My first encounter with Jeff was in 2004, the result of a FOIA lawsuit I filed when I was investigating the CIA’s Delta Team.¹ His appearance in the courtroom and some of the declassified documents verified that he was part of this elite team. Though we met as adversaries in the courtroom, I realized later on that I left a significant impression on him. When his book, Take This Gift and Shove It : How Viewing ADHD as a Gift Leads to a Life of Disappoint was first published, he requested that I write the first review. So when my editor asked that I engage Jeff in a series of conversations I was confident that Jeff would meet with me.

- Peter DeLaVerità, New York

Note to the Reader: Jeff² agreed to take part in this series of conversations on the condition that all material could be vetted by him and, if necessary, by the proper channels within the Directorate of Intelligence. I agreed to this since, even if some vital information was censored, nonetheless, it was important to make known any information on this enigmatic figure.

Jeff - Creator of JeffsADDMind, author of "Take This Gift and Shove It" & former(?) government agent

Synopsis of Parts I, II & III

Our first meeting was in the streets of his local town. For security reasons I can only say that we met somewhere on the New England coast. “Tell them it is between New Haven, Connecticut and Providence, Rhode Island. That will keep them guessing for awhile,” Jeff said with a sort of nervous laugh.

In his trademark dark sunglasses, small hoop earring, well-worn jeans, Timberland boots and a black shirt, he seemed a bit uncomfortable in this coastal town of gentrified WASPS. “There isn’t a decent bagel in this town. That donut shop over there sells a ’simulacrum’ of a bagel. They don’t bake ‘em. They get them faxed in. And a bialy or a pletzel? (He puts on his best Brooklyn accent) Fuggedaboutit! They neva hoid of it”.

Part I: Jeff described his atypical childhood. When he was eight years old he convinced his parents to purchase a chemistry set which he promptly used to create an acid burn on the kitchen counter. By the time he was eleven years old he was reading about Boolean logic, the intricacies of cascading NAND gates and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. For fun (if you could call it that) he built beverage antennas for SWLing. Recently he has he been able to indulge one of  his boyhood fantasies. He acquired an amateur radio license.

Part II: Jeff was ensnared by the growing drug culture (“If smoking dope was good enough for Carl Sagan then it’s frakkin’ good enough for me”). When he reached legal age he dropped out of high school. But it didn’t take long for his restless intellect to kick in and take over. He earned a high school equivalency diploma, got into college, majored in philosophy, sociology and honors in the western tradition. This high school dropout graduated with numerous awards and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.  After a few years in academia he went into government work, starting in the Advanced Projects Office at the US Arms Control & Disarmament Agency where he rapidly mastered the nuances of the U.S./Soviet arms control kabuki dance. (“Hell…there’s a reason why they called it M.A.D. vs N.U.T.S.“)

Part III: Jeff became part of the CIA’s Delta Team – an elite group of thinkers and strategists.³ The team played a pivotal role in the development of the DES (Data Encryption Standard) but, in order to keep Delta Team out of the limelight, information on DES was disseminated through the U.S. Department of Commerce. The team also went on to develop some controversial “products” like the mind-altering drug code-named “CB“. Originally developed around 1982, its existence was confirmed as a result of a FOIA lawsuit in 2004. The declassified document does little except confirm its existence. We have not learned how it has been used. We do know, however, that Jeff volunteered to test the drug on himself. “I trembled when I first saw what we had created. Holding it in my hand…I raised it up to my lips and tasted it. It was so damned potent that I felt I was hit with a thunderbolt and, gotta tell ya, in a sense I was because from that point on my entire life changed.” He refused to say how Delta Team had used this drug. (It’s assumed it was used during interrogations.) When asked if he had any regrets having helped to develop it,  he replied, “None at all. If I could I would be taking it every day. There is nothing like it in the world. Period.”

Part Four of our “Conversation with Jeff.”

Q: Jeff, since you told me not to bring a photographer to the interview, do you mind if I describe the surroundings?

A: Go for it.

Jeff ’s desk, as he likes to point out, is the externalization of his internal ADHD chaos. Every horizontal surface is covered with stacks of paper – notes; coffee-stained printouts; unopened mail. Every vertical surface (there is a hutch on top of his desk) has a note taped to it with hand-scrawled reminders of current projects, a running balance of his checking account (he said he updates it daily because he has often overspent on his account with disastrous results) and automobile maintenance reminders (“Change the oil at 57K miles”). Perched atop these stacks and off to his right side is his BlackBerry which he glances at every minute or two.

Jeff has already been pacing for several minutes. During our first interview when I asked Jeff why he paces when he talks he said, “Pacing keeps my body occupied so my mind can think without interruption.”

Q: Jeff, what was the inspiration for the book Take This Gift and Shove It?

A: About twelve years ago my life was in a state of total collapse. I went into business in 1998 with a partner that I realized years later was also ADHD. Let me tell you…that was an interesting experience. Anyway, by 2004 I already lived through two economic collapses that killed my cash flow and devastated my home life. But there was something I heard, I don’t remember where, but something made me thing ADHD. I went to the local Barnes & Noble and got a copy of Driven to Distraction. Reading that book was like reading an autobiography. That doesn’t quite capture it. It’s more like something out of a science fiction movie, like Minority Report. Not only does it perfectly describe what happened to you but it perfectly describes what WILL happen to you and it’s hasn’t even happened yet!

After sharing this news with everyone, I did some online searching and found descriptions of ADHD as being a sort of gift. I was already a bit egotistical and I knew that I was smarter than the average bear I fell for this gift stuff big time. Why didn’t I remember to pay the electric bill? It’s because with my gift I’m [a] genius in other things but not boring sh*t like that. So I’d repeat this ADHD-is-a-gift mantra and someone would say, “Yeah? So how come you can’t finish a project?”  After a while, when this frakkin‘ gift didn’t seem to have any benefits, I shut my mouth about it and started to question the mythology.

Q: I noticed that recently you had a lengthy discussion on your blog about the “ADHD is a gift” concept. Some people think the discussion is useless, that it’s a false dichotomy.

A: You’re kinda right. A number of ADHDers have moved beyond this discussion and almost see it as being not worth arguing about. But there’s always someone out there who realized that they [have] ADHD or their kids have ADHD and if they google around a bit, they’ll find this ADHD-is-a-gift crap. You’ve got that guy up in Canada -  Handelman – who talks about it and that DaVinci guy Garret LoPorto. LoPorto is either a putz because he believes his bullsh*t or he realized how dumb people really are. Did you ever see his personality test on his website? (Jeff puts on a deep, announcer’s voice)

- Do you consider yourself a creative problem solver?

- Do you like to follow established ways of doing things?

- When you are interested in a project, do you need less sleep?

(Jeff reverts to his regular voice) So you google around, you find out you’ve got a gift, and then you hit this personality test crap and what are you going to say to yourself? That you’re NOT creative? That you like to follow rules? If you already bought the ADHD-is-a-gift nonsense then you’ll buy this DaVinci crap and since you are so frakkin’ gifted you know that $19.95 is [a] bargain. Bingo! P.T. Barnum has found another sucker.

Q: But isn’t there some value to seeing ADHD as a gift? And maybe everyone can’t be a DaVinci…but maybe… (Jeff interrupts. Now he’s clearly agitated.)

A:  Yeah…sure…right…can I sell you a bridge too? Maybe anorexia is a gift. It sure helps you to control your weight.

2004 FOIA Lawsuit Exposing the Existence of the Delta Team

These guys don’t make it REALLY CLEAR that they are using metaphors. It’s like my favorite joke about the vacuum cleaner salesman who says, “This vacuum really sucks!” Does that mean it does the job or does it mean that it DOESN’T do the job? You can interpret it any way you want and the sales guy won’t persuade you one way or the other. That’s what these guys are doing. They throw the word “gift” out there in the ether, they let you interpret [it] any way you want and then they sell you stuff.

I’m sorry for shifting the topic (Jeff leans forwards and whispers, “You expected me to stay on topic? Did you forget that I’m ADHD?”) but it was when I looked at these things that I realized how dumb people can really be. (Jeff is becoming visibly angry.) What the hell is wrong with people? Why do they use that word “gift”? Maybe I’m a schmuck so there’s something I’m not seeing. Maybe my dictionary is out of date but it doesn’t say a gift is a bad thing. Gifts are happy things. ADHD is a “challenge” but a gift? Come on…grow up. I know this debate is old and tired but it’s important because words are important. We keep forgetting Orwell’s doublethink: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and now “A Disorder Is A Gift.” Sounds stupid when we put it this way but people insist on saying this. It’s really the implication of this gift stuff so when I see that word “gift” coupled with the word ADHD I reach for my intellectual gun…and no…I’m not a Nazi but I get so angry about the way people use words that maybe I seem like one. But I really feel like Morpheus. “Free your mind, Neo” but Neo doesn’t want to. Everyone wants to take the blue pill.

Obama announces new cybersecurity protocols for Defense, Treasury and State Department.

(Jeff stops pacing. Takes a deep breath and turns to me.)

OK…let’s drop this subject. Even I’m getting tired of this song.

Q: Agreed. I want to return to a point you made in a previous conversation. You said you went through some major changes. Can you tell me more about it?

A: Sometimes I think living with ADHD is like driving a car. (Jeff sits in a larger recliner. With a grin on his face and his elbow out like he’s sitting in the driver’s seat, he looks like the happiest man alive.) You’re cruising along, windows open, Black Sabbath blasting, one finger on the steering wheel. Life is f**kin great! But you blink for just a second then something grabs the wheel. The car swerves and sideswipes a tree. The music goes nuts. It’s a white knuckle ride and all you can do is hang on. But after you’ve gone through this enough you learn not to panic as much. You know this will pass and just maybe you learn how to get back control a lot faster so the ride doesn’t last for weeks but maybe only a day or an afternoon. That’s one of the changes I’ve gone through. My life is little less like a white knuckle ride. I’m doing more of the driving. Not all of the driving…but most of it.

I also learned that I’m not really crazy. ADHDers think they are crazy because they zig-zag through life like a fly. There they are. No, there are. No, f**k, moved again. And if you have any brains and you act like this, you can’t separate “brains” from “crazy.” In your head they’re like the same thing. But there was a professor that said something that was like a kick in the head. We were talking about e e cummings’ Anyone lived in a pretty how town (with up so floating many bells down). The last part goes:

Women and men (both dong and ding)
summer autumn winter spring
reaped their sowing and went their came
sun moon stars rain

Of course, he asked, “What does this mean?” I raised my hand and I said, “I thought this was about sex but then I thought, naaah, I must be crazy.” And he said, “Who told you you were crazy?” My eyeballs popped! What the F**K! I was stunned!  Like a movie I’m reviewing my whole damned life! Since I was a kid I thought I was crazy. I was screwing around with soldering irons and computer chips BEFORE anyone knew what a computer was!! My friends were outside playing football and I’m stringing wire around my backyard for an antenna. I would cut out of school but carry around a book about vacuum tubes and I’d read it like it f**kin Talmudic scholar. What kid does this sort of sh*t? And it took twenty-five years to find someone to tell me “You’re not crazy…you’re just smart.” What that professor said, well, the guy is dead but he lives in my soul because when I’m thinking, “here I am being crazy again,” I can hear him say: Who told you you were crazy? So my point is, don’t EVER underestimate the power of words. THAT’S why I fight with people all the time over words because a god damned sentence, a god damned phrase, a single word can change your whole life.

Q: That certainly explains some of the things you’ve written. Last question and then we’ll wrap this up. What do you see as the future of ADHD treatment?

A: Right now our understanding of the brain is about 25 years behind our understanding of all of the other body parts. For too long we’ve treated it as a black box and, in many ways, we still do it. Maybe this is Skinner’s legacy. Anyway, there’s fascinating research going on that looks at the molecular level and we’re getting much closer to being able to accurately manipulate things at that level. Parker put together a bunch of videos of what we understand at the tiniest levels. But there’s something else going that’s like a new way of thinking.

Declassified Document

In Foucault’s The Order of Things he talks about the change in thinking from the more medieval mode of thought to our more modern mode of thought. Objects in the world had spirits and magical things can happen – like turning lead into gold – but, of course, you had to know how to work with the spirits and so forth to get it to do what you wanted it to do. But when our thinking shifted we stopped seeing the world as spirits, we shifted from nature-in-balance or nature-as-a-balance-of-forces to nature-as-billiard-balls, a kind of Hobbesian world or even stranger, Leibniz’s Monads, where you have objects – individuals, molecules, germs – interacting like billiard balls bouncing off from each other, where the things that would bind things together – in the medieval mind -⁴ are gone and now we have only discrete objects. That’s our modern way of thinking. We made up a classification system that seemed to fit better with the world. But classification systems can be problems and we’re hitting the wall with some of them. Even as basic as male and female are really problem categories. We don’t know what to do with an effeminate guy, or someone is born with — holy sh*t — two different sets of genitals. Now THAT gets the frakkin’ religious people nuts. God is f**king with the natural order and messing with your classification. This reminds me of Borges which Foucault starts off with. In this Chinese encyclopedia there is a classification of animals. The first time I read it it didn’t make much sense but when I began to think about it it’s like, hey, we really do make this sh*t up. In this encyclopedia there’s a definition of “animals” and there are different senses of what is an animal. You have animals that belong to the Emperor, animals painted with a fine camel brush, animals that are dead and animals that look like little flies from a distance. How we break things up, how we divide the world, is arbitrary. What I think is happening is our classification system is changing. We went from we’re-all-spiritually-connected to we’re-all-individuals to we’re-all-connected-but-in-very-complex-ways.

So we’re going back to interconnectedness. But we’re NOT going back to the interconnected way of thinking that’s spiritual. I’m sure that the rise in religion and religious thought is a psychological rebellion against the growth of spiritually-denuded science. But I think we’re going back to a connected way of thinking based on real science and real understanding of how things interact, not some junk from f**kin’ DaVinci LoPorto. We’re thinking more in terms of ecology. When I graduated college and got my little award from the philosophy department at Q.C., I got to give a speech on any topic I wanted. I talked about how the Cartesian way of thinking separates us from the ecology we live in. Tocqueville touches on this when he sees Americans as natural born Cartesians. We see ourselves only as individuals and we completely forget that we are individuals *IN* a complex system of individuals and physicality and the world. Ok…sorry for the tangent but it was an important one because now you have a better idea where we came from and where we are going.

Parker has a link to stuff from Kellerman that illustrates this understanding of interconnectedness within the body. He talks about neuro-endocrine-immunology and how these things interact and, from the outside, all we see are conditions like insomnia but inside the person there is [a] web of systems that influence each other. I think what will happen is that, maybe in ten years we’ll understand how the different systems within us really interoperate and create the problems we have, like ADHD. And with this ecological view combined with a neuronal-molecular view we’ll have therapies – sort of drug cocktails with diet and supplements and maybe even little nano-machines – that make things right again, that makes everything work like a well-oiled machine. The biggest problem is gonna be, not when will we be able to deal with these kinds of problems in this more ecological way but whether we’ll be able to even afford it, so don’t hold your breath on that one. You can fuggedaboutit now.

[END OF PART FOUR]

1. This name is only used by “insiders.” Most everyone else refers to them as the Delta Force.
2. He still refuses to reveal his last name though this information has become known to a small cadre of confidants.
3. Some have labeled it a group of psychotic radicals. The Delta Team has had a long and sordid history, beginning with the removal of Mosaddeq in Iran to heroin smuggling during the Vietnam War to providing intelligence – using extraordinary rendition and, perhaps, with the admixture of some drugs – during our most recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
4. Jeff asked that I include these links as examples of that earlier way of thinking: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Numerology, Astrology, Alchemy. – Peter DeLaVerità

Google started life as a search engine, but it has now become so much more than that: it’s an economic powerhouse and even a political player which wields much influence in both the online and offline worlds. With its growing control over how material on the web is presented and accessed, and its influence over online advertising and its move into the world of online estate agencies, Google is no longer simply a gateway to the web – it is a major player in how the web works.

Source: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/eventindex/

… Google worship, and its flipside, Google angst, are abundant today. Across the media, creative industries, computing and telecomms, Google is recognised as the most transformative, if not the biggest, competitor. But the mythology isn’t always helpful. Inflating the myth, rather than conducting a cool appraisal of the reality, suggests that responsibility and blame lie elsewhere, that we think the mechanics of Google’s operation are beyond our comprehension. This hardly makes for good policy, or an informed democracy.

Source: We are all in Google’s crossfire

Google has had some bad publicity recently. It is in trouble with the European Union around monopoly issues. It has decided to pull out of China after the devil’s pact it made with the Chinese government to allow censorship of its search engine finally unravelled. It is widely accused of squeezing out competitors and moving on to other people’s business turf. In addition it has long been looked at suspiciously by privacy campaigners because it has recorded details of every single search by every one of its users from its inception (yes, sorry, even that one you did when you were really drunk that night in 1999). All in all, many people would say that Google’s famous corporate slogan – ‘don’t be evil’ – is wearing a bit thin.

Source: Google: a ‘frenemy’ of the internet generation

Chicken Rollatini

The recipe below will serve three people or two fairly hungry people. It should be served with linguine and some nice Italian bread in order to fulfill federal nutrition guidelines.¹ You’ll note that in most cases no specific quantity is listed for the ingredients. With this recipe it is proportion – not precision – that makes it “easy to make.”² When you purchase ingredients you will almost always have more than needed. More is better than less since leftover ingredients can be used in another recipe.

So to help you get started with this recipe, here are some quantities needed based on my experience: six thinly sliced chicken breasts, 1/4 lb. of prosciutto³, 1/2 lb. package of mozzarella.

INGREDIENTS

• Thinly sliced chicken breasts (two chicken breasts per person…total of six needed)
• Thinly sliced prosciutto (you need one slice per chicken breast)
• Whole or skim milk mozzarella cheese (purchase only a name brand…not a store brand)
  • Place it in the freezer till it begins to freeze (well…not quite freeze…when it gets stiff).
  • Remove it and then make nice thin slices.
  • You will need one slice per chicken breast.
• Grated cheese (Parmigiano-Reggiano…try to get real cheese…avoid imitation)
• Chopped garlic (chopped garlic from a jar works fine)
• Butter
• 1/3 cup white wine (Chardonnay or Pinot Grigio)
• 1/4 cup olive oil

DIRECTIONS

1. Heat your oven to 325 degrees F.
2. If you are cooking with real wine (and not cooking wine), now is a good time to sample some of it…to make sure it has not gone bad.
3. Lay the chicken breasts on a platter and sprinkle with grated cheese.
4. Turn over the chicken breasts…sprinkle more cheese.
5. Make sure the wine is not going bad so sample some more of it.
6. On each chicken breast you will place:
   • About 1/4 teaspoon of chopped garlic.
   • About 1/2 teaspoon of butter.
   • A slice of mozzarella cheese.
   • A slice of prosciutto. (Tear off a piece of it for placement on top of the rolled up chicken breast.)



7. Roll up the chicken breasts and arrange them in your favorite oven-proof dish.
8. Place a small piece of prosciutto on top of each rolled up chicken breast.



9. In a separate container, mix the wine and olive oil.
10. Slowly pour the wine/oil mixture on top of the chicken breasts.
11. Bake in the oven for about 30 minutes if the chicken breasts are very thin…closer to 45 minutes if they are a bit thick.

Chicken Rollatini – Up Close & Personal

1. What’s a “nice Italian bread”? It is a bread that has a crust with a bit of a crunch but the bread is soft inside. The crust should not be mushy and squeezable. And I believe some nice wine is part of those federal guidelines.
2. Precision can, in some cases, make a recipe easy to make because you know that if you follow it precisely (redundant…no?) it will come out right.
3. That equals about ten slices…one slice per chicken breast for a total of six slices with a few left over for the chef to taste.

1. Cure ADHD with Laughter: That’s not really what this particular website article was promoting as a cure for ADHD. However, when the cure is composed of three simple things – stop drinking milk; learn to meditate; get a good night’s sleep – I had assumed laughter must be the real cure that is being promoted. After all, I read this article and laughed for fifteen minutes and for that brief time I did not feel like I had ADHD. I’m hoping this researcher can find a cure that lasts longer than fifteen minutes.

2. 3Steps to Conquering ADD-ADHD: This website is really part of a constellation of websites¹ all meant to point you in the same direction, namely, in the direction of online marketing genius Jon Bennett. I had examined his “cure” in an earlier post and was a bit surprised when I stumbled across this particular website.² This website (marketing campaign, really) plays on the “I have a secret to share with you” sales strategy. My recommendation is caveat emptor.

3. Cure ADHD with Sleep: I will quote from the website and allow the self-parody to take its effect. This website notes that:

Children who suffer from conditions such as autism, ADD and ADHD, have experienced some sort of loss, and or, shock, which causes sufficient mental anguish to prevent their minds from relaxing to experience regular R.E.M. sleep…. The only way to counteract this effect is to slow the mind of an ADHD child down during sleep so that the R.E.M. healing stage of sleep eventuates and encourage them to improve self-confidence by helping them to develop their individual talents to stimulate their excitement for life.³

There’s more!

Many medical studies have proven, motivating children to develop self-confidence, giving them close companionship “and improving their R.E.M. sleep” in the early stages of autism, asthma, ADD and ADHD can overcome these disorders completely. Most medical doctors…are dispensing drugs and telling parents, these disorders are incurable thus destroying any incentive to try to overcome it. [Emphasis added]

A good night’s sleep and close companionship⁴ is the cure for, not only ADHD but autism, asthma and probably our trade deficit too.

4. A Natural Cure for ADHD:⁵ At this website Dr. Saunders announces in BIG BOLD LETTERS that he has the miracle cure. The website – and the good doctor – will tell you:

“How You Can Banish Hyperactivity, Stop Inattention And End The ADHD Nightmare For Good. . . Safely, Naturally And Without The Use Of Harmful ADHD Drugs…”

Dr. Saunders goes on to note that the pharmaceutical companies have falsely claimed that:

ADHD Is A Disease And You Can Only Cure It With Drugs

I’m not familiar with any pharmaceutical website that claims that ADHD is a disease. At the website for Strattera they only refer to ADHD as a disorder (this is on their home page). At the website for Concerta they say that “ADHD is thought to be a biological condition that affects certain types of brain functioning.” They don’t mention the word “disease.” If anyone is aware of a pharmaceutical website that claims ADHD is a disease, please post a link in the Comments section of this post.

There is also a reference to the Multimodal Study. The website notes:

On November 12, 2007, a team of American scientists conducting the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With ADHD released findings that showed that while pharmaceutical drugs such as Ritalan and Concerta can work well in the short term, over a 3 year period they brought about no demonstrable improvement in a child’s behavior. [Emphasis is in the original]

This is an interesting claim and there is nearly a modicum of truth. However, the complete truth is a bit more complex. The initial results, as summarized in a PBS special (the following is a quote from the study itself), notes that:

For ADHD symptoms, our carefully crafted medication management program was superior to behavioral treatment and to routine community care that included medication. Our combined treatment [medical and behavioral interventions] did not yield significantly greater benefits than medication management for core ADHD symptoms, but may have provided modest advantages for non-ADHD symptom and positive functioning outcomes.

The study further notes that

…findings indicate that children with other accompanying problems, such as co-occurring anxiety or high levels of family stressors, may do best with approaches that combine both treatment components (i.e., medication management and behavioral therapy). [This quote is from the NIMH findings and is quoted on the PBS website.]

The real question posed by Dr. Saunders has to do with the results of a followup study conducted in 2007. He notes that after three years of medication there is “no demonstrable improvement in a child’s behavior.” Once again, the picture is much more complex. The NIMH press release notes that:

Initial advantages of medication management alone or in combination with behavioral treatment over purely behavioral or routine community care waned in the years after 14 months of controlled treatment ended.

This clearly states that the advantages conferred by the medication did not have a long lasting effect which is what Dr. Saunders claims. That’s one point for the doctor. There is, of course, an “however.”

However, Peter Jensen, M.D., Columbia University, and colleagues emphasized that “it would be incorrect to conclude from these results that treatment makes no difference or is not worth pursuing.”

What Dr. Saunders does not mention is that “[A]fter the 14 months of assigned treatments ended, families were free to choose from treatments available in their communities.” In other words, after the 14 month study, families could do as they please. Interestingly it was found that those who were in the behavioral treatment group began to take medication while those in the medication treatment group were likely to stop taking the medication. Therefore, there is no basis for the claim that after three years there is no improvement in a child’s behavior since the group that took the medication for 14 months is NOT the same group that is currently taking medication. So now we take away Dr. Saunders one point and he is now down to zero.⁶

Let’s reexamine the scorecard.

It is up to you if you still want to spend $39.97 for his miracle cure.

Conclusion:

For the right amount of money there is someone who is willing to sell you a cure for anything that ails you. Whether the cure works is quite another story. However, from a financial standpoint, the cure works very well for the person who is selling it.

Here are some other cures you might be interested in.

1. How to reshape your unsightly proboscis

2. How women can regain those shapely curves

1. For example: http://3stepsadd.com/7adhdtruths.html; http://sites.google.com/site/adhd3steps/adhd; http://www-add.net/3steps.php
2. A WhoIs search verified that the website is owned by J Bennett Management.
3. Jeff’s Snarky Comment: I STILL regret the loss of my Lionel trains but I’m not sure if that particular loss is the cause of my ADHD.
4. Jeff’s Snarky Comment: I wonder what is meant by “close companionship”? I assume it is not pedophilia.
5. Jeff’s Snarky Comment: I have yet to find a website that claims to provide UNnatural cures.
6. You  can find an interesting overview of the 2007 and 2009 results here.

Image source: http://noticefurtheruntil.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/out-of-the-summer-of-hibernation-im-back/

Each spring I’m reminded of the effects of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)¹. Once daylight hours begin to increase and the quality of the light shifts from dull to bright, I awaken as if from hibernation. During the winter months I used to go into a depressive, sleep-like state, a sort of human hibernation. Wellbutrin has worked wonders to solve this problem, at least the depression, and having “natural” light in the form of full spectrum lighting has had a bit of a beneficial effect. Still, there’s nothing that compares with the longer days and the bright sunshine of spring and summer. Think you might suffer from SAD? The Mayo Clinic has some information.

1. FYI: I’m located in New York. I suffer from the Fall/Winter version of SAD (appropriate acronym, no?) but note that there is also a Spring/Summer version. Surprisingly, I could not find anyone who thought that SAD was some sort of gift.

What is the Your Baby Can Read program?

According to the Your Baby Can Read® website, there is a “natural window,” that is, an optimal time for a child’s developing brain to acquire language skills. This optimal time begins at birth and lasts till age four. The Your Baby Can Read® (YBCR) program is designed to take full advantage of this optimal time. Using a combination of DVDs, books and flash cards, a child will learn how to read and as the video above shows, a child will recognize words and be able to demonstrate an understanding of those words.¹

Does the Your Baby Can Read program actually work?

To answer that question we will look at a few reviews written by those who have used the program and then we will examine the science behind the program.

What The Reviews Say

A Google search of the phrase “reviews of your baby can read” turned up both positive and negative reviews.

Positive Review – http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/128138/review_of_your_baby_can_read_dvd_early.html?cat=25 – “My kids were recognizing printed language. The research suggests that babies and toddlers can learn to read words at the same they are learning to speak them. I can’t wait to move on to the next DVD.”

Positive Review – http://ezinearticles.com/?Review-on-Your-Baby-Can-Read-DVDs&id=1342703

Your Baby Can Read is more stimulating for children than Baby Einstein in my opinion. Baby Einstein plays music and shows pictures of toys but Your Baby Can Read engages children in the video.

Show your child words as much as you can, their memories are excellent and introducing them to written language early will have great benefits. Imagine how confident your child will be of himself when he is reading way before his peers.

Negative Review – http://trevorcairney.blogspot.com/2008/07/your-baby-can-learn-to-read.html & http://trevorcairney.blogspot.com/2009/02/your-baby-can-read-part-2.html

Would I introduce my children to this program? No. This program does not teach children to ‘read’. Neither is it clear what its benefits are, nor if in fact it could have a negative effect on your child and impede their long-term learning. While the program’s creator claims research expertise in early literacy, I was unable to find much evidence to support this claim, and virtually no citations of his limited publications by other researchers. Instead of using this program I would encourage my children from birth by stimulating their language (singing to them, reading with them, asking questions etc) and learning (exploration, invention, creative play etc). In short, I would be constantly engaging with my child in varied ways.

Negative Review – http://www.amazon.com/review/R2KE2E6GSS9OGD/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

1. The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommends NO screen time(both tv and computers) for children under 2 years of age. There have been many studies done which show screen time does more harm than good, regardless of what all of these products like to claim.

2. These videos simply promote memorization.

3. Your children will learn all of these things in due time. Its called Developmentally Appropriate Practice, which means you let children develop at their own individual time and pace, as well as for their actual developmental age.

What Does The Science Say?

Graph from the Your Baby Can Read website

The Your Baby Can Read (YBCR) website provides a graph that plots measured reading grade level against the chronological age of children who were exposed to the YBCR program (the blue line) and those who were not (green and red lines). We see that when we compare the YBCR children against the non-YBCR children, that by age 6 the YBCR children are at least FIVE YEARS AHEAD of the non-YBCR children. If one were to imagine extending those lines further out, it seems that those children who did NOT have the advantages of the YBCR program will never catch up with those who did. This advantage, we are told, will remain with the YBCR children for the rest of their lives. (The website notes: “Studies prove that the earlier a child learns to read, the better they perform in school and later in life.”)

Does It or Doesn’t It Work?

The Data Proves That The Program Is Effective: It seems that the data proves the program’s effectiveness. However, there are two problems. First, the graph makes reference to scientific studies but we are never told which studies were used. Second, it notes that the children who used the YBCR program were tested but we are never told which tests were used to measure reading ability. Therefore we have no way to verify if the data that this graph is based on actually exists. All we have is a graph that has an air of scientificity (analogous to truthiness): a bit of visual hocus-pocus.

The Video Shows That The Children Are Reading: The children seem to be reading. They are shown a word and they respond accordingly. Yet this may be more Pavlovian than an example of true reading comprehension. In a critical review of this program by Dr. Steven Novella – an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine – he notes that

The Your Baby Can Read program is an extreme whole word approach. Infants and toddlers are taught to memorize words, which they can then recognize and name from memory, even before they can understand what they are reading. Critics of this approach claim that this is not really reading, just memorization and association. Some even caution that by taking an extreme whole word approach, phonic understanding can be delayed and the net result can be negative. [Emphasis added]

He goes on to note that

[...]studies of neurological development and education show that forcing kids to learn some task before their brains are naturally ready does not have any advantage. You cannot force the brain to develop quicker or better.

YBCR Is Similar To The Baby Einstein Program: While there are a few qualitative differences as noted in one of the reviews cited earlier, they still share the same general methodology: expose very young children to visual and auditory stimulation and they will become an Einstein.

The flaw in the Baby Einstein program and with any program based on a similar methodology can be summed up as follows:

Arguments about the importance of the first three years are compelling because they have roots in scientific evidence about the brain and its development. But they rest fundamentally on mistakes about what that evidence means. [Emphasis added]

Source:  http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/Million_Dollar_Babies.pdf

The evidence that has been wrongly interpreted is the following: a baby’s brain forms new synapses at a rapid rate. This process stops at approximately one year of age and “the brain begins pruning synaptic connections, an activity that continues over several years.” (pg. 4, page references are to the document Million Dollar Babies).  Based on this finding, a conceptual leap was made by proponents of this type of very early childhood education.

The Conceptual Leap

• IF synapses form the connections between neurons and they effect learning,
  
• AND if rapid and crucial brain development – creation of synapses -  occurs during the first few years of life
• AND if the brain’s development is crucial to one’s chances of success in life,
• THEN taking advantage of this crucial time period to shape the brain’s development is imperative. In fact, some have argued that “[I]f parents miss this chance to shape their infants’ and toddlers’ brain development, they will lose forever the opportunity” and by losing this opportunity they may do “lasting damage to their children’s potential.” (pg. 4, emphasis added)

However, underlying this conceptual leap are three fallacies.

1. The Form-Is-Function Fallacy: It is assumed that the “rapid development of synapses…means that they [children] have greater learning capacity than older people.” There is no evidence for this. The number of synaptic connections “does not tell us anything about learning capacity.” (pg. 5)

2. The More-Is-Better Fallacy: Numerous studies have shown that children who were neglected suffer from serious problems later in life. Therefore, it is best that parents do not neglect their children. We are all in agreement on this one. But there is no evidence to show that creating an environment that goes well beyond a general nurturing and learning environment and adds these types of intensive programs has any beneficial effect on a child’s development. This thinking – if a little is good then a lot must be better -  is analogous to this conceptual leap: “because one vitamin is better for you than no vitamins, swallowing an entire bottle of vitamins must be even healthier. ” (pg.5 & 6)

3. The Critical-Periods Fallacy: Some studies have shown that there are critical periods for the development of some “very specific sensory and motor functions.” However, it does not follow that something as complex as reading has its own critical period. In fact, “no researcher has found a critical period for culturally transmitted knowledge and skills such as vocabulary, reading or math.” (pg 6)

Conclusion

So, does the program work? Let’s review the evidence.

A. The Video: We saw a video of a very young child who seemed to be reading. The child was shown the word “head” and the child said the word and pointed to her head. Did she really understand what she read? We don’t know. At this very early stage of child development, the child may have simply memorized the association between a visual cue that has four distinct shapes, a sound that is to be made when one is shown those shapes, and the object to point to when shown those shapes.² We don’t know if any real comprehension has taken place. We are never told if any tests were performed to measure comprehension. We simply see an action that looks like reading and which we assume is reading.

B. The Data: We are presented with a graph based on scientific data. Some of the data comes from scientific studies yet we are never told which studies. Some of the data is based on testing of children who used the YBCR program. Yet we are never told which tests were used to measure their reading ability. In fact, we are given no supporting data at all.

C. The Methodology: We learned that the basic methodology of the program – using visual and auditory stimulation on very young children – has been discredited. The scientific justification for these methods are based on conceptual leaps – suppositions, really – that are not founded on science.³ We may find, in the near future, that there are ways to tap into the early developmental stages of the brain but, based on our current science, there is nothing to prove the efficacy of the methodology underlying the YBCR program.

The Final Answer Is….: The final answer is that it is unlikely that the program teaches anything that approximates reading. It looks like reading. But is it reading? We are provided no proof. We are provided no scientific evidence. So what does the program do? It may do the one thing that all new parents need it to do. It gives them the feeling that they are doing something important, proactive and positive for their child.

1. The site also notes that children who have acquired reading skills at a very young age show marked improvement both “in school and later in life.”
2. Dogs, by the way, are masters at associating auditory and visual cues with various activities but in no way would we attribute comprehension (except in our accidental anthropomorphization of their behavior) to what they are doing.  See: Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know
3. In the case of Baby Einstein, it was noted in the complaint filed at the Federal Trade Commission that “Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby’s marketing practices are based on express and implied claims that their videos are educational and beneficial for early childhood development. These claims are both misleading and false. They are misleading because they lack substantiation required by the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) for all express and implied claims.” (Source: Complaint filed at the Federal Trade Commission, page 6) Baby Einstein and related programs, which were owned by Disney (they acquired the programs from its original developer) felt compelled to offer refunds to parents who purchased the programs. Though Disney never admitted that the programs did not work, the threat of lawsuits seemed sufficient reason for them to institute the refund program.

To: Paradigm Of Thought, Jeff,

I very much enjoyed reading this entire post, more so than the first one. The first part just seemed to be missing too many points and wasn’t clear in some places. As a whole (almost), this comes across very well. However, P.O.T. you did yourself one powerful injustice and to a degree put your argument and your entire post back into question: “No, the only thing stopping you from success is you, nothing more.” Unfortunately, that single statement out of all of them, may make ADDers pause and question whether you have ADHD, or if you are simply doing research and trying to debunk the ADHD myth.

This is my story in a nutshell:

Father:  “No, the only thing stopping you from success is you, nothing more.”

Teachers: “No, the only thing stopping you from success is you, nothing more.”

Anyone that gave me directions as a youth or young adult and up to, heck, not long ago: “No, the only thing stopping you from success is you, nothing more.” Why, pray tell, did I go undiagnosed for so long? Is it any wonder? I don’t mean to be sarcastic or facetious, but that statement gets me going. We’ve heard that too many times, we’ve been knocked down, kicked, ridiculed and chastised continuously with that very statement. I, for one, am tired of it.

No, actually, it was ADHD. Yes, I know I have become known for my stance on positive thinking in connection with ADHD, but sometimes folks that get upset about my positive message, skip over the parts where I discuss our everyday hardships. And not to mention, I was very lucky to go through a decade of professional therapy with a very good therapist (not too many of those out there). Once, (as with Jeff here –sorry Jeff) go back and read my entire message (books/blog/etc), I think they get a better understanding of where I am coming from.

Yes, the power of positive thinking works! I agree wholeheartedly, but you are avoiding the ‘hows’ and the ‘whys’ and when you list so many people of success in such a debate, you really need to include what got them there – what were their resources? Resources, time and place (circumstances) have a lot to do with their success and yes, ADD, may well play a part too, as I think it does (each part of us makes the whole). Without those listed you are selling your argument short and actually, not hammering your point home. I think I could help you with your debate, but I am trying to stay out of it – see how successful I am at that?!

Still, I am not here to agree with the doubters of positive thinking, I was pulling for you. I sincerely believe in the power of positive thinking thanks to my past, my circumstances, what I learned and overcome thanks to therapy with a very wise therapist. That’s what I try to share. Just saying: “No, the only thing stopping you from success is you, nothing more,” doesn’t cut it and calls ADHD into doubt! This whole argument now comes across as ADHD is fraud from that single statement. And you were on such a good roll.

Now, if you would have wrote something like “No, the only thing stopping you from success is lack of treatment, coping strategies, support and cultivating a healthy, positive mental attitude.” Well, I could work with that.

Sorry, struck a nerve with just one all too common, predictable statement. I sincerely do believe you meant well, though. So, in all, a very good effort, my suggestion would be to modify that line to encompass the very real challenges of ADHD, at least give them a wink or a nod.

Bryan

=====

You Have A.D.D. And You Can Succeed:
A Rebuttal By “Paradigm Of Thought” – Part II

The Counterpoints Raised by my opponent.

My opponent took the liberty of editing my original post, so I in the same spirit have taken the liberty to edit his. These editions have by no means taken away from his argument.

Counterpoint One

There is only one bulletin in my opponent’s Counterpoint that still remains untouched from my concessions listed above, and that is his counterpoint on Hyperactivity.

“Hyperfocusing can be an advantage IF you can turn it on or off at will. If you cannot do that… It is like being a marathon runner but not being able to use your running skills when you need it most.”

Counter-Counterpoint One

Just like a long distance runner, any advantage a person has must be trained to fit into their goals. Hyper-Focusing is no different. The trick is finding when you Hyper-Focus, and repetitiously simulating the stimuli in which you Hyper-Focus in. Eventually after much repetition one can learn to Hyper-Focus at will. I utilize this to write blogs and papers (I can sit at a desk for hours writing papers on boring subjects). Another technique is to keep it interesting, I often will use humor in my blog and post in order to keep my brain in Hyper-Focus mode.

Counterpoint Two

1. “This is the power of positive thinking argument. If we think it…it will be so. Unfortunately, while this type of thinking may make us feel better… because they ARE Willy Loman, we never hear their stories. We only hear the success stories.”
2. “You note that society inculcates us with the idea that we have a learning disorder. My argument against this is based, in part, on an anecdote. Though it does not constitute scientific data I think it illustrates a possible shortcoming in the “magical properties” theory of ADHD.”

The rest of this point is given in anecdotal form of a personal story of failure, my opponent also continues to point out:

1. “Does this high IQ child need to know that she has a high IQ in order to be intelligent? Or is she intelligent even if she is unaware of her IQ? The answer would seem to be the latter… Shouldn’t the positive qualities of ADHD be evident in the very same way.”

Counter-Counterpoint Two

1. My “power of positive thinking” argument, as you refer to it as, has not only some logical backing, but some scientific backing as well. As study in the University of Pittsburg by one Dr. Michael F. Scheier shows: optimists handle stress better, take disappointment better, and tend to be more tenacious in attaining their goals (Goleman, 1987). These are all traits that are important in success. The fact is that, while positive thinking won’t cure cancer, it certainly affects how we approach situations, and how well we deal with failure. I think about this fact every time I try to pick a girl up from the bar.
2. In this argument, my opponent gives an anecdote that is no doubt both amusing, and informational on how failure tends to happen. In turn I will give an anecdote, not on my life, but the life of my boss.
   1. My boss began a gutter company some years back with a couple of his friends. This business started out looking like it would be promising, but in two years shut its doors for several reasons: corrupt contractors, corrupt business partners, and a lack of experience in the field. It was twenty years later before he got the opportunity to scrap up and form an Architectural Sheet Metal Company again. This time he had more experience, more wisdom, and a list of prior failures that would help him succeed. Two years into this company, I asked him what he would do if he found out the company wouldn’t last a week. He said, “I would show up to work tomorrow, because I don’t have the sense to give up.” Right now this company is about to have another record-breaking year in a recession (which is next to impossible). This company has received three Excellence In Construction awards from the Better Business Bureau, and it is the only Non-Union Sheet Metal Company in our area to gain contracts from The Builder’s Association. Oh… Did I mention that he and his most of his executive staff test positive for A.D.D.?
3. This argument completely hinges on the idea that success in an A.D.D.er is only valid if the A.D.D.er did not know about his A.D.D. until after the success is made. So an A.D.D.er is not successful if he knows he has A.D.D.? Forgive me, but I find that kind of hard to swallow. As I pointed out in my first fact listed above, social sciences are subjective. A person’s awareness of the hurdles that they must jump plays no small role in how well the person jumps his hurdles. Being aware of an issue gives a person an edge on fixing the issue. Plus the argument is not whether a person can succeed if they have A.D.D. and aren’t aware of it. It is whether a person can succeed with A.D.D. in general.

As a side note, I want to say Bravo to my opponent for trying to make a small business, it took a lot of guts to risk livelihood for a small business. My opponent mentioned in his anecdote that I might try to say the reason why he failed was because he didn’t quite think positively enough. No, there were probably other reasons. I will say that his attitude played no small part in why he did not pick up and try again, as most successful business must do in order to succeed (See Donald Trump in, The Art Of The Comeback.). As I pointed out in fact number 4 listed above, success is a learning process, and in all learning processes, the actions toward success must be repeated over and over.

Counterpoint Three

1. “…statistically you are the outlier. Longitudinal data shows an abundance of horror stories and NOT success stories.”

Counter-Counterpoint Three

1. My opponent sustains that statistically I am the outlier. I have to agree with him, and not because I have A.D.D. According to the Better Business Bureau and the Small Business Administration 50% of small businesses fail within the first year, and that number doesn’t get better until after the fifth year. Regime changes, market changes, poor credit, lack of income etc. These are all daunting facts of why businesses fail. However seeing as this business has made it over the five year hump, and assuming it will be there when I take over, I doubt it will go anywhere unless I am particularly stupid about it (which only time will tell).

Counterpoint Four

1. You wrote:  ‘The fact is ADD or ADHD is no more disenfranchising than being “normal.”‘ If only this were true then this would be borne out by the numerous studies that have been done. Sorry to say, there is no data to support this assertion. There is too much data showing how undiagnosed ADHDers have believed whole heartedly that they could succeed and yet, despite all their efforts, they have still failed. The magic just didn’t work. Further, since they were undiagnosed they didn’t yet know that they should use ADHD as a crutch.

Counter-Counterpoint Four

1. My opponent stands fast on the idea that A.D.D. is in fact more disenfranchising. I must point out that this argument hinges on his first premise, that a person with A.D.D. must not know beforehand that he has A.D.D. As I’ve mentioned numerous times knowing what you are facing is important. There are traits in A.D.D. that can hinder success (As I mentioned in my first post). But a person’s success if they know they have A.D.D. does not magically go away because he knew it, this is counter intuitive. I also can fall back my second premise. That successful people often don’t bother being tested for A.D.D. Why? Because their already successful, and don’t need to know what is wrong with them. Also because of the long running stigma is Psychology, an older individual who is successful will never visit a Psychologist for an old world fear of being thought of as insane. The fact is this argument does not hold water under scrutiny.

To Drive The Point Home.

As a final argument, I have decided to instead include a list of Modern people who test positive for A.D.D. :

1. “Magic” Johnson – Professional Athlete – Rich and Famous.
2. Robin Williams – Comedian and Actor – Rich and Famous.
3. Henry Winkler – Actor: “The Fonz” – Rich and Famous.
4. Stevie Wonder – Musician – Rich and Famous.
5. Jack Nicholson – Actor – Rich and Famous.
6. Lindsay Wagner – Actress – Rich and Famous.
7. Tom Cruise – Actor – Rich and Famous.
8. Dustin Hoffman – Actor – Rich and Famous.
9. Stephen Spielberg – Director – Rich and Famous.
10. Michael Phelps – Olympic Swimmer – Rich and Famous.
11. Ari Emanuel – Entrepreneur – Rich.
12. Matt Morgan – Professional Wrestler – Rich and Famous.
13. Howie Mandel – Actor, Comedian, and Game show host – Rich and Famous.
14. Paul Orfalea – Entrepreneur – Rich.
15. David Neeleman – Entrepreneur – Rich.
16. Danielle Fisher – Mountain Climber – Famous.
17. Jim Carey – Actor – Rich and Famous.
18. Prince Charles – Next in line for the English Throne – Filthy Rich and Famous.
19. Greg Louganis – Olympic Gold Medal Winner (Diving) – Rich and Famous.
20. Ozzy Osbourne – Singer/Songwriter – Rich and Famous.

I’m going to stop here, because I could literally go on for days.

Conclusion

The original argument was whether a person with A.D.D. can succeed or not. We find, because of inconclusive success data that it is impossible to determine exactly how many A.D.D. success stories there are. Furthermore, throughout the course of my argument, we find success has very little to do with A.D.D. And a whole lot to do with a person’s attitude toward success, as well as their attitude toward failure. I have shown numerous success stories of those who have A.D.D. and at least in one case how his attitude effected his success.  I have not once made a claim that because of A.D.D. we are destined to succeed, that would frivolous and asinine. My claim is that A.D.D. does not stand in the way of our success, rather our attitude toward it does.

Either Way, You’re Right.

Too often do I find people use A.D.D. or some other circumstance as a crutch or worse yet as a soap box. I find that the same people who have failures, are the people who seem to think A.D.D. is the thing that stopped. No, the only thing stopping you from success is you, nothing more. I quoted Henry Ford in the beginning of my argument for a good reason. Because how you approach a situation is just as important as what you do when the situation comes. There is a reason the most successful people in the world preach positive thinking practices, and attitude. Because it works. Not on any magical level, just because it modifies how you perceive things, how you react to situations, and your actions thereof.

I am a man of learning and research, and I have found through my own endevours, the experiences of the people around me, and the research into success that success has nothing to do with what you were born having. But in the end how you use what you have. So next time you say to yourself “I can’t, I have A.D.D.” I’m going to have to say, “You’re right.”

Goleman, Daniel (1987, February 3). Research Affirms The Power Of Positive Thinking The New York Times pp. C1.

So after the eight year nightmare of the Cheney-Dubya administration² in which the future of this country was destroyed through the systematic dismantling of the essential apparatus of government³, aided and abetted by a sycophantic (and psychotic) Republican party that has propelled us so far into debt that we have been reduced to being a banana republic, we voted for someone who, yes, provided audacity and hope. But the REAL audacity is the way he has used his intelligence and his ability to put together coherent sentences (contrast that with the illiteracy of Dubya and his female doppelganger, Sarah Palin) to take advantage of a nation that was in shock at the arrogance and incompetence of an eight-year administration that ignored all warnings of an impending attack⁴, that ignored all predictions of what would be needed for an Iraq war and that ignored all the warnings about Hurricane Katrina.

Oh!bama has destroyed the Democratic party, turning them from the party IN power and WITH power (they DO control the White House and Congress) to the party of pusillanimity. But even worse, he has helped to destroy the political process in this country. Whereas the Republican party, beginning in 1994 with Newt Gingrich (now THERE’S a liar extraordinaire who is so high and mighty and moral that he delivered divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer)⁵ showed that they can shut down the Federal government whenever they like by not approving a budget (or by impeaching a President who dared to have sex and not tell the truth about it) and the Cheney-Dubya regime showed that you can hand over the reigns of power to big business, after all of this the nation – the ENTIRE WORLD – thought that Oh!bama would right the wrongs, would stand up for the principles of this country. But what has he done? He has left in place much of the Cheney-Bush apparatus. We still have Gitmo. We still have the most egregious aspects of the so-called Patriotic Act. We still have economic foxes (Larry Summers…Tim Geithner) running the regulatory hen house.

Oh!bama and the entire Democratic party was handed a golden opportunity to put into place a new New Deal. Nearly the ENTIRE COUNTRY was behind him and, yet, he sang the nonsense of compromise. Compromise with whom? An obstinate, obstructionist party? We did NOT vote for “compromise we can believe in.”⁶ We voted for real change. We voted for the ideals of this country. Once again, we have been hoodwinked. And this opportunity to undo the damage of the past has been lost, squandered.

But you’re still optimistic, right? Great! Then who will you vote for next time? The Democrats were given their chance and they have blown it. Will you vote for the Republicans? The Teabaggers? Or maybe it is time to face facts: the great experiment of democracy is over. Best to get used to this fact. Nothing more to see here. Move along. Take your iPhone, sit in the bathroom and twitter your life away. Change the channel. Watch your football game. Eat your chicken wings. Drink your beer.  But don’t worry. Just be happy.

1. “Any semblance of a public option has disappeared“; “The Republicans simply don’t want to pass comprehensive health-care reform“; If journalism was run like our health care system.
2. Now that Cheney is in the hospital…I hope he’s not sucking the public teat and taking that communistic health care that he gets from the government.
3. You think all the E. Coli just dropped out of the sky like manna from heaven? You think that Bernie Madoff got away with his shenanigans because he is brilliant? Think again. You starve the beast of government, you hand over the reigns of control to the “free market,” this is what you get. Unfettered, deregulated capitalism with a boom-bust cycle that destroys more of the middle class every time it goes bust. Ask anyone who thought they had a nice retirement nest egg. All they have left is broken egg shells. Friedman wrote in a recent column (quoting Michael Mandelbaum): “…now it feels as if we are entering a new era, “where the great task of government and of leadership is going to be about taking things away from people,” said the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum.” Source: The Fat Lady Has Sung.
4. The Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 had the catchy title, “bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” “…in April 2001, [Richard] Clarke [counter-terrorism expert]  strongly suggested that the U.S. put pressure on both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda by arming the Northern Alliance and other groups in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, that they target bin Laden and his leadership by reinitiating flights of the MQ-1 Predators. To which Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz responded, “Well, I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden.” Clarke replied that he was talking about bin Laden and his network because it posed “an immediate and serious threat to the United States.” According to Clarke, Wolfowitz turned to him and said, “You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don’t exist.” Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke; Wait…it gets better.

   “On June 25 [2001], Clarke warned [National Security Advisor] Rice and [Deputy National Security Advisor] Hadley that six separate intelligence reports showed al Qaeda personnel warning of a pending attack. An Arabic television station reported Bin Ladin’s pleasure with al Qaeda leaders who were saying that the next weeks “will witness important surprises” and that U.S. and Israeli interests will be targeted.”

   “On July 2, the FBI Counterterrorism Division sent a message to federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies summarizing information regarding threats from Bin Ladin. It warned that there was an increased volume of threat reporting, indicating a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad from groups “aligned with or sympathetic to Usama Bin Ladin.” Despite the general warnings, the message further stated, “The FBI has no information indicating a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States.” However, it went on to emphasize that the possibility of attack in the United States could not be discounted.” [Emphasis Added] Source: The System Was Blinking Red (Chapter 8 of the 9/11 Commission Report).

5. “Former House speaker and potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has confessed, telling conservative Christian leader James Dobson that he was cheating on his wife at around the same time the House was impeaching President Bill Clinton over his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky.” Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/gingrich.schneider/index.html
6. Someone said that bipartisanship for a Democrat is for both Democrats and Republicans to work out a bill that they can both wholeheartedly endorse and sign. Bipartisanship for Republicans is to write the bill themselves and have the Democrats sign it.

=====

On Feb. 21, 2010 I received the email below from Paradigm. What follows is the first part of his response.

[START OF EMAIL]
Thank you for your time and patience. Being an A.D.H.D.er on the path to success sometimes leaves me with very little time. But I have finished my response to your rebuttal on your page, and as per your request, I will give it to you in the file form to post it on your blog. As you no doubt understand I expect it to be posted verbatim as if I was writing it on my blog. I hope it is to your satisfaction, it took over six hours of Hyper-Focus to finish. I look forward to your response.
[END OF EMAIL]

=====

You Have A.D.D. And You Can Succeed:
A Rebuttal By “Paradigm Of Thought” – Part I

Introduction.

“Whether You Believe You Can, Or You Believe You Can’t. Either Way You’re Right” – Henry Ford.

I am a man of learning and research. I have spent much of my adult life trying to understand and comprehend the world around me. What I have found is that there are many Myths of Modern Culture that seem to supplant their way into our minds. Since discovering these myths I have made it my personal mission to attempt to redeem and correct them.

Earlier this week I stumbled onto this blog. In Jeff’s A.D.D. Mind, Jeff very eloquently parrots a myth that I have become quite aware of over the years. That people with A.D.D. are destined to failure. This is a common myth perpetuated probably because of the performance in school that A.D.D.ers often have. We expect that the performance in high school is an indicator of how well the person will perform in the business world, and even in their personal lives.

But if one were to objectively look at school, and then turn their eye to the professional world, the differences are often night and day. For example feelings are saved in school with the inventions of the “No Child Left Behind Act.” In business a person’s personal feelings are often ignored in lieu of their work performance. In school everybody is given a fair chance, often times in business the chances much more unfair, and favoritism in the form of the “Good ol’ boy” system is far too often a factor in the decision making process.

In seeing his argument I made a lengthy post found on the fourth page of comments in the original blog (see link above). This incited a lengthy rebuttal, which in turn challenged me to a lengthy counter rebuttal. The premise of this debate goes as follows.

The Argument: Can the traits of A.D.D. be used or overcome for the purpose of success, or is the diagnosis of A.D.D. a damnation for failure?

Just The Facts

Like my opponent, I will set my argument using a few base facts.

Fact Number 1: Social Sciences, unlike physical sciences, are far more subjective because it deals with an inherently subjective premise (Considering people are subjective themselves). All social sciences are subject to subjectivity. This subjectivity can be the discipline in which the researches subscribes to, the school of thought he holds, to the awareness of the subjects in question.

Fact Number 2: People who succeed have no reason to find out what’s wrong with them, because, as far as we can tell, there isn’t anything wrong. It could very well be that there are many undiagnosed A.D.D. Entrepreneurs who never bothered to ask why they didn’t succeed, because they did succeed. This is an appeal to the incompletion of the social studies of success in A.D.D. This is not the fault of the researchers, rather a fault in the data. Many older Entrepreneurs will not see therapists, or have opportunities to be diagnosed, so many of the successful A.D.D.ers will never be diagnosed, and this will of course skew the data. This is of course another effect of the subjectivity of social sciences.

Fact Number 3: Success is almost totally contingent on how a person approaches a situation. If a person approaches a situation expecting to fail his actions will reflect this expectation. And via versa.

Fact Number 4: Success is a learning process. And as in all learning, it must be tried with failure, before successful. Learning how to accept failure and try again is absolutely necessary for attaining ultimate success. If a person fails and gives up trying, they will never succeed. And considering that in all realms of success there is a fair risk of failure no matter who you are, this is too often what prevents us from success.

So Where Are You Going With This?

Fact Number 1 Revisited: My opponent contends that the success of an A.D.D.er is only valid if prior to the diagnosis or recognition of the disorder. This is ignoring one of the basic principles of success: Knowing Your Limitations. Any weight trainer can tell you, if you ignore your limitations you will end up unsuccessful in any work out. This stands true in business and a person’s personal life. This also ignores the fact set in Fact Number 2.

Fact Number 2 Revisited: If a person who succeeded never bothered to become diagnosed, because they succeeded, there is no way to know whether they are A.D.D. or not. Now, admittingly this fact is based upon deduction and assuming on my part, but there is no arguing the fact that there are many A.D.D.ers who go through their life happy and healthy without any sort of diagnosis. Knowing this there is most certainly successful people who never became diagnosed, and why would they? To them there is nothing wrong.

Fact Number 3 Revisited: From my first post I made sure to point out that I do not believe that A.D.D. will automatically allow a person to succeed (This is my first statement in the original post). Success is contingent upon attitude, not some magical or divine property given by a disorder.

Fact Number 4 Revisited: My opponent sustains that one failure comes out to total failure. What this fails to recognize is that a person, regardless of a diagnosed disorder, is most certainly going to meet roadblocks, hurdles, and yes failure on the path to success. The key trait in success is not how much a person succeeds, but how well a person picks up after they fail. Success, as I mentioned is a learned traits. And like all learning it requires repeatition and failure in order to learn (In a neurological point of view, an Axon must attempt to connect with a Dendrite up to a hundred times in order to make a clear connection).

First, My Concessions.

This is the part the  most responsible debaters dread. But sometimes you have to concede arguments in order to maintain the credibility in order to continue debating. In his argument my opponent made a couple points that force me to concede the following.

The National Commission on Entrepreneurship… I may have been a little overzealous, and skimmed a little more than I should have in this statements. Upon rechecking my sources I could not find the referenced source.

Many Historical Figures… My opponent was quick to point out that I cannot read history backwards. Because I regrettably do not have a time machine I cannot give a BSM IV to these famous figures, nor can I hook them to an EEG and find out whether or not they are Attention Deficit. Though it is important to point out that these figures shared traits such as having numerous and incomplete projects, were considered callous and caustic by their peers, and often would not pay attention to certain details (All diagnostic criteria of A.D.D.

The Average I.Q.: This is the one that was totally blown out of the water. Upon double checking myself I found that there was no average intellectual difference between people with A.D.D. and people without.

I hope these concessions will be taken in the spirit that they are given. But these concessions by no means take away from argument. So let’s do what I originally (And capriciously) suggested we do, and forget these arguments.

[END OF PART I]