Regardless of the fact that the concept of "hyperfocus" hasn't been proven, regardless of the fact that terms like "visual-spacial thinking" are still very blurry to some people, I myself, as an ADD'er, believe they do exist, together perhaps with other concepts.

But can we, as AD/HD'ers, control them mentally (not medically)? Has anyone found his or her AD/HD On/Off-button? Has there been research into this?

How do I feed the Google to find answers?

Thanks much for your time.

ADHD has no "off" button. Hyperfocus among those with ADHD is well known. I doubt it requires further proof.

To learn more about visualspatial stuff... google search for "visualspatial processing deficit" and google for "visual-spatial learning style"

What is the relationship between the visualspatial defecit and learning style among ADDers? Why ? I'm curious to see if you come to the same conclusion that I did.

You might also wish to read up on verbal IQ and performance IQ. Try comparing and contrasting learning style with verbal/performance IQ across disorders like ADHD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, PDD, and Bipolar Disorder.

Why are ADDers so very much like like aspies and not like autistics in terms of learning style, and verbal/nonverbal IQ scores ?

It is quite revealing.

Me :D

Regardless of the fact that the concept of "hyperfocus" hasn't been proven, regardless of the fact that terms like "visual-spacial thinking" are still very blurry to some people, I myself, as an ADD'er, believe they do exist, together perhaps with other concepts.

But can we, as AD/HD'ers, control them mentally (not medically)? Has anyone found his or her AD/HD On/Off-button? Has there been research into this?

How do I feed the Google to find answers?

Thanks much for your time.

What is the relationship between the visualspatial defecit and learning style among ADDers? Why ? I'm curious to see if you come to the same conclusion that I did.

You might also wish to read up on verbal IQ and performance IQ. Try comparing and contrasting learning style with verbal/performance IQ across disorders like ADHD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, PDD, and Bipolar Disorder.

Why are ADDers so very much like like aspies and not like autistics in terms of learning style, and verbal/nonverbal IQ scores ?

It is quite revealing.

I've actually been trying to find answers to some of those questions (especially the last one). As a lazy ADDer (and someone whose capacity for medical research is nil after the 1400-page physician fee schedule was published earlier this week), would you mind posting or PMing me some of the research you've found?

But can we, as AD/HD'ers, control them mentally (not medically)? Has anyone found his or her AD/HD On/Off-button? Has there been research into this?As a fighter studying martial arts, we learn how to find the "on/off" button for a number of things like pain perception. I have yet to find an "on/off" switch for things like attention or impulse control when not on medication. And keep in mind that I do know how to pay attention because I have been taking meds for over two years, and obviously my training involves a certain amount of attention and focus, but without medication I simply cannot "activate" those functions. In fact, to a certain extent I actually lose awareness that those functions even exist.

I think I have a partial answer to the last question which I posed.to Bert.

In cases of "classic" autism there is a language delay. As the individual develops, the delay is expressed in a wider differential between the verbal and performance IQ.

Because language skills are less developed in persons with a language delay, one can reasonably expect the performance IQ in autistics to be higher than the verbal IQ. In fact this is usually the case.

In asperger's syndrome, there is no language delay, but there are still issues with nonverbal communication skills, and ADHD is frequently present. In these individuals, verbal IQ is measurably higher than performance IQ.

In persons with ADHD, there is usually no language delay, but sociual skills and cognitive skills are impaired. The typical ADDer usually has a verbal IQ that is substantially higher than the performance IQ.

From the accounts that I have read, most autistics report having a learning style that is exclusively either visual or auditory... but never both. Indeed, autistics are famous for "thinking in pictures". In Asperger's syndrome, patients report having a tendency toward one style or the other at any given moment. Aspies do not seem to have a tendency to be strictly stuck with one particular learning style. Interestingly enough, one individual reported that his "picture thinking" shuts off when someone talks to him.

An informal poll on this forum suggests that most people with ADHD have a primarilly visualspatial learning style. In my case, I've noticed that I often do a lot better using visualspatial techniques to solve problems than by resorting to auditory sequential tactics. However, I am not exclusively visualspatial in style, I can, and do use auditory sequential thinking to solve problems, but only if I must. Like the aspie who commented about his picture thinking shutting off when someone talks to him, I can not use both visualspatial and auditory styles concurrently. If I am performaing a task that requires visualspatial learning style, I can not function if someone is talking to me, or if there is much noise... I feel distracted and stressed.


I've often wondered if this is why I, and many other ADDers suffer from sensory issues.

A common issue for ADDers is a visualspatial processing defecit. It makes us slow to process what is going on around us, and makes us susceptable to overload.

Indeed, a visualspatial processing defecit in the face of a primarilly visualspatial learning style suggests that soething is amis. HF suggested that it might be due to the ADDer tendency to seek to the strongest stimulus, where visual imput is perpsistent and thus more compelling to an ADDer, where sound can be strong stimulation, but is typically temporal in nature... thus , even with a visualspatial processing defecit , we tend toward a visualspatial learning style, and thinking is pictures is a strong suit for many of us.

The problem here is that with a visualspatial processing defecit and a primarilly visualspatial learning style, it means that we are going to be slow to process information and that strong sensory input from our other senses can overload us easily. The end result is that we (people with ADHD) are scattered, distracted, anxious, and hypersensitive.

Me :D

[...] google search for "visualspatial processing deficit" and google for "visual-spatial learning style"

What [...] Why ? [...] You might also wish to read up on [...] Why are ADDers so very much like [...]Dear Mr. Speedo,

Thank you for adding an additional 100+ or so links to my fantastically organized bookmarks. :p:p
Seriously, pun aside, thank you very much. I'll try to gradually work my way through your suggestions and your answers.

You are more than welcome. For me, this is an idea that is under construction. It is the model for my adhd. I don't know for sure if it fits ADHD in general.. but I suspect that at the least it fits many ADDers.

I think the key to why ADHD exists is in the visualspatial processing defecit... It is just my opinion, and I am imprinting my own disorder on that notion. IF I did not have processing problems, the sensory issues and attention problems would be gone. I'd be "normal".....



Me :D

Note: the people in this section of the forum show an amazing amount of scientific knowledge. Mine faints in their presence, but I will try to help in achieving a constructive and fruitful discussion. Apologies in advance for any stupidities I post.

ADHD has no "off" button.I presume you are referring to things like genetics; it's in our biology, so it's always there? I agree, but we all have moments where the ADHD seems to present itself more, or less. The disorganization in our brain seems to not be on a constant level.

Hyperfocus among those with ADHD is well known. I doubt it requires further proof.Not to us, the AD/HD'ers, but if my friends ask me what this thing called "hyperfocus" actually is I'm in trouble. Isn't hyperfocus one of many parts of AD/HD, that when researched (if at all possible), will give us a better insight in the mechanism of AD/HD?

I actually had to explain to my "coach" (a psychologist) that there are (at least in my case) different levels of hyperfocus. There's the bad level where I start focussing, unwillingly I think, on negative thoughts and can't let go of them. There's the "good" kind of HF where I can deeply concentrate on a subject or something I want to research; if it goes on long enough, I almost feel sort of highly spiritual and calm. There's also everything in between those two.
Ever since I started reading about ADHD this question pops up: "Can we trigger HF and/or can we --in case of negative HF-- stop it?" I have no clue why, but I believe the latter is much more difficult to stop than it is possible to trigger the good HF. Example: let's say you order me to go in HF for an extended period in time. I believe this is possible, when you start of at the principle that I will never HF (the positive kind) on something I don't like or have no interest in. All I would have to do is think about all the subjects I like reading/researching about (typically too many), and depending on the weather or my mood of the day, pick one. With a bit of luck, 10 minutes later I'm in (some variation of) HF.

To learn more about visualspatial stuff... google search for "visualspatial processing deficit" and google for "visual-spatial learning style"

What is the relationship between the visualspatial defecit and learning style among ADDers? Why ? I'm curious to see if you come to the same conclusion that I did.Please bare with me, I'm afraid it'll take me some time to be able to correctly answer this.
You did blow me off my feet though when you presented the words "visualspatial defecit". Another one?! Over here, on the other side of the pond, most websites tend not to call it a deficit, and I myself have a strong tendency as well to view it as a positive aspect. One you *can* trigger, to boot ... .
Huh? Let me note first that I tend to think about this too much in terms of "pictures" and "3D", but tests in school showed quite early that I was extremely good (I don't want to brag, it's just what happened) in trying to gain an insight in 2D and 3D structures. Later on, people told me I didn't "reason" the way they did. After ADHD came into my life and I got diagnosed it became always more clear that I don't often process information in a "linear" way, like most people do. (On a side-note, I also believe this is related to the "inner voice"). Most of the time I process things through images, and again, I think this can be very positive and can be triggered.
A few examples: I used to work in metal construction, so now and again I had to control large deliveries of tubing, beams, and what not. We used a 5Ton+ crane to do this. In order to steer it more or less safely through the hangar, you need some insight in the mechanics of a large mass hanging on some chains. You also need an insight in the possibilities of the crane and the layout of the workplace. My theory is that "normal" people tend to process this information much slower than we do. In a timespan of a few seconds, I will see a few images in my head and know how to stear the crane.
I would love to find a reference to this, but I read somewhere that VST can process 30 or so concepts per minute, whereas "normal" (..) reasoning only processes 5 or so.
Another example: I tend to do a bit of woodworking in my spare time, so when I want to think about how to construct something, all I will do is play a movie in my head. I can imagine this to be quite unbelievable for people unfamiliar with the concept, but it's as simple as it is: I can really see the different components and manipulate them in my head.
Ironically, when doing the searches you suggested, I came on a Wikipedia-page called "Spatial Visualization *Ability*", see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_Visualization_Ability). Nice eh? But yes, it does have disadvantages: I think VST makes it quite impossible for me to study large, abstract courses at university. Or to "reason" without branching out too much. That is not to say I can only use VST to think about objects; it's hard to explain, but I am perfectly capable of using it when thinking about abstract things like relationships. All I have to do is sit down, close my eyes and there's the movie.
Hence, I think you can trigger VST.
(I noticed you wrote something in your next post on why you think VST can impair us but I would like to react on that later).

You might also wish to read up on verbal IQ and performance IQ.Hmm. Need to digg up the report on my WAIS-III test again. IIRC, there were quite some discrepancies between the two, which was said to be one of the reasons for my being diagnosed with ADD.
Will try and read up on this, yes.

Try comparing and contrasting learning style with verbal/performance IQ across disorders like ADHD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, PDD, and Bipolar Disorder.

Why are ADDers so very much like like aspies and not like autistics in terms of learning style, and verbal/nonverbal IQ scores ?You've generally lost me there, but I'll study things, thanks. Although I started reading about ADHD long before being diagnosed I still have a quite rudimentary view of the mechanics behind it. For me it's still "too many incoming signals, plus special aspects like hyperfocus and VST".
And a multitude of other things of course, like the social/communication deficiencies in Asperger's for instance, although I often think of these as a "consequence of the consequences" of the ADHD, not as a mark of the desease itself. But again, I'm no scientist.

@Hyperion:

As a fighter studying martial arts, we learn how to find the "on/off" button for a number of things like pain perception. I have yet to find an "on/off" switch for things like attention or impulse control when not on medication.Does the concept of "Mind like water" sound familiar to you? I first read it in David Allen's book about productivity and organisation (for those of you interested: page 10 in "The art of stress-free productivity", here's (http://wiki.jeffsandquist.com/default.aspx/GTD/MindLikeWater.html) some more info), and it is said to come out of the Martial arts (karate I believe). For those unfamiliar with it: basically, it's a state of mind, where you try to have the spirit of a calm lake. If you throw a pebble in it, the water adapts to take the pebble in. The water is ready to react to anything.
It actually works too; when I practised it (or at least tried to, it's not as if you turn on the light) I actually felt more ready to answer questions from my bosses or to react to their needs. It does however require you to get the basics right first, i.e. have your basic organisation in order.

My interest in an organisational system, time-management etc., actually lead me to my diagnose, because lots of ADHD-people try to implement these in their everyday lives, but that's another story.

But the concept of "Mind like water" is one of the reasons why I would like to explore the idea of mentally controlling/adapting/using some of our ADHD-traits.

And keep in mind that I do know how to pay attention because I have been taking meds for over two years, and obviously my training involves a certain amount of attention and focus, but without medication I simply cannot "activate" those functions. In fact, to a certain extent I actually lose awareness that those functions even exist.I can relate to that but I can't, like you, find an immediate answer/solution to it. But I refuse to accept that there is *no* solution until we have explored the possibility and have come to the definitive conclusion that there *is* no solution. For instance, lots of people use reminders in their cell-phones, which are supposed to trigger us and make us pay attention. No? Ok, it's not exactly mindcontrol, but there's other things, like trying to concentrate on nice things when trying to catch some sleep. Aren't things like that some sort of trying to bend/trigger the mind?

Here is a useful link with some reading about visualspatial processing deficits; http://www.nanonline.org/nandistance/mtbi/ClinNeuro/visual.html

Contains a short paragraph outlining the role of visualspatial processing deficits in ADHD; http://ezinearticles.com/?Learning-Disabilities-Associated-with-ADHD&id=217291

This is about ADHD in general. it is a pretty good read... http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/00auggen.htm

Here is an abstract with a few facts about adhd and processing deficits; http://jad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/4/208

another article worth reading; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/pn-mas_1052406.php

This is probably mor ethan you care to know about attention; http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541543_6

assorted trivia on LD, ADHD, etc; http://www.ldonline.org/article/6390
Me :D





Note: the people in this section of the forum show an amazing amount of scientific knowledge. Mine faints in their presence, but I will try to help in achieving a constructive and fruitful discussion. Apologies in advance for any stupidities I post.

I presume you are referring to things like genetics; it's in our biology, so it's always there? I agree, but we all have moments where the ADHD seems to present itself more, or less. The disorganization in our brain seems to not be on a constant level.

Not to us, the AD/HD'ers, but if my friends ask me what this thing called "hyperfocus" actually is I'm in trouble. Isn't hyperfocus one of many parts of AD/HD, that when researched (if at all possible), will give us a better insight in the mechanism of AD/HD?

I actually had to explain to my "coach" (a psychologist) that there are (at least in my case) different levels of hyperfocus. There's the bad level where I start focussing, unwillingly I think, on negative thoughts and can't let go of them. There's the "good" kind of HF where I can deeply concentrate on a subject or something I want to research; if it goes on long enough, I almost feel sort of highly spiritual and calm. There's also everything in between those two.
Ever since I started reading about ADHD this question pops up: "Can we trigger HF and/or can we --in case of negative HF-- stop it?" I have no clue why, but I believe the latter is much more difficult to stop than it is possible to trigger the good HF. Example: let's say you order me to go in HF for an extended period in time. I believe this is possible, when you start of at the principle that I will never HF (the positive kind) on something I don't like or have no interest in. All I would have to do is think about all the subjects I like reading/researching about (typically too many), and depending on the weather or my mood of the day, pick one. With a bit of luck, 10 minutes later I'm in (some variation of) HF.

Please bare with me, I'm afraid it'll take me some time to be able to correctly answer this.
You did blow me off my feet though when you presented the words "visualspatial defecit". Another one?! Over here, on the other side of the pond, most websites tend not to call it a deficit, and I myself have a strong tendency as well to view it as a positive aspect. One you *can* trigger, to boot ... .
Huh? Let me note first that I tend to think about this too much in terms of "pictures" and "3D", but tests in school showed quite early that I was extremely good (I don't want to brag, it's just what happened) in trying to gain an insight in 2D and 3D structures. Later on, people told me I didn't "reason" the way they did. After ADHD came into my life and I got diagnosed it became always more clear that I don't often process information in a "linear" way, like most people do. (On a side-note, I also believe this is related to the "inner voice"). Most of the time I process things through images, and again, I think this can be very positive and can be triggered.
A few examples: I used to work in metal construction, so now and again I had to control large deliveries of tubing, beams, and what not. We used a 5Ton+ crane to do this. In order to steer it more or less safely through the hangar, you need some insight in the mechanics of a large mass hanging on some chains. You also need an insight in the possibilities of the crane and the layout of the workplace. My theory is that "normal" people tend to process this information much slower than we do. In a timespan of a few seconds, I will see a few images in my head and know how to stear the crane.
I would love to find a reference to this, but I read somewhere that VST can process 30 or so concepts per minute, whereas "normal" (..) reasoning only processes 5 or so.
Another example: I tend to do a bit of woodworking in my spare time, so when I want to think about how to construct something, all I will do is play a movie in my head. I can imagine this to be quite unbelievable for people unfamiliar with the concept, but it's as simple as it is: I can really see the different components and manipulate them in my head.
Ironically, when doing the searches you suggested, I came on a Wikipedia-page called "Spatial Visualization *Ability*", see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_Visualization_Ability). Nice eh? But yes, it does have disadvantages: I think VST makes it quite impossible for me to study large, abstract courses at university. Or to "reason" without branching out too much. That is not to say I can only use VST to think about objects; it's hard to explain, but I am perfectly capable of using it when thinking about abstract things like relationships. All I have to do is sit down, close my eyes and there's the movie.
Hence, I think you can trigger VST.
(I noticed you wrote something in your next post on why you think VST can impair us but I would like to react on that later).

Hmm. Need to digg up the report on my WAIS-III test again. IIRC, there were quite some discrepancies between the two, which was said to be one of the reasons for my being diagnosed with ADD.
Will try and read up on this, yes.

You've generally lost me there, but I'll study things, thanks. Although I started reading about ADHD long before being diagnosed I still have a quite rudimentary view of the mechanics behind it. For me it's still "too many incoming signals, plus special aspects like hyperfocus and VST".
And a multitude of other things of course, like the social/communication deficiencies in Asperger's for instance, although I often think of these as a "consequence of the consequences" of the ADHD, not as a mark of the desease itself. But again, I'm no scientist.

@Hyperion:

Does the concept of "Mind like water" sound familiar to you? I first read it in David Allen's book about productivity and organisation (for those of you interested: page 10 in "The art of stress-free productivity", here's (http://wiki.jeffsandquist.com/default.aspx/GTD/MindLikeWater.html) some more info), and it is said to come out of the Martial arts (karate I believe). For those unfamiliar with it: basically, it's a state of mind, where you try to have the spirit of a calm lake. If you throw a pebble in it, the water adapts to take the pebble in. The water is ready to react to anything.
It actually works too; when I practised it (or at least tried to, it's not as if you turn on the light) I actually felt more ready to answer questions from my bosses or to react to their needs. It does however require you to get the basics right first, i.e. have your basic organisation in order.

My interest in an organisational system, time-management etc., actually lead me to my diagnose, because lots of ADHD-people try to implement these in their everyday lives, but that's another story.

But the concept of "Mind like water" is one of the reasons why I would like to explore the idea of mentally controlling/adapting/using some of our ADHD-traits.

I can relate to that but I can't, like you, find an immediate answer/solution to it. But I refuse to accept that there is *no* solution until we have explored the possibility and have come to the definitive conclusion that there *is* no solution. For instance, lots of people use reminders in their cell-phones, which are supposed to trigger us and make us pay attention. No? Ok, it's not exactly mindcontrol, but there's other things, like trying to concentrate on nice things when trying to catch some sleep. Aren't things like that some sort of trying to bend/trigger the mind?

Great thread - good points Storm - you have a good insight into your own mind - and perhaps Speedo answered your question -
- 'What is hyperforcus?' -

... two patterns of thought - linearity in language [stringing together linguistic models in a sentence] and non-linearity in internal thought [ADDer thought, hyperfocus] ... so ... just as Speedo writes - there's a transition betwen these two patterns ... {ordinarily}

mind == our reality
mind == structured model - structured on efficiency of data storage and not speed of storage (therefore more efficient storage (spatially) however with time cost)
... can push more of reality into a mind with a mind with more efficient structure - think a suitcase packed by me and one packed by my wife - hmmm...(oh yeah)... noting that I am incapable of folding clothes.

now ... imagine that -
->- hyperfocus feels nice (we've nailed down why on the forum - can point you to a few posts on the subject later)
->- that nonlinearity of thought is preferred but which is countered by linearity in communication - expression ...

... well - you kinda' arrive at the mechanism of circumventing this observation ...
-there's a transition betwen these two patterns ... {ordinarily}

- a novel structure in expression or communication - which is not understood in the standard way -

... the general idea underneath the increased expressivity described by
the academic discipline of "semiotics" ->- check out a coupla'googls [search-semiotics,metonymy,metaphor,synecdoche,Saussure] ->-
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem07.html --- the merest of tastes from that site --- as Big Wally's quips ... 'reality is a cliché from which we escape by metaphor.'

But can we, as AD/HD'ers, control them mentally (not medically)? Has anyone found his or her AD/HD On/Off-button? Has there been research into this?



Are you asking if we can turn the ADD off or the visual learning stuff? I can switch back and fourth between visual and auditory. I can read one thing with my eyes and listen to another thing with my ears. It bugs my partner a lot because he will talk to me while I am reading or typing and I can keep doing this even while he is talking. He used to accuse me of not listening until he found 9.5 out of 10 times I could repeat what he said and respond verbally in a coherent manner. I am notorious for talking on the phone while also participating in discussions here. Visual is one sensory processing area auditory is another. . . . until recently I though it was that way for every one. The only thing that stumps me with this is if both conversation require calculations or complex in depth responses.

Turn off my ADD no but some environments flow with my particular brand of ADD while other simply do not “gel well” with my traits. I think the ability to perform well in some environments while flubbing in others is pretty much a human experience Personally for me ADD means I tend to fall at one end of the spectrum or the other.

I see my ADHD as a tendency to avoid middle ground. I am either really good at some thing or I really suck. . . . .People either like me or hate my guts.

@SB_UK, @speedo: thanks, again, for the many links. Will try and read up on them.

@meadd823:

Are you asking if we can turn the ADD off or the visual learning stuff?It's only now that I realise the way in which my post is perceived. Wrong grammar, my bad. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to edit in some sort of update.
No, I realise we cannot turn off ADHD (as a whole), as if it's a simple lightbulb, but yes, I think we can turn ON the hyperfocus, the VST, and possibly other aspects of the ADHD as a whole.

I can switch back and fourth between visual and auditory. I can read one thing with my eyes and listen to another thing with my ears. It bugs my partner a lot because he will talk to me while I am reading or typing and I can keep doing this even while he is talking. He used to accuse me of not listening until he found 9.5 out of 10 times I could repeat what he said and respond verbally in a coherent manner. I am notorious for talking on the phone while also participating in discussions here. Visual is one sensory processing area auditory is another. . . . until recently I though it was that way for every one. The only thing that stumps me with this is if both conversation require calculations or complex in depth responses.How do we need to see this? Are you multi-tasking (combining short, fast spans of listening with short, fast spans of reading for example)? Or does it all flow together naturally? Does it always work like this for you or is it only on occasions you choose? Can you trigger it? Does it pop up and does it sometimes cause you trouble (for instance when seeing a movie)?

Turn off my ADD no but some environments flow with my particular brand of ADD while other simply do not “gel well” with my traits.What I would like to know is whether we can make our ADD flow with some environments.
Can you trigger hyperfocus to enjoy the positive aspects of it?
Can you mentally stop hyperfocus to counter the unwanted negative consequences of it?
Can you trigger VST to enjoy the positive aspects of it?
Can you mentally stop VST to counter the unwanted negative consequences of it?
Can you trigger the ability of many ADHD'ers to take in multiple sources of information at once and enjoy the positive aspects of this?
Can ADHD'ers mentally stop their tendency to take in, unwillingly, multiple sources of information at once and enjoy the positive aspects of this?

It's only now that I realize the way in which my post is perceived. Wrong grammar, my bad. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to edit in some sort of update.

Please do not take the blame for my mis-understanding; it happens to me all the time. Where most only see one possible meaning I see two, four, some times more. I have been known to get lost in all the different possible meanings. Absolutely nothing wrong with your post.




does it all flow together naturally? Does it always work like this for you or is it only on occasions you choose? Can you trigger it? Does it pop up and does it sometimes cause you trouble (for instance when seeing a movie)?

I have a hard time being able to sit through a movie. Until my forties I was unable to even on medications. . . . . .but I could guess the plot in about fifteen minutes.

My brain does the multi tracks naturally it has always been this way. Heck I didn’t know there was any thing unusual about it until one of the docs I worked with asked if I was actually switching my focus back and forth rapidly between the conversation I was having with a patient about her lab and the drug screen paper work I was filling out on another. In a way both. . . . .best described I have four conscious tracks. I had one mental track on the paper work and another separate one the conversation (one was visual the other was auditory) with a third switching back forth between the two. A fourth track notice the doc walking through my lab and stopping long enough to look at me with a strange expression. He told me this way was unusual.(not in my family)

If a stimuli can be perceived my brain will process it weather or not I want it to. Some times I sense sight, sound, smell, tactile, and emotion together in one large moment at other times I can separate the processing of my senses as separate.

Medication allows for me to have more conscious control over where the tracks in my mind go and it take less mental energy to keep them straight. They do get tangled some times which can lead to some interesting. . . I will become over loaded by noise or smell before sight or tactile sensations. Medication also allow for other mini-moment sigh post that remind me to quit typing responses to post in social situations, not for my benefit but their comfort. To the out side observer continuing to type is interoperated as me not paying attention or feeling what they have to say as unimportant. It took Gary a couple of years to get used to this. . . he used to grill me on what he just said which I could repeat using his exact words 9 times out of ten times He (and most people ) have a body language auto interpretation which can be hard to over ride. Another topic all together.

I enhance this ability not only with medications which do serve to fine tune this so that it’s advantage are enhanced while decreasing negative side effects. One of the benefits is being able to tone it down social situations so I am not perceived as rude or air headed. I also can increase the ability by modify my external environment. I am typing this wearing head phones which drowns out Gary’s TV and the redundant advertising which drives me to wanting to though the thing out the front door as well as be able to ignore his phone conversation with his son . . . .

Recommend the book “Fidget to Focus” Short-n-sweat (under 150 pages total-easy read) and it offers very useful ideas on how to keep an ADD brain adequately stimulated to increase the ability to focus on task that would other wise be not stimulating enough to hold our attention.

“Fidget to Focus”
by Roland Rotz, Ph.D Sarah D. Wright, M.S., A.C.T.

page20-21


From a neurologist’s point of view, underaraousal is generally considered to be an under representation of critical neurotransmitters that facilitate the transfer of electrical impulses, which in turn represents a thought or action.. There continues to be a great deal of questions about how this process really works. However by watching and learning, we are beginning to understand one very important of the process: underarousal seeks arousal.

There is a homeostasis, a tendency to maintain internal equilibrium, in our neurobiological system that attempts to compensate when we are under aroused. We use our own built in sensory mechanisms to increase neural stimulation, which from an Add perspective, allows us to improve focus. In essence, out distractibility is really attractability to interesting things around us. Our restlessness is not just an expression to trying to “get out the fidgets” in order to become calm. It is rather an attempt to self-arousal to become focused (End Quote)

In front of me a flier for ...

'As of recently we're noticed that in our Cambridge Creche - our childrne just can't sit still - and so this year we're going to try something different.
X(deleted) creche is proud to present the 'Wiggly Nativity' ...
... oh my God!
literally.

Tammy puts the wiggles into ~Christmas~
or
is that - scares the bejeezus into the traditional nativity play?

Either way - as Dylan was so keen to teach us - 'the times they are about a quarter past 5 in the morning"

:-)

Tammy puts the wiggles into ~Christmas~
or
is that - scares the bejeezus into the traditional nativity play?

I got in trouble several times as a small child for playing in the nativity scene.

I have found most things are easier to wiggle into than out of. . . .except my birthday suit. Can't seem to wiggle out of that; I think it kind of grew on me. . . . .I am traditional only if traditional is different every day. . . . .

Thoughts scatter like marbles along a tile floor each rolling to find it's own way. Then without warning the marbles reassemble again. . . . . .The pattern is rarely the same twice. . . .what I am is what I was meant to be because I can't seem to be able to be one else but me. . . . .I try to take the journey one step at a time until I grow bored and decide to take a flight and away we go soaring over the land and seas until it comes time to re-attach to the external reality. Again the mind spills like marbles upon the tile floor. . . .thoughts divide scattered rolling in directional diversity . . . .Only to reassemble into a unique patterns most fail to perceive. . . .this is life lived in my own shared reality. . .

~Every thing in this life can be replaced with the exception of two. Time and the people with whom we share it ~ a Tammy original


*-*what I am is what I was meant to be because I can't seem to be able to be one else but me*-* Tammy original just now- these things do happen (shrug)

now -taking the chance to deviate a little from the subject-since I am way too tired to even try to read it I'd like to share the following supposition:

the connectionist models of mind used "the harmony theory" this would be a map that would determine the neural netowrk to react to the environement based on stored information so it reaches the highest "harmony" state...based on this theory they built neural networks that model the way a human may discrimintae between auditive stimuly in a noisy room - therefore only one stimulus -the teacher voice i.e reaches the highest leve-the "semantic" one-and it is actually heard while the rest are only noise.
Using this model as a start point I could only imagine the chemical processes within the brain acting as "the harmony theory" and their delicate balance as "governing" the output of mental processes.

now, sorry for the digression but the words "ad/hd" and "control panel" just brought this analogy in my mind and could not resist the impulse to share it....

meadd

I find it interesting they you can do visual things and process auditory at the same time. That is the kind of thing that overloads me. I have to do one or the other, but not both.

I'd almost bet that if you looked at the results of your neuropsych testing that your visualspatial processing is good. Perhaps you are one of the adders who has good processing ??? I'm certainly not. I have to constantly be self aware and make efforts to avoid overload scenarios.

ME :D

I can't trigger hyperfocus, but I have learned to use it to my advantage when I do have it. I enjoy hyperfocus tremendously. It is the most lucid state that I experience.

I can also multitask like crazy but I run a risk of overloading suddenly... sometimes with rather dramatic consequences... so I prefer to not multitask heavily unless I must. I can end up overfocused and unable to prioritize... it can be a bad thing.

I can switch from visualspatial to auditory learning style at will. I can also switch from left to right brained activities, and back a lot easier than "normal" people.
Don't ask me to do both at the same time. I really can't do it very well.

I seem to multitask naturally. I can talk to two people at once without any trouble at all. Just don't ask me to remember a list of things when doing that.

I'm pretty sure that I do a lot of "background" multitasking automatically... but like I said , I have a tendency to overload, so it can be a bad things just as easily as it can be a good thing for me.

ME :D


@SB_UK, @speedo: thanks, again, for the many links. Will try and read up on them.

@meadd823:

It's only now that I realise the way in which my post is perceived. Wrong grammar, my bad. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to edit in some sort of update.
No, I realise we cannot turn off ADHD (as a whole), as if it's a simple lightbulb, but yes, I think we can turn ON the hyperfocus, the VST, and possibly other aspects of the ADHD as a whole.

How do we need to see this? Are you multi-tasking (combining short, fast spans of listening with short, fast spans of reading for example)? Or does it all flow together naturally? Does it always work like this for you or is it only on occasions you choose? Can you trigger it? Does it pop up and does it sometimes cause you trouble (for instance when seeing a movie)?

What I would like to know is whether we can make our ADD flow with some environments.
Can you trigger hyperfocus to enjoy the positive aspects of it?
Can you mentally stop hyperfocus to counter the unwanted negative consequences of it?
Can you trigger VST to enjoy the positive aspects of it?
Can you mentally stop VST to counter the unwanted negative consequences of it?
Can you trigger the ability of many ADHD'ers to take in multiple sources of information at once and enjoy the positive aspects of this?
Can ADHD'ers mentally stop their tendency to take in, unwillingly, multiple sources of information at once and enjoy the positive aspects of this?

...the connectionist models of mind ...*great* call Ana -
- Bart -
...connectionism, dynamicism and symbolicism courtesy of Tammy -
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=259015&postcount=153

- please scroll down ~though~ *after* reading Tam's post -
... I attempt (badly) to align these schools -
- any assistance in clarifying theoretical models for mind would be greatly appreciated ... my own school 'mushypeasforbrainsism' craves repackaging.

:-)

I was just hoping someone else will be kind enough to post more details about...
since I am lately also adding the "full time working mom of 3 syndrome" to my pre-existent conditions....

ok , the symbolic model...it is something a la Platon or Descartes or whatever ...
you got "concepts" and you got "objects" and functions that map "objects" to "concepts"...like von Neumann Computers and even better Turing machines....
and if there is a "control panel" it will be somewhere at a meta level.

the connectionist model uses a neural network to model mental processes. Now a neural network is somewhat similar to the brain-there are neurons, connections, there is a structure, electrical impulses and tresholds...but there is a *tiny* difference- human brain has many, many neurons-don't remeber how many but has to be a lot of them since my kids killed few hundreds of mine and I am still able to blabber about them here-while the neural network only has few...

Now "concepts" are "patterns of activation"...therefore they are contained in the connections between units and not in the units....for example a connection n1n2n5 means dog - if we add n3n4 it is a small dog while n6n9 is big ...
the network learns by being exposed to information /electrical impulses in repeatedly...impulses that are to week or to strong will not have any impact on the network because there is usally a treshold function that limits its neurons to processing only impulses within a certain range of intensity...once the network has "learned" even partial information - impulse + noise -will activate the same group of neurons => same output...

in this case the "control pannel" is within the network itself-the functions/rules that govern its processes and its own structure .

The dynamic model...considers mind, information and environement a complex system so it is trying to develop a model based on the math of complex systems- I think those are the same guys that think they are able to model huricanes. I do not know why I think at it in terms of chaos theory-I think what I read with my son in Jurassic Park kind of melted with it , and now I can not make what was one , what was the other...but I have to admit it is hard for me to comprehend it- but it is also too hard to represent myself as a bunch of atoms bouncing happyly around in an electromagnetic field.

<!-- / sig --><!-- controls -->
Now "concepts" are "patterns of activation"

... therefore they are contained in the connections between units and not in the units ...

... for example a connection n1n2n5 means dog - if we add n3n4 it is a small dog while n6n9 is big ...
==

You’re right, this is getting to be fun. To make this briefer and easier to read, I’ll break my reply into two parts. Paul first:
Boy, you’ve described exactly how I approach multiplication. The thing about tables (and any rote learning) is that you have to memorize the entire metamodel for a thing, what the normals would call a paradigm.
That means every relationship and every relevant piece of information that is related. The whole thing is complete, in one lump, but there are no elements dedicated to the information that we encode in the levels of the metamodel web. It’s all flat.
In contrast, store the same information in a metamodel web, and all you have are the relationships. The information and the relationships are a proper dual, both encoding the same stuff, so it would be wasteful to store both if you can reconstruct one from the other.
But the relationships are simpler, especially for something like multiplication. And they hold a richer form of the underlying information, which is why the rote model has to store some relationships, too.
But the biggest advantage is that the relationships can be linked into a hierarchical web, and the hierarchy encodes something that isn’t available if all you store is the information. The dual breaks down, no longer symmetrical, and so storing relationships in a web gains an advantage over the rote method that can’t be compensated for. You can do things you can’t do with a rote model.
What we gain (besides a fair measure of efficiency) is the information encoded in the metarelationships, the way that all of our models are linked into one giant structure. We don’t have to look at the big picture, we store it intact. Running around in it is a trivial exercise of traversing the links, and in doing that we pass through elements that normals would never think of relating to a problem.
So we make what normals think are intuitive leaps, because they can’t see the structure we use to do it. That’s what they call thinking outside the box, and on several occasions I have watched desperate engineers fling their minds off in random directions trying to do it to please their boss.
The down side is that we need to run around in the structure to reconstruct the other part of the dual, the part we didn’t store: the actual information. In Paul’s example, that’s exactly what he’s describing. It’s an uncannily accurate and simple description, too; I fully intend to steal it and use it excessively without attribution.
(Actually, I’m fibbing here, because in using a metamodel web the attribution is exactly the relationship we’re likely to store. Our conversations are littered with incomprehensible terms like “Paul’s multiplication thing.” I’m sure that’s what we’ll be calling this before the end of the day, and our thanks for that.)
The reason I called it the down side I’ve described before, and I don’t think I can say it any better:
“The experience of using a web to reason is very much a conscious act of reconstruction; the relationships are there, but you have to run around amongst them to reconstitute the things they originally described. This behavior can scare the pants off classical thinkers, because it really looks like we’re just making it all up as we go. And, of course, we are.”
ADD, anyone? (gringringrin)
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=64538&postcount=95

... in this case the "control pannel" is within the network itself-the functions/rules that govern its processes and its own structure.
==

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Everyone on this forum who has dressed themselves this morning has demonstrated executive control… </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Sorry to put a damper on this, but it just ain’t so.

No research exists that shows the existence of so-called ‘executive functions’. It’s a sometimes useful logical framework for discussing a particular view of behavior, but unfortunately one that’s pretty far from what’s going on at the neural level.

The persistence of the idea that ‘executive functions’ actually reflect the activity or organization of neural structures reveals a lack of appreciation of how our brains work.

And as the previous posts indicate, it’s a mistake made by some pretty big name researchers. But it’s just a blind alley in the path to a general understanding of neural function. Not so useful in the big picture, and an impediment to progress that can be quite irritating.

There’s no way to learn ‘executive functions’ because they’re an illusion. They don’t actually exist.
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=340222&postcount=1 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=340222&highlight=executive#post340222)

But the biggest advantage is that the relationships can be linked into a hierarchical web, and the hierarchy encodes something that isn’t available if all you store is the information. The dual breaks down, no longer symmetrical, and so storing relationships in a web gains an advantage over the rote method that can’t be compensated for. You can do things you can’t do with a rote model.

I have to admit that I find that Stabile's post explains much better...I was trying to simplify and I lost some important meaning by doing it...

note
Where "dynamicists" may have a point is that environement may play the "role" of the "control panel" at times, and that its part is as relevant as brain structure and chemistry. Unfortunatelly for me is too hard to understand abstract math, so I can't tell if there is an answer to my questions:Where nature stops and nurture starts? I guess it was just a loop and we came back to Plato's questions"Are virtues innate or learned"...well, Socrates, we don't know yet....