ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community  

Go Back   ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community > ADULTS AND ADD/ADHD > Adults with ADD > Men with ADD/ADHD
Register Blogs FAQ Chat Members List Calendar Donate Gallery Arcade Mark Forums Read

Men with ADD/ADHD This forum is for men to discuss issues related to being a man with AD/HD.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-04, 10:31 PM
sLiPpY's Avatar
sLiPpY sLiPpY is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
sLiPpY is on a distinguished road
Anyone read Tom Hartman?

Recently started reading Healing ADD by Tom Hartman. That wasn't Tom's original title, but the publisher pressured him to shorten it...

I think Tom has some interesting ideas about evolution, and the genetic predisposition is not really a defect...or "brain damage" lol It's just that the adaption is at odds, with the present structure of society.

Some of the techniques Tom mentions, I'd come across through other readings and put into practice during my later twenties. The books I was reading then, had nothing to do with ADD...but I truly believe those methods got me to a place where. 1. I could hold down a job. 2. Have good credit. 3. Be reasonably successful at whatever I chose to do.

All these years, I haven't taken medication. For me, it was just reassurring to find a writer who believes...nothings really wrong, just "different." We can teach ourselves almost anything.

I wanted to ask if anyone else has had success with Tom's methods?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-08-04, 01:52 AM
Ian's Avatar
Ian Ian is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 4,698
Blog Entries: 6
Thanks: 30
Thanked 295 Times in 107 Posts
Ian has disabled reputation
Would you share some of those points with us? Or was it just that we are different? My wife spent some time with genetic studies and figures if we weren't an important contributor we'd have seen those genes die out.
ian
__________________
A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-04, 02:34 PM
E-boy's Avatar
E-boy E-boy is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 0
Thanked 44 Times in 32 Posts
E-boy has disabled reputation
Tom Hartman does, indeed, have some very compelling ideas. They really aren't new per say though. Population geneticists have known, for literally decades, that any genetically determined trait that occurs in two percent or more of a population HAS TO BE ADAPTIVE. Why "HAS TO BE"? Quite simply put, maladaptive traits don't propogate, and while two percent for a threshold number might seem a bit tiny, on a genetic level it's substantial propogation.

The usual response to this assertion is that ADHD, is quite clearly a problem for most of us who have it so how can it possibly be adaptive? Well, evolution works in geological time folks. Modern society, as we know it, has only been around for six thousand years or so (yes there is a lot of fudge room in this number, but it is rather insignificant fudge when compared to the timespans necessary for biology to catch up with culture). It's kind of odd really. ADDers aren't the only ones that don't "FIT" in modern society. Most human beings don't "FIT". We are an animal adapted for small communities roving large exanses of land and living a hunter gathering life style, and our basic instincts (and yes humans do have them), and biology are adapted to a way of life that no longer exists. For ADDers it is simply a matter of being EVEN more sensitive to the environmental change created by an intolerant society.

In short, ADD was quite likely adaptive to our ancestors. The timing of the emergence of the mutation in one of the genes they've discovered is involved in ADD is quite suggestive as well. It occured conveniently close to a period of time in which the human species bottle necked. The population of modern humans plummeted, possibly as low as two hundred and fifty individuals, certainly no more than ten thousand. Selective pressure would have been quite high under those circumstances.

I would like to clear up, a misapprehension that seems to go along with ADHD as being adaptive. ADD is not an "Improvement in design". It is simply a viable and adaptive option among many variations that were also, it must be noted, quite successful for modern humans. We are just part of the natural variation of our species. :-)

I truly get tired of it being labled a disorder. However, it is an unfortunate reality that, for all intents and purposes, until society becomes more flexible and "Variation" friendly it will continue to be a "problem" we have to learn to master to truly come into our own in this society.
__________________
"I drank what?" ~Socrates as quoted by Val Kilmer in the movie "Real Genius"
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to E-boy For This Useful Post:
Blue_E46 (02-13-13)
Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 11-08-04, 03:56 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
We haven't read Hartmann's books. We’ve kept track of his main thesis, because it addresses areas that our work touches on. If we ever have to deal with him directly (we've tried to contact him, offering details of our research), I guess we'll have to spend the time necessary.

But the thesis itself is what interests us, and Hartmann's thesis is incorrect, especially the bits and pieces about adaptation he uses to bolster his reasoning.

His reasoning is exactly backwards: in a sense, it's the lack of adaptation to the things that are changing in all of us that puts normals at odds with ADDers. (Those feelings of persecution are real; we present a problem to them, and they react to it.)

Remember, the 'present structure of society' is not found in any gene. The classical model is that the structure automatically adapts to reflect us. The idea that we conflict with the structure shouldn't be supportable.

We know that this isn't an accurate picture, and have some interesting theoretical ideas about it ourselves. Hartmann is correct about the idea of social structure having a kind of 'genetic' basis, but it's external to the genes expressed in procreation.

And the practical consequence is that it invalidates the thesis that ADDers are maladapted.

Hartmann's actual techniques don't seem so different than most, mainly based on getting a better mental picture of ourselves and how we work and interact with others. Very benevolent, on the surface.

Much of what we experience as the effects of having/being AD/HD is a result of misinterpreting information the normal world feeds back to us about ourselves and our efforts.

But he insists on forcing his 'maladapted' idea into the explanation he presents, and in the long run that poisons the method. There is nothing wrong with us at all, or normals either, for that matter.

The truth appears to be that we're virtually identical, the differences largely based on how we use our newly selected abilities. ADDers celebrate them, and come into conflict with old ideas. Normals use the same abilities to suppress the effects we celebrate.

How could anyone say that either choice is wrong? We're both using the exact same adaptation to make it.

So we feel a little leery of his stuff. You can understand something with an incorrect model that is broad enough, and maybe even accomplish a bit of good local to that.

But it's relative; sooner or later you'll run into a place where the incorrect nature conflicts with an important piece of your reality, and it all blows up. In that sense, taking his stuff literally could be a time bomb.

Ian's probably on the right track. But adaptations select, and don't deselect. Something that no longer has utility tends to hang around until the situation changes and it conflicts with something else that selects.

Nevertheless, both his wife and E-boy are right. The strength of AD/HD as it's presently expressed in the population is the most persuasive argument for the idea that it's being selected big time, literally as we speak.

But this isn't just selection, it's an emergent event, and the rules are different. E-boy's comments are relevant to a slow process of selection, and if that was all that was going on, we would have no claim to represent "an improvement in design."

On this, we differ. (grin…) The aspects of the function of our minds that differ is where Kay and I came in, and they are clearly new and improved.

Every symptom of AD/HD in an individual reflects the choice of a provably superior structural principle for organizing our minds. The organization of the mind being what it is, that fact is otherwise almost invisible.

Based on what the scientific community is starting to ferret out, the best guess is that the appearance of AD/HD (as we are currently experiencing it) signals the cusp of a speciation event. (As far as we've seen, and we’re no experts on the subject, evolutionary psychology doesn't really address the dynamics of speciation events.)

The big picture is that the whole thing probably began about five or ten thousand years ago, about the time of the invention of written language. In a way, all of civilization as we know it is due to some aspect of AD/HD.

The picture is quite coherent. The model predicts such diverse effects as the rise of royalty, politics, organized religion, civilization, the sciences, the arts, and human history written largely in conflict.

(That last due to the exact phenomenon E-boy mentions, the fact that we're originally adapted to small social groups. But evolutionary psychology doesn't say much about the dynamics of that situation, mainly because they haven't identified the mechanisms at work.)

(And no, we’re not maladapted in this way, either. The record of the process of adaptation is that history. We’re all where we're supposed to be.)

Near the cusp, the model predicts the rise of AD/HD and various attempts to explain the event like Hartmann's.

From what we've seen of them, we think the general form of techniques like his are fine if the philosophy is left out, but that weakens their utility for us inquisitive ADDers.

We like reasons with our answers, and they have to stand up.

--Tom and Kay
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-08-04, 07:43 PM
sLiPpY's Avatar
sLiPpY sLiPpY is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
sLiPpY is on a distinguished road
Thanks for illuminating the topic. What I found most interesting, is the applications for NLP he describes. Although his credentials include that of psychotherapist, and he is a former director of a residential treatment facility for children and adolescents.

The hunter/farmer hypothesis seems a little too simple either/or? What I do like, is the position that there are "enough of us" to make it perfectly "normal."

The most compelling method he describes, were that of OCD patients being strapped to their chairs and confronted with the stimulus. Hartman pointed out that with the absence of medication the compulsion returns. However, using the above approach...supposedly brain activity returns to normal and the compulsion doesn't return.

Being both a so called "normal" brain and an "attentionlly challenged" lol mind will both respond to medication. And not "fix" the challenges of modular thinking in a linear world, for more than a few hours. My earlier stumbling across NLP, seemed to help me reach a less challenging level of existance with regard to improving areas of previous procrastination and learning to more so enjoy life.

It still amazes what one can overcome, simply devoting time to visualization. Power of positive thinking techniques were never successful for me, until I learned to "see" the results that I desired.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-04, 03:10 AM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
From Hartmann's website:

"He is the former executive director of a residential treatment program for emotionally disturbed and abused children…
Rostered with the State of Vermont as a psychotherapist, and licensed as an NLP Trainer…"

Rostered?

From the Vermont State professional licensing website:

Vermont Secretary Of State Deborah L. Markowitz
Office Of Professional Regulation Licensee Information

Roster Name Thomas C. Hartmann
Roster Status Lapsed
Roster Number 097-0000571
Roster Type Non-Licensed & Non-Certified Psychotherapist
Effective Date 08/20/1997
City State Zip Northfield VT 05663
Original Roster Issued 08/20/1997
Roster Expiration Date 11/30/1998
Disciplinary Actions: None
Above Accurate As Of 11/08/2004


Ah, a Non-Licensed & Non-Certified Psychotherapist. For a little more than a year, five or seven or whatever years after his first book, right?

The NLP stuff is new since I last peeked at his bio, about six months ago.

Those aren't credentials, they're a smokescreen. The biggest part of his career (other than self-proclaimed guru) was spent as a country western DJ, if memory serves.

With all due respect, of course…
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."

Last edited by Stabile; 11-09-04 at 03:14 AM.. Reason: content...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-04, 11:34 AM
Ian's Avatar
Ian Ian is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 4,698
Blog Entries: 6
Thanks: 30
Thanked 295 Times in 107 Posts
Ian has disabled reputation
Thanks again Tom and Kay for your love of details.
ian
__________________
A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-09-04, 01:29 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
Thanks. Details are our friends, details drive us crazy..
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-09-04, 04:13 PM
E-boy's Avatar
E-boy E-boy is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 0
Thanked 44 Times in 32 Posts
E-boy has disabled reputation
Stabile,

Once again, an entertaining post. I do enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter. On one hand, I could almost buy one aspect of the "New and improved" idea, for one reason and one only. Most of the selective pressure on humanity of late, Late being the last several million years, has been due to the rather cut throat business of cooperation, and co-existance within a group. Most moderns are only capable of maintaining such relations with a number of persons roughly the same size as the average hunter gatherer group of old. That is, about 150 to 200 individuals in their circle of friends, family, co-workers, aquaintances, and neighbors. One of the reasons for the vast monoliths of governmental bueuracracies is that we need artificial constructs to maintain cohesion in larger groups. ADDers, at least in my experience, and this is just my own opinion with no science to back it up at all, do seem to be more willing to encompass bigger social groups, inspite of being marginalized.
__________________
"I drank what?" ~Socrates as quoted by Val Kilmer in the movie "Real Genius"
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-09-04, 05:21 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
That's an interesting idea. I'll have to think a bit and talk to Kay about it.

I need to think about how it fits with what we know about the process, which doesn't say anything about group size. I think.

I'll get back to you.
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-09-04, 07:01 PM
sLiPpY's Avatar
sLiPpY sLiPpY is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 115
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
sLiPpY is on a distinguished road
Who are some of the more credible writers on the subject? Book I'd read is from 1998, and I think Tom's probably more focused on his "political talk show" now.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-09-04, 07:42 PM
E-boy's Avatar
E-boy E-boy is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 0
Thanked 44 Times in 32 Posts
E-boy has disabled reputation
"Normal"? ADD is very "normal" Slippy. Society is just not tolerant of the natural neurological variation, or any other kind of variation for that matter, in the human species. ADD is no more a disorder than dislexia. They are both "Contextual" disorders in that neither appears in pre-literate hunter gatherer groups. Does that mean hunter gatherers don't have ADHD? I very much doubt it, seeing as how there is so little genetic diversity in the human species compared to other species, and also the fact that the study behind the DSM IV found a ten percent incidence in ADD in every population, world wide, they bothered to look for it in. The normal quoted rate of ADD prevalance is 3 to six percent, but the study I am quoting is newer and was more comprehensive. In the end it depends very much on the criteria used to define ADHD/ADD. I agree with the folks in the field who suggest that the traits are part of a continuum, and that any given individual probably has some ADD traits to a greater or lesser extent. Some of us just have enough of them to have difficulty fitting in. Hunter gatherers don't exhibit pathological symptoms of these disorders because they live in the same environment humans evolved to live in. Reading and writing are not "natural" human behaviors, they are constructs. Some of us, by luck of the draw, simply are not wired to handle them well. The traits that cause that, are probably adaptive in some respect in the environment they developed in. One free of written language. The same is true on a larger scale for ADD. Modern society is not the social milieu humanity evolved in. It is a large scale cultural construct and as artificial as written language.

Stabile is right when he says evolutionary psych isn't aimed at studying speciation events. However that is right up evolutionary biology's alley, and why I disagree with him about the "new and improved" status he believes ADD represents. That is not to say I think it is a bad thing, or a disorder, because I don't. I just believe it is part of the normal variation in the human species.

You see, ADD has historically propogated. Propogated substantially at that. However, there is no evidence that it has done so in the last six thousand years. It isn't adaptive in modern society, as evidenced by all the problems we have learning to cope. Society may be moving towards changes that would be far more ADD friendly, but to date it still has a stick up it's butt. There are studies that suggest the ADD rate among people is escalating. Frankly, I don't think that reflects anything but more accurate diagnosis, and diagnosis among individuals not originally thought to be "at risk" for this "disorder". I am speaking, of course, of women, who are only recently recieving attention in this respect. I am also speaking of adults. Especially since so much of the medical establishment continues to work on assumptions based on 30 year old studies. What scares me most about that tendency is it means these doctors haven't read a medical journal in decades. :O

As for reading material? Most of what I am basing my discussions on is general reading in evolutionary biology, evolutionary psych, population genetics, etc. It applies quite specifically, but it doesn't deal specifically with ADD/ADHD as an individual issue.

Authors like Jared Diamond (evoltionary biologist), Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist/evolutionary biologist, and quite a good one in spite of a disdain of applying said discipline to humans), Stephen Pinker (a personal favorite and cognitive scientist from MIT. His specialty is the development of language in children and he's one of Naom Chomski's desciples), The husband and wife team of Tooby and.... GRRR! can't remember the other name... Sigh, well hard to miss Tooby LOL! Point is there is all sorts of stuff out there about the human condition, how evolution works, and what we know about ourselves.

I think most ADDers have trouble focussing without interest. In my case that interest/passion is pretty much what we are discussing. What it means to be human, and one day I hope to study it for a living. :-)
__________________
"I drank what?" ~Socrates as quoted by Val Kilmer in the movie "Real Genius"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-09-04, 08:36 PM
E-boy's Avatar
E-boy E-boy is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 0
Thanked 44 Times in 32 Posts
E-boy has disabled reputation
That other name was Cosmides... HEE HEE, Cosmides and Tooby. Now just don't ask me to remember which is the hubby and which is the wife. LOL!
__________________
"I drank what?" ~Socrates as quoted by Val Kilmer in the movie "Real Genius"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-10-04, 12:46 AM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
(D&#@! Five pages again... Sorry. Here's the executive summary:

The reason that it seems like our abilities aren't "adaptive in a modern society" is because we're experiencing an emergent event.

The nature of an emergent system is that the emerging property is not evident until the normalizing force opposing it becomes overloaded and breaks.

Tracing out the neural structures needed to support the rise of spoken language yields a fundamentally different set of requirements than those associated with written language.

We stand by our belief that the history of modern humankind is also the history of the changes in our brains that cause what we know as AD/HD. There's ample circumstantial evidence to support that view, once one learns to recognize the signs.)

* * * *

Evolutionary biology? When did that term creep in? Is there any other kind? Oh, well. We should pay more attention. I still think of these people as just biologists.


Quote:
…ADD has historically propagated... However, there is no evidence that it has done so in the last six thousand years…
The evidence is in the analysis of the logical structures necessary to support the rise of civilization, beginning with the development of written language. To develop a baseline, we go all the way back to the development of language itself.

It's a highly technical probe. But it reveals broad demarcations in the anthropological and historical record that aren't made obvious by other forms of analysis.*


Quote:
…It isn't adaptive in modern society, as evidenced by all the problems we have learning to cope…
That's the specific place we disagree, and it's not so much a disagreement as us not doing a good job of communicating.

The two different logical structures we see being used by people to, well, think, are well delineated. Once you begin to see the edges of the logical organization leaking out around what people say and how they interact, it's impossible to miss. Very digital, in that respect.

And very much at the heart of one of the major differences in human communication we needed to factor out to get to the residue that's gender specific. Where Kay and I started, thirty or so years ago.

The newer structure clearly is new, probably the root of that five to ten thousand year old deal. There are all kinds of ways to show that it's an improvement, including purely mathematical considerations.

But my favorite is the way it gives access to experiential spaces in the brain that are not readily accessible using the older structure. Our verbal model of this is it gives us the ability to perceive many more dimensions in our experiential reality, as compared to a normal.

So far all of this is based on a foundation of neural structures, as described by brain researchers over the last twenty years or so. Hard core neuron stuff, this connected here like this makes this kind of structure, and so on.

The way we build structures in the brain is by making associations. The difference in the two structures we've identified is that to use the newer one, you need to form two simultaneous associations.

And that's multitasking, or one form of the underlying phenomenon we recognize as that. All this still directly connected to neural structures, this time through the mechanism that allows real structures to exist intermingled with each other and still function in an orderly fashion.

That mechanism is an adaptive threshold, what we refer to as "attention mechanisms." They really are related to our attention, and we ADDers really do have an excess, by comparison to normals. But only a fraction of the normally occurring attention mechanisms are related to conscious processes, perhaps as few as one in normals and two in some ADDers.

We can look at the way that neural structures are arranged and see that there must be numerous problems with interference between the intermingled networks. That's something that any elementary ed teacher can tell you about; they're taught to plan around it.

That interference translates into the purely logical operation of the mind as a distinct kind of ambiguity inherent in how we store and analyze information. The newer structure allows much of that ambiguity to be resolved, at the cost of requiring use of the newer structure to understand.

We all seek to make sense of our circumstances, always seeking to overcome the uncertainty that any apparent ambiguity brings. But ambiguity inherent in the way that we all perceive reality is not going to be readily apparent. It's a constant background that fades from our sight.

If we introduce a different view, that background springs into focus. This is precisely what we do to normals, and they correctly blame us for it. In one form or another, most of the traumatic ADDer – Normal interactions are triggered by this clash of our fundamental views of our selves and reality.

We used to play at grabbing an example at random and tracing out the differences that trigger the behaviors involved. It's been a while, but I guess we could probably work through one if anyone wants to see how we do it.

It's a way to think about how people think about stuff, and derive AD/HD experiences from only what we can intuit about it. For Kay and me, that was a good sign we were finally getting our models in the right universe, at least.

And all still deriving from a basic understanding of neural structures. I'm emphasizing that because when we try to understand the mind, we are immediately at a disadvantage. The instrument we use is also the subject of the study, and so every conclusion is relative in an important way.

The only way to be sure of what we derive when we study the brain is to maintain a constant connection back to the underlying foundation. It's a bit of a pain; we sometimes feel like spelunkers keeping the string tied off at the cave entrance from tangling.

In terms of the study of speciation events, emergent systems require both a more or less slowly evolving property and a normalizing mechanism that seeks to counteract the effect of the emerging property.

The last time we checked, this wasn't well understood by the parts of the biology community interested in speciation. Our understanding of emergent systems comes from a completely different discipline, systems analysis, as applied to logic and computing.

Perhaps they've got it all worked out by now. Regardless, an emergent system needs two competing influences, and the clash of our fundamental views of reality gives a hint of the mechanisms at work in our own emergent event.

Emergent systems have another defining characteristic, emergence itself. What that means from a practical viewpoint is that if you can see it coming, it's not an emergent event. The view of our history should look very much as E-boy describes it, mostly a record of the action of the compensating mechanism and little direct evidence of the emergent property itself.

If you want to see emergence at work you have to look under the skin. The 'improvement' in ADDers represented by how we think using the new logical structures is exactly what gives rise to "all the problems we have learning to cope."

It's the fallout from the normal's attempt to push us back toward normal, evidence of both the countering mechanism and the fact that it's beginning to creak and groan.

That creaking signals that the countering mechanism has exerted every bit of force it has, and is about to let go. That's how emergence occurs, when the mechanism fails and all of the change hidden by the compensating force is suddenly revealed.

It sounds simple, and it really is. I don't know why some disciplines have had difficulty understanding emergence… wait, no, of course I understand it. That's precisely the point.

In the universe inhabited by the mathematical community, I can't describe why emergence seems complicated and difficult. I can see why, but when I say it, mathematicians simply don't hear it.

The description of emergence I just gave is completely lacking in ambiguity. But when you try to translate it into math describing what happens when you drop grains of sand slowly onto a plate, ambiguity prevents a complete description.

So we try to enclose it, perhaps in chaos theory, and we close in on a concise description of how one particular grain of sand causes the whole pile to collapse, and also why we can't compute which grain it will be.

Using the new logical structure allows us to see that the situation is obviously ambiguous. Math is nice, but it won't do where you can't nail things down in a certain way. It's not a problem, really, if what you do is buy and sell sand.

But if you're selling network time, it becomes a bit more attractive to think that there should be a deterministic description for an inherently deterministic phenomenon.

The fact that there's not is literally not in the program, and so we all grind on in two different and fundamentally incompatible universes.

As stupidly simple and unimportant as this example must seem to everyone, Kay and I are certain that it is what ultimately led to Kurt Goedel's death. Compared to his years of paranoia that someone was trying to poison his food, the problems we ADDers have coping might not seem like such a big deal.

But we believe that it's exactly the same mechanism. There are many reasons that we don't break like Kurt Goedel; none of us are going to be any more worried about that McDonald's hamburger tonight than we were yesterday.

It's the same force at work, though, and we need to understand it to keep ourselves clear of the effects. Unfortunately, we need those new logical structures to do it, and that is exactly why the underlying causes are selecting, even if it hurts in individual terms.

And even if it seems like the difficulty it causes us would be enough to keep it from selecting. The fact it seems that way is indicative of the magnitude of the forces at work behind the scenes, where the compensating mechanism is fighting the emergence of our new properties to a standstill, for the moment.

When the dam breaks, we’re all going to be swept away, and it's going to take the new logical structures to learn how to swim. Kay and I have seen some evidence that everyone can do it, normal and ADDer alike.

And we believe that an emergency situation (What was that word? Emergency?) like the sudden failure of a fundamental social mechanism (which I've avoided describing here) is exactly the thing that precipitates the final acceptance of the new structures.

Now, what happens next is the interesting question…

--Tom and Kay

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For example, every major culture has both an oral tradition and a written history. The oldest written history is usually the record of the oral tradition at the time of the invention of written language.

It's as if everyone literally said, "Great, lets write down all that stuff we've been trying to remember all this time." And of course, the first thing they wrote down is the oldest bit.

Which in most cases is literally the first thing that could be recorded by the oral tradition, the emergence of language itself. (Duh!)

The descriptions of such an event wouldn't exactly read like a Scientific American article. They would have an entirely personal context, largely emotional, and reflective of the fact that a good descriptive vocabulary for such things wasn't developed until long after the fact.

Indeed, these descriptions are ethereal, almost dreamlike. They're universally regarded either as metaphor, or inherently incomprehensible, literal descriptions of the acts of a higher power.

The only solid information that survives is the evidence of the logical structures used to perceive the event. And what we see is the same flat structure that normals use today.

That structure is sufficient, by our analysis, to support the events that led early man to make a voluntary descent into an internal model of reality. That transition, to the universe we all now inhabit, is the hallmark of the original speciation event.

But the invention of written language is entirely different. In itself, it isn't an emergent event. All it requires is a view of the situation from above in order to map out the possibilities.

Which is exactly the advantage that the new logical structure affords us.

--T&K
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-29-04, 02:54 PM
E-boy's Avatar
E-boy E-boy is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,756
Thanks: 0
Thanked 44 Times in 32 Posts
E-boy has disabled reputation
Stabile,

If society didn't have a stick up their rear, I would be in wholehearted agreement with you. Unfortunately, ADD really does tend to alter functionality in specific ways, that simply don't fit in, in a one size fits all environment. Perhaps if that one size included our gifts, but it tends to very strongly favor our weaknesses.

It is this breakdown in the system, and the labling process, whether that lable be "LAZY, CRAZY, or STUPID", or some semi-apologetic and excusing "Disorder" it is still a lable. A lable that marginalizes and makes one feel broken because of the lovely idea that because something is different, it is WRONG.

There are success stories, some after all the damage many of us incur on our spirits and psyche, and others from the git go. It isn't that there is a lack of niches for us out there. It isn't that we don't have real value to add. It's that so few of us ever really realize, in the face of the labling, that we have those opportunities and gifts to offer.

Much of what you have said of evolutionary theory, smacks of outside disciplinary understanding. Which in short, means people who are authorities on other things making sweeping pronouncements of how something unrelated works and let's their "authority" status do the rest. Socialogists are guilty of this to a degree so overwhelmingly ridiculous that dialogue with real authorities on the subject is no longer possible for them without near combat. The term "Nazi" is bandied about quite often. The best layman's book I can recommend for a deep understanding of the basic theory of evolution, with none of the pop cultural myths, or Text book gospel by non-authorities is "How Evolution works" By Ernst Mayr. This is a man who has been an evolutionary biologist for over half a century and is one of the truely great scientists of our time as well as being a mentor to a good chunk of the rest in his field. Other books that might bridge the gap in our understandings would be "Sociobiology" By E. O. Wilson, "The Blank Slate", and "How the mind works" By stephen Pinker, "Stone Age Present" author forgotten, and any basic primers on evolutionary psych. Definitely avoid, "The moral animal" as it is pure and simple more politics than science.

The fact is that sociologist, in particularly now in economics (the most scientific of the quasi science group) still regularly publish work, with experimental Data that contradicts everything I just said. It's a bit of a losing battle though, because they don't talk to, or involve other disciplines anymore, and the other disciplines are talking. Experiments that exlude data on biology, and heritability, because they and anything like them that threaten the dogma they've stapled their morality to are taboo.

Stabile, I very much think our main barrier is terminology and starting point. We agree on so much. However as much as I would like to believe ADHD makes me special in ways beyond being "refreshingly different" and talented in unusual ways, I can't see it as a "speciation event". Just another in the many varied wiring schemes in homo sapiens. It isn't a radical departure in the sense of a large scale change, and falls well within, ROUTINELY within normal species variation. Many animal species showcase more genetic variation between two small groups mere miles apart, than exists in the entire human species. In a nutshell ADHD doesn't change the fact that no one human on earth is more than about .02 percent genetically different than any other. Being on the extreme end of a continuum with no appreciable isolation or other pressure does not a speciation event make.
__________________
"I drank what?" ~Socrates as quoted by Val Kilmer in the movie "Real Genius"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Attention Deficit Disorder and when did u start to talk and read? Avistar_sg General ADD Talk 46 12-08-14 06:47 PM
Read any good books lately? JH376 Chit-Chat 29 10-16-05 03:49 AM
How do you read ? Nova General ADD Talk 18 10-04-05 04:30 PM
somebody want to read "a return to love" and discuss it as we read? gabriela Meditation and Spirituality 27 07-16-04 01:04 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2003 - 2015 ADD Forums