Attention Deficit Disorder

WHAT IS ADD? DIAGNOSING ADD WHAT ADD Is NOT WHAT'S IN A NAME? HOW THE ADD MIND WORKS RESULTS OF ANALOG VS. DIGITAL THINKING TYPES OF ADD

RESULTS OF ANALOG VS. DIGITAL THINKING

I have a story I'd like to share with you. Shortly after I moved to Central Texas, a friend and I were standing on the edge of the cliff surrounded by the woods that has become my home. Looking skyward, we saw two hawks drifting on the air currents. Since we had met as volunteers who helped rehabilitate injured birds of prey, we shared an interest in identifying the hawks.

They were definitely not red-tailed hawks, so we stood gawking at the birds try¬ing to figure out what they were. After a while my friend declared that she thought they were goshawks because of the window on the underside of each wing-a patch of white that stood out for her to see. No sooner had she said this than I started to laugh. I almost doubled over laughing.

What had I seen in my attempt to identify the hawks? I had been gazing, entranced, at the silhouette of their flight patterns against the blue sky. I'd had a wonderful experience that I could write a whole story about. I felt better for having viewed the hawks. I felt their "hawkness." In no way had I gained any information that would have been useful in helping to identify the hawk species. Yet my intent had been to identify them - not to have a creative, euphoric expenence.

My friend is a registered nurse whose house is in order. She can find things most of the time, does beautiful patchwork quilts and has created a living habitat in her backyard with the proper balance of plants, water, and shade for the living creatures that inhabit it.

In contrast, I have a pretty, artistic home. To the outsider's eye it is definitely not in order. I paint and design one-of-a-kind craft pieces that I dream up on the spot. I find it beyond me to do any gardening because I can't keep track of what needs to be planted where, or pruned or watered when. Thank goodness the woods look great without my intervention. But then, that's why I live there.
My friend is predominantly a digital processor. I am overwhelmingly an ana¬log processor. We share interests but go about managing and expressing our inter¬ests in very different ways.

Not only is it important to understand how your mind works, it's important to understand how friends' and coworkers' minds work if you are to do anything together. And each of us needs to develop an appreciation for the style of pro¬cessing that is not our predominant mode. One is not better than the other. They are only different, designed to do different things.

Certainly living in a world that has as much complexity as our modern culture requires simple, straightforward ways to proceed and keep track of things. If you want or need to work efficiently, you need to progress in a digital or linear fash¬ion. If your job requires you to sell more widgets than the competition, you may wish to find the quickest way to get from point A to point B. Or when you need to find one written document out of a whole library full of documents, you need a system that is direct and efficient.

When a linear (digital) mind is faced with a problem to solve, it begins to sift through the avalanche of information one point at a time considering the impact each piece of information might have on the problem. When one point is dis¬covered, then the mind begins to scan in a similar manner for the second piece needed to fully solve the problem. Each point is lined up next to the others, until a solution is reached that fits the needs of the problem.

So, for example, suppose you lived near Austin, Texas, and needed to go to Dallas for a meeting and to pick up numerous boxes of books and bring them home to Austin in the shortest, most economical manner possible.

If you were a digital thinker, you might first consider what mode of trans¬portation to take. Having decided that a plane is faster than a bus, train, or car, you would move on to the second point, which is to determine exactly what you need to take with you. You would then consider the weight of what you have to ship and probably discover that the cost of using air freight to send the boxes of books is too expensive for your budget. Or you might realize that the time it takes to drive to the airport, fly, rent a car, and proceed to the place of your meeting in Dallas takes almost as long as it would take you to drive the whole distance. Next, you would methodically look at all your options and then make a decision. And all of this would be done before you actually made the trip.

In contrast, the analog thinker is not likely to do this preplanning. The ana¬log thinker might concentrate on how much he likes to fly or that he's accumu¬lating frequent-flier miles. This might leave him with the impression that flying would be preferable. Research to determine the actual cost of shipping the books probably wouldn't be part of the decision. So, the analog thinker might book airline reservations on impulse, only to discover later that flying was not the best choice.

Somewhat embarrassingly, I discovered that a round trip from Austin to Dallas to Austin by air was only one hour shorter than driving. But I discovered that only after I had flown from Austin to Dallas. When I got to Dallas, I had no trans¬portation and I had to pay to ship the books back to Austin, when I could have carried them as freight for free in the back of my pickup truck. Did I figure any of this out ahead of time? Of course not. It was only after several trips and the frustration of not having my own transportation in the city that it began to feel like driving was preferential to flying. I never did sit down to figure out what would be most efficient.

Fortunately, I usually prefer to drive because I can dream, look at the scenery, and relax. I no longer consider flying the relatively short distance. I realize there definitely is something to be said about digitally processing one's way through a problem. I just wish I would sometimes consider using it ahead of time!

On the other hand, if I have a creative story to write, I find that I'm very glad I am an analog thinker. As a member of a performing arts group in Austin, I received the assignment to create a descriptive poem about the various stages of life-and I needed it for the next day. I understood the type of poem I needed to write and simply tossed it in the back of my mind as I continued to do the other things that were on my schedule for the day.

That evening, as I sat on the edge of my cliff, I heard the first line of the poem, "Don't You Know!" I saw images in my mind of myself as a child and how I got off track from what I had loved then, such as watching the angels and fairies, climbing trees, and wearing boots and blue jeans. "Don't you know" kept play¬ing through my mind as I recalled each precious situation that had made up my life and living experience. I saw how the heart's desires of my childhood had been quashed. Then I instantly saw how I had returned many years later to everything lance loved. In my reverie I realized that a hidden part of me had never lost my dreams and had worked to help me return to what is truly important to me. So the losses and the reunited dreams and desires each became a part of the magic of my life, Don't you know!

Then I simply wrote out the poem my mind had previewed for me.
The next day someone asked me, "How did you write your poem?" I answered, "It wrote itself."

Once the request for a certain type of poem is made to me, the poem within me that fits the agenda takes on a life of its own. I only have to write down what plays through my head. I do not consider this thinking-at least it's not linear thinking. Figuring out the most efficient route between Austin and Dallas gives me a headache, and I always forget key factors. But writing poetry this way never makes my head hurt. In fact, it makes me feel wonderful. And I rarely forget key ingredients to a creative writing assignment.

Yet I make a living in a world that requires me to deal with issues better solved by digital thinking processes. That makes life hard sometimes, because I really don't do that very well. On the other hand, I know several people who are the exact opposite of me, and I feel sorry for them. They have COD, Creativity Deficit Disorder, and I'm sure their heads hurt if they have to create a story or speak extemporaneously.

Consider the situation of assessing whether or not a person is ADD.

Professionals who are digital processors usually want to give tests and collect data piece by piece. Professionals who are analog processors prefer to hear the person's story and use their intuition to "diagnose" ADD, often simply knowing by feel whether or not a person is ADD.

Both professionals are likely to arrive at the same diagnosis, assuming they view ADD in the same way. But their methods will be quite different. Licensing boards and academic/research-oriented professionals sometimes don't realize the value and accuracy of both methods. These digital processors too often have IDD, Intuition Deficit Disorder, and so don't realize the power and accuracy of intuition.

Ironically, if I really put my mind to it, I can identify the specific cues that told me whether or not someone is ADD. But why struggle so hard to isolate those cues one at a time when I come to the same conclusion by viewing the person as a whole and using my intuition? I shouldn't need to prove, cue by cue, what I already know to be true. I know that analog processing works best for me and brings me the results I need.

For example, I recently had a training program that I wanted to sell. A friend of mine, who is a digital processor, suggested I do some marketing research at the nearest university to determine the value of my program and the best way to go about selling it.

At the sound of those words my stomach clutched into knots and my skin felt instantly clammy. I doubted that I could go through the movements of following those suggestions. But I also sensed I would not find out what I needed that way and would not end up any closer to my goal of selling the program.

Instead, I went about my daily business while keeping my goal in mind, sell¬ing my training program. Sure enough, it wasn't long before I bumped into three different people on three different days in three different settings, each of whom might be prospective buyers. As we shared information and goals, I assessed whether or not my training program fit their needs and whether or not their resources fit my needs.

After I made my determination in each case, I figured out a way to take the next step by involving them in working with the program. If any of these people feels comfortable with the program and enjoys using my material, I will probably have apotential deal. As to the details of the actual sale, I have every confidence that we'll work out a creative solution that will benefit both parties. Anything is possible when people's goals match, and the creative doors are opened to reach a solution in which everyone wins.

I've discovered that traditional research and business plans can often be a waste of time for analog thinkers. I've never gotten anywhere using those digital methods. To be sure my route often looks circuitous - but it works for me in the end.

My way is not for everyone, though. A linear person needs to take a linear route to solving problems. It makes no sense to say that he should just let things happen and watch for synchronistic circumstances to occur. That may not work for him. But he's not inadequate because of that. He's just different.

One of the problems for people who are ADD is our culture's very strong belief that digital problem solving is better than analog. From a very early age we are reinforced if we do things in a linear way, and we are told that there is a bet¬ter way to do things if we are analog.

Consider Alex, the son of a friend of mine. Alex was about twenty months old when he sat down one day and organized his blocks into groups by color and size. His adult cousin, who had walked into the room at that time, gave him tremen¬dous positive feedback saying, "What a great job you've done, Alex. How smart you are." She then told Alex's mom how smart and "advanced" he was.

That image-being praised for sorting things into small, homogenous groups-stayed with Alex, who is, of course, smart. But what if the cousin had come in and seen him mixing sugar and flour in a bowl, discovering how that mixture felt to his fingers. He might have figured out different ways to squish the mixture through his fingers or experimented to see how different the mixture looked when dropped onto the table from different heights.

In all likelihood, Alex the young scientist or sculptor would not have been labeled smart, nor would his mom have been complimented on her child's outstanding talents. His actions might even have been considered a behavior problem.

Categorizing things by details was just natural for Alex. For another child it would have been natural to experiment with the pattern that flour makes when it is poured on the floor. Both children would be smart, but their kinds of "smart¬ness" differ. Generally speaking, our society is able to recognize one of these types of intelligence but not the other.

What kind of person are you? Do you wince when you think about the many times your experiments got you in trouble? Do you think of yourself as less smart than other people who can easily categorize, strategize, and research problems? Do you get defensive when linear people look down their noses at you even though you know you are as right about things as they are?

Ask yourself these questions and then take a stand to support the natural way you are. Believe in the value of your way and use it to accomplish what you want in the world. There's no need to put others down. Just recognize that differences are wonderful and equal.