Despite the obvious differences between kids with ADHD and Asperger's, if you sat with these kid's parents, much of what you'd see would look the same including the questions they ask. "Will my child ever be like the other kids in his class. Does she have to be on medication for the rest of her life? Will he ever learn to fit in with the rest of the world? Will she and I ever learn to talk to each other?" Underlying these questions of course lies a similarity even more disturbing; the look on their faces. These parents often look afraid. Moreover, I too have my reservations, in part, because I would so like to have all the answers and be able to tell them their child will be okay.

What really bothers me of course is that I know these parent's fears will probably play almost as great a role in their child's well being as their choosing the right course of action. This then brings up what may be my worst concern for these parents; that much of what they will likely hear from professionals will center on doing something I see as harmful to their kids; teaching these kids to imitate normal.

What's wrong with teaching kids to imitate normal?

Human beings, especially children, need to feel loved for who they are. To feel this, they need a clear sense of self, both theirs and others. Unfortunately, these kids already lack of a clear sense of self and others. Thus asking them to imitate something which is innately unnatural for them will only cause them to worsen, disconnecting them even more from the world around them.

In a way then, asking these kids to learn to imitate normal is like asking them to wear a mask whenever they appear in public. Which is probably in large part why, whenever I sit with adults who have ADHD and Asperger's, the most common human emotion I see in them is not fear. It's anger. These folks are mad as hell, in no small part because so often they've been pressured to fake normal in order to fit in.

Some of them have even told me things like "why can't the world adapt to me a little," and they're right. We too need to adapt ourselves to these kids. This in fact is what I had in mind as I begin to write this column. I'm going to offer you an alternative to asking these kids to fake normal, starting with telling you a bit about the most basic idea in all of personality, the idea of the "self."

Know that despite the myriad of books which describe characteristics of the self, none so far has empirically described the actual source of this experience. At the heart of what I'm about to tell you then is the solution to a centuries old mystery; where does our sense of self come from, our sense of being separate from others?

Know it's not self worth I am referring to here nor the various qualities which make up a self. It's our actual sense of "me as a separate being" I am referring to here, without which helping kids with ADHD and Asperger's to be themselves is impossible. Who are these kids anyway? We're about to begin to find out.

ADHD and Asperger's as Two Ends of the Same Continuum

You may have noticed that I have increasingly been positioning ADHD and Asperger's as diametrically opposed conditions in my recent articles. In truth, my research over the past twelve years clearly shows this and more; that these two conditions are actually the theoretical poles at the ends of one continuum. To see this though requires you have a background in personality theory. Fortunately, the personality theory required is the kind Nobel prize winning physicist, Ernest Rutherford referred to as "ideas you could teach the barmaid."

Let's begin with a brief recap of what we spoke about in my last article.

Basically I told you that any activity which involves complex sequences of mental activity will short circuit the brains of people with ADHD. Why? Because this type of learning literally widens their focus beyond their capacity to track, causing their minds to bog down as if their heads are filled with molasses. I also told you that the converse is true as well; that any activity which involves intensely emotional, single steps of physical activity will cause the brains of people with ADHD to speed up and focus. Hence their propensity for preferring video games over homework.

What I'd like to now add to this is that with Asperger's, people feel these same two things, only in reverse. Thus for them, any activity which involves complex sequences of mental activity will enliven and focus their brains rather than bog them down. Why? Because like the ancient Roman god, Mercury, who was said to be the only god quick enough to get into and out of hell, asking them to widen their focus and keep moving is like child's play. Literally. On the other hand, ask them to do an activity which involves single steps of intensely focused physical activity and they will bog down. Only this time it's their bodies that will bog down, not their minds.

In a way then, we could say that all these kids have both conditions. The kids with ADHD have ADHD in their minds and Asperger's in their bodies, whereas the Aspies have ADHD in their bodies and Asperger's in their minds. Or said more simply, some folks are extremely mind oriented, while others are extremely body oriented.

Where am I going with all this, you ask? It turns out that the best way to understand the personalities of these kids is to set aside all the medical symptoms and simply contrast and compare them at their core. If you do, what you'll find is, these two conditions literally fall at opposite ends of the same continuum. On one end, we have the folks who do best when asked to do single steps of rapid physical activity; the folks we say have ADHD, and on the other end we have the folks who do best when asked to do complex sequences of rapid mental activity; the folks we say have Asperger's.

Of course there is much more to what underlies these two conditions. This said, to be able to find a point at which to begin to unravel the mysteries underlying these two conditions is to me, worth the effort.

The question of course at this point is, on what do I base these claims? My answer begins with something most folks I ask have never heard of; the idea that we humans have two physiological brains. The brain you already know about, of course, is the brain in the head. The other is what medical researchers call, the enteric brain. Or as it's more commonly referred to, the "brain in the gut."

What the heck is the enteric brain? It turns out there is a significant amount of brain tissue sandwiched into the layers of the diaphragm, the same kind of tissue found in the brain in the head. Moreover, it turns out 95% of the neurotransmitter which carries our moods is not found in the brain in our head. The majority of our serotonin is found in the brain in our gut. Which begs the question, when you take an SSRI like prozac, where is it working? To me, the answer is obvious; it's working in the gut. And since serotonin is the main chemical messenger for emotion, this implies the ubiquitous "gut feelings" of ADHD folks are really there.

As to how this aspect of our physiology plays out in kids with ADHD and Asperger's, to show you, I'll need to use a simple analogy; the idea that our two brains function like two radio stations, each receiving and broadcasting on a separate frequency. Moreover, like real radio stations which are intelligible only when we tune in to one at a time, we humans can normally tune in to only one brain.

In real life, what this amounts to is that we can make sense of only one perspective at a time. Either we experience life mainly as thoughts which we receive and broadcast from our minds, or we experience life mainly as emotion and intuition, the gut feelings I just mentioned. I call the former, being "mind first," and the later, "body first."

Of course, the difference between us and radio stations is that with radio stations, we can can chose which station we tune in to, whereas with our two brains we default to one or the other. In fact, my research shows that this preference develops very much like handedness, in that we seem to begin to develop this preference somewhere around age three or four, and clearly have it in place by about age seven.

Please note, I am not saying these preferences are the cause of AS or ADHD. I'm merely saying they are like the fertile ground from which these conditions grow. More important, before you can know if any of this feels true to you, you'll need to first do a little experiment.

• Try sitting across from someone with whom you normally talk well, someone to whom you can easily tune in to. Now ask this person to tell you something that happened to them recently while noting how well you understand this person.
• Now ask this same person to tell you something else, only this time, ask him or her to speak to you very quickly. Again, note how clearly you can understand, as well as how their speeding up affects your ability to think, feel, and follow.
• Finally ask this same person say these same things to you, only this time, ask them to speak exceedingly slow. Here again, note how this change in speed affects your ability to think clearly.
• Now stop and contrast and compare your experiences.

If you are a mind first person, words spoken quickly will feel fine to you, whereas slowly spoken words will bog down your mind. And make you physically uncomfortable. Conversely, if you are a body first person, the reverse will happen. The slower the words, the better you will tune in and understand, especially with regard to how this feels.

Know that over the past year or so, I've done this experiment with well over two hundred people. In every case, the result is the same. People either tune in better to quickly spoken, complex sequences of mental activity, or they tune in better to slowly spoken, singularly focused, physical activity.

Remember too that what underlies what I've been telling you is a physiological fact; we have two brains. Google the enteric brain and specifically, Dr. Ron Gershon, and I'm sure you'll be as amazed by his work as I was. What makes Dr. Gershon's work even more credible though is his refusal to infer outside of his specialty.

Here then is where my work in and around personality comes into play, in how these two brains affect our ability to be conscious. It appears then that our ability to be conscious centers in and around these two styles of interpersonal broadcasting and receiving; the styles I call mind first and body first.

Where then does the idea of the self come from? It's simple really. From the way we experience these two brains. You see, it turns out which ever of our brains goes first is the self we call our "self." Then the other is the self we watch. To a kid with ADHD this means being him or herself is doing something where the body comes first. Video games. Martial arts. After school sports. Whereas to a kid with Asperger's, doing those things is like being punished.

In the months to come, we'll dig deeper into the implications of being mind first and body first, including how these two states play out in the four most fundamental states of personality; mind first, body first, mind body sync, and shock. We'll also look at several other factors which can lead to ADHD and Asperger's. These include the four distractions; comfort, neatness, understanding, and freedom, as well as the four decision tree processes; bluntness, correction, precision, and digression.

The point of all this, of course, is to be able to grasp the real personalities present, rather than the symptomology. These kids are not broken. Rather, their personalities fall outside of the bell shaped curve, the base of which, in case you've never noticed, is a single continuum.

What I'm saying then is that this continuum; from ADHD to Asperger's, is the baseline of personality. Moreover, rather than being based on conjecture or mere statistics, these ideas have been paying dividends for years now, in the form of helping people with both conditions to become themselves.

This leads us to some answers to the questions I began this article with:

• "Will my child ever be like the other kids in his class." Yes, in fact he's more like the other kids than anyone has ever known.
• "Does she have to be on medication for the rest of her life?" No. However, this depends largely on how she can come to know her true self.
• "Will he ever learn to fit in with the rest of the world?" Yes, but only if he learns to see how his self and the selves of others contrast and compare. Not medically, nor psychologically, but rather, as different but still amazing human beings.
• "Will she and I ever learn to talk to each other?" Absolutely, given you learn to build the necessary bridge. This depends entirely on how well you learn to see past your fears and trust your gut as far as allowing these kids to become themselves.

As for my personal experience, my whole practice has been incredibly different since I began to adapt the speed of my words to each person, including several people who ADHD is so severe, they long ago gave up hope.

Now let's review what I've introduced you to in this article.

• All human beings have two physiological brains, one in the head, the other in the gut. The one in the head receives and broadcasts on a higher frequency, and we call these broadcasts, thoughts and reasons. The brain in the gut then receives and broadcasts on a lower frequency, and we call these broadcasts, emotions and intuition.
• All human beings have a default broadcast frequency, either one based in the head or based in the gut. Moreover, because we each have a first choice as far as what we tune in to, we can say we are all either mind first or body first.
• Folks with ADHD are always very body first. Folks with Asperger's are always very mind first. Moreover, while these preferences are not the causes of these conditions, they are, in fact, the two basic personality trait differences underlying them.
• In essence then, the most basic differences between the personalities of folks with ADHD and those of folks with Asperger's lie in three basic areas; [1] whether the nature of what they do best is mind oriented (AS) or body oriented (ADHD), [2] whether they do best with either sequences of tasks (AS) or single step tasks (ADHD), and [3] where they get their best sense of time; either from the speed of what they're thinking (AS) or from the speed of what they're physically doing (ADHD).

In my next article we're going to dig a bit more into this mind body thing. And at the risk of sounding like a new age weirdo, let me point out that what we've been discussing has been the nature of the mind body connection. How can knowing the nature of this connection help us to better help our kids? The answer to this question lies almost entirely in knowing how to use this connection to teach these kids to tune in to the world, and us to them.

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be read or reached at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com

the Myth of the "All White" Philosophy
Every generation has their "how to get everything you want in life" book. Each one claims to offer the ordinary person some kind of millennia old secret with which to quickly and easily get a good life. Sometimes too, such as in the case of James Redfield's The Celestine Prophesy, people distort a book into that it can do this. Redfield himself never claimed this for his book and even tried to correct this impression. Redfield had integrity.

What does this have to do with Rhonda Byrne's book, The Secret?

Rhonda Byrne is this generation's "get everything you want" girl. Her "secret?" The Law of Attraction. Picture good and you'll attract this good to you. Unfortunately she adds to this that we must also steer clear of anything or anyone negative. Friends in trouble? People in need? She says we must not take part in their negativity and avoid them like the plague.

The problem of course is that if you buy into this, you make getting what you want the road to happiness, which it's not. At the same time, if you simply dismiss it all, you miss the part of what is true about what Byrne is saying; the law of attraction.

Then too, there's the other problem; that if you use the law of attraction as Byrne suggests, your life will probably get even worse. Why? Because what Byrne fails to realize, let alone tell us, is why this law worked for her. At the time she used the law of attraction, her life was pretty bad. She openly admits this. Thus what she actually did was use the law of attraction to rebalance an already bad life.

What happens if you take Byrne's advice during normal times? Well this depends on how well you can follow her all white philosophy. Most people can't, at least not for long. Good thing too. If you could, what you'd probably get is a few good things followed by a bunch of awful things. Think I'm wrong? Then consider this. At the time Byrne first appeared on Oprah, her book had sold some 18,000 copies. A week later, Oprah's positive endorsement raised this to over 100,000. Nice. The power of the law of attraction at work no doubt. A subsequent mention by Oprah then raised this total to over 190,000, and to many this too appeared to be the law of attraction at work. But was it? I'm not sure. Oprah's a pretty influential lady.

Whatever the case, not long after this, things began to reverse. A woman with cancer appeared on Oprah who said she was going to use Byrne's advice in lieu of medical treatment. The law of attraction at work? Yes. Although this time, Byrne seems to have attracted some pretty ugly energy. Including not only that Oprah had to hurriedly amend her endorsement, but also that the Internet quickly flooded with anti-Byrne blogs and articles.

Where's the problem in what Bryne is saying? Essentially just this. By telling us we must avoid the dark side of the law of attraction, Byrne and her crew of all white philosophers have perverted a genuine spiritual teaching into a recipe for personal disaster. Moreover, while she certainly is the latest to try to cash in on good people's free lunch dreams, she's far from the only person doing this. For instance, most diet books advise the very same, all white thing. Eat all these good things. Avoid eating these bad things. In no time, you'll be healthy and fit.

Ever try to stay on one of these all white diets? My experience has been that trying to follow an all white diet is like trying to use will power on diarrhea; in the long run, you're going to have to shit no matter how hard you try. And yes, when you first go on one of these diets, many people do quite well. But inevitably, the rebalancing comes and you end up even worse.

Sound familiar? Don't get me wrong. Like the good which does exist in Rhonda Byrne's book, many of these diets are based on genuinely sound advice. Unfortunately too few of them teach people to also embrace their failures, let alone that it's the all white philosophy which makes many of these failures happen.

Still not clear as to what I'm saying? Then consider this. How many times have you thought you'd found a way a better way, the secret to a better marriage, or to fitness, or to managing your money. Filled with hope, you earnestly begin this program only to fall back into an even worse state of disaster, months or even weeks later.

Why does this happen to us? It's simple. Deny any part of your nature and you'll end up in an excess. Moreover, that this happens is not even our failure really. It is simply the Tao; the way it is. Including that the unrealistic nature of our hopeful feelings must eventually resolve themselves into equally hopeless feelings. Again, it's just the way it is.

Here then is what the Tao has to teach us about these "secrets." Introduce an imbalance, including an all good one, and you'll end up with an equal and opposite imbalance. Conversely, honor your nature and focus on being real, and you'll end up not only with balance but also with your chances for change improved.

The thing of course is knowing how to accomplish this balance. This is what we're about to look at.

the Law of Repulsion
So what is missing in Byrne's book? Actually, it's pretty simple really. Like all coins and other valuable things, there are two sides to this visualization thing, not just one. Moreover in order to have a genuinely spiritual life, you must honor and practice both.

What are the two sides of the laws governing visualization?

The first is the law Rhonda Byrne refers to in her book, the law of attraction. I refer to this law as the "all white law." Or as it's commonly known, like attracts like.

The other law then embodies what Byrne claims you should absolutely avoid, the law of repulsion. In this case, we're talking about that opposites attract, the law I refer to as the "all black law."

How do these two laws of visualization work?

• With the law of attraction, you draw to you the good things you picture.
• With the law of repulsion, you push away from you the bad things you picture.
• And when you seek balance by embracing both, you stimulate the very energy Dickens refers to in the opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities; "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." Which is why the two sides of the Tao symbol are separated, not by a straight line, but rather by a transverse wave. Very wise dudes, those old philosophers. In physics, transverse waves are the nature of change, and equal and opposite waves create the greatest changes.
  

Can you see why spiritual change always involves a pair of opposites? It takes what Dickens refers to as the best of times, worst of times. This is what creates the potential for change; the two roughly equal sides.

Said another way, these two laws are simply two ends of a single continuum, a natural pair of opposites. They each exist to balance each other out, and if you use visualization to tap into this power, you maximize your chances for getting a better life.

How would these two laws of visualization apply to a real life situation, for instance to dieting? In essence, you'd devote some time to picturing yourself successful and thin while at the same time picturing yourself overeating. Sound crazy? Well consider what it accomplishes. By picturing ourselves as thin and fit, we identify our goal. At the same time, by picturing ourselves overeating, we identify our starting point; where we are now. This then allows us to visualize our whole journey from what we are now to what we want to be. This greatly enhance our chances for success, as you can't very well change what you can't see.

In addition, by picturing ourselves overeating, we satisfy the body's need to overeat. How? By honoring an even more basic spiritual law at play here, something I call The Mind Body Law. Very simply stated, it says, what the mind pictures, the body experiences. I, in fact, have been successfully using this law to manage my anger for decades. Whenever I feel angry, I picture myself losing it and by doing this satisfy my body's need for release.

At the same time, my picturing harms no one including me. And yes, I do get mad at times. But since I began practicing this, I rarely feel anger build up let alone feel ashamed or guilty for feeling angry.

As for what the Tao symbol has to teach us, it is simply this. Great changes occur only in these kinds of times. This in part is why Dicken's words about the French Revolution are so timeless. It's also why picturing all white philosophies do work at times. They work when we're already feeling pretty bad. Conversely picture all good in times when we're already in a pretty good state and you inevitably end up in an equal and opposite state.

What does this look like when it happens? In my life, it led to angry outbursts. In fact, one of my worst faults has been that I have had a bad temper. Even as a child, I carried rage inside me. What I now know though is that a big part of my carrying this much rage was that I tried against hope to restrain my anger. To pretend to be calm and in control. Each time I would try to do this though, inevitably my anger would build up to a point wherein I would hit a last straw. Then my anger would burst out of me, often onto some poor unsuspecting soul who had merely bumped into me.

This changed dramatically after hearing someone share without restraint about anger in an Alanon meeting. This man openly and without shame puked out blatant negative wishes, words so filled with hatred I had trouble listening to them. No surprise, as he did, I judged him in the same way I had been judging myself; fiercely and with no compassion. After all, why give compassion to someone who was so openly negative? Wasn't this only making things worse?

Moments later though, I had an aha when I realized his point. He said he knew what he had been sharing was crazy and that it wasn't what he really wanted to do. Then he laughed, genuinely and spiritually, and in that instant I learned the secret to all white philosophy. If you want to change, you must be able to freely and without shame picture both sides of life, not just the white side. In this case then, it meant that when I felt angry, I needed to visually indulge this anger so as create the momentum by which things flow back into balance.

So did this change the way I handled anger? Very much so. In essence, it gave me an alternative to holding it all in, ending my angry outbursts.

In addition, it gave me the key to understanding balance, including that in order to satisfy my body's need for release, I must consciously picture myself letting lose. Here again, what the mind pictures, the body experiences. At the same time, I learned I also needed to clearly know that I did not intend for these bad things to happen. In this way, no harm comes to anyone, and balance is restored.

Does this strategy actually work in real life though? Years after my realization, I was sitting in a driver's ed point reduction class wherein a film on road rage had just finished. In the film, neat little boxes and nicely drawn arrows flow charted how to control your anger; basically that you should suck it up and think it away.

When the film finished, the instructor, knowing I was a therapist, then asked me to comment on what I had seen. "What do you do when you get angry while driving?" I said that whenever I felt like losing it, for instance, when I was stuck behind a little old lady going half the speed limit, I pictured myself driving her off the road, ripping her from the car, and pummeling her to a pulp. At which point, his jaw dropped and the whole room froze.

Seconds later, the air cleared as the whole room roared with laughter, including this instructor. At which point I went on to say that said I sometimes pictured the Mel Brooks' story wherein he once pulled the leather tie of an irate taxi driver through the taxi's little vent widow until the driver's head lodged in it. Again, the whole room roared with healing laughter. I then added that, of course, I never intended that any of this should actually happen, but that by momentarily mentally indulging my insanity, my anger would resolve into laughter at the thought of my doing these insane things.

To this, I would now add that no child nor mentally ill adult should ever be encouraged to visualize these kinds of things. However, when practiced by spiritually minded adults who know the meaning of "intending," using visualization to satisfy the urges of the body is indeed a very useful tool. As well as a spiritual practice rooted in a great ancient tradition; the balance pictured in the Tao.

Add to this that my life's work in and around emergence based theories and practices has been based entirely in that our suffering comes from what we cannot picture. Including that some of this suffering comes from being unable to picture the things we fear. This, in fact, is a lot of what underlies my almost twenty years of helping people. Including that by teaching them ways to use visualization to create this black and white balance, I teach them the simple wisdom of the Tao.

One last thing. Knowing these concepts in no way guarantees success. For instance, I still cannot picture overeating. Nor it seems can anyone else I know who overeats. Which leads me to believe this may be the piece missing in many of the diets which otherwise offer good advice.

What will change if I can figure out how to picture this? The truth? I'm working on it. Only time will tell. At this point, I can say this though. I feel more hopeful about overeating than I have felt in years. Including that I have not missed the irony in where this hope came from; it came from reading the Secret and allowing myself to find fault in it.

Will this work?

I'll keep you posted.

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be read or reached at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com

Fear Monsters Column - Arpil 2008

Why does taking medical stimulants help people with ADD? Ask ten doctors and you'll get ten answers, most of which will bring to mind the proverbial blind men examining the elephant. It's not their fault. We demand of these good doctors almost god-like answers, including a pill which will if not cure ADD then at least make these kids appear normal. And yes, it's our children's lives we're talking about here so it's really this important. But when it comes to ADD, the only thing most people are sure of is, no one has god-like answers. Including me. So what do I have to offer? As a personality theorist, a lot really, including that a major clue to the actual nature of ADD lies in that medical stimulants help. Why? It's simple really. Stimulants alter people's sense of time and space in a somewhat predictable way. They speed things up and narrow the focus. Moreover, while in theory we're talking about how medical stimulants affect folks with ADD, in reality, we all take stimulants, which gives us all access to this clue.

Not sure what I mean? We consider this. When you take the family to Disneyland and finally get into your seat on one of the rides, what happens next? Obviously, you get stimulated, including that your perception of time speeds up and your focus narrows. And when you get up in the morning and suck down your first cup of coffee, what happens to you then? Why, the same thing, of course; your sense of time speeds up and your focus narrows. And when you hurry to a store so as to be first in the sale line, what happens then? Again, your perception of time speeds up and your focus narrows. And when you watch the Beijing Olympics on TV later this year, what will happen to you? Again, during the pivotal events, your sense of time will speed up and your focus will narrow.

My point here is simple. An inherent part of human nature is we all sense time and space. Not scientifically, mind you, nor even as accurately as watch or clock time. Rather, we each sense time personally, including folks with ADD. Moreover a part of our sensing time and space is that, whenever we get stimulated, our sense of time speeds up and our focus narrows.

What does this have to do with the nature of ADD? Simply put, kids with ADD perceive being stimulated differently than non ADD kids do; more abruptly at first, then more slowly, and in all or nothing increments. Moreover, this difference is especially apparent in situations wherein kids are expected to keep up with other quicker minds, including in almost all classroom settings from about first grade on and especially in situations wherein kids are asked to learn sequences of things, like learning to read and other complex tasks.

What do we know physiologically about kids with ADD when they're asked do this kind of learning? Basically two things. One, that when asked to learn things like reading; in essence, whenever they're called upon to do mentally sequential problem solving, the brains of kids with ADD show slower brain waves compared with the brains of neurotypical kids (Shedding Light on ADHD, The Lancet, Nov. 2003). Two, in these same situations, the brains of kids with ADD show a broader area of involvement as compared with the brains of neurotypical kids (His Brain, Her Brain, INR seminar, Nikita Katz MD, 2007). In other words, in kids with ADD, brain activity gets slower and spread out more thinly as compared to neurotypical kids whose brain activity is stronger and more localized.

The thing to keep in mind here of course is that while brain scans can imply things, they fall apart as far as being factual evidence for what people think and feel. In other words, while brains scans can reveal physiological fractal patterns in things like blood flow, no researcher can claim with certainty to be able to interpret these patterns. We're just not there yet. This means while brain scans can imply things, they cannot replace subjective and objective reporting.

So what kinds of things do people with ADD report? To see, I asked more than a hundred people trained in emergence-based self observation methods a simple question; what's your favorite color? From this, two clear fractal patterns emerged with regard to ADD. In pattern one, people instantly digress then abruptly blurt an answer. In pattern two, people abruptly go blank and cannot self-restart.

What does all this tell us about the nature of ADD? To see, consider this. Picture yourself in winter, standing at a distance from a very big maple tree. Now imagine you have been given a task; you must redraw the patterns of the branches from memory. How would you go about doing this? Most people, when asked to do this, try to memorize a few of the larger patterns of branches. Kids with ADD either reach out in all directions at once and then blurt out an answer or they immediately go blank and then pretend to be memorizing, all the while staring through the tree.

Slower speed. Broader scope. The very bane of mentally sequential learning activities like learning to read. No surprise this is the very kind of learning kids with ADD hate the most. Interestingly enough, no one seems to notice that these same kids excel at the very opposite kind of learning; the kind required to master video games. What's the difference?

Learning to read requires kids repeatedly cycle through a sequence of four mental tasks; recite (pronounce aloud), memorize (commit to short term memory), recall (pronounce to yourself), and interpret (comprehension). In a way, we could call this kind of learning, multi-step mental learning as in, "think about what you're doing now and at the same time, think about what you're going to have to do next" learning. As opposed to the kinds of skills needed to master video games wherein we need to focus on doing one task at a time as quickly as we can, a kind of learning we might call, "no time to think, just do it" learning.

Can you see where this is all going? The psychophysical skills needed to master video games preclude the very type of learning which causes kids with ADD to falter and quit; complex sequences of mental learning. Moreover to understand what's behind this, consider what happens to these kids when they play a video game. Across the board they report their sense of time speeds up while at the same time, their focus shifts from a primarily mental one to a primarily physical one, the fractal pattern Yogi Berra alludes to in his famous comment, "you can't think and bat."

This pattern in fact is quite similar to how stimulant medications affect people with ADD, wherein they feel time speed up and become more aware of their bodies.

A major clue to understanding ADD then lies in discerning the differences between learning to read and mastering video games. What can we say about how these two kinds of learning differ?

• Any learning which involves complex sequences of mental activity will short circuit the brains of people with ADD. This type of learning literally causes the overall rate at which their brains try to process data to slow down, in part, the result of their focus widening beyond their capacity to track. Conversely, any learning which involves intensely focused physical activity will cause the brains of people with ADD to speed up and focus, similarly to what happens to all people when they play video games.
• In essence, these differences can be boiled down to three things; [1] that the nature of the learning is either mental or physical, [2] that the learning requires people to be aware of either sequences of tasks or single step tasks, and [3] that the learning differs markedly in how quickly or slowly people process time.
• What accounts for the difference in how quickly or slowly people process time? Primarily, this is just the result of the actual physics involved, body learning versus mind learning. Said very simply, it takes more time to move the body then to move the mind. Nothing wrong here, it's just simple physics. What this means however is that, by nature, people differ as to which type of learning they are better at; body-based learners versus mind-based learners, and the main difference here is in how people sense time.
• In a general sense then, we could say that people with ADD are more naturally adept at body oriented kinds of learning whereas neurotypical folks are more adept at learning mind oriented tasks. Moreover, this difference has nothing to do with people's native intelligence. It merely describes the type of learning to which each type of person is best suited.
  

So is there any fractal-based evidence to support these claims? There certainly is. Moreover, this fractal-based evidence also reveals the solution to one of the greatest mysteries of all with regard to personality; the nature of the self. What is it that makes us feel we are separate and apart from others? More important, how are our feelings of separateness a factor in both ADD and Asperger's? This will be our topic for next month when we discuss The Nature of the Self as a Factor in ADHD and Asperger's.

[for more thoughts on learning and learning disabilities, click here]

A few years back, I read a really good chapter in what I consider to be one of the best text books on personality. In it, Dean Keith Simonton, a professor of psychology at University of California, discussed how difficult it is to empirically define both genius and creativity. What has stayed with me since then were two things. One, I was surprised by the fact that research shows I.Q. is not a good predictor for creativity past I.Q.’s of 120. Two, I felt personally challenged to find empirical fractals with which to define these two parts of personality; genius, and creativity.

With regard to the first point, my surprise comes from the fact that while a person with an I.Q. of 120 can be expected to be a bit more creative than a person with a more normal I.Q., say 107, that after that people can have an I.Q. of 200 and still be no more creative than people with 120 I.Q.'s. (Normal I.Q.’s are considered to be between about 100 and 110)

How can this be? For years now, I’ve wondered. Wouldn't it make more sense that higher intellect would allow for, and even correlate to, higher creativity? It doesn't though. Moreover, this points to a prejudice present in almost all of us; that being word smart is better than being street smart; in essence, that “factual knowledge” is intelligence.

Yesterday I found myself, in one of my sessions, offering answers to these two questions, first, as to why genius does not correlate to creativity, and second, the fractals within personality which would explain and support this seemingly counterintuitive conclusion. First the fractals.

Know I define “fractals” as “recognizable patterns which always repeat differently.” Thus I see them as being the polar opposite to the more common statistically based kinds of definitions wherein repeating identically is the holy grail. My fractal for “genius” then is, “the ability to use pattern recognition to solve problems,” and my fractal for creativity is “the ability to find problems that lead to recognizing new patterns.”

This makes genius and creativity polar opposites as well and to see this, consider this. As I’ve just defined these terms, a genius is a specialist who uses reductionism to find better solutions. He or she says "why reinvent the wheel? Let’s get things done.” Conversely, a creative person is a generalist who uses expansionism to find previously unnoticed problems. She or he answers the specialist's question, "why reinvent the wheel," with a rarely thought of answer; "Why reinvent the wheel? Why, to become a wheel maker, of course."

From this it may sound like I favor creativity and to be honest, I actually do. Perhaps this is because I’ve met so many very intelligent people who cannot notice the beauty in a baby’s eyes let alone think outside of the box. I’ve also seen too many teachers say that creativity is important while at the same time relegating it’s development in students to an after thought looked at only after the practical learning is done.

Like all things, of course, there is also a down side to being creative and a reason why we, in general, pay people in creatively focused professions like music and art much less than we pay those in reductionist problem solving professions like the sciences and law. This downside is simply that people who are, by nature, expansionists; artists and musicians and such, often digress so far, wide, and badly, they fail to come up with anything useful let alone with enough practical skills to live a normal life.

About this, one of my heroes, the American theorist and professor William James might say that to be considered valid, an idea or endeavor must have a “cash value.” And I agree with him. Thus while the creative person’s question; “I wonder what hasn’t been thought of yet,” can indeed be quite inspiring, it can just as easily lead young people to pooh pooh and or disregard the good practical work of previous generations.

So now, the question. Which do you consider more important, genius or creativity? Moreover, is there a way schools can actually awaken these two skills in people, a pragmatic method with which schools might actually make this happen more? What do you think?

Warmly,

Steven

Last month we spoke about why folks with Asperger's tend to correct people. In essence, they process words in an unnaturally fussy manner. This is similar to how eighteen month olds learning language process words. They feel compelled to repeat them precisely and have no real awareness of how doing this feels to the other person.

The key to understanding people with Asperger's then lies in the phrase, "compulsive verbal precision forced on others." Folks with Asperger's literally cannot stand to hear to vagueness, especially conceptual vagueness. Hence their compulsion to correct anyone whom they hear speaking vaguely, or imprecisely, or with anything less than professorial comprehension. Fussy. Fussy. Fussy. Anything less is simply a waste of time and unacceptable.

This month we're going to look at the people who, by nature, lie at the other end of the fussy / fuzzy continuum. These folks rarely correct people; they know all too well what this feels like. They also often feel like being asked to find the right words is boring or a waste of time or next to impossible. Thus they tend to be the folks Aspie's correct the most. Of whom am I talking? Why the unnaturally fuzzy minded people of the world, of course. The folks who have ADD.

What exactly is ADD? Word wise, it's an acronym for Attention Deficit Disorder. Or as the fussy minded folk out there refer to it these days, ADHD; attention deficits with or without hyperactivity.

Please realize these words in no way offer us any real clues as to what underlies this condition. In fact, the only way to get a real sense of what underlies ADD is to set aside the "hyperactivity" part while at the same time, doing your best to disregard any and all images which may pop into your head as to what "attention deficits" may look like.

Not every one with ADD is hyperactive. That should tell you something. More important, we all have attention deficits, even Aspie's. Thus defining ADD as an attention deficit sometimes accompanied by hyperactivity does more to confuse the issue than to help. And yes, I know what I've just said is anathema to many in the medical community especially when, from the outside, folks with ADD do appear to have attention deficits. In reality though, defining ADD as attention deficits is more like defining manic depression as mood swings. Duh! Of course this is true, but so what. My point is, defining ADD as attention deficits is next to useless, as it does nothing to define the actual underlying condition.

What is ADD then? ADD is an unnatural state of mind and body wherein people instantly and compulsively digress. These folks literally try to pay attention to too many things at once. They then get lost and end up either sinking into an inner mental labyrinth of blankness or they seek escape by blurting out the first words that come to mind.

Why do they blurt out the first words which come to mind? Because blurting out these words feels better than standing there looking like an idiot. Doing this quickly also satisfies the educational world's misconception that quick answers imply learning. It also resembles the quick mindedness we think makes us clever or sly, as well as being a doable way to escape the pain of being lost in a wordlessly amorphous state of mind.

Now take a moment to take all these images in. Can you picture what it feels like to have ADD? You get asked a question. Then you stand there, blank and stuck, hoping to out wait the questioner until they give up and just move on. Know how many wives misread this as that their spouse doesn't love them enough to talk? Or parents that their child doesn't care about learning? And when I suggest this is not the case, these wives or parents say things like, "then why don't they answer me?" Why? Because this person has ADD.

Sometimes, too, the person answers but only after what feels like a long time to the questioner. To which the questioning wife responds with that the husband's answer isn't sincere. He's said it only because he believes she wants to hear it. Or if it's a child being helped with homework and she answers after a time, then it's assumed she could be finding the answers more quickly if only she would try harder. Not really. But it does look like this.

Most important of all, can you imagine how bad it feels when even simple questions evoke this kind of pressure in a person? Perhaps this why folks with ADD prefer having the wrong words to no words. And why quickly spitting out the first words which come to mind feels better than being slow to respond with the right words. Now add to this that when people with ADD can't answer quickly, they hear things like, "come on now, you can do it if you try" or worse; "did you forget to take your medication again?," or "quit stalling and just spit it out." Really makes a person feel like talking is going to be fun, don't you think?

What about you? Have compulsive digressions been a way of life for you? If not, then please allow me to offer you a few brief visual insights into what is really happening here. Why visual? Because insights make sense only to those who can visualize them, which is why we call them "in - sights" rather than "in - logic" (sigh).

What does someone with ADD look like then? How, in fact, can you know if you have ADD?

• The easiest way to test people for ADD is to ask them a question then notice what happens to their eyes. The simpler the question, the better. For instance, asking people what their favorite color is can be a good ADD test. As can asking them what they'd like for lunch, or what they ate last night.
• What do the eyes of folks with ADD look like when they are being asked a question? Before I tell you, I first need you to know that in order for this look to make sense, you need to see it as being on the opposite end of the spectrum from what the eyes of folks who have Asperger's look like. The core requirement one needs to know in order to accurately gauge this test then is how folks with ADD look when being asked a question as opposed to what folks with Asperger's look like.
• Let's do the Aspie's first. What do folks with Asperger's look like when they're being asked a question? If you watch closely, you'll feel like their eyes are reaching out into the world, often with a sense of positive anticipation. Their eyes will literally widen a bit, sometimes quite a bit, and if you are an intuitive type, you can almost feel they are reaching out toward you, wanting to give you their answer.
• This look is very similar to how the eyes of eighteen month olds look when you ask them a question; widened with positive anticipation. The eyes of folks with ADD will appear to be the exact opposite. The eyes of folks with ADD will appear to be receding inward, often in a suddenly blank and or guarded manner and with an overarching air of negative anticipation.
• Know this look resembles children at an early age too, in this case, the look two and a half year olds give you when you ask them something. Thus if you contrast and compare the eyes of eighteen month olds being asked a question with the eyes of two and a half year olds, you'll have a good basic sense of what to look for.
• Now try visualizing what I've just said about ADD. Eyes which appear to be receding inward, often in a suddenly blank and or guarded manner, with an overarching air of negative anticipation. This look closely matches the annoyed eyes of a two year old being asked to pay attention. Or being asked to learn something, or shown something, or being told to answer a question.
• These pictures are a good way to begin to assess someone for ADD. They can also be used to infer what is happening inside of the minds of folks with ADD. Withdrawing in a guarded manner versus the positive out reaching of Aspie's. Big difference, right? More important, this happens to people with ADD even when they are being asked simple questions.
• Thus were you to watch a film in slow motion of their reaction to being asked a question, you'd realize the blunt "get away from me" part of their response is actually their secondary response. Their primary response is actually that they feel compelled to find the right answer and so, digress into blankness. Realize too that this response is so much a part of their nature that it happens to them even when the question being asked is something they readily know, like what they ate last night.
• This in fact is what makes this test for ADD so revealing. These easily observed responses are involuntary responses. Thus they offer us the best clues to the true nature of people with ADD.
• What about their motives for not answering? Can't you logically infer their motives from observing them? In truth, if they're going blank, they cannot be choosing to do anything. You cannot chose what you cannot see, and all motive assumes mental access to choice.
  

How are you doing so far? Feeling any scientific skepticism right now? If so, good for you. Nothing truly new ever becomes intuitively obvious until much debate has passed. For now, I merely ask that you allow me to try to teach you something about the nature of discovering new ideas, the idea that all new discoveries are rooted in someone learning to recognize a previously unseen pattern. Einstein, Newton, Descartes, whomever. It doesn't matter. They each discovered patterns previously unseen.

The thing that's especially important to know is that, with all natural things, these patterns are always fractal in nature. Including the patterns which define ADD as ADD. How do I define patterns as being "fractal patterns?" They are "recognizable visual patterns which always repeat differently." As opposed to the holy grail of the today's statistically based sciences, wherein the only acceptable test for truth is "recognizable numeric patterns which always repeat identically." The closer to identical, the better.

Did you notice that the difference between these two ways of evaluating things? For the most part it lies in the last word; repeats "differently" versus repeats "identically." This is what makes using lists of symptoms to evaluate someone for ADD fail. Despite the statistical evidence behind each of these symptoms, at the single person level, each symptom may or may not be present. Why not? Because ADD never repeats identically. Not even in the same person on different days.

Contrast this way of knowing things with how we might determine if a leaf is an oak leaf. And yes, oak leaves are simpler than people. Still, the method we'd use to identify them both, in theory, should be the same. Right? Good science should be good science regardless of what we're testing for, yes? Surprisingly, most people would not use science's chosen method though. We'd intuitively use the very opposite method. We'd look for recognizable patterns which repeat differently as opposed to patterns which repeat identically. Identical patterns appear only in artificial oak leaves, right? Real ones always repeat differently.

This simple test for truth is how a nine year old can so readily identify a leaf as an oak leaf. How? He recognizes the visual pattern with always repeats differently. This is why the differences you'd see between oak leaves never really matter and why, once you learn what an oak leaf looks like, you know this pattern for life. The differences you see never matter because you are not cross checking a list for what you are supposed to see. You are looking only for a recognizable visual pattern.

Now consider how this concept holds true for identifying all natural objects, clouds to snow flakes, smiles to yawns. In each case it's the visual pattern we learn to identify, not a list of conditions. Moreover once we learn this pattern, we then recognize this thing for life. Easily, and with one hundred percent certainty.

Imagine being able to diagnose ADD with this much ease and degree of certainty? How much more could we help people with ADD. In effect, we'd be diagnosing them with one hundred percent certainty. Moreover, unlike cross checking people's behaviors against written lists of possible symptoms, wherein folks are considered to have ADD merely because they appear to have more of these things than chance would allow, with fractal patterns, what you see is one hundred percent true. Either a person has ADD or they do not. It's this simple. Can you imagine?

Please know that fully grasping this point is anything but simple. In effect, I'm saying that we should be using the same method to identify ADD as we'd use to identify oak leaves and smiles. Moreover, I'm also saying that the only truly scientific way to know the nature of ADD is to learn to recognize the fractal patterns which define it. Recognizable patterns like eyes reaching out, widening a bit, and feeling positive versus eyes receding inward, narrowing a bit, and feeling squirmy are just such fractal patterns. This makes identifying and learning to recognize these kinds of patterns enormously important in everything from diagnosing and understanding ADD to knowing how best to help.

Not convinced yet as to the importance of learning to recognize these kinds of patterns? Know you've been using this kind of pattern recognition to test for truth all your life. As babies, we learn to recognize these kinds of patterns in our mother's face within minutes of being born. Moreover, know it or not, we continue to rely on these kinds of visual patterns for the rest of our lives.

Want to experience this for yourself? The next time you meet someone, before you speak one word, take a moment to consciously take in what you see on person's face. Then ask yourself who this person reminds you of. Take your time. This test only works if it's the first thing you do.

Now watch how you feel as the conversation unfolds, paying close attention to how your "first visual impression" sets the tone for what you expect this person to be like. This impression can often lead us to immediately like or dislike a person, including that some of what we expect may eventually turn out to be wrong.

In a way then, what I'm saying here about the eye patterns of folks with ADD is that these patterns tell us far more than words like "distraction" can ever tell us, including things like that these folks are frequently more motivated to learn than has previously been thought. Unfortunately, our first impressions of people with ADD appear to make them the very opposite. They often appear to be folks who have no interest in learning but in fact, any teacher who gets an ADD kid to be interested knows this impression is utter nonsense. When they are focused, kids with ADD love learning just as much as the other kids. We think otherwise mainly because we judge what we see on their faces to mean disinterest.

What would you find if you were to spend some time exploring these visual patterns? You'd find a very simple truth. That beneath it all, people with ADD simply focus too much on escaping their need to have the right answer, while folks with Asperger's focus too much on having the right answer and not enough on having good questions.

Now picture what I've just described, the basic difference between ADD and Asperger's. Said more simply, the biggest difference between these two conditions lies in the speed at which these two kinds of folks process words. Now ask yourself how true these two visual patterns of speed feel in your body? Now trust your gut. Attention deficits are not even close to what you see. Digressing into bluntness is the real deal here. And speed is the clue to the underlying problem.

Does it still sound like what I'm suggesting here is more based on vague guesswork than on hard science? If so, then try this. Try watching a foreign film wherein you have no knowledge of the language being spoken. Now turn off the subtitles and continue watching. After a few moments, ask yourself how well you can understand the gist of what is going on just from what you're seeing. You'll be surprised at how much you can sense merely by watching the fractal patterns of body language and such.

Even more to the point, try reading a line of text wherein you cover up the bottom half of the words. You'll be stunned at how much of the gist of these words you can get even from just seeing the fractal visual patterns of the upper halves of these words. Scientists use this test to reveal the underlying nature of learning language, including that much of what we think we read or hear is never actually there. The nature of typos, remember?

Okay, yes. This is a lot to take in. Moreover reading through all this is a whole lot harder than if I were to have given you a list of symptoms for ADD. The thing is, if you've gotten even the vaguest sense of how we learn to identify oak leaves, then you have the first clue as to how best to identify folks with ADD.

How do we best help people with ADD? Obviously, it's complicated. What I can tell you at this point though is this. The key to knowing how best to help folks with ADD has been in front of us all along, right there, in plain sight. Moreover the proof for this being true lies in a single, simple question. The question? Why does taking a medication which speeds up a person's sense of time help people with ADD to focus? Go slow now and for Pete's sake, don't look for the answer with logic alone.

What does a person's sense of time have to do with ADD anyway? Remember, you cannot arrive at a truly scientific answer unless you find the underlying visual pattern which always repeats differently. In truth, underlying fractal patterns are the only truly scientific way to define anything, including everything in the natural world.

Next month, I'll reveal the fractal which underlies ADD. I'll also show you a simple way to change a lot of this. A clue. It has everything to do with something I've been saying, the person's sense of speed. How could this help? I'll tell you next month.

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be reached or read at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com .

One of the more difficult things about trying to help someone with Asperger's is they correct you a lot. Eight year olds. Forty three year olds. Twenty six year olds. It doesn't matter. Every person with Asperger's feels this same need; to be the guardian of correct words and ideas. Instantly and without exception. Ever wonder why they do this? This is what we're about to begin to look at. And yes, I said begin to look at. This topic is a doozy. A real Pandora's box.

What's the fear monster here? Oh boy, where do we begin. That you just cannot stand having this done to you one more day? That your little lovable know-it-all just insulted your next door neighbor again? That you're tired and angry and can't find it in you to set one more parental limit? That you fear you'll eventually lose it and toss someone through a window? Or jump through yourself!

Consistency is one of the pillars of good parenting. Yet being consistent with an Aspie child is like arguing gum off the sole of your shoe; it ain't happening without a world class struggle.

Giving clear direction is one of the main qualities of a good boss. Yet trying to be clear with the thirty two year old genius you just hired without them embarrassing you in front of your whole staff feels more like baby sitting your two year old nephew when it's past his bedtime. Or a game of erotic pictionary witnessed by your favorite minister. Or having your spouse start an argument when you're overtired and just want to close your eyes. Makes you want to hire dummies, or robots, doesn't it?

Then there's what happens to teachers. Giving visually stimulating examples is the heart and soul of good teaching; show don't tell, remember. Yet when your star fifth grade student has just interrupted you for the ninth time today and it's only 9:03. Arrgh. Worst of all, what he said was actually right every time. Disruptive and disrespectful. Yes. But he was correct in what he said. And everyone knows it. Oh boy.

What is going on here? It's simple. Frustratingly simple in fact. In fact, to see this, all you need do is picture a normal eighteen month old. Now picture what they are like when they are doing "show and tell."

What are they like? Cute, to be sure. Why? Because you so want this little being to grow up and be smart. And every time they hold up objects and correctly name them, you see more evidence they will. For instance, can you picture your little boy holding up your new, four hundred dollar designer eye glasses and saying, "glasses." At which point, you smile, nervously, yes, but proudly too. Then he does it again. "Glasses." To which you respond with something vaguely encouraging like, "Yes, look how smart my little man is. Very good, sweetie. Now put them down please." At which point, his little arm shoots up yet again and you realize this is not going to go down easy. Then it happens again. His little energetic arm shoots up and he laughs at you; "glasses." And he keeps on doing it until, at last, in frustration you grab the freakin' glasses out of his cute little energetic hand and physically hustle him away to some hopefully better distraction.

Ever thought about what it is babies are doing in these moments? Yes. I know. They are learning to speak words. And certainly this is amazing to watch. Indeed. But they are also annoying the crap out of you, by insisting they show you, again ,and again, that they know the correct word for the object they are holding up. Until at last you want to scream. "Glasses." "Glasses." "Glasses." "GlasseS." "GlasSES!" GLASSESS!

The feeling you feel in these moments is the thing to notice here. This and the specificity of what they're saying.

"Specificity?"

Yes. Specificity. The precise nature of what they are repeating. You see, even if medically minded folk are right about there being physiological differences between normal folk and people with Asperger's, when you've been corrected for the inth time and feel like killing someone, the science of it all doesn't matter one bit. You want answers. Real answers. Things you can actually use.

You want an answer? Well here's one. Learn to visually recognize Asperger's as an extended stay in the second year of life, and you will have a real foundation from which to solve for many of these problems.

How exactly does this work? You learn to hear the words Apsie's say as a second language; what I call, "fussy." As opposed to the kind of language normal folks use, which I call, "fuzzy." What's the difference?

When people speak fussy, they make giving or receiving information more important than connecting to people, whereas when people speak fuzzy, they do the opposite. They make connecting to people more important than giving or receiving information.

Can you see the difference yet? Well try this. Try picturing a balance scale loaded with the information in the left tray and the human connecting in right tray. Now consider the significance of what I've just said. Cold hard info on the left, warm fuzzy stuff on the right.

So can you seeing the significance of what I'm saying with regard to the social deficits of folks with Asperger's? And yes, scientists have noticed that the amygdalas in the brains of Apsie's are larger than normal, making these folks have stronger than normal reactions to the emotional content of facial reactions. However, the better scientists also admit this may be a chicken and an egg thing, in that something experiential may be causing these amygdalas to become larger.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The evidence is right in front of our faces. No pun intended. Children are normal at eighteen months old when they annoy the crap out of us with their verbal repetitions. But by eighteen years old, what was once cute and annoying has become the bane of our existence. And the essence of the condition we call Asperger's.

What can you actually do with what I've just told you? For one thing, you can use to see for yourself what it's like to have Asperger's. This in fact is the focus of this month's "interpersonal realization tool"; seeing for yourself what it's like to feel a compulsion to correct people.

What does this tool do exactly? Just what I said it does. It teaches you to personally recognize, and hear, one of the most basic defining qualities in all human communications; the fussy - fuzzy quality. Which just so happens to be one of the main ways folks with Asperger's differ from normal folks.

Imagine understanding what it's like to have Asperger's? Here's where you can begin.

• Start by asking yourself which style of communication you prefer; warm and fussy or cold hard facts? Don't take you own words for this either. Check it out with someone who knows you well, someone who will tell you the truth.
• Ask them which style they think you do more. Then ask a few more people. Then sit down and think back on your life. Now take it all in and look for your overall pattern. Fussy? Fuzzy? Which do you prefer?
• Now consider how this preference affects every relationship you have, as far as how well others hear you. Or don't hear you. How people react to you. Are you fuzzy and are people always asking you to clarify what you say, meaning, they haven't a clue as to what you mean? Or are you fussy, meaning, you frequently annoy people by how many facts you offer. Not sure? Do people tell you things like, "could you get to the point please" to hurry you along? If so, then you're likely more fussy than fuzzy.
• Consider for a moment what these results imply as far as your having relationships with others. Now realize this survey is just the beginning. What I mean is, no card carrying Apsie like myself would ever want you to just accept what I'm saying. We Aspies want you to see the truth in things for yourself. I know this to be one of the better qualities of folks with Asperger's. Along with that they're rarely prejudiced in the anti people sense of the word. So yes, Aspies want to correct your mistakes, but never just to be right but rather, mainly, to be helpful.
• How about you then? Do you tend to be someone who feels urges to correct others? If you do it all the time, you may have Asperger's, or at least the features of Asperger's. If you do, then the next time you feel one of these urges, try to notice what you feel an urge to do. Blurt out a correction? Call the person stupid? Get them to speak correctly? Stop them from babbling nonsense?
• If this is you, then consider what you may be missing in this scene; that in normal settings, people connect by making each other more important than the information they are talking about. And yes, there are times, emergencies mostly, wherein making information more important than people is the right thing to do. Even then though, forgetting people's feelings means people will not hear most of what you say.
• Do you tend to be on the opposite end of this scale, someone who frequently finds themselves painfully enduring these kinds of lengthy discussions? One of the simplest tests for this is asking yourself if like talking about the weather. Do you? People who like talking about the weather most times don't really care about the weather. They're just saying things in order to have an excuse to be talking ,and possibly connecting. As two human beings being rather than as two encyclopedias informing.
• Finally, remember what I've been telling you, that we're only beginning to address this particular fear monster. And yes, I have indeed used the word "beginning" like a year and a half old baby. Has this has annoyed you? Well then perhaps you're beginning to see my point. Meaning what exactly? Meaning the key to facing this fear monster is simply to learn to see folks with Asperger's as over efforting eighteen month olds rather than as disrespectful know-it-all's. If you can, you'll be amazed at how much this can help, especially when you feel the need to summon up the same love and patience you'd need to give an eighteen month old. The same love and patience you yourself deserve for putting up with this all this crap. The same love and patience we all deserve to give and get, every single day of our lives.
  

And at the risk of annoying you yet again, I need to say it once more (smile). This is only the beginning.

Arrgh!

To be continued next month . . .

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be reached at his site, http://theEmergencesite.com .

Martin is a handsome thirty six year old man with a masters degree in history. He is also single, has had no full time job, and still lives at home with his mother. Not because he wants to, mind you, albeit she and he get along quite well. Rather, Martin has Asperger's, a rather serious case, and on a severity scale from one to ten I'd say Martin would rate a nine. On a good day.

The thing is, a lot of people with Asperger's somehow manage to have normal lives. Geeky in places, yes, but otherwise normal in the eyes of the world. So why has Martin, with his high IQ, struggled more than most? I've asked myself this question about Martin time and time again. It took me three years to find an answer I could live with.

For many years, Martin's mother had been asking herself this same question, each time Martin had a meltdown. At age three or four, the meltdowns were hard to endure. At thirty-six, they were beyond hard. They were almost unbearable.

Martin himself had frequently asked me this question as well, each time he spiraled into hopeless which in the first two years was often. And when he'd ask me, I'd do my best to find some shred of progress which might offer him hope. A light at the end of the tunnel which he could look forward to.

So will Martin ever be normal? My answer may surprise you. Moreover if you are the parent of a newly diagnosed Aspie, wondering if your child ever be normal may feel like the most difficult question you have to deal with.

My thoughts? Before I offer you an answer (and I will), I first need to tell you something about me. You see, I, too, have Asperger's, like Martin, a rather serious case. In fact, if asked to rate my own level of severity, I'd have say my Asperger's is just as serious as Martin's. This then begs the question, how have I managed to attain so much of what society would say makes me normal when a man as smart as Martin can't seem to find his way out of his meltdowns? What in fact makes Martin's life and mine so different? For that matter, why make such a big deal of the differences between Martin and I?

Why? Because in the answer to this question lies the key to resolving the "will my child ever be normal" question. So will your child ever be normal? Big breath now. No, your child will never be normal. At least not in the statistical sense of the word. He will always have Asperger's. This is not going to change.

At the same time, your child has the potential to live a very normal life. An exceptional life even. How? In the same way folks recovering from alcoholism achieve very normal lives. By looking at "what it was like, what happened, and what it is like now." In other words, by using a bit of the old contrast and compare.

Not sure to what I'm referring? Have I hit your "too good to be true" button? If so, then know you're in good company. In fact, if you read what experts say about Asperger's and at the same time, pay close attention to what they disagree about the most, you'd find this question; will my child ever be normal, underlies much of what they argue about. In truth, this question may be the biggest fear monster of all with regard to Asperger's. And apparently this holds true for professional and parents alike.

How then can I feel such admittedly blatant optimism? In the coming months, I'll be explaining this optimism to you. Including that I will offer you ways in which to make this very same kind of a difference. Know that each of the things Ill tell you is based on something which has helped both me and those I've worked with to live more normal lives. And in a moment, I'll share with you the first of these ideas.

Before I do though, I need to qualify something. When I say, "live more normal lives," I am not merely referring to ways in which people with Asperger's can learn to imitate normal. I, myself, strongly oppose interventions which ask that anyone pretend to be normal. Rather, I'm talking about ideas which may lead to genuine, life changing possibilities, each built on finding the positives in Asperger's, as opposed to trying to eliminate what many folks see as the "brokenness" of Asperger's

Of course, the real question you need answered here is the one prototype American psychologist, William James, frequently asked himself a hundred years ago, whenever he wanted to know if something was true. He would ask himself if this idea held any "cash value"; if it was pragmatically true. So is there any cash value to ideas which may help an Aspie to feel more comfortable around normal folks? Ask Martin. Last year he had his first ever romantic relationship. His meltdowns have decreased to the point where they may soon become extinct. And currently, he's happily employed for the first time in years.

How did he manage to do this? Again, the key lies mainly in knowing how I, myself, managed to escape the almost Saturnian gravity of Asperger's when Martin did not. How did I? It's simple really. All Aspies, regardless of age, share a common thread; their special interests. And as luck would have it, unlike the interests of most Aspies, my special interest; human personality, generalizes to society at large. A fortunate coincidence, to be sure.

At the same time, I've had to learn that my special interest may not be interesting to others. As well as some rather mundane but related concepts such as that people talk about the weather so as to have an excuse to connect, and not so much because they give a hoot about the weather.

Has knowing this stuff made me normal (smile)? Not exactly (sigh). And if you put me in a social situation and bring up the Yankees, you'd see this right away. However, over the past few years, I've learned to love being in social settings in ways I never thought possible. I've also helped quite a few Aspies to feel the same way. Most important, I've been able to repeat what I've done with remarkable certainty.

What does all this mean as far as actually helping someone with Asperger's? Of if you, yourself, have Asperger's, what does this mean about helping yourself?

In the coming months, I'll be sharing a lot regarding the idea that the real goal for Aspies should be their becoming comfortable with being around normal, rather than on being normal. As for how these ideas work, they all have one thing in common. They hold the potential to provoke what I call an "emergence." Or said in normal language, the potential to cause an "aha"; a personal realization.

Why an "aha?" Because, while there are many good sounding ideas out there, only aha's are permanent. Why? Because in the process of having them, a person's very nature gets altered. This means the cash value of these ideas continues to exist even on bad days; even when a person's will power wears thin; even when the person forgets why he is using them.

This permanence then is why I call these ideas, "interpersonal realization tools." Each idea holds the power to help someone with Asperger's, or someone who loves someone with Asperger's, to face yet another aspect of the "will I even be normal" fear monster head on, and to do this in a lasting way.

So if you have Asperger's, will you ever be normal? By now, you know my answer. No, you won't. At the same time, you can learn to love being around normal, and in doing so stop feeling so alone and afraid.

Now let me introduce you to this month's "interpersonal realization tool"; learning to see the difference between the special interests of Aspies and the interests of normal folk.

• Social skills deficits are the hallmark of any autism, whether this be Asperger's, Kanner's, or otherwise. With Asperger's, the key to understanding what prevents these social skills from developing lies in the idea that Aspies have "special interests." Moreover this idea holds true regardless of what physiological differences and or special circumstances may underlie this condition. What makes these interests "socially special"? Asking yourself this question is a good place to begin to change.
• Now try contrasting and comparing this aspect of the Asperger's personality with the way normal folks behave. All Aspies have these kinds of all-consuming special interests. Most normal folks do not. This in part is what makes it so hard for normal folks to understand how people with Asperger's can be so blind when it comes to knowing how it feels to be on the other end of one of their impromptu dissertations. As well as what makes it so hard for normal folks to see why Aspies get so hurt and angry when normal folks cut them off. Which they do, of course, only so as to keep from drowning in an informational deluge.
• This then is a good starting point from which to help someone with Asperger's to become more authentically normal. Have this person explore the idea that all Aspies have special interests, and all normal folks do not. At least, not all-consuming ones. How might you best help them do this? Ask them to make a list of their special interests. And for God's sake, please do make sure you tell them the rules for making this list (smile).
• What are the rules? Rule one. The list may have one thing on it, or it may have ten things on it. It may also have changed a lot over their lifetime, or it may have remained the same since age three. Whatever the case, the rules are the same. The list must be limited to what fits on one side of one page. Rule two. Each item on this list must be limited to a title and one paragraph. No more than this and no less. Rule three. They must be given a full 24 hours in which to write this list. They must also feel free to use as much or as little of this time as needed. At the same time, whatever they come up with must be promptly turned in to you within an hour of it being done. Finally Rule Four. There are only three rules.
• Now leave them alone and do not ask them how they are doing. Even if you see them doing nothing, let them be. And if the person is too young to make this list on their own, then create a time in which the two of you can do this together, remembering that the goal is not to make a perfect list. Insights do not require perfection. Only seeing beauty where you did not expect it. Doing your best is all that's required then. You can do no more.
• When the list is complete, have the person sit down with family members and ask them if they too have any special interests. Before beginning though, be sure to let the Aspie know that they are not allowed to share their list for now, that for now, it is to remain private. For people with Asperger's, this alone can be an eye opening experience. It can also be the beginning of understanding what the normal world calls, "boundaries."
• The overall goal here is simple. If you can help an Aspie to see what makes their interests "special," then this idea alone can create great insight and hope in them. After all, these folks very much want someone to tell them what normal is. Which is why they constantly ask you to tell them, and remind you of, the "rules." The thing is, "normal" is not something rules can describe. Moreover, if you doubt this, then try reading what personality theorists see as the rules behind what motivates humans to do anything, match making to back scratching. Then compare what they say to what you know to be normal. And trust yourself. Whatever they say, your experience is the real truth. Unless of course you think there actually is such a thing as a "normal" which is defined by rules. In which case, you may want to have yourself evaluated for Asperger's.
• The next step then would be to learn to see these special interests as something more than a social deficit. Here the thing to remember is that beneath these socially alienating behaviors beats a heart of gold. What I'm saying is, regardless of what it may seem like on the outside, people with Asperger's are amongst the most caring, least prejudiced, and most motivated people I know. The problem lies in that they find it hard to believe others do not share the same all-consuming interests. This is why they tend to react so defensively when asked to refrain from sharing about these special interests, and why they can feel so ashamed when this happens.
• Finally, if you keep in mind why they share these special interests, it can help. They share them mainly because it is their way to connect to others socially. Thus if you can see these interests for what they are, then you have the beginnings of understanding what it's like to have Asperger's. These special interests are their only escape from the profound loneliness Aspies feel. This makes helping them, and you, to see the nature of these special interests the beginning of teaching them to love being around "normal."
  

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of the first fractal personality theory; Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning. He can be reached or read at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com

Have you ever felt unsure as to whether you were dreaming or awake? How about whether what you thought you were seeing was really there? In truth, we all feel things like this at times. And even if all you get baffled by is an odd sounding noise or a hand and finger shadow rabbit, reality can be quite an elusive thing. Especially if you are deeply engrossed in something. A movie. An infatuation. A deep sleep or a dream. In this, the final chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy then, we're going to explore the experience we claim we are looking for in talk therapy. We're going to explore reality. And how what we visualize affects our perception of it. Are you sure what you saw in the shadows was not the boogie man? How can you be sure? Are you really sure? Let's see.

"Getting a Little Movement"
One of the more lasting conversations I've had in recent years was with a man named Tony. Tony is a chiropractor. At the time, I was on his table and had asked him what he looks for when he is adjusting people. His answer? He told me that all he tries to do is to "get a little movement."

Know this chiropractor is one of the smartest men I know when it comes to body mechanics. He also has a masters degree in engineering and extensive training in nutrition. Thus the simplicity of his comment surprised me. What stayed with me though and what has continued to amaze me is how Tony's comment so points to the strong parallels which exist between our two professions. And yes, the focus of our practices is obviously different; Tony focuses on the body and I, on the mind. Even so, when you boil down what we do to its simplest forms, our underlying goals are the same; we both look to get a little movement. Tony, in the body. And me, in the mind.

Where am I going with all this? It turns out that movement is one of the best ways to gauge peoples' progress in therapy. It is also one of the best ways to learn to see the mind body connection. Unfortunately, even knowing this may not enable you to see this movement. Why? Because while most people find it easy to see how the laws of physics apply to physical movement, for the most part, seeing how they apply to what is going on in the mind is not so easy. Unless of course you understand what I've drawn in this chapter's diagram; how the laws of physics intersect at the plane of the eye. In which case, seeing how the mind and body connect is a no brainer. No pun intended.

What does this diagram represent?

Start with this. Instead of focusing on testing for yourself whether these ideas are true, try clearing the workspace in your mind the same way you might clear a physical workspace. Next consider what it is we are about to explore. We are going to explore the mind body connection. How? By exploring how the laws of physics intersect at the plane of the eye.

What skills will we need? We'll obviously need to know a few things about how the laws of physics work. A few of the more basic concepts. Including that all laws in physics can be reduced to one rather deceptively simple category of statements; they are all descriptions of how something moving in time and space relates to and effects other things.

How do these descriptions reveal the mind body connection? It turns out that because our physical sensations are the source of much of what we mentally envision and imagine, that what we envision and imagine is governed by the same laws which govern these sensations. The laws of physics. Thus even when we imagine doing things which supersede the laws of physics, such as when we dream of flying and such, because we are being guided in part by what we physically sense, these laws still apply.

So yes. The laws of physics affect everything. Even what we dream. Not such a hard concept to take in really. What complicates this though is the idea that this process occurs in reverse as well; what we imagine creates sensation. Thus, no matter what we imagine, these imaginings create sensations. And because they do, the laws of physics govern even our imaginings.

This is why hearing a strange noise in the night may convince us someone is in the house. We get awakened by what we believe to be an actual noise. Then we imagine a stranger is in the house. Of course, then, as we strain to discern what it is we are hearing, our imaginations create more physical sensations in us. All of which combine and interact until we become unable to know fantasy from reality.

Here then is the main thing which makes it hard for us to test for reality. Even in talk therapy. Because sensation creates the mind and the mind creates sensation, we can have a heck of a hard time determining what is real. Both out in life and in the world of the therapy room. And lest you think this difficulty is limited to what we experience in our minds and bodies, please know this idea is one of the more debated ideas in science; to what degree does what we think affect the world around us. Including the laws of physics.

The good news though is that there are things we can know with certainty. Including about the laws of physics. The main thing being that these laws are what connect the body and the mind. Which is why you have heard me repeatedly call these laws, the psychophysical laws. Or the "mind body" laws if you will.

What makes this idea so important? Talk therapy claims to be helping us to know reality. Yet in general, talk therapy seems to ignore these laws. This despite the fact that if we accept that these two worlds; the world of the body and the world of the mind, are governed by the same set of laws, then we can begin to measure reality simply by measuring the degree to which the body and mind parallel each other's movements over time.

Not sure of what I'm saying here? I'm saying that while we experience our minds and bodies differently in many ways, in one aspect they never differ. They both ground themselves in physical sensation. Thus they both follow the same laws with regard to space, time, and movement. Moreover, the easiest way to measure this sameness is to observe the timing of when you sense things moving in space. In the body; physically. And in the mind; psychologically.

Interestingly enough, while this idea does not appear in writing until 1860 (Elemente der Psychophysik, Gustav Theodor Fechner, 1860), we can find this same parallel implied in writing several thousand years earlier. In what has become one of the most recanted wisdom's of all times; "as above, so below."

Not familiar with this saying? It is said to have come from something called the Emerald Tablet and is the core wisdom of a philosophy in existence around the time of Jesus. Hermetic Philosophy.

What is the Emerald Tablet? According to legend, it is a tablet said to have been discovered in a cave tomb clutched in the hands of the corpse of Hermes Trismegistus, an Egyptian priest and sage reputed to have been be one of the wisest men of antiquity. Legends differ on who discovered this tablet. One says it was Sarah, the wife of Abraham. Another says it was Apollonius of Tyana. Whatever the case, this tablet was supposed to contain the magical secrets of the entire universe. Inscribed in Phoenician. Unfortunately, while several arabic translations exist and a Latin translation from about, 1200 AD, none of these translations are identical and little on the Tablet appears to make sense.

Why mention this legendary tablet? Because this saying, "as above, so below," does indeed state one of the deepest secrets in our universe. What? The essential quality of what I see to be the consummate test for truth. The idea I refer to as "fractility."

What is fractility? My definition? It is a quality by which something has a geometrically recognizable pattern or patterns which always repeat differently regardless of scale. As opposed to the essential quality of linear geometry wherein something has a geometrically recognizable pattern or patterns which always repeat identically regardless of scale.

Why mention fractility? Because this chapter focuses on how we can know reality. And in our world, fractility is the only authentic test for truth. Thus if an idea is fractal, then it is one hundred percent true. Every oak leaf is a true oak leaf. Every snow flake a snow flake. Whereas if an idea is not fractal, while it may contain a partial truth, at best, it is only partially true. Thus a person may test as competent by getting all A's in school. Yet this same person may be unable to translate any of this into real world skills.

Okay. So if something has fractility, we can know it to be one hundred percent true. And if it does not then we can know that it is at least partially untrue. Doesn't the partial truth contained therein have value though?

Actually, other than as a coarse test for truth, most times, this kind of knowing is less valuable than being certain you know nothing. Why? Because you cannot know for sure which part is true and which is not.

Now take a minute to let this idea sink in.

Now let's come at this from a different angle.

We know with certainty that nothing which occurs in the natural world occurs in a linear fashion. For example, there are no naturally occurring straight lines. Nor are there any naturally occurring perfect geometric shapes. Despite our knowing this with certainty though, oddly, we continue to use linearity as the test for truth in everything from our sciences to our psychologies.

How does the saying, "as above, so below," apply to all this?

It turns out that the parallel I've been referring to throughout the book; the one between our bodies and our minds, is the only linearity in our world. To wit, there is a linear relationship between the laws which govern our physical world and the laws which govern our psyches. In other words, as go the laws which govern the world at large, so go the laws which govern us. Thus, as above, so below.

This means when we say in physics that time is relative to the observer, we are not only saying that moving at close to the speed of light changes how physical time passes. We are also saying that our sense of how long it takes for things to change inside us can vary. For example when astrophysicists posit how we might actually time travel, they are exploring relativity. And when we say there are times wherein being in love makes a minute feel like an hour and an hour feel like a minute, we are referring to the same laws.

Likewise, when we say in physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we are referring to one of the more basic laws of our physical world. But when we say this, we might as well be saying that the laws of karma apply to physics, as in, what goes around, comes around, both for objects and for us.

Why makes such a big deal out of this parallel in a book on talk therapy? Just this. If you rely on a psychological truth for your means to get to know someone, then you are doomed to failure. Why? Because you are assuming the same linearity which makes most sciences fail more than succeed. However, if you learn the laws of physics and then seek parallel images for these laws in peoples' minds and bodies, then you'll be on a path which at least in theory can lead to truly knowing them. And everything else about reality and human nature.

What would be the best way to get onto this path? As I said, by using the laws of physics to find the parallels in how things move over time. Beginning with the first half of this cycle. How noticing physical movement leads to our thoughts and feelings.

In other words, the first thing to master in your journey toward knowing how reality works is to learn how noticing sensation (becoming aware of physical movement) affects what you think and feel. Moreover, this entire mastery begins with one simple idea; knowing how the two worlds, the world of the mind and the world of the body, intersect at the plane of the eye.

Do you think you know how this works already? You may. Just the same, let's look together.
[click here to read the rest of The Eyes as the Window to the Soul ]

We're almost done with the book. Can you feel it? Yet as far as discussing talk therapy, we've only just begun. Okay. So yes. You knew this already. But did you also know that these two feelings are what people should feel throughout the course of talk therapy? After all, we are one of the deepest mysteries in the Universe. Human beings. Then again, the real mystery here is where what we think and feel comes from. As well as whether our memories contain what we think and feel. Never thought about it? Well you should. Especially since being asked what you think and feel in therapy conflicts with what I've been saying about the mind and body. Not sure what I'm getting at? You're about to find out, in this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

What The F Are Thoughts and Feelings?
In the opening chapter I joked that the standard bad therapist's line, so how did that make you feel?, should be a signal to run for the door. Yet we all know, intuitively at least, that in the service of getting to know ourselves, that we'll need to answer these kinds of questions. Again and again, in fact.

The thing is, despite knowing we'll need to endure these somewhat vapid requests, we're never told directly what we're being asked for; what a feeling is. Let alone where we should be looking for this information.

Imagine if the guys behind the deli lunch counter did this. Or the salesman at the car dealer. Or the customer service woman at the bank help desk. Or the head of sales at the reality office. Imagine what it would be like if they never told you what they need from you. You'd never get what you want. Not sure what I'm saying? Well consider this. Consider how talk therapy usually unfolds.

Tom, the decent therapist: "So Sidney, when your teacher, Ms. Wordsworth, scolded you, what did you feel?"

Here the therapist is asking Sidney what is perhaps the most common question a therapist could ask a client; for the client to recall what he felt in a certain situation. The underlying assumption? That we record, and can recall from memory, our thoughts and feelings. Can we? Common sense observations point overwhelmingly to that this is highly unlikely. As well as to that we probably make this stuff up on the fly. However, because of the way therapists voice this question, we infer they believe the opposite; that we do record our thoughts and feelings in memory. Moreover, because this unspoken assumption is a mainstay of the therapy, the client then responds to this request without ever questioning this assumption.

Sidney, the ADD client: (a long blank pause, followed by) "Well, doc, I don't know. Mad, I suppose?"

Here the client offers the therapist what is perhaps the most common answer a client could offer a therapist; a guess voiced as a question. That this answer is voiced as a question is a sure sign the client is asking the therapist if this is what he should have felt. To which a decent therapist might respond by offering Sidney some help, probably in the form of some possible answers for what he might have felt. A great therapist, on the other hand, would bypass this question by asking Sidney to check in with his body. In other words, to notice where and what he was physically feeling, if anything. His here and now sensations. Tightness. Heaviness. And so on. As well as what he felt about being asked this question.

Tom, the decent therapist: "Well Sidney, when you tell someone to go F themselves, usually you are feeling mad."

Since Tom is a decent therapist, not a great one, he suggests a possible answer. This answer assumes not only that Sidney recorded his feelings in memory but also that his feelings make logical sense. And while this kind of logic is often absent from what people feel, when a therapist suggests a logic with which to frame feelings, people usually feel better. More so when what they say they felt pleases the therapist. Which then prompts the client to say things like the following.

Sidney, the ADD client: "Well then I guess that is what I must have felt. Yes. Mad. That's it. I was mad. Really mad."

Here Sidney the client agrees to say he recalls feeling what the therapist suggested. Including that what he felt makes logical sense. By this point, Sidney may even be feeling this anger in his body as the body often takes it's lead from the mind.

Tom, the decent therapist: "That's great Sidney. You're doing a good job of getting in touch with what you felt then."

Here the therapist rewards the client for fabricating the proper feelings. Decent therapists describe this process as that the "client has gained insight." In reality, there is no way to know for sure this is what the client felt. Or if the therapist has instilled these feelings in the client. We can only know that the client is now sure this is what he must have felt, and that he feels better knowing that what he felt makes sense.

Okay. So not all therapists are this cliche. Still, when therapists ask clients to recall their thoughts and feelings, this is what they are asking their clients to do. And when clients ask therapists to clarify what they are asking for, therapists often have no way to do this. Other than to rephrase the question with different words, or to offer the client logically possible answers.

Why don't therapists have a better way to explain what a feeling is? Over the years I've asked myself this many times.

I've also struggled to find a way to answer these requests. After all, it is me who is asking folks to tell me what they feel. Shouldn't I be able to clarify for them what feelings are?

The truth? I should. But until now, I haven't been able to. So what have I done? I've done what many other talk therapists do. I've danced around the question, with everything from showing pictures of faces labeled with feelings words to long winded dissertations on the nature of emotion. All the while hoping, I guess, that the person would intuit what a feeling is.

How does this usually work out? More times than not, between the two of us, we somehow manage to make this work. Probably because most people are quite willing to fish for their feelings the same way that I do, all the while supposing, I guess, that they will somehow stumble onto the "right feelings." At which point hopefully my face lights up so that we can both assume, they and I, that they now know what it was they thought and felt back then.

Does this fishing for feelings do any good?

In many cases, it does. People get to see how dumb therapists are. And that we're no better off than they are. With regard to naming our feelings anyway. On the other hand, if you were to ask me to seriously consider if this process helps people, in the grand scheme of things, I'd say it probably does as more to confuse people than it does to heal them.

This then has been the state of talk therapy. People asking other people to fabricate feelings on the spot, all the while assuming people store their feelings in their memories. In hindsight, I feel amazed by this. As well as by the fact that we have somehow been helping anyway. This said, I cannot count the number of times I've felt at a loss as to how to teach people what feelings are. As well as worried that what I am saying might be biasing them away from their truth.

So let me ask you. Has this even happened to you? Have you ever felt pressured to put this vagueness we call feelings into words that feel true? And have you ever tried to define for someone else what feelings are only to come up against this very vagueness?

Of course, the proof for this vagueness lies in the very books with which we define our words; our dictionaries. Including my old standby, the massive twenty three volume OED. To its credit though it does offer us our first clue. That the word feelings derives from Greek and Latin words, both of which mean the palm of your hand.

What does this imply? It implies that feelings derive from sensations. After all, palm is an obvious reference to that feeling things means touching things. But touching what? Touching the wall? Touching moments? What do we touch when we feel things? Unfortunately, the OED does not say.

Then there's the vagueness surrounding this word in everyday life. For instance we commonly use the word feelings to refer to what we experience in our heads. As in what we feel about something; our opinions about it. At the same time we also use the word feelings to refer to what we experience in our hearts. What we feel period. Our emotions.

Here then is our second clue; that the word feelings can refer both to our thoughts and to our emotions. As in this word can refer to two variations of the same thing.

Then there is our third clue; that at the same time, we also use these two words, thoughts and feelings, to refer to two separate and distinct experiences. Each with its own set of rules and such.

For instance when the word feelings refers to what is in our hearts, feelings can be neither right nor wrong. As in, feelings aren't facts. Yet when the word feelings refers to what is in our heads, feelings are right. Or wrong. Or both. As in the "right thinking" of Buddhism. And the right way of thinking in politics.

So what is a feeling? A thought? An emotion? And which is it, can they be wrong or not?

To me, these questions define one of the major dilemmas in talk therapy today. The dilemma? That we refer to thoughts and feelings as if they are two varieties of the same thing while at the same time, we refer to them as being two different things. One of which can never be wrong, the other, frequently wrong. Or even inconsequential at times as in, "it's just your opinion."

Now take a breath. And still your mind. Now notice your body while you consider this.

I've just suggested we have three clues as to what the word feelings actually means. One. That feelings derive from physical sensations. Two. That feelings, as thoughts and emotions, are two aspects of the same thing. And three. That we treat thoughts and emotions are two separate and distinct things.

Now consider how what I've just told you so parallels what I've been saying about views of the four philosophers on the mind and the body. As well as the views of more modern folks. Scientists and such.

To wit, I've told you that some folks, the materialists, believe our feelings arise from our bodies. From what we feel in our bodies. Sensation itself. Thus here we have a whole lot of folks who believe feelings stem from sensation. Which explains why we would use the word feelings to refer to sensations.

I've also told you that Spinoza believed that the experiences of the mind and body were two aspects of the same thing. Thus here we have clue two; that our thoughts and feelings are two aspects of the same thing. Which would explain our using the word feelings to refer to both.

In addition, I've told you that Descartes believed our experiences of the mind and body were two separate and distinct things. And if we use the word feelings in the clue number three sense of how we commonly use it to refer to emotion, we can say that Descartes two separate and distinct things were thoughts and feelings. Again, a usage we already use, and the root of our having two separate and distinct rules by which to live.

Now add in that when we apply Herbart's threshold of perception to Descartes and Spinoza's ideas, we see how all these things come together. You see Herbart's line is the threshold of sensation. Above which we experience thoughts and feelings as it they are two separate things, thoughts coming from the mind and feelings from the body. And below which thoughts and feelings turn out to be two aspects of the same thing, a single continuum extending from the mind to the body; from thoughts to feelings.

Finally add in my recent discoveries about the mind and body. That the speed at which we sample our physical sensations is what determines whether we experience physical sensation as thoughts or as feelings and you have solved one of the greatest mysteries in human personality. What a feeling is. So what is it? It's all the things I've just described and a whole lot more. Starting with the ideas we've just discussed, all of which already appear in our everyday language. The ideas?

• That feelings derive from the physical sensations we sense along our spines. This roughly approximates the path described by the existential mystical practice of yoga in ancient India and by doing so, honors many modern day healing practices. Note this does not imply the materialism of modern western medicine; that the body gives rise to the mind. Rather, by including the brain in this vertical path, we infer Descartes mind / body interactionism; the idea that not only does the body give rise to the mind, but also that the mind gives rise to the body. As in we can mentally imagine sensation which then gets physically felt in the body.
• That the speed at which we sample these physical sensations determines which of Descartes two conscious experiences we have. Either mind sensations / thoughts, which are the things we sample at the faster rates, or body sensations / feelings, which are the things we sample at the slower rates. Here thoughts would include all reasons and logic and attempts at reason and logic. Whereas feelings would include all emotions as well as our intuitions and gut reactions.
• That beneath these two experiences this lies a single continuum of sensation, consistent with Spinoza's idea that the mind and body are two aspects of one thing. Expressed as physical sensation, it runs from the top of the head to the base of the spine and includes the rest of the physical body at heights approximating the points at which the limbs and such attach to the spine. And expressed psychologically, it runs from the fastest sensations; pure thoughts, to the slowest sensations; pure feelings.
  

Now add to all this that we can easily observe all these things in ourselves. Including that we each have a default preference for which of these two ways we experience life, either as quickly sampled thoughts or as slowly sampled feelings.

Here then is the thing talk therapists have been needing all along; a way to define what they have been asking us for. And yes, this does not address the ambiguity present in our everyday day language, as far as the word feelings referring to everything from physical sensation to thoughts and emotions. However, it does at least begin to address what underlies this ambiguity.

This then leads us back to the action part of these requests; that we recall our thoughts and feelings. And to my assertion that we cannot do this. That we do not store thoughts and feelings but rather make them up on the fly. As we sense them. Even about the past.

So where do thoughts and feelings come from? This is what we're about to explore. Starting with what to me is a rather amazing coincidence. The idea that this possibility; that we make up our thoughts and feelings on the fly, has been around for a hundred years. Including as one of the main beliefs of one of America's first psychologists. Harvard professor, William James.

What did James have to say? Let's look.

[click here to read the rest of Thoughts, Feelings, and Talking in Therapy]

How would you rate your ability to stay focused, especially on new ideas? Are you quick to catch on, or do you usually need more time? Can you learn from reading, or are you better hands on? And how's your attention span? Are you easily distracted, or can you stay on track? Do you in fact have ADD? This then is what we're about to explore. How getting distracted affects your ability to learn. Including that folks with ADD learn some things better than those who don't have it. Does this surprise you? Does it contradict what you know? Can you guess what I'm referring to? Let's see. In this chapter of Plain Talk about Talk Therapy.

How About a Little Less Defining and a Little More Helping Please
"Pay attention, Sidney."

"F off Miss Wordsworth."

"What did you just say!"

"You heard me. F off."

"Sidney. Go to the principal's office. Right now."

"Thank you, Miss Wordsworth."

It's Hard To Treat What We Cannot Define
Many folks today take for granted we know how to define ADD. Yet if you were to Google ADD, you'd find an incredible variety of conflicting opinions. One site says, "ADD is a brain-based disorder that affects all aspects of one's life." Another says it is "a psychological term currently applied to anyone who meets the DSM IV diagnostic criteria for impulsivity, hyperactivity and / or inattention." Another says it is a "neurobiologically-based developmental disability estimated to affect between 3-5% of the school age population." Yet another says it is "one of the most common childhood behavior disorders." And yet another says, "About 35% of all children referred to mental health clinics are referred for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD. It is one of the most prevalent of all childhood psychiatric disorders."

So what is ADD? A "brain-based disorder"? A "psychological term"? A "neurobiologically-based developmental disability"? A "common childhood behavior disorder"? A "childhood psychiatric disorder"? Anyone have a clue? And yes. I know. ADD as a diagnosis is now passe. The term currently in vogue is ADHD with and without HD. Which to be honest, seems a bit convoluted don't you think? What is ADHD without HD? AD? ADHD minus HD? Sitting still but still not knowing what the heck is going on ADD? Argumentative Disruptive Disorder with a side order of stillness?

Obviously, there's something wrong here. These definitions all disagree. Moreover if we cannot agree on a definition, how can we possibly help.

Let's try this. Let's set aside all this technical talk and only look at what is obvious. Starting with that we all get distracted. And lose our focus. However some of us have a harder time getting the gist of new ideas. Especially when they are taught in fast paced classrooms where teachers rely more on words than deeds.

What am I saying? I'm saying that there are folks who do poorly in classrooms wherein fast paced word based learning is the norm. As opposed to slow paced action based learning. Moreover what makes this relevant to ADD is that these folks, the ones who have trouble with fast paced word based learning, are the ones who get ADD labels.

Now let me explain why.

The Two Gifts of Learning
Okay. What I've just referred to, rather abruptly, are the two main styles of classroom learning. Fast paced word based learning. And slow paced action based learning. Moreover, I've just used the first of these two styles; fast paced word based learning, to introduce these two ideas.

The thing is, while some folks will be fine with my having done this and will now be wanting to know more, others will have been jarred by this and may already be feeling lost.

If this is you, please take a breath.

Now notice what you're feeling, not what you're thinking. Your body, not your mind, remember?

Now gently give in to that you got lost, close your eyes and clear your mind.

Now open your eyes and imagine that I have placed two beautiful gift boxes in front of you. Notice the colors and ribbons and such.

Now read the name tags on these two gifts and see your name written there. In beautiful blue and yellow fountain pen ink. Complete with curls and swirls.

These two gifts are for you.

But you have to open them slowly.

Know if you open these gifts slowly, you will get the gifts. And if you hurry and open them quickly, you will likely throw out the gifts with the wrapping.

This is true in the classroom too. Words are the wrapping, not the gift. Remember and you'll get so much more.

Being Body First is ADD
For chapters now, I've been telling you that we all fall into one of two groups. Either you're in the Mind First person group or you're in the Body First person group.

I've also been telling you that there are two main differences between these two groups. The speed at which they sense life; quickly or slowly. And the place wherein these folks first sense life; either in their minds or in their bodies.

Which is which?

Mind First folks prefer to sample life quickly, while Body First folks prefer to sample slowly. Moreover, quickly sensed things become thoughts to human beings, whereas slowly sensed things become feelings.

Who does all this have to do with ADD and with the two styles of classroom learning? Basically just this. Because Mind First folks feel more at home with thoughts expressed quickly, they do best with fast paced word based learning. And because Body First folks feel more at home with physically based learning delivered at a nice slow pace, they do best with slow paced action based learning.

The thing is, because most folks see getting the gist of things quickly as the proof someone is smart, fast paced word based learning has become the norm in today's classrooms. And Mind First students, the stars. Which means what? Which means that Body First folks, those who learn best from slow paced action based learning, get relegated to what are seen as the dumb classes. You know. Home economics. Auto mechanics. Wood shop. Things like that.

So how do we explain putting kids in these classes? With words like aptitude and performing below grade level. And yes, overtly, their not keeping up with the "smart kids" is seen as no ones fault. However, in some ways, this is seen as the kid's fault. He or she just can't pay attention, remember. Hence the label; ADD.

My point here is, because we see speed with words as equating to intelligence, we see Mind First folks as smart and Body First folks as dumb. Or slow, if you use the more vague and indirect reference. Moreover, if you look at the symptoms we use to define ADD, you'll find they all describe Body First people.

So do all Body First folks deserve ADD labels? Absolutely not. In fact, no one does. And when you see how all this stems from not knowing about the mind body connection, you'll see why I'm saying this.

ADD in the Classroom
The upshot of having ADD is, this entitles you to "special help." What does the help look like? You get segregated from your peers. And slotted in with the dumb kids. Not the best of positions for a kid to be in. Then there's the visits to the school guidance counselor, where you get asked questions like, "So Sidney, how's the math going. Did you pull up the english grade? And is the medication still working for you?"

Of course, no one takes seriously your complaints about how you're being taught. Why not? Because they're certain they already know what your problem is. It's some combination of your genetics, your parents, the food you eat, and your bad attitude. Which means what? Which means you have to hear things at home like, 'Sidney, did you remember to take your pill. You know how you get when you don't take it?"

And when you ask how long you'll have to be on this stuff? Why of course. You might have to take it for the rest of your life. Which between this and the segregation and the being patronized, probably kills any desire left in you to even try to learn. Exit stage left the beautiful urges you were born with to explore your world.

Then there's the dreadful blankness you feel in school. Sure you're less restless now that you're on the medication. But what about the pain of boredom? The truth? More times than not, you simply long for the day to end. Or at times, you blurt out answers hoping to find some way to fit in. Even when these answers involve the right words though, more times than not, they make no sense. Or stray off the topic. Or challenge the teacher's authority.

And when you do this, what happens? In essence, everyone ignores you. Or just sighs. Or pities you. Once again. And yes. The whole class knows you just offered a hollow answer. But no one cares enough to call you on it. Too much trouble. So the focus just moves off you and you get ignored and forgotten. Or if the teacher's in a bad mood, then you get seen as disruptive and perhaps, get kicked out of class.

So are folks with ADD dumb?

The odd thing is, if you go by IQ scores, a lot of these folks have higher than average IQs. This I know personally. Some of the smartest folks I know fit this exact criteria. More than you might have imagined.

What's up with these smart but inattentive folks then? Are they smart but bored? Rebellious to a fault? Brilliantly disruptive? Victims of a mystery condition? The truth? It's none of this. In fact, despite all the conjecture about gross brain scan dimness and vaccinations, studies show people with ADD are neither dumber nor smarter than the average bear. They're just people whose minds and bodies respond differently to learning situations. Literally. In fact, the current research shows that in brain scans, less of their brains light up. Which only offers more proof for the mind body differences I've proposed.

Unfortunately the world hasn't caught on yet to that there is a second brain in us. The enteric nervous system. Moreover, even the folks who champion this as being physiologically important fail to look at how this affects learning. This despite the solid evidence that the gut is the home to our intuition and emotion.

Would we find that people with ADD light up more in their bodies than Mind First folks? The psychological evidence overwhelmingly points to this. Whatever the case though, we need to remember what our purpose is here. We are trying to help. Thus I'm not sure we need to wait for this evidence. In fact, I'm sure we do not. We need to do something now.

What can we do? We can start with a better definition.

What Is ADD Then?
Seriously now, so what is ADD?

[click here to read the rest of ADD and Learning - a Mystery Solved]