Mike,

I'm glad that you could join in on the discussion, I enjoy the input of several people who have studies this subject, it makes the discussion much more interesting. First, I would like to state I at no time have I ever professed to believing in a cure for ADHD. Because of common links in the genetics (B2 variant on the A1 dopamine receptor gene) and neurology (Where to start? Reduced size in the basal ganglia, Abnormalities in the Reticular Activating System, minor frontal love dysfunction) ADHD is permanent, and there is really no getting around that.

What there is getting around is the stipulation that a person with ADHD cannot function or succeed. Or that ADHD is really ALL bad. The way I perceive it, and admittingly that makes this statement opinionatory, black and white like that doesn't really exist. Far too many times has my hyper-focus allowed me to finish a job in twice the time as my coworkers, or allowed me to write an article or a paper in a night for me to honestly believe that there is no good in it. But to say there is no bad is... foolish.

There are many things one must work through when it comes to ADHD, and I am under no delusion when it comes to that. The work one must do is quite challenging, and I hope have not come off to say something different. You pointed out it would be more helpful is I gave techniques. Once I am finished with my current work, I may take up that challenge of helping with my own techniques. Thank you for pointing this out.

I agree with Jeff, this was a nice and well thought out post, while I can't offer pizza I think BBQ and a pitcher of Bud will do just fine.

I have to say that this was a very compelling post. I very much enjoyed reading it, and I believe that the message is quite powerful. Keep it up.

- Paradigm of Thought

You're right, you don't need to tell me. Trust and believe that I will believe until the day I die that I am in control... It's the only thing I believe I'm capable in believing in (That belief withstanding). I was simply critiquing my own work. My idea toward doubt is not necessarily in myself. I believe doubt as a good thing when taken with a grain of salt. (A little confusing, I know but bear with me).

I've noticed the quotes on your website, and I was going to ask you how you made them. I thought It was a nice touch. You left me with a short, though quite profound quote, that believe me I am quite familiar with. I will leave you with my favorite success quote, well my favorite quote in general.

To laugh often and much;
To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children;
To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends;
To appreciate beauty, to find the best in others;
To leave the world a bit better,
whether by a healthy child,
a garden patch,
or a redeemed social condition;
To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.
This is to have succeeded.

- Paradigm of Thought

You know, when I returned to work, I was thinking "I should have told him how funny that photo was, and tell him to stop stealing my ideas out of my head." I thought your Einstien photo was quite amusing, to say the least.

You're probably right, we should call a truce, and I will take your warning to heart, I'm not one to ignore the advice of a person who has survived longer than I am. In retrospect, I think I should take this as a lesson, I shouldn't argue in something I have too much dependance on, I wasn't at my best in this particular argument, for the reason that I had an unrelenting bias toward the subject no doubt forced me to lose my objectivity, and allowed me to rely on arguments that I would in different circumstances not use. But this argument has as well forced me to question my position, and I walk away more confident of it. While I had to leave some dangerous thought behind, I learned more about what I'm battling.

There is an old self quote that I have used in my life. "Only Through Doubt Does Truth Prevail." I think it has relevance here.

- Paradigm of Thought

This entire argument has been about mostly beliefs on my side, and I'm more than willing to admit that. I understood upon undertaking this argument that I would be the statistical outlier, and that my job would be about dismissing data rather than presenting it. I guess this fact is what attracted me, I am known to hold an affinity of the "under dog."

First, I must state, the idea that ADHD an ultimate liability is an Either/Or logical fallacy, this assumes that the traits of ADHD cannot be used for success and on the other end that they all CAN. Unfortunately neither is true 100% of cases, nor is it completely true in most cases. The fact is I sustain that it is neither and it is both.

As a final summation, maybe I should point out my perspective. I am an example of an ADHDer who has overcome his ADHD. I have used techniques and devises in order to do so. The very process I use did not come from within, rather from without. If I had maintained my initial assumption that my ADHD stood in the way, I would not be in the position to argue, but the fact is I didn't maintain that assumption. Instead I changed my beliefs, my feelings toward the subject, and in a lot of ways changed my self. In my perspective, if I have evidence to believe that I can do it, I must either assume that most people chose not to, or that I am generally superior to most people. As much as I would like to assume the latter, all humility forces me to assume the former. You can assume the latter if you wish, but I'm quite uncomfortable doing it myself.

My no excuses argument hinges on the idea if it is possible, than there is no excuse not to try. You point out that it is in bad taste, I couldn't disagree more. While it is more upfront, and less tempered than most arguments, it maintains the very ideal that allowed me to come this far. "No excuses, only results." You question my knowledge on this subject, while I cannot say my knowledge is on par with Jeff's, I have studies ADHD for quite a long time, and I've had over a decade to learn and understand this subject. I understand the full spectrum of ADHD, however, what I cannot understand is the idea that IT is in control. If at ever a person says they didn't succeed because of their ADHD, they are making an excuse based on a condition that is not conscious. That's like blaming my chair because it bent under my weight.

In the end I am of the philosophy that if there is an actionable task that will make a difference, no man or woman, regardless of intelligence, has the right to make an excuse to why they can't do it.

I'm going to leave this argument with a final statement. I am an example of a person who through a no excuses philosophy has walked through his ADHD, and used it to my advantage. You can choose to believe that I am better than you (at least in this spectrum) for doing so, and you can't possibly do it yourself. Or maybe, just maybe, it's possible you can do it too.

- Paradigm of Thought

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Jeff, and ask you to cite your sources. Even on my side that doesn't sound like... anything I've ever heard about ADHD. Actually, people with ADHD are statistically standard with others (That was my third concession in part 1), and ADHDers are no more likely the be fat or skinny. I have ADHD and it has taken a lot of work for me to get into the shape I am (I lost 42 pounds). And working out is a little hard because a half hour is a long time on a treadmill for a guy who has an attention span of about 4 minutes.

Thank you for your support, but please, cite your sources. An English professor once told me "You have no Idea how little authority your voice holds. Until you have a degree, you site your sources." I know it's a little brutal, but it's the honest truth, and that's what you get when you have professors in your family.

- Paradigm of Thought

Hello, Bryan, thank for your initial support and well worded post. However, if not for your sake but mine, I believe I need to clarify.

First, I was diagnosed with ADHD at the age of 10, It was then confirmed via an EEG at the age of 14, since then I have been living my life with easy distractibility, a mild temper, irritability, stubbornness, all of the fun traits (I test for ALL of them). ADHD isn't my only disorder. I also have been diagnosed with ODD, OCD, and an Unspecified Mood Disorder.

You can imagine being a kid with a mountain of problems and trying to grow up that way. It wasn't easy, and it still isn't. There are days that I get distracted from work because a pile of metal is a little off center with the table. (Yeah, it sucks being Easily Distracted by Obsessive Compulsions (That would be a great title!)). There are days when my boss yells at me, and I want to yell at him back (ODD, USMD). The fact is that my life hasn't been quite all that easy. The simple tasks most people do day to day I can't do with out a considerable amount of effort (And my IQ is in the 140s, not to brag). So why would I, a person who has by all means a doctors note to fuck off preach that ADHD is used as a crutch.

Because I used it.

When I was younger, I would say "I can't" and that would be it. But I noticed after a while my life didn't progress. So I stopped taking excuses from myself: I only took results. And guess what, I progressed. I overcame the folds of my four (count them FOUR) classified and diagnosed psychological disorders, by not taking excuses. Am I saying that it is easy to overcome it? No. However there are steps (such as therapy, life style changes, medicine, or just plain discipline) one can take to change.

I know, we don't like to hear that it's our fault we don't move forward. But what's the alternative? It's the disease? It's my place? It's my opportunity? Forgive me, but I'm staying off that bandwagon this time. Because when we blame the disease, we negate that we are in control.

Not the goddamn disease.

- Paradigm of Thought

I have to agree whole heatedly that most likely it's time to shake hands, and go to our respective corners (I was going to suggest that myself). The reason is, from this point, we would just be going around in circles, and the argument would cease being fun for either of us. Quite frankly, after this it would become a pissing contest, and neither of us want that.

I stated before, we're not going to dissuade each other, and I wouldn't want that. On my end, I have dedicated my time and effort in the hopes that I will succeed (Though I don't want to become wildly famous or rich, that just seems impractical). On your end, you have dedicated much of your time to teach people that ADHD is not a magical pill. I don't want that time to be wasted either.

You have been the finest opponent I have ever had, I commend you, and I hope that our next argument will be just as fun and interesting to write.

- Paradigm of Thought.

P.S. You're right, the standard deviation is more about restriction of data than subjectivity, thinking back I don't why I argued it. However the subjectivity of statistics stands in the way that it garners data. All social statistics are based off of surveys and polls. A cynical man can question the ethics of poll takers (using "trick questions" and rewording), a less cynical man must rely on the fact that most people don't understand or don't have a clear side on an issue. But as you said this can wait for another time. I'm burned out and I have a still busy week ahead of me (I get to repair my car!)

Jeff,

I'm sorry to say, but my first point was not intended to make such an assertion, rather dismiss your first fact, which was an appeal to the objectivity of social sciences. I personally love social sciences, but I understand that subjectivity plays a big role in it.

Your argument sustains that social sciences, using subjective fact finding (Such as polls and votes), and then supported by statistics, a notoriously subjective science (This subjectivity is the root in why we have "standard deviations"), somehow compiles together to make something objective? Forgive me, but that argument doesn't hold water.

But the fact that it is subjective, does not mean it is wrong. Anything, subjective or not, that garners consistent results is okay, in my book. My argument was simply to state that it doesn't matter whether a person who has ADHD knows it or not.

On to your second point. My second fact wasn't so much circular reasoning, rather an appeal to belief logical fallacy. However, because of YOUR second fact, which was the same fallacy, I was under the assumption that this was acceptable in this argument. But very well, I will concede this, but only if you concede the same.

You're not off to a good start, your first argument made an assumption that was not intended in the writing, nor specifically stated, and your second argument points out the EXACT same logical fallacy in my article as appears in yours (See your second fact).

Thank you for your reply.

- Paradigm of Thought