn't it make sense to identify those brain-based differences that cause ADD ...
A programming language - any communicative language -- words maybe, but the rest too ... are potentially usable by ADDers in a different manner ... continuing on from around 4 or 5 threads in this part of the forum ... the ADDer perspective is for linkage between aspects of the mind ... in a trained mind ... which is the mechanistic basis underlying creativity.
And surely enough that creativity is observed in ...
A programming language - any communicative language -- words maybe, but the rest too ...

ADD basis:true[research] vs ADD basis:not false[medical definition of disorder] is an important debate.
Sure enough the ADDer brain has something or some things which we can point to, but which are several stages removed from their manifestation as a disordered state.
Environment washes over the transition from pure aetiology to disordered external appearance.
So, ADD basis:[research], at least in relation to aetiology, is the subject that we should concentrate on - rather than ADD basis:[medical definition of ADHD as a disorder] ... if the goal is understanding. In the absence of ADD basis:[research], however, ADD basis:[medical] surrogates sufficiently to deal with the pressing needs of those that are suffering most greatly - and need assistance.

However ... what if it were to be shown that ADDers (basis:[research]) could benefit as greatly as ADDers (basis:[medical]) from stimulants ...
I am sure that this will be the case.

And it sure puts the cats amongst the pigeons -- because it now appears as though I'm advocating the usage of amphetamines to individuals with no discernible disorder.

This stand-point is borne through a different view on how stimulant drugs operate in DopaNet ... and invalidates the all too popular theories about redressing dopamine sensitivities in specific neuroanatomic locales.

At least to me, it doesn't seem right, that a molecule with the ubiquity of dopamine throughout the brain ... and with a 'weakness' only in 1 or a small number of parts of the brain, especially a 'weakness' which involves the exquisite complexity of neuronal meshworks and neurotransmission ... could somehow be specifically and effectively treated by the process of swamping the brain in a solution of amphetamine.

Doesn't the existing theory, although initially appearing sensible ... soon become overtaken by incredulity ... this disbelief relating to the postulate that a sledgehammer solution could be applied successfully to a problem, which is believed to be spawned by a delicate imbalance in neuromodulation.
How come this delicacy doesn't entail that we have to deliver very specific amounts of dopaminergic compounds icv, to different and specific parts of the brain -- regulated in a dynamic manner, on the basis of the mental gymnastics that we are involved in ... to treat ADD?

I published a paper in 'Nature' over 10 years ago on strategies for solving normally distributed phenotypes ... they exist ... for sure, but they're not going to be of a whole lotta' use in this current debate.

SB.

So, ADD basis:[research], at least in relation to aetiology, is the subject that we should concentrate on - rather than ADD basis:[medical definition of ADHD as a disorder] ... if the goal is understanding. In the absence of ADD basis:[research], however, ADD basis:[medical] surrogates sufficiently to deal with the pressing needs of those that are suffering most greatly - and need assistance.


As of right now, actually looking at the aetiology for diagnostic purposes is unrealistic, but that doesn't mean that it should be ignored or is invalid. I agree in that it should be the primary focus in "finding the truth."


However ... what if it were to be shown that ADDers (basis:[research]) could benefit as greatly as ADDers (basis:[medical]) from stimulants ...
I am sure that this will be the case.


Determining and fixing a problem in a motor vehicle is generally more effective than randomly swaping parts, even if we have data that says X behavior is caused by Y problem, and Z or W is the solution.


And it sure puts the cats amongst the pigeons -- because it now appears as though I'm advocating the usage of amphetamines to individuals with no discernible disorder.


But aren't we treating an issue, not a disorder? The issue is what is observed to be the problem at a fundamental level. Disorder is assuming that something is going on due to a colletion of symptoms. We should be treating actual issues, not generalized labels.



At least to me, it doesn't seem right, that a molecule with the ubiquity of dopamine throughout the brain ... and with a 'weakness' only in 1 or a small number of parts of the brain, especially a 'weakness' which involves the exquisite complexity of neuronal meshworks and neurotransmission ... could somehow be specifically and effectively treated by the process of swamping the brain in a solution of amphetamine.

Doesn't the existing theory, although initially appearing sensible ... soon become overtaken by incredulity ... this disbelief relating to the postulate that a sledgehammer solution could be applied successfully to a problem, which is believed to be spawned by a delicate imbalance in neuromodulation.
How come this delicacy doesn't entail that we have to deliver very specific amounts of dopaminergic compounds icv, to different and specific parts of the brain -- regulated in a dynamic manner, on the basis of the mental gymnastics that we are involved in ... to treat ADD?


Pieces of observable experience, like the fact that this "sledgehammer" solution just so happens to "work", are helpful to narrowing down the problem, but they don't actually define or imply the problem itself, they simply point to the general direction. As we acquire more "factual" information (data, in a sense), the possibilities as to the solution lessen. In theory, it should be possible to narrow the problem down enough where we can make an accurate determination as to the causation, with enough data, sort of on the same principle of Xeno's paradox. In practice though, I think the sheer number of possibilities and the effort required collect "data" at a deep enough level to determine causation is not feasable, unless you accept an answer that is "good enough."

I don't know. Maybe this response had nothing to do with what you just said. I can't remember...

Moderator Node: This thread has no particular set topic. Enjoy.

Determining and fixing a problem in a motor vehicle is generally more effective than randomly swaping parts, even if we have data that says X behavior is caused by Y problem, and Z or W is the solution.

But aren't we treating an issue, not a disorder? The issue is what is observed to be the problem at a fundamental level. Disorder is assuming that something is going on due to a colletion of symptoms. We should be treating actual issues, not generalized labels.

Pieces of observable experience, like the fact that this "sledgehammer" solution just so happens to "work", are helpful to narrowing down the problem, but they don't actually define or imply the problem itself, they simply point to the general direction. As we acquire more "factual" information (data, in a sense), the possibilities as to the solution lessen. In theory, it should be possible to narrow the problem down enough where we can make an accurate determination as to the causation, with enough data, sort of on the same principle of Xeno's paradox. In practice though, I think the sheer number of possibilities and the effort required collect "data" at a deep enough level to determine causation is not feasable, unless you accept an answer that is "good enough."

I don't know. Maybe this response had nothing to do with what you just said. I can't remember... But say you were to buy 4 bikes, and fill them with 1, 2, 4 and 8 litres of fuel, then 'give or take', each doubling of fuel will permit a doubling in distance travelable.

So this thread has been split off from the mother lode -- 'why are ADDers socially inept' -- but one of the cool ADDer phrases which we see throughout this thread is akin to ... 'maybe this response had nothing to do with what ...' but why does its usage always associate with meaningful and useful contributions to the subject of discussion; I believe what is revealed by these forms of comments, is the ADDer tendency towards running with a speeding, flirtatious mind ... 'running over the canopy' at breakneck speed ... getting to the destination, without any means of retracing our steps, at least when we are taken into, relatively speaking, 'unchartered' 'mind space' ...

My German shepherd is called Xeno - paradoxically :-)

I usually refer to ADD as a trait rather than disorder, but yup -- the issues within the disorder arising from the traits that're conferred by the primary ADD causative factor ... are what're considered the aspects which must be eradicated ... and although this may be the case, in the long and indirect path between ADD aetiological factor to externalised disordered nature, where, in this thread, do amphetamines burn a disconnection - and dissociate primary from quaternary; this might help to justify why
'the usage of amphetamines to individuals with ADD and no discernible disorder' might benefit.

For sure dopamine and friends are the key ... but we really need to pull up, adopt a circular trajectory and maybe look for the contribution of the dopamine network in the evolution of the mind.

What single characteristic makes it difficult for computers to pass the Turing test?
What is the primary role for dopamine in the brain?

No set subject ... :-) ... Hoping that we can regenerate an abstract parent class from an nth generational polymorphic child.
Can multiple inheritance give way to multiple recursive inheritance where UML class diagrams need to be painted by Escher :-)

SB.

...a macro assembler... Once the mystery is gone, it isn't cheating :-) - just the application of useful techniques to generate speedy solutions, in this case.

And therein lies our drive to begin project after project ... and the ADDer observation of multiple unfinished projects. And then back to TamMeadd - with a mechanistic basis for the lowering of our boredom threshold.

My experience with 8086 assembler taught me that there is only transfer in/out and logical operation - a 15 second lesson that captured the basic essentials of the inner workings ... and which heralded the end of a project - which might also and otherwise appear to be unfinished, given a different perspective in on those few seconds.

The mind as accumulator and all of this, here, an assembly of Adder Logical Units :-)

SB.

But aren't we treating an issue, not a disorder? The issue is what is observed to be the problem at a fundamental level. Disorder is assuming that something is going on due to a colletion of symptoms. We should be treating actual issues, not generalized labels.


Issues arrive from ???? how we as ADDers interact with the "rest" of society. I read the various perspectives in the and other threads I have the feeling of going full circle.

I didn't seek treatment because I could NOT function I sought treatment so I could function better in "their" world with "them".

I remember when I was first diagnosed I under went a dynamitic changes in my career. I went from a person who hid in the shadows of the night shift to becoming a major player in a walk in clinic. I was able to FUNCTION above and beyond with no medication what so ever. When I left my old night shift job they had to hire two nurses to assume my duties.

I used to frequently say that ADHD was the only disorder in the field of psychology where the patient (me) took medication for other people's comfort and acceptance. The side effect of being "more presentable" to others was a more challenging opportunities for me. I no longer felt I had to hide in the shadows of an obscure shift with little public contact.

True to my nature (apart from meds) I leaped from an obscure figure that generated massive amount of production to one who faced the day full of people and the unexpected in a setting in which I was no longer familiar. I went from typical nursing duties to reach out and touch those related to radiology, phlebotomy, and advance emergency care at the drop of a hat!!!! Loving it all the way. Predictible no fear factor= no interest/ no challenge = boring!!!!


Sure enough the ADDer brain has something or some things which we can point to, but which are several stages removed from their manifestation as a disordered state.

Lack of boundary isolation.

In this stretch I found life and abilities I never knew had yet had always possessed. I began to organize systems designed by their very nature of simplicity to target the disorganized and hurried. Systems I designed to keep my world simple and easy were so effective they were adopted every clinic in the region (100 mile radius). They are still in place years after I have moved on.

My old drug habits made me a fast lab, phlebotomy, study. Self medicating and chemical fascination mingled with Pharmacology like bee to honey (or soda water left unattended outside) My love of pictures and automatic understanding of physics transferred to radiology as if I were born to do so.. My tendency to say what I meant and mean what I say endeared me to some physicians who had little tolerance for BS themselves.

It took me a lot of time to finally have the words I spoke so frequently in those days to sink into my own being. I change my brain chemistry for the benefit/social comfort of others because when I am more appealing and presentable to others is there my world began to grow and expand from the out side inward (I am dyslexic things work backwards for me).


-- we 're simply shaped with a mind that defines a lower threshold for boredom - ADD as eternally moderately bored :-)

Boredom---is only a state of mind, nothing more nothing less!!!!!!


postulate that a sledgehammer solution could be applied successfully to a problem, which is believed to be spawned by a delicate imbalance in neuromodulation.

Well now would that depend on just how accurate on is with a sledgehammer???? Pin point accurate can be obtained with a sledgehammer or any kind of hammer for that matter. The angling is much different but goal is much the same as requiring pin point accuracy with a 22guage needle into the vein of a human!!! The success of either is in direct proportion to the users ability to aim !!!!!!


- but instead just to try and acknowledge that there's some sort of cerebral kick that we can get, that's fun -- that drives us particularly - and which, in a world in which the word 'intellectual' -- doesn't carry unwanted baggage -- it'll be nice to re-introduce, into context alongside ADD.


Cerebral kick-backs are different for every body. How many health care professionals would find wading through computer programming language exciting or even engaging???? The fact is I find challenges in the oddest activities. Because the language of computers is being used as analogies of individuals perspectives of knowledge/communication- expansion/usage.

I also believe that limitations have their own limitations that when worked around can in reality become advantageous. My dyslexia made reading almost impossible until I discovered context ....once I opened this gem I can read almost any thing.

In college they felt I wrote poorly/spelled like a fifth grader because I read poorly. They decided to see how poorly I read by doing reading comprehension testing. I maxed their scoring scale in less than three hours. I was tested through the doctorate level with score remaining above 95%!!!

My limitation with writing is due to what is called visual processing disorder...my ability to see the order of letters isn’t there at all. I read by total comprehension. A concept the diagnostician had difficulty comprehending one I have a hard time explaining. I don't see letters as most do I see in sentences......

ADD is the same way abilities sprouting from what is perceived as disabilities because others have a hard time grasping our concepts. We are reading in sentences they are recognizing letters in individual words. We are seen as weird or different because many are unable to follow the ADD way of connecting and relating. Functioning in the "outside" world is to become capable of bridging that gap.

Issues arrive from ???? how we as ADDers interact with the "rest" of society. I read the various perspectives in the and other threads I have the feeling of going full circle.


Issue in this case means the fundamental problem. If that problem has something to do with dopamine, then one would be trying to correct the dopamine problem. If ADD implies a dopamine problem and a dopamine problem usually implies ADD, then it wouldn't make too much difference to say that one is treating ADD with amphetamines instead of treating a dopamine problem with drugs.

If ADD didn't imply a dopamine problem, or any other problem along the same lines (like being overweight does not always imply eating too much), then it wouldn't make sense to treat it with amphetamine if the underlying cause isn't mitigated by the drug.

SB's initial argument was whether or not those with ADHD:[RESEARCH] (the ones posesing the fundamental causes) could benefit just as well from amphetamines as those labeled with ADHD:[MEDICAL] (a diagnosis), as in, functioning to true capacity. The question of whether or not these people should actually be given this sort of treatment is quite subjective.

But, *is* that another trait that can facilitate an ADDer's survival? Having interests that are more productive than watching sports on television? If we need to have fun, wouldn't it be nice if those fun things to do overlapped with productive things as well?
For me, in a way, this is the case. But there is a mistake in the use of the word “fun”. Before medication the things that could hold my interest were both positive (fun) and negative (not fun). A negative example would be me being impossibly close to a dead line and becoming hyper focused on a solution. While exhilarating, I have never considered this a fun experience.



BTW I just finished a semester of Discrete Math and it’s neat to see predicate logic used in an argument. "A --> B, but not, B --> A" :)

For me, in a way, this is the case. But there is a mistake in the use of the word “fun”. Before medication the things that could hold my interest were both positive (fun) and negative (not fun). A negative example would be me being impossibly close to a dead line and becoming hyper focused on a solution. While exhilarating, I have never considered this a fun experience.


Okay, we can substitute "have fun" with "be stimulated" and "fun things" with "stimulating things". Stimulating does not imply fun.

But in the long run (not short term focus), I still think that "fun" is neccessary. The end results of being inattentive and overfocused on something negative aren't very much different.

People who live in the realm of disconnected factual information tend to accept and reject information based on the source's reputation (in a hierarchal scheme). Is this because they have difficulty connecting the information like many of us do? Are the qualities of needing certainty (because the information isn't truely understood), being confident about knowedge (because knowledge is either right or wrong), and debunking speculative reasoning in favor of certain "factual" information (to increase "reputation" so that other similar thinkers look to them for information, which increases status, which increases certainty)? This is a cognitive type, along with some of the neccesary support mechanisms to support survival of the particular cognitive types.

No offense, HF, but I really think that this statement above is a clear misinterpretation of skeptism and most of the arguments I have posted in this forum in response to "speculation". Perhaps you did not mean to address such posts, but it I would like to clarify the skeptical viewpoint anyway.

-People who live in the realm of disconnected factual information tend to accept and reject information based on the source's reputation (in a hierarchal scheme).

Nobody can live in the "realm of disconnected factual information" because there is no such thing. "Facts" are only as "factual" as the evidence that supports them will allow. Since all evidence is subject to assumptions, there are NO facts.

No true skeptic accepts or rejects information based on the source's reputation (read the Sagan quote in my sig). Reputation may be a tool to help evaluate the validity of the source's work, but it is not a reason to accept or reject ANY information.

-Is this because they have difficulty connecting the information like many of us do? Are the qualities of needing certainty (because the information isn't truely understood), being confident about knowedge (because knowledge is either right or wrong), and debunking speculative reasoning in favor of certain "factual" information (to increase "reputation" so that other similar thinkers look to them for information, which increases status, which increases certainty)?

Well, provided your first statement does indeed address skepticism, NO. Skeptics have no difficulty "connecting information". In fact, it's necessary for critical thinking. Skeptics do not need certainty. In fact, the true scientist accepts quite willingly that certainty is not possible. That is the beauty of science and a part of science that is widely misunderstood by the general public.

"Debunking" speculative reasoning is not the aim. The aim is to attempt to falsify scientific theory. This is how science works. It's the process. A theory is not scientific (by defnition) if there is no way to test it (attempt to falsify it).

The world is full of schysters who put for their "theories" as fact. You can find them in advertisements all over the net and various magazines. They claim to have a cure for ADHD. They claim to have a "natural" treatment for ADHD. They claim to have an explanation for ADHD. These people are not scientists and not skeptics.


This is a cognitive type, along with some of the neccesary support mechanisms to support survival of the particular cognitive types.
I seriously doubt this is a "cognitive type" or that it "supports survival".

My reason for doubt? Most of the skeptics I know (including myself) started out in life believing in all sorts of unsubstantiated phenomenon. We only became skeptics after education in scientific process and an understanding of logic and how knowledge is acquired.

I doubt it supports survival. If it did, many more people would be skeptics. Martin Gardener once explained why he thinks that people fail to base decisions on evidence from an evolutionary perspective. He talked about a rabbit in tall grass. Then the grass shakes, the rabbit has two choices: 1) he can assume there is a fox and run; 2) he can wait for evidence that it is a fox and not a mouse. Which one survives more often to pass on its genes?

Really, the interests of the majority of people usually do not include intellectual tasks. If someone told me, I probably wouldn't be suprised to hear that most people pick a career path out of a stack of cards, persue a higher education "just because", and mindlessly do their duty.
I have known many of these people and I don't understand them at all. I guess it's just easier to have life happen to you.


Boring doesn't really bother them. Excitement is like desert to them. They only have it once in a while so that the next time they have it, it is just as pleasureable as the last time. Otherwise, they'd be "spoiled", as one's grandmother may say.

What makes you think these people are bored? Intellectual pursuits can't be the only thing that provides excitement (although alternatives escape me right now!).

Nobody can live in the "realm of disconnected factual information" because there is no such thing. "Facts" are only as "factual" as the evidence that supports them will allow. Since all evidence is subject to assumptions, there are NO facts.


Well, no. Provided that one used the word "live" in a concrete sense. It's about perception.


No true skeptic accepts or rejects information based on the source's reputation (read the Sagan quote in my sig). Reputation may be a tool to help evaluate the validity of the source's work, but it is not a reason to accept or reject ANY information.


Yes, and the key here is "skeptic". Most people aren't very skeptical, IMO.


Well, provided your first statement does indeed address skepticism, NO. Skeptics have no difficulty "connecting information". In fact, it's necessary for critical thinking. Skeptics do not need certainty. In fact, the true scientist accepts quite willingly that certainty is not possible. That is the beauty of science and a part of science that is widely misunderstood by the general public.


Again, skeptic. Most people aren't true skeptics. But I agree.


"Debunking" speculative reasoning is not the aim. The aim is to attempt to falsify scientific theory. This is how science works. It's the process. A theory is not scientific (by defnition) if there is no way to test it (attempt to falsify it).


I've never said that science didn't work that way. And I have never actually said that any one of the theories on here are neccesarily correct. But I am not going to say that each one of these theories should be disregarded or are wrong simply because they haven't followed scientific procedures. In fact, I find 99.9% of the information here as indeterminant (undecided).

The key here is not about science or not, but the data biased arguments that I see here (posting facts without in-depth reasoning/demonstration of true understanding). Both aspects are important. Both the facts and the understanding of why the facts are as they are. Statistics model events. Statistics doesn't explain them (what many of us are really looking for here).


The world is full of schysters who put for their "theories" as fact. You can find them in advertisements all over the net and various magazines. They claim to have a cure for ADHD. They claim to have a "natural" treatment for ADHD. They claim to have an explanation for ADHD. These people are not scientists and not skeptics.


In reiteration, I'm not going to have blind faith in any "theory", but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to be open to ideas.


My reason for doubt? Most of the skeptics I know (including myself) started out in life believing in all sorts of unsubstantiated phenomenon. We only became skeptics after education in scientific process and an understanding of logic and how knowledge is acquired.


I agree, but I don't think it takes a "formal education" to become a skeptic.

I've been questioning since I was young. Not because I wanted to be argumentitive or neccessarily prove right from wrong, but to build understanding. If someone introduces a proposed chunk that does not fit in with my model of thinking, I either a) question and correct my line of thinking, or b) reject the chunk of information, or c) if nothing exists in the spectrum, I try to make a relationship, which will be subject to a) and b) in the future (if retained). Questioning, in a mild sense, is required to build understanding.

But, that's just me. I can make all the assumptions that I want as to how other people think, whether or not they are true, I do not know. I can't just telnet into other people's brains to find out.

What makes you think these people are bored? Intellectual pursuits can't be the only thing that provides excitement (although alternatives escape me right now!).

Non-intellectual people doing intellectual jobs? It goes along with the statement of people picking professions randomly. I guess if your definition of bored includes being non-functional, then no.

But of course, if boring doesn't bother one, is it really boring? What is boring to one person isn't to another. They can tolerate what we find to be boring, but that doesn't mean that they see it as boring (excitement being overstimulating)?

People who live in the realm of disconnected factual information tend to accept and reject information based on the source's reputation (in a hierarchal scheme). Is this because they have difficulty connecting the information like many of us do? Are the qualities of needing certainty (because the information isn't truely understood), being confident about knowedge (because knowledge is either right or wrong), and debunking speculative reasoning in favor of certain "factual" information (to increase "reputation" so that other similar thinkers look to them for information, which increases status, which increases certainty)? This is a cognitive type, along with some of the neccesary support mechanisms to support survival of the particular cognitive types.
The irony of it all is that I have been trying, but have been unable to separate the flavour of Ian's signature, from the feel of your post, above.

By some dude called Satan -- apparently :-)

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge--even to ourselves--that we've been so credulous."
Carl Sagan
There you go -- I've tried again, and I'm left wondering whether HF has been ssh'ing into Satan's server; funny how Sagan can be used as devil's advocate :-).

SB.

and please ... the play on Sagan and Satan for no other reason, than the punchline.
I do not believe that he is a child of darkness.

I've never said that science didn't work that way. And I have never actually said that any one of the theories on here are neccesarily correct. But I am not going to say that each one of these theories should be disregarded or are wrong simply because they haven't followed scientific procedures. In fact, I find 99.9% of the information here as indeterminant (undecided).
I would never say a theory should be disregarded or is wrong simply because they haven't followed scientific procedures. HOWEVER, there are a few caveats to this:

1) Treatments that have not been tested, IMO, should never be recommended. Reasons? First, because most people are not critical thinkers, people spend resources on these treatments that could be spent on other treatments that have been shown to work. Second, because treatments that have not been tested could be damaging.

2) MOST of the information countered on these boards is NOT untested. While it's true that lack of evidence does not mean a claim is untrue, there is something to be said for repeated failures under controlled conditions to find support for a claim.

3) The failure to follow a scientific method in developing a "theory" results in an unscientific theory, period. Speculation isn't the issue here. Passing something off as science or "logic" is. Logic is built on premises. Without premises, there is no logic. Ditto w/science.

4) "Theories" that are not testable are also not scientific, they are faith. I'm not knocking faith, here, but faith is not science and representing it as such is misleading and, IMO, wrong.


The key here is not about science or not, but the data biased arguments that I see here (posting facts without in-depth reasoning/demonstration of true understanding).
How are "data-biased" arguments void of indepth reasoning or true understanding???? How is pulling ideas out of the air "true understanding"? Nothing, IMO, that cannot be backed up with empirical data can POSSIBLY be "understanding". Understanding requires comprehension and knowledge. Knowledge doesn't come from "pure" reason. REAL reason requires premises; the strength of those premises can ONLY be judged by the methods in which they were derived. Without data, there is no knowledge (understanding).


In reiteration, I'm not going to have blind faith in any "theory", but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to be open to ideas.
And how are you going to evaluate the strength or validity of those ideas?


I agree, but I don't think it takes a "formal education" to become a skeptic.

I didn't say "formal" education. Education can come in many forms.

I would never say a theory should be disregarded or is wrong simply because they haven't followed scientific procedures. HOWEVER, there are a few caveats to this:

1) Treatments that have not been tested, IMO, should never be recommended. Reasons? First, because most people are not critical thinkers, people spend resources on these treatments that could be spent on other treatments that have been shown to work. Second, because treatments that have not been tested could be damaging.


Agreed. This thread is proof enough of my agreement (see quotation of SB_UK on ADHD:[MEDICAL] vs. ADHD:[RESEARCH]).


2) MOST of the information countered on these boards is NOT untested. While it's true that lack of evidence does not mean a claim is untrue, there is something to be said for repeated failures under controlled conditions to find support for a claim.


Again, that is true. But how often to people directly explain the data here (or even quote the experts to do the explaining)?

Example:

Brains do not come in "types". All aspects of neural activity follow a normal distribution. The difference between AD/HD and nonAD/HD is meeting a critera of impairment involving a number of factors. ........


You say that all neural activity can be modeled by the normal distribution. I would imagine that this means that the scientific community has collected enough data to make such an assertion. This says nothing as to why this occurs, however.

Can this phenomenon be explained (in a systematic way)? It's been stated that it does happen. Now, why does it happen?


4) "Theories" that are not testable are also not scientific, they are faith. I'm not knocking faith, here, but faith is not science and representing it as such is misleading and, IMO, wrong.


I would say that that is exaggerated a bit. Just because a theory is not testable (and theories don't have to be testables, only scientific theories do) doesn't mean that it was totally pulled from thin air. There's a wide gamut from faith to science.


How are "data-biased" arguments void of indepth reasoning or true understanding???? How is pulling ideas out of the air "true understanding"? Nothing, IMO, that cannot be backed up with empirical data can POSSIBLY be "understanding". Understanding requires comprehension and knowledge. Knowledge doesn't come from "pure" reason. REAL reason requires premises; the strength of those premises can ONLY be judged by the methods in which they were derived. Without data, there is no knowledge (understanding).


Pulling ideas from thin air is not true understanding because it cannot be said whether those ideas model the truth. Speculative activity is an attempt to gestalt understanding based on what one already knows. Now, I'm not discussing things like the "Hunter-Farmer paradigm" or anything like that. Theories like that are mostly pulled from thin-air.

No, I didn't say that the data wasn't important. As my previous post said, both the data (testing or weighting of the hypothesis) and the reasoning (this is why the test resulted as it did) are important.

Along the same lines, if we can't expain phenomenon, then how can we call it understanding? If we can't explain it, then it is simply "knowing."


And how are you going to evaluate the strength or validity of those ideas?


A.) Ideas usually aren't atomic. Just because the entire idea isn't testable, there may be parts that are.
B.) The systematic consistency of the idea. If the idea isn't consistent systematically (i.e. something doesn't fit), then the idea should either be thrown out or modified, no matter how many numbers happen to exist about the idea.
C.) The ideas/theories in which the idea was derived from. As I stated previously, most ideas aren't completely pulled from thin-air.

Nice being able to bounce around pretty much as we want - in a thread without bounds.
In all my time on various ADDer fora - this is the first time I've seen a free-form thread ... which is a little bizarre, because what could be more natural for us, to be carried by a whim into any area that might take our fancy.
And so, to the points above - of attention being captured by seemingly positive and negative things - so on the one hand fun through some form of cerebral pursuit, and on the other hand -- exhilaration.
There's a connection here too, I guess, and it's kinda' what I was getting at with the comments above ...'trajectory'...

What does it feel like when we're pushing things a little too far - breaking the speed limit on a bike - jumping out of an aeroplane - ski-jumping ... well for sure it's not an intellectual pursuit, but the feeling that one gets when doing these things, I find, is rather similar to that feeling 15 mins in after amphetamines, first dose in the morning.
Really -- not joking.
They're feelings of increased awareness, closer proximity to the outside world and mental peace.

The feeling I have is that the core drivers which push us to develop our minds ... are hijacked from earlier biological mechanism ... earlier neurobiological mechanisms which required the adrenergic and dopaminergic networks for functionality.

And into all of this feeds another common ADDer theme ... the beneficial effects of exercise on the ADDer mind.

We must feel a motivation to accomplish. This desire - in earlier primates - dopaminergic/noradrenergic networks driving the will to survive and procreate, and similarly within us, but also these as the driving force, underlying the formation of mind, creating our drive to pursue the generation of our own internally held reality models ... or paraphrased, of our own universal view.
So, to simplify -- that the experiential feelings whether in either of these of our captivations, as identical, with the feelings of either 'exhilaration' or arising through 'reality clarifying' - being generated through an identical set of neuroeffector mechanisms.

SB.

Can this phenomenon be explained (in a systematic way)? It's been stated that it does happen. Now, why does it happen?
-and-
Along the same lines, if we can't expain phenomenon, then how can we call it understanding? If we can't explain it, then it is simply "knowing."

This is true, and relates to the different views that a watchmaker and an artist would have over a watch that they have made, and painted, respectively - and then both asked the same questions about aspects of that watch.


Pulling ideas from thin air is not true understanding because it cannot be said whether those ideas model the truth. Speculative activity is an attempt to gestalt understanding based on what one already knows.
:-)

We all know ADD, and many of us know a whole lot about ADDers, and quite a few of us have an intuitive grasp of science; all that's required is a violent will to reconcile everything that we know to be true into one holistic, self-contained internally and otherwise consistent package.

SB.

Again, that is true. But how often to people directly explain the data here (or even quote the experts to do the explaining)?



Example:


You say that all neural activity can be modeled by the normal distribution. I would imagine that this means that the scientific community has collected enough data to make such an assertion. This says nothing as to why this occurs, however.

Can this phenomenon be explained (in a systematic way)? It's been stated that it does happen. Now, why does it happen?
YES. IT CAN, but why should I have to explain this? If someone wants to know, they'll ask the question. Do you really expect chapters upon chapters of background information for every statement? When I discussed the normal distribution of neural activity, should I have also given a primer on the sodium-potassium ion pump?

Just in case you are asking, the normal distribution that occurs in most complex behaviors is a product of the variation needed for adaptation. If many of these behaviors were too far skewed, there are many environmental factors that, if changed, could wipe out the species. When studying behaviors, however, even behaviors that are not normally distributed in the population become normally distributed in the sample due to the central limit theorem.


I would say that that is exaggerated a bit. Just because a theory is not testable (and theories don't have to be testables, only scientific theories do) doesn't mean that it was totally pulled from thin air. There's a wide gamut from faith to science.
There is NO faith in science. And you took my comments out of context. Testability is one issue. Pulling "theories" out of thin air is a different issue.
You are correct that scientific theories need to be testable. Therefore, those theories that are not testable are not science. Science is not faith and faith is not science.

Speculative activity is an attempt to gestalt understanding based on what one already knows.
Speculative activity based on what one already knows has a set of premises (what one already "knows"). The strength of those premises can only be judged by the process that produced them. Where did this knowledge come from??? Did it come from empirical data? Did it come from personal experience (which is empirical data)? Or did it come from thin air?


Along the same lines, if we can't expain phenomenon, then how can we call it understanding? If we can't explain it, then it is simply "knowing."
Knowing what?


A.) Ideas usually aren't atomic. Just because the entire idea isn't testable, there may be parts that are.
Oh, so if one part stands up to testing, the whole idea is valid?


B.) The systematic consistency of the idea. If the idea isn't consistent systematically (i.e. something doesn't fit), then the idea should either be thrown out or modified, no matter how many numbers happen to exist about the idea.
Consistency is an EXTREMELY weak test of validity. While inconsistency can falsify, consistency can't confirm. Any a posteriori explanation can achieve consistency. Just because something sounds right or logical doesn't make it correct.


C.) The ideas/theories in which the idea was derived from. As I stated previously, most ideas aren't completely pulled from thin-air.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

The cries for citations and data from those of us on these boards that require evidence is exactly an attempt to evaluate the validity of claims and theories by examining where these theories came from. What are the underlying premises?

Fisher was a mathematician with a deep interest in biology.
He was one of the guys from our Uni that achieved something meaningful.

In the 1860s ?1865? or ?1868? - Mendel (a geneticist of sorts) delivered his theory on genetic transmission, whilst Galton (a psychologist of sorts) delivered a paper on the genetic transmissibility of intelligence, pretty much simultaneously, and for sure, in the same year.

A war raged between genetics and psychology -- how could the two theories be mutually compatible?
This war abated, Mendelian and Galtonian camps reconciled by Fisher in 1918 - widely considered a seminal paper in life science - where Galton and Mendel were hybridized -- and unified -- really quite elegantly.

Fisher made a real contribution to statistical distributions and many see him as the father of modern statistical methodologies.

So ... pretty much all :-) he did was ...

... and I am putting all the bits on height into the following -- just to make all of this just a bit easier to grasp.

->Postulate a large (infinite) number of genes (obeying Mendels' laws) (gene names->h1,h2,h3) having a direct effect on a character H (eg height) -- which occurred in 2 forms (alleles).

A polymorphism permits a single gene to subdivide into 2 separate alleles.
Polymorphism was borrowed from genetics into OO comp. sci., and then recaptured here -- in this thread -- in both contexts.

->Label all of the alleles as T or S, and allow T allele to increase height by 1 cm and S to decrease adult height by 1 cm.

->Now scatter these alleles randomly into the population -- and measure an individual's height.
A chappy with only h1 gene S form, h2 gene S form, h3 gene S form ... will be *12cm shorter* than an individual with only H1 gene T form, H2 gene T form, H3 gene T form.
So
[H(h1T+/h1T+,h2T+/h2T+,h3T+/h3T+)]
-
[H(h1S+/h1S+,h2S+/h2S+,h3S+/h3S+)]
=
12
(cm).

->Measure the height of the population and plot a histogram, and we'll see that we've regenerated a quantitative character from a qualitative mechanism ie used Mendel's theory as a basis for the height or Galton's field of specialisation.

However --- Fisher postulated an infinite number of genes having, each of them, a direct effect on some character.

Sticking with height and with obvious analogy ...
Do we believe that there are a large amount of genes, each of which able to have at least a close to direct effect on height in this way?
And if we do -- what would they be doing?
And how would one find them ... after all, surely a large number of genes ... means that each has a relatively small effect.
The smaller the effect -- the harder to find ... human genetics has only been successfully applied in the class of 'large effect' disorders ... Cystic Fibrosis, Huntington's disease, certain cancers (most notably breast cancer), MODY.
None of the above are QTLs, and certainly none of these are QTLs reflecting parameters of the mind.

The mechanistic theory of quantitative characters is a powerful argument against adopting this as an approach towards understanding that character. That's not to say that any of this is wrong -- just that it's textbook theory -- which will not yield results.

There are over 10,000 publications on ADHD out there ... let's say that's around 5 pages a publication -- and so -- 50,000 pages of scientific thought on ADHD.
Does it feel as though we have 50,000 pages of understanding of ADHD?

No matter how much I read, I'm left with the feeling that the only information that's of much use and is agreed -- is that:
-*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*-
-- that's about all that I can meaningfully derive from the literature, and there's only one way that I can think of -- to fill 50,000 pages - with this message, and this is, as follows:

SB.

-*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*--*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-*- .................................................. ..

:-)

For a free flowing thread you guys seem to be sticking on one topic...flea circus effect perhaps????


You are correct that scientific theories need to be testable. Therefore, those theories that are not testable are not science. Science is not faith and faith is not science.

Are we talking science that is physics or are we talking science biological or psychological....got lost in SB's c-*-a certain structural form of amphetamine helps us in some way-* the pattern makes the lower half of the page move down ward in a spiral to the right.

Well 80% of those with ADD traits have at least some degree of relief from stimulants some what less if we are discussing amphetamine in and of itself. Not even stimulant medications are 100% effective. There are those who have ADD type symptoms that do not respond to medications.....now what was I going to ask???? Nope no ADD here.... had some thing to do with...



When I discussed the normal distribution of neural activity, should I have also given a primer on the sodium-potassium ion pump?

the electrical conduction is that what we are addressing as normally distributed ????? More organs than the brain conduct in this manner as it is a neural activity...yes but why does my neuro activity act differently than yours, my moms, an inattentive, or some non-ADD types???? Does every ones page moved down ward when they read SB’s amphetamine thing????

If dopamine depletion in "X", "Y" and "Z" is the end all and be all of ADD symptoms then why are some inattentive and others hyper???? Yes stimulant do help both types of ADDers focus better but as an ex-speed freak I can tell you from my own empirical evidence of years of experience speed can increase activity and focus even in non-ADDers.

Stimulants in pure form will increase focus until a certain thresh-hold is breached. Once this thresh hold is breached then the person goes from hyper focus/ hyper active to a psycho ADD type from Hades that resembles manic phase of a bi-polar mixed with paranoid schiz, and the demonically possessed.....so stimulants have similar effects on those who do not have ADD. I have found that non-ADDers do seem to have lower thresh holds over all for stimulants than ADDers. I have also noticed during those long gone drug days that stimulants will make some people more active , others more focused focus, some both a few will be neither.

I am taking into account that many of the druggeis I hung with were like me ADDers treating their own ADD. However I have met some of these people years after they have quit using and they are not ADDers at all never were never will be.

SB does that address your non-diagnosed ADD question???? Besides ADD[researched] could be another biological problem causing the same out ward symptoms...children come with thyroid disorders, bi-polar, and other neuro problems as do adults. Basing a diagnosis upon symptoms alone without checking to rule out other possible causes is not a good idea from a health perspective.

Really is ADD [researched] being given stimulants any better than I was when I self treated my symptoms with the same stimulants (chemically speaking) I now have prescribed? Were my behaviors justified by the fact that adult ADD didn't exist in the medical profession 25 years ago or would my justification be from the fact I was right the entire time???? Yes one can be right about their [research]obviously but who will separate the true ADDers wanting relief from actual symptoms from those wanting stimulants to cram for exams, recreational use or sell to others for a quick easy buck?????


Now empirical evidence would or would not include individual experience?????

For me I KNOW by experience that that as long as a medication effects dopamine or norephanfren I will probably do fine...start messing with my serotonin and then it becomes a bad thing a very bad thing....do I have evidence yes....the first two years of medication trial and errors I had to undergo I would look up every medications effect on the neuro chemicals and took notes....any medication that effects my serotonin well didn't and still doesn't work.

Some ten years in the future( I was diagnosed in 1993) ADD seems to effect dopamine and norephnephrin!!!!!! Gee could I be ADD????!!!!!!


People who live in the realm of disconnected factual information tend to accept and reject information based on the source's reputation (in a hierarchal scheme). Is this because they have difficulty connecting the information like many of us do? Are the qualities of needing certainty (because the information isn't truly understood), being confident about knowledge

Some times theories or evidence just make sense other times it don't. The mis-informed and disconnected do not necessarily take the word of an expert simple by reputation...like some one who is disconnected would be "with it" enough to know reputations of researchers any way.

Many of the disconnected like my self decipher the information as to weather or not it "fits" into their understanding. Looking for a certain “flow” near the arena of common sense. I have rejected many highly acclaimed researchers based simply on their attitude. some one who sees people like me as disordered, incapable, and lacking in ability to measure their concensus of normal can NOT possibly understand me or my kind period!!!!

Scientific who cares these jerks are just that jerks with a negative attitude toward my kind I need no numbers to see this...I frankly do not care how many numbers they can come up with.......surly we have all heard the saying figures don't lie but liars sure can figure!!!!!

Few findings are 100% when it comes to behavior modals..due to the nature of individualism then the best that can be obtained from human behavior studies will be percentages. Percentages are not a sure thing like a rock let go from above will surely travel downward...as rocks simply do NOT float in air.

There is NO faith in science

Hmmm would one not have to have FAITH in their perspectives to even bother attempting to "prove" or dis-prove their "theory"?????

Do you really expect chapters upon chapters of background information for every statement?


Absolutely not. Anything is better than nothing at all (unless it is blatantly wrong). A hyperlink to background information, or a concise, basic idea would be nice. Just remember who you're posting for (ADDers).


Just in case you are asking, the normal distribution that occurs in most complex behaviors is a product of the variation needed for adaptation. If many of these behaviors were too far skewed, there are many environmental factors that, if changed, could wipe out the species. When studying behaviors, however, even behaviors that are not normally distributed in the population become normally distributed in the sample due to the central limit theorem.


Okay, so many variables must follow the normal distribution (or at least, a distribution in which the probability of events increases as the distance from the mean decreases) for adaptive purposes.


There is NO faith in science. And you took my comments out of context. Testability is one issue. Pulling "theories" out of thin air is a different issue.
You are correct that scientific theories need to be testable. Therefore, those theories that are not testable are not science. Science is not faith and faith is not science.


Actually, what I said is that there is a large gamut between a theory being totally pulled from "thin-air" to being totally testable. This relates to the part about parts of theories possibly being valid even if, as a whole, it isn't.


Speculative activity based on what one already knows has a set of premises (what one already "knows"). The strength of those premises can only be judged by the process that produced them. Where did this knowledge come from??? Did it come from empirical data? Did it come from personal experience (which is empirical data)? Or did it come from thin air?


Again, parts of the speculative activity is based on what one may already know (i.e. parts of a theory may be valid, even if as a whole, it isn't). Parts may have come from thin-air, as you put it. Parts may be conclusions based on existing knowledge. Such ideas aren't atomic (indivisible).


Oh, so if one part stands up to testing, the whole idea is valid?

No, but I would think the idea caries more weight than an idea that is completely untestable.


Consistency is an EXTREMELY weak test of validity. While inconsistency can falsify, consistency can't confirm. Any a posteriori explanation can achieve consis[font=Verdana][size=2]tency. Just because something sounds right or logical doesn't make it correct.


True, but as the number of existing ideas pulled in (i.e., the number of connections) that we make, the more likely the idea could possibly be correct (not just self-consistent, but consistent with what we already know).

For example, what if I walked into a room full of mathematicians and stated that 3 + 4 = 8? Their predisposition is that 3 + 4 is really 7. Who is right? Well, if 3 + 4 = 8 is true, then wouldn't that mean that we'd have to make changes to other aspects of math, such as the assumed sequence of numbers (... 5, 6, 8, 7 ..., 18, 17, ..., 28, 27, ...) as opposed to (... 5, 6, 7, 8 ...)? What if 3 + 4 = 8 and 3 + 2 + 2 = 7? Then, we'd really be screwed, wouldn't we?

This isn't a test of right or wrong. It's just that as we have more connections using an idea, and we introduce an inconsistency, the more unsolved questions we have.

None of these are, in a sense, proofs of validity, at least with respect to scientific theory, if that was the original question. Just because it isn't scientific doesn't mean that these factors do not do anything to increase or decrease the probablility that an idea will model reality.


The cries for citations and data from those of us on these boards that require evidence is exactly an attempt to evaluate the validity of claims and theories by examining where these theories came from. What are the underlying premises?

Perfectly acceptable, just as my questioning of reasoning is perfectly acceptable as well (in an attempt to see systematic integrity).

YES. IT CAN, but why should I have to explain this?
You might want to read your own signature for that answer.

To be honest, I don't see what this argument is about anymore. My bottom line/opinion here is/has been that an idea has to be both supported by empirical DATA and it also has to shown to be systematically consistent with everything else.

Me ADD -- you certainly are :-), and that page is moving -- wait a minute - that is not my beautiful house, that is not my beautiful wife -- And you may ask yourself Where does that highway go? And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...Am I wrong? And you may ask yourself-well...how did I get here?

Staying on subject ... you take that back :-)

We don't need anything up on that pedestal, but we do need answers -- as in all of us. That's what we do ... look around and try and figure out what we feel just doesn't add up, make it add up and then move on. We are ADDers.

And there's a good one -- the great inattentivity-hyperactivity divide, in which a number of the oft-quoted chief disordered characteristics are diametrically opposed; surely there's something of profound interest in there. And how do we see individuals attempt to reconcile these differences -- at least on this thread we see this as 'SCT' - a box into which some can choose to throw their dissatisfaction with ADD-I and ADHD as bedfellows, and in which SCT can be viewed as more distinct from ADD. And then a brief jump back to Executive Function, and the apparence that much of what we call ADD is a portrait painter's snapshot view, in which, over time, the portrait painter has mistakenly convinced himself, perhaps due to the elaborate nature of his or her work - that she or he is the watchmaker.

I see this in genetics too though -- the geneticist that creates new life - at any level - and begins to see themselves as the blind watchmaker, instead of merely a tenant in nature's toolbox. We don't see this any more -- but as molecular biology rose to prominence, there used to be cries of 'but molecular biologists - aren't scientists' and it's funny, because all of that is lost now.

As Tom&Kay (Stabile) have described, our minds as pattern matchers extracting and classifying the perceptual stream, using delta to construct our logical model of reality;
Meaning derived by our sensorium perceiving patterns from what comes in held up against what has already been laid down in the mind;
Meaning and communication limited by the structure of linguistic models;
Linguistic models deeply weaved into the fabric of conscious awareness;
And art as the formation of new linguistic models, helping to secure us freedom of expression away from the tyranny of language.

Building an all encompassing internally held model of life out there - is constrained by the richness of the weave of our own minds.

And the biggest enemies to accomplishing this -- certainty -- knowing that one is right. Or maybe being certain that one is right and another is wrong. Or believing that one has a viewpoint which is more valid than anothers. Or fixing a solution -- which throws up partitions, preventing development of models in areas of mind space that require filling for an accurate internal representation to form.

And out of this comes an interesting point, which you made -- which is of whether individual experience is valid as empirical evidence .. and here, I'm going to say 'hell ...yeah...' and since we're allowed to follow the rabbit (:-) HF...) in this thread, and that rabbit is disappearing down into Wonderland -- how about I come out with something like ... "I don't feel that a nonADDer researcher can make a meaningful contribution to ADD research"
:-)

Slipping on uncertainty and slipping around on shifting sands until the ground steadies as we approach the epiphany.
What am I talking about?
:-)

Our own minds develop - with an ever increasing richness as the driver, the driver to model reality as fully as possible, a driver which is spawned from the evolutionary drive to survive, and which borrows its brother's neuroeffector machinery - namely the nor/adrenergic/nor/epinephric and dopaminergic networks to fuel its own development. The mind as nothing more than the indomitable drive of DNA to survive, translated from lower organisms to higher organisms as instinct, and then to us -- as the mind.

DNA'll always get the last laugh -- we think we're looking at it head on - when in actual fact our viewpoint is from behind - as it disappears into the future.
If you listen real hard, you'll hear it tooting its horn.

Air is thinnest on top of a mountain - and this also makes for a panoramic viewpoint of the landscape below.
Apparently many great insights have felt like revelations and spirituality most intense around mountains.
So -- maybe pulling things out of thin air is kinda' the way to go.

Nothing wrong with 'Eureka moments' - 'Kekulés rings' ... and yet again ...
and just as with creativity, leaps of greatness through perfectly ordinary mechanisms.

:-)

SB.

For a free flowing thread you guys seem to be sticking on one topic...flea circus effect perhaps???? Key word here is "flow". I'm just going with it. I'll put up an original post after I respond to this one, 'k?




You are correct that scientific theories need to be testable. Therefore, those theories that are not testable are not science. Science is not faith and faith is not science.
Are we talking science that is physics or are we talking science biological or psychological....
We're talking all science. What makes a discipline "science" is its method. The difference between "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry) and "soft" sciences (psychology, anthropology) is the complexity of what's studied. Psychology is considered a soft science because the complexity of human behavior makes it nearly impossible to acheive the exact same results each time an experiment is performed.


the electrical conduction is that what we are addressing as normally distributed ????? More organs than the brain conduct in this manner as it is a neural activity...yes but why does my neuro activity act differently than yours, my moms, an inattentive, or some non-ADD types???? Does every ones page moved down ward when they read SB’s amphetamine thing???? Yep, yep, nope. All neural activity is distributed in a gaussian manner, which makes the study of it VERY interesting. We can map the normal distribution of psychophysical data (human responses to stimuli) almost directly onto the distributions of the underlying neural mechanisms that drive it -- at each level (receptors, downstream neurons, neurons at nearly every point in the cerebral pathway).


If dopamine depletion in "X", "Y" and "Z" is the end all and be all of ADD symptoms then why are some inattentive and others hyper???? Because dopamine depletion in X, Y, & Z (assuming it's the "root cause") isn't the only proximal cause of symptoms. Dopamine depletion would have a direct effect on some cognitive processes and an indirect one on others. Less dopamine MIGHT trigger an increase in other neurotransmitters, like serotonin, or in hormones. Responses in X, Y, & Z may trigger responses in Q, R, & S.

There is individual variation in EVERY step along the way. While we can say that generally X is used in specific behaviors P, Q, & R, not all behaviors always map directly to these generalities. Example: abut 85% of humans use primarily the left cerebral hemisphere for language -- the estimates range from 70% to 95%, depending on who you talk to -- the other 15% either have language specialized in the right hemisphere or little specialization.


Stimulants in pure form will increase focus until a certain thresh-hold is breached. Once this thresh hold is breached then the person goes from hyper focus/ hyper active to a psycho ADD type from Hades... What I see as the key word is in bold. Neurons respond in an all-or-none manner: either they fire or they don't fire. Information is added in the form of the rate of firing and the combinations of neurons. The way neurons "decide" whether or not to fire is a criteria (threshold) of electrochemical balance of inside-the-neuron to outside-the-neuron. So, it makes total sense that psychoactive medications often follow a threshold-like response pattern.


Really is ADD [researched] being given stimulants any better than I was when I self treated my symptoms with the same stimulants (chemically speaking) I now have prescribed? Well, yes. Because the delivery mechanisms in prescribed medications reduce risks for various problems (including nerve damage) a great deal. In addition, monitoring of symptoms and side effects by an experienced physician allows one to figure out the optimal dosage.


For me I KNOW by experience that that as long as a medication effects dopamine or norephanfren I will probably do fine...start messing with my serotonin and then it becomes a bad thing a very bad thing....do I have evidence yes....the first two years of medication trial and errors I had to undergo I would look up every medications effect on the neuro chemicals and took notes....any medication that effects my serotonin well didn't and still doesn't work. Are you actually me? I need 30mg of Prozac daily. I've used it for nearly 12 years. If you mess with that dosage even a tiny bit (say, switching from brand to generic), there's hell to pay!


Many of the disconnected like my self decipher the information as to weather or not it "fits" into their understanding. I could be wrong, but I don't think HF or anyone else would place you in the "disconnected" basket. You question things, whether or not they are consistent with your current understanding.


Looking for a certain “flow” near the arena of common sense. I have rejected many highly acclaimed researchers based simply on their attitude. some one who sees people like me as disordered, incapable, and lacking in ability to measure their concensus of normal can NOT possibly understand me or my kind period!!!! Oooo. Define "highly acclaimed"... I can't imagine a good scientist with such a bias.

....surly we have all heard the saying figures don't lie but liars sure can figure!!!!! There are some good books on this! One was mentioned by another member on another thread "Damned Lies and Statistics" by Joel Best. Another popular one is "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. And, if you really can't push your way through that kind of stuff, I HIGHLY recommend Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear". Even though it's about the evironmental movement, there's a TON of information in there about how people use twisted statistics w/poor methodology to support claims.


...due to the nature of individualism then the best that can be obtained from human behavior studies will be percentages. Percentages are not a sure thing like a rock let go from above will surely travel downward...as rocks simply do NOT float in air. Oh, simply not true, Tammy. Percentages, like you said, tell us nothing. But, what someone studies (behavior, for example) has little to do with how the information is analyzed. Quantitative data, analyzed using probability theory, can tell us a TON. Even qualitative data can be systematically converted to quantitative data that can be analyzed.



Hmmm would one not have to have FAITH in their perspectives to even bother attempting to "prove" or dis-prove their "theory"????? I think you're confusing "faith" with "belief". Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Beliefs based on evidence are not faith. A scientist that does not form their hypotheses from confident beliefs (evidence-based) isn't respected and won't be taken seriously. That's why emprical research reports have such involved introductions (what we call "literature reviews") and citations to previous work. This is a fundamental part of the scientific method and one of the first things that I address in my methods courses.

Absolutely not. Anything is better than nothing at all (unless it is blatantly wrong). A hyperlink to background information, or a concise, basic idea would be nice. Just remember who you're posting for (ADDers).
HF, the background information you are saying I should link to would require VOLUMES of "citations". Posting a hyperlink (or 50) to explain the background of the distributions of human behavior is rediculous. If there are specific questions about the basis of my statements, I am happy to address them. Otherwise I'll stick with citing only what I think needs a proximal foundation.


Actually, what I said is that there is a large gamut between a theory being totally pulled from "thin-air" to being totally testable. This relates to the part about parts of theories possibly being valid even if, as a whole, it isn't.
DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOUR POST:
There's a wide gamut from faith to science.
Theories that are not testable or have no potential for testing are dropped by the general scientific community. What theories do you believe are only "partly" testable???


Again, parts of the speculative activity is based on what one may already know (i.e. parts of a theory may be valid, even if as a whole, it isn't). Parts may have come from thin-air, as you put it. Parts may be conclusions based on existing knowledge. Such ideas aren't atomic (indivisible).
"Parts" of speculative activity??? I will repeat for clarity: speculation based on evidence is not unscientific. Speculation based on untestable ideas is not. IF any "part" of an idea is untestable, that part is faith-based. Incorporating testable or evidence-based parts doesn't make it science.


No, but I would think the idea caries more weight than an idea that is completely untestable.
This is fine; but it does NOT make it science. I am VERY bothered by faith-based "ideas" trying to pass themselves off as scientific because there is some PART that is evidence-based and not admitting to limitations of untestability. (I'm sure this has been obvious if you've read any of my posts :p.)


True, but as the number of existing ideas pulled in (i.e., the number of connections) that we make, the more likely the idea could possibly be correct (not just self-consistent, but consistent with what we already know).
A rather inefficient (IMO) way of going about acquiring knowledge....


For example, what if I walked into a room full of mathematicians and stated that 3 + 4 = 8? Their predisposition is that 3 + 4 is really 7. Who is right? Well, if 3 + 4 = 8 is true, then wouldn't that mean that we'd have to make changes to other aspects of math, such as the assumed sequence of numbers (... 5, 6, 8, 7 ..., 18, 17, ..., 28, 27, ...) as opposed to (... 5, 6, 7, 8 ...)? What if 3 + 4 = 8 and 3 + 2 + 2 = 7? Then, we'd really be screwed, wouldn't we?
This is an example of falsification. It doesn't support your statement about converging "consistency".


This isn't a test of right or wrong. It's just that as we have more connections using an idea, and we introduce an inconsistency, the more unsolved questions we have.
The introduction of inconsistency (one form of falsification) does not leave more unsolved questions; it eliminates possible alternatives. THAT is the process of science.

Example:

CLAIM: All dogs have four legs.
BASIS OF CLAIM: I have seen thousands of dogs. All have had four legs.
MORE EVIDENCE: Mammals have four appendages in general and dogs are mammals, etc. etc. etc.

This is a pretty strong, well-supported claim. However, as soon as a counter-example is introduced (a three-legged dog), the claim goes OUT THE WINDOW. It's over.

The question "Do all dogs have four legs?" is answered. Any unanswered questions left (such as why do most dogs have four legs?) were not asked; they weren't a part of the original claim.


Just because it isn't scientific doesn't mean that these factors do not do anything to increase or decrease the probablility that an idea will model reality.
No, they don't. However, there is no way to test the validity of unscientific claims. Anything claiming to be scientific, if it is asking to be understood or believed, must provide evidence. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON REPEATEDLY IN THESE FORUMS.

People have made repeated claims of scientific understanding and have criticized requests for evidence of these claims by saying that the people asking for such evidence simply "don't understand" or "don't want to accept" or are "uncomfortable with 'revolutionary' ideas". THESE types of comments are offensive, untrue, and stem from ignorance.


Perfectly acceptable, just as my questioning of reasoning is perfectly acceptable as well (in an attempt to see systematic integrity).
Reasoning is just as important in any argument as the premise of the argument. But, valid reasoning alone does not and cannot provide confidence in a conclusion. Confidence in the underlying premises is also necessary.


My words: Quote: YES. IT CAN, but why should I have to explain this? You might want to read your own signature for that answer.
When placed in context, my statement is that explanations for underlying premises are too lengthy and involved to be included in every claim. I will always be happy to provide explanations and evidence for what premises are questioned. I will NOT, however, begin every post with a book explaining every underlying premise.


To be honest, I don't see what this argument is about anymore. My bottom line/opinion here is/has been that an idea has to be both supported by empirical DATA and it also has to shown to be systematically consistent with everything else.
If this is your bottom line, why all the criticism??? Why the mischaracterization of skepticism? MAYBE I'm reading into this, but I am offended. I believe the statements you made below, along with other statements made on this forum (below) are directly aimed at members like me (and, in some cases, ME) who have insisted on empirical evidence to support claims.


People who live in the realm of disconnected factual information tend to accept and reject information based on the source's reputation (in a hierarchal scheme). Is this because they have difficulty connecting the information like many of us do? Are the qualities of needing certainty (because the information isn't truely understood), being confident about knowedge (because knowledge is either right or wrong), and debunking speculative reasoning in favor of certain "factual" information (to increase "reputation" so that other similar thinkers look to them for information, which increases status, which increases certainty)? This is a cognitive type, along with some of the neccesary support mechanisms to support survival of the particular cognitive types.

I've read 'What the Bleep'..and I've every other book written about Quantum Physics/Theory and firmly adhere to all the theories principles.
Why ?
Because they are factual and true in what 'matters' most. No pun intended.

If you want to stick with Newtonion Physics..that's perfect for the Biggies..no one is going to debate that issue with you.

If you want to get nitty gritty with subatomic particles..you have to understand Quantum Physics, folks...
You can dig your heals in the sand all your want...it's still going to happen with or without you...because the theories are bigger than you or me..and they don't need you or I to exist..so you can try and understand them now...or refuse to understand them..and keep running with the theories you are familiar with.

I really appreciate your views..but I have created this thread as a way to expand other's minds about the Quantum Physics, Perception and Reality.

Unfortunately -- especially as of recently, there appears to have been a change in tact within threads here -- with individuals adopting unduly belligerent poses, instead of honest inquiry, in the face of unintuitively graspable positions....Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves....Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric....It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this....Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones....Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so....
Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education....
......We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought....
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt....The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts....The biggest shame -- when one cannot control one self sufficiently to choose appropriate words to echo one's stance.
In response to requests for evidence (IMO, "HONEST INQUIRY"), we instead get called ignorant, arrogant, fear-filled doubters. Carl Sagan called this "Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument".

I could be wrong, but I don't think HF or anyone else would place you in the "disconnected" basket. You question things, whether or not they are consistent with your current understanding.


Correct, but I wouldn't call "disconnected" a basket. I don't think survival would be possible if one thought in a totally disconnected way. It is a description of how many people *primarily* pack information away without directly questioning it, especially if it is not immediately understandable (to the particular person).

Okay, my non sequitur contribution:

I believe that those w/ADHD develop neural connections properly, then are unable to use them efficiently because of fautly neurotransmitter mechanisms.

I wonder if there is a severity of AD/HD that prevents the proper development of neural connections? Perhaps some early (infancy) developmental delays currently attributed to other causes might actually be due to severe ADHD?

HF, the background information you are saying I should link to would require VOLUMES of "citations". Posting a hyperlink (or 50) to explain the background of the distributions of human behavior is rediculous. If there are specific questions about the basis of my statements, I am happy to address them. Otherwise I'll stick with citing only what I think needs a proximal foundation.


If your definition of explanation is the most detailed, lengthy one possible, then yes.


Theories that are not testable or have no potential for testing are dropped by the general scientific community. What theories do you believe are only "partly" testable???


I don't know, but why is such impossible? Are theories atomic (indivisible, cannot be split into subtheories)?


the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "Theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


So, if a theory is a collection of theorems, you are saying that these theorems cannot be individually tested? What if some of these individual theorems are testable, while others are not? How is this illogical?


This is fine; but it does NOT make it science. I am VERY bothered by faith-based "ideas" trying to pass themselves off as scientific because there is some PART that is evidence-based and not admitting to limitations of untestability. (I'm sure this has been obvious if you've read any of my posts :p.)


Again, I say that:


None of these are, in a sense, proofs of validity, at least with respect to scientific theory, if that was the original question. Just because it isn't scientific doesn't mean that these factors do not do anything to increase or decrease the probablility that an idea will model reality.



A rather inefficient (IMO) way of going about acquiring knowledge....


How does this opinion apply to 100% of the human race?


Example:

CLAIM: All dogs have four legs.
BASIS OF CLAIM: I have seen thousands of dogs. All have had four legs.
MORE EVIDENCE: Mammals have four appendages in general and dogs are mammals, etc. etc. etc.

This is a pretty strong, well-supported claim. However, as soon as a counter-example is introduced (a three-legged dog), the claim goes OUT THE WINDOW. It's over.


Well, yes. To say that all dogs have four legs, and to attach an example of 1000 dogs with four legs, you are adding weight to your claim (what I've been saying). But here's the test. If it doesn't have four legs, is it really a dog to begin with? If all other characteristics (obvious ones and internal ones, genetics, etc.) of a dog apply to the three legged creature, then we would say yes, because balancing the equation in that direction (declaring that not all dogs have four legs) is much easier than redesigning our classification system. It's only a dog if we call it one, within the systems we use to determine if it is one.


People have made repeated claims of scientific understanding and have criticized requests for evidence of these claims by saying that the people asking for such evidence simply "don't understand" or "don't want to accept" or are "uncomfortable with 'revolutionary' ideas". THESE types of comments are offensive, untrue, and stem from ignorance.


Well, if you have been directly criticized about wanting evidence, provided that you weren't trying to make obvious predisopsitions about the argument simply due to lack of evidence at the time (i.e. preemptively stating falseness if evidence could not be provided), then I will agree with you.

I do remember though the claim in the "Etiology of ADD" thread about you stating that if evidence cannot at all be given, that it is faith (regarding Stabile). Irrespective of whether or not they [Stabile's ideas] are true, I don't think it is correct to assume that his entire line of thinking is based on "faith". Heck, religion isn't entirely "faith" (mostly though), why would his ideas be? Making such a claim was probably quite offensive to him as well (and Kay in whatever appropriate settings). Whether or not it is B.S., I'm sure he did have to do some homework in order to make the statements that he does.


Reasoning is just as important in any argument as the premise of the argument. But, valid reasoning alone does not and cannot provide confidence in a conclusion. Confidence in the underlying premises is also necessary.


Again, I said both DATA and LOGIC were important:

My bottom line/opinion here is/has been that an idea has to be both supported by empirical DATA and it also has to shown to be systematically consistent with everything else.



When placed in context, my statement is that explanations for underlying premises are too lengthy and involved to be included in every claim. I will always be happy to provide explanations and evidence for what premises are questioned. I will NOT, however, begin every post with a book explaining every underlying premise.


Did I say a book?

Absolutely not. Anything is better than nothing at all (unless it is blatantly wrong). A hyperlink to background information, or a concise, basic idea would be nice. Just remember who you're posting for (ADDers).


Now, that does not imply that one can describe what actually happens in a completely accurate manner. It should be able to be reduced down to something that we can understand (based on your theory that this is possible, from the "Creating Your Own Reality" thread) and made consice enough for us to read. And just once in a while...


If this is your bottom line, why all the criticism??? Why the mischaracterization of skepticism? MAYBE I'm reading into this, but I am offended. I believe the statements you made below, along with other statements made on this forum (below) are directly aimed at members like me (and, in some cases, ME) who have insisted on empirical evidence to support claims.


Please quote my criticism torwards you. The quote about people thinking in terms of "disconnected factual information" is directed torwards the people who I work with on a daily basis that frustrate me. I mean, they've been using computers for ... 15+ years, and still cannot think themselves out of a paper bag? They need a list of instructions to practically do anything, or so it seems.

I guess it was only directed at you if that is the way you think others see