I was diagnosed as a child and medicated for years. I honestly think it helped me but I don't think its right for everyone.
I prefer to say reorder instead of disorder for the same reasons you highlight - there isn't something wrong with me, i just operate differently.
I never held on to the label and I don't use it to excuse my behavior. What it does, however, is help me identify and understand my inner workings and how to manage better.
A lot of the deficits that i experienced in my youth do not affect me (as much) as an adult and i have worked hard to learn and grow. I definitely struggle but i also know that i can learn and grow.
The label serves people when it helps them learn and grow but it hinders if it becomes a limitation and justification. Such as "i can't do that, I'm on the spectrum..." instead should be "this is challenging for me, how can i approach it differently"
Your experience is very good proof of nuance when it comes to this stuff. Thanks for sharing it.
I like the term "reorder" – it nudges the lexicon away from the idea of pathology. And I love that you've used you've leveraged your diagnosis for personal growth. It's about paradigmatic shift from 'I can't' to 'How can I?’
Just like you could take someone not particularly inclined to get cancer and pump them full of unfiltered sunlight and cigarettes and probably give them cancer, I think you can get AD(H)D from just about anyone with the right kind of stimulus, and there's no better attention-unsettling stimulus than modern media.
But whatever the era of media (modern or say 1980s) you're talking about the thing that's setting the pace, that's deciding what's the "normal" rate of speech and the "normal" length of an attention span, what's a "normal" amount of time to spend sitting and focused on a single story, and so on. So normal is always a moving target.
If you're not happy with the pace at which your brain moves, then by all means take steps to change it. But pharma is probably not the best solution. Again, I could take someone not particularly inclined towards obesity and with a high-calorie diet make them obese; if I did that, the best "solution" to that obesity wouldn't be SPEED, although doctors have prescribed amphetamines for weight loss for most of the past century. The best "solution" would be to give them control over their diet so they could make the choices that make them feel good.
People I know who are diagnosed with ADHD are happy to have the diagnosis because they don't feel good. They want a change, and having a label feels like the start of a change. I'm all about change, but I hate labels. I think the changes are habits of mind, life, routine, and the degree to which we internalize the "social metronome" that's always clicking way too fast.
If you can resist the beat, if you are arrogant, bull-headed, and self-directed, being "polyfocal" doesn't feel bad. It feels awesome. It means your mind is always making new connections and seeing new possibilities. It means you can see the details and the universe at once. It means you jump on ideas when you have them and you discover old ideas you half-finished just lying around. Life is a garden of wonder and delight.
Wonder and delight, IF you're a resistant, arrogant, bull-headed, self-directed polyfocal -- if you're more conformist, if your self-esteem is wobbly, if you like to go with the flow, if you prefer to follow rather than lead, then it looks to me like it must be hell. And I can completely understand why someone would complain.
But I'd still recommend resisting the external forces, following your own mind, believing in your genius, and cutting against the tide. It's more fun.
Amy I'd have to write another whole essay to do this comment justice. I completely agree that "there's no better attention-unsettling stimulus than modern media." I believe polyfocals are uniquely susceptible to the extractive machinations of the attention economy, and that the media structures in place tend to push people further down that end of the spectrum.
"If you're not happy with the pace at which your brain moves, then by all means take steps to change it." Amen. I'm not sure if I got this across effectively, but I think pills are a fine solution, if you're willing to accept the tradeoffs. Ultimately, we're more powerful than we like to admit, and there are almost always better solutions than ingesting synthetic chemicals, in terms of the tradeoffs. That's probably a whole other essay.
I don't know that I agree with your argument about what kind of person it takes to feel awesome about being polyfocal. Not that it isn't true, but that it's perhaps limiting. Maybe you don't have to be "arrogant" and/or "bull-headed," maybe you just have to have a lot of authentic and healthy confidence, a lot of which comes from being well-integrated into a supportive community.
And yeah, if you're a passive person, who would prefer to let other people make the decisions you should be making for yourself (this describes most of us, most of the time, although we're loathe to admit it), then polyfocalism is a liability. Because the "social metronome" is calibrated to reward monofocalism, so a passive person will only ever feel pressured into that mold, regardless of whether it's a good fit for their actual personality.
I recommend confident self-direction to anyone. Everyone should be living as deliberately as possible, regardless of their current position on whichever personality spectrum we're talking about. Personal agency is a universal virtue. It's just that polyfocals need it more to survive in a world that favors monofocals.
There’s a movement to rename it VAST (variable attention stimulus traits), which is lovely. There’s also a LOT changing in the diagnostic criteria, which is exciting. So much of it is about one’s dopamine receptors.
unfortunately society has pathologized many of its best and brightest. many reasons for this, one of which is of course profit from 'meds,' but it's a damn shame. no wonder so many conform and comply just to feel normal... whatever the heck that is...
I wish someone would write a book to unpack our relationship to that word. I'm sure it has a lot to do with our deep genetic need to belong to a pack. Loners are rarely better off than humans who are properly socialized. So "normal" probably just means "not in danger of being shunned." Which is pretty important!
Very intriguing, I almost have too many thoughts to put anything down (Polyfocal, what can I say). Definitely something worth being louder about so we can help fix this issue
Based on the stuff that shows up in my instagram feed every day, my algorithm is CONVINCED I have undiagnosed ADD. I'm pretty convinced I could get that diagnosis if I went for it — everything I see about it online (including everything you listed in the polyfocal traits list) describes my thinking and behavior pretty thoroughly.
I've thought about taking a test, or bringing it up with my therapist, but I've always stopped at "well, then what?" What would my desired outcome be from having someone confirm what I seem to already know about myself? I don't think it's something I necessarily want to change about myself. Parts of it are difficult, to be sure, but the same could be said for every variation of being human. I get a lot of joy and fulfillment from working on nine different creative projects before lunch. And as I've matured, I've developed strategies that help me cope with the more, you know, "negative" sides of polyfocalism — like my tendency to abandon projects I really would rather see through to the end.
I, for one, think polyfocal is a great and empowering term! It's inspiring/heartening/relieving/consoling to hear that other people are thinking about how to frame these traits as okay, positive, and even downright advantageous qualities to be tapped into, not abnormalities to be overcome or corrected.
As for question #2, I'm hoping someone is able to chime in here cause I feel just as lost as you. It is NOT obvious — and certainly not in most traditional workplaces. Perhaps the first steps are simply being able to identify these traits in yourself and being willing to communicate them to those around you — not as disclaimers explaining why you might not be the person others expect you to be, but as an act of self-awareness that empowers others to interact with you in powerful and creative ways.
Ah, the algorithm, ever eager to diagnose us with a scroll and a click!
Your reflection echoes the core sentiment of my piece – the quest for self-understanding versus the need for an external label. It's the eternal “well, then what?” that always follows. I want to congratulate your self-awareness, a ray of clarity to pierce the clouds of medical jargon and social expectation.
And way to embrace the creative chaos of polyfocalism. This is frankly the kind of response I was hoping for -- relatable and inspiring.
Also, obviously, I'm delighted that the term resonates. Let's spread it around!
Question 2... Maybe there are no good answers. Maybe the cost of whatever benefits you can get out of being polyfocal is that you just have to workshop what works best for you. This is probably true for everyone -- monofocals, too -- it's just that there's an over-representation of tools and tactics tuned to monofocalism. Not that they're framed that way, but we might as well start.
I’m in my late 40’s. Was ‘officially’ diagnosed a few years ago.
‘Polyfocal,’ is accurate in some ways. But in my case, I sought help because I had to set a recurring 5 minute timer to stay on task, while trying to get something done. In some jobs, polyfocal can have its advantages, but for me, it was coming down to an utter inability to actually get things done that I needed to get done.
Your Sci. American article does say that the diagnoses look higher than the actual cases. But it doesn’t deny that there are actual cases.
So, for me, the meds are a godsend. And when I watched my son start to develop the same inner demons I had, around his own inability to focus enough to get something done, to emotionally regulate... I made sure he got help. And his handwriting went from looking like he was grappling for control over his pencil, to being nominally readable. He’s in elementary school, so a lot of things are still developing.
I do honestly agree (I think) with the overall sentiment of the piece, especially re: semantics. I think the qualifier I would add in is that the diagnosis is helpful if you’re actually trying to fix or manage something that’s a real problem.
I think parents who get their kids medicated (or over-medicated) so their grades will hopefully get better, can be just as bad as the parents who refuse to have their kids tested, because they don’t want to have to worry about the stigma. (I met a woman in grad school for engineering who was breaking down EVERY DAY. She got the ADHD diagnosis, and it helped her immensely. When she mentioned it to her mom, the response was “Oh, yeah. I know. You got diagnosed years ago, but there was such a stigma...” And this woman had been struggling for YEARS.
So... yeah. I think the semantic argument is fair. And I don’t think I’m a “SAD” introvert.
More of a Finally Understand, Collective Kinship Often Fails to Fulfill kind of introvert. But those aren’t the socially acceptable ones. It’s not that I can’t handle social settings: It’s just that once the tank runs dry, it’s time to leave. And sometimes the best way to exit stage left, is to convince others to escort me out.
Anyway...
I’ve also seen what it’s like when there’s an actual problem, and people actually refuse to be helpful, and/ or imply that it’s my fault. (‘Don’t care enough,’ ‘Don’t want to listen,’ ‘Willful child,’ or my all-time favorite: “We LOVE you, SO MUCH. And we know that when you finally decide to set your mind to it, you’ll make us SO proud.”)
The first step when it comes to fixing a problem is diagnosing the problem. If there’s an actual problem, it’s important to get help. And while I’m 100% on board with your semantic arguments, and love the tone of the overall piece, it’s an opinion piece, nothing more.
I like your approach & earnestness .. .. very thorough .. you’re not a Healthcare Professional.. are you .. nor am I
I have never suffered from a DSM-5 Mood Disorder.. a stunning hit of agoraphobia on Whistler once in very flat light on a chairlift & once a tich o panicky snorkelling in Mexico - till I recognized a light rip. But.. I’ve produced, directed, shot, edited more CME - Accredited Continuing Medical Education than almost anyone I ever met.. Dozens of Symposia, Conferences, Drug Launches.. I was just like you in school.. except I had no mom or dad
My teachers were mainly vicious nuns, brothers or priests.. even my grandparents & aunts - guardians helped ensure any interest in Drawing or Athletics were crushed & at 12 was migrated to a new family farm ..... & everything changed.. for the better mainly.. but I still sucked scholastically !
My point ? Who knows.. re my case.. Your situation is much different .. mucho..
On the plus side - you’re an adult now, highly informed, high function, fine communicator, expressive.. excellent
Downside ? You’re publicly espousing your medical expertise.. uh.. opinion er.. uh Differential Self Diagnosis
& you’re doing so, during a Pandemic/Epidemic of historic proportions - morbidity, mortality & mystery
that’s also triggering mass frustration, misunderstanding, myth, fantasy, anger, rage.. partisan political failure
disaster capitalism, massive fraud, fear.. and the myriad post infection consequences almost impossible to measure
Ah yes.. ‘fear of the jab, & the mask’ - conspiracy raging..
& so I ask.. in that context.. Are you part of a problem.. or a solution.. and for whom ?
another tonight, but soon, at your request - would related a case study presented at an Accredited symposium on ADD etc
to approx 300 attendees, plus an online audience - all responding during that particular lecture via hand held device
such that immediate response / data & feedback could roll in. In a nutshell, he was asking his Healthcare Pro ‘class’
to consider the facts of the Differential Diagnosis he had made.. the History etc etc etc..
and then to project or make educated guess about the patient, their life circumstances, upbringing, sex, race, age,
compliance, treatment modalities, schooling..
Collective gasp when their ‘scoring’ was revealed.. we’re talking perhaps 1000 or more clinicians
that failed miserably at what was a challenging task of reverse engineering a ‘whom’
from a tremendous medical workup & truly thorough history.. They did not see a photo
Most recognized Non Compliance .. you bet they did ! abut as he confronted them with
They collectively thought - Mid to upper middle class white Philadelphia, live at home
indolent re meds or therapy.. their typical patient, access to a car, several accidents
poor student, possible comorbid dyslexia, junk food..
But hey ! Patient X was very slight (50 lb black male weakling & living with six sibling & single mom
in 6th floor walk up, in run down housing complex & was being robbed in the hallways or stairwells
& his meds stolen to be sold or traded on the streets .. his night driving skills almost non existent
The good doctor pointed out the obvious - in more ways than one that day..
and that once the compliance issue was identified.. & effective treatment underway
there was tremendous progress .. but also warned that at 17 years old
he would soon be in the ‘adult cohort’ with interest in alcohol, perhaps girls, driving
and likely enter the work force rather than further education..
With my usual sense of humour .. there’s a song in my head..
something about Love Potion Number Nine ..
& ‘Doctor doctor - What Condition My Condition Was In ..’
Are you that sure what condition your uh .. condition was/is in ?
You don’t appear to appreciate the word/term ‘disorder’ .. 🦎🏴☠️
And I'm not sure I understand the equation you're laying out, but does it have something to do with late-stage capitalism converting everything into a machine of commerce?
Can’t understand how these terms haven’t been coined before—they’re brilliant: polyfocal vs monofocal = so much more descriptive of what’s going on inside!
And Thom Hartmann also has written books about another, also healthy way to frame the same topic. I believe he's even launched a Substack themed around that: https://www.hunterinafarmersworld.com/
Re-framing away from medicalizing...well, *life* is a sound plan, IMO.
Thanks for the recs -- I subscribed. Reframing is critical for mental and spiritual progress. Our frames dictate our reality more than we can comprehend.
What if polyfocal and monofocal behaviors are strategies in response to situational constraints rather than personality traits? Especially when we're young, innate (and learned) tendencies interface with complex situational constraints supplied by school and peers. I love how your mother went to bat for you at all your schools, rooting for your adaptive capacities to be allowed to grow and develop. Her belief in you must have been a huge support... Interesting to parse constraint and support... so individual!
I know two key, to my mind, things about ADD: First, I know a young man, close to me, meaning related, who was diagnosed and inappropriately treated with Adderall who became emaciated at 16 and only after getting away was able to get off the drug and become himself. I watched with horror. Second, I've taught in university for a long time and most young people diagnosed with ADD also have super smarts. Hurrah for this essay, J.E., and check your email for mail from me about your upcoming post on https://innerlifecollaborative.substack.com ~ xo Mary
I was diagnosed as a child and medicated for years. I honestly think it helped me but I don't think its right for everyone.
I prefer to say reorder instead of disorder for the same reasons you highlight - there isn't something wrong with me, i just operate differently.
I never held on to the label and I don't use it to excuse my behavior. What it does, however, is help me identify and understand my inner workings and how to manage better.
A lot of the deficits that i experienced in my youth do not affect me (as much) as an adult and i have worked hard to learn and grow. I definitely struggle but i also know that i can learn and grow.
The label serves people when it helps them learn and grow but it hinders if it becomes a limitation and justification. Such as "i can't do that, I'm on the spectrum..." instead should be "this is challenging for me, how can i approach it differently"
Your experience is very good proof of nuance when it comes to this stuff. Thanks for sharing it.
I like the term "reorder" – it nudges the lexicon away from the idea of pathology. And I love that you've used you've leveraged your diagnosis for personal growth. It's about paradigmatic shift from 'I can't' to 'How can I?’
Just like you could take someone not particularly inclined to get cancer and pump them full of unfiltered sunlight and cigarettes and probably give them cancer, I think you can get AD(H)D from just about anyone with the right kind of stimulus, and there's no better attention-unsettling stimulus than modern media.
But whatever the era of media (modern or say 1980s) you're talking about the thing that's setting the pace, that's deciding what's the "normal" rate of speech and the "normal" length of an attention span, what's a "normal" amount of time to spend sitting and focused on a single story, and so on. So normal is always a moving target.
If you're not happy with the pace at which your brain moves, then by all means take steps to change it. But pharma is probably not the best solution. Again, I could take someone not particularly inclined towards obesity and with a high-calorie diet make them obese; if I did that, the best "solution" to that obesity wouldn't be SPEED, although doctors have prescribed amphetamines for weight loss for most of the past century. The best "solution" would be to give them control over their diet so they could make the choices that make them feel good.
People I know who are diagnosed with ADHD are happy to have the diagnosis because they don't feel good. They want a change, and having a label feels like the start of a change. I'm all about change, but I hate labels. I think the changes are habits of mind, life, routine, and the degree to which we internalize the "social metronome" that's always clicking way too fast.
If you can resist the beat, if you are arrogant, bull-headed, and self-directed, being "polyfocal" doesn't feel bad. It feels awesome. It means your mind is always making new connections and seeing new possibilities. It means you can see the details and the universe at once. It means you jump on ideas when you have them and you discover old ideas you half-finished just lying around. Life is a garden of wonder and delight.
Wonder and delight, IF you're a resistant, arrogant, bull-headed, self-directed polyfocal -- if you're more conformist, if your self-esteem is wobbly, if you like to go with the flow, if you prefer to follow rather than lead, then it looks to me like it must be hell. And I can completely understand why someone would complain.
But I'd still recommend resisting the external forces, following your own mind, believing in your genius, and cutting against the tide. It's more fun.
Amy I'd have to write another whole essay to do this comment justice. I completely agree that "there's no better attention-unsettling stimulus than modern media." I believe polyfocals are uniquely susceptible to the extractive machinations of the attention economy, and that the media structures in place tend to push people further down that end of the spectrum.
"If you're not happy with the pace at which your brain moves, then by all means take steps to change it." Amen. I'm not sure if I got this across effectively, but I think pills are a fine solution, if you're willing to accept the tradeoffs. Ultimately, we're more powerful than we like to admit, and there are almost always better solutions than ingesting synthetic chemicals, in terms of the tradeoffs. That's probably a whole other essay.
I don't know that I agree with your argument about what kind of person it takes to feel awesome about being polyfocal. Not that it isn't true, but that it's perhaps limiting. Maybe you don't have to be "arrogant" and/or "bull-headed," maybe you just have to have a lot of authentic and healthy confidence, a lot of which comes from being well-integrated into a supportive community.
And yeah, if you're a passive person, who would prefer to let other people make the decisions you should be making for yourself (this describes most of us, most of the time, although we're loathe to admit it), then polyfocalism is a liability. Because the "social metronome" is calibrated to reward monofocalism, so a passive person will only ever feel pressured into that mold, regardless of whether it's a good fit for their actual personality.
I recommend confident self-direction to anyone. Everyone should be living as deliberately as possible, regardless of their current position on whichever personality spectrum we're talking about. Personal agency is a universal virtue. It's just that polyfocals need it more to survive in a world that favors monofocals.
There’s a movement to rename it VAST (variable attention stimulus traits), which is lovely. There’s also a LOT changing in the diagnostic criteria, which is exciting. So much of it is about one’s dopamine receptors.
I'm so encouraged by this! I don't love the acronym, but it's great that this conversation is happening.
And yes, it seems to always come down to the dopamine, which I wrote a (very) little bit about in my post "Dope Hacking."
unfortunately society has pathologized many of its best and brightest. many reasons for this, one of which is of course profit from 'meds,' but it's a damn shame. no wonder so many conform and comply just to feel normal... whatever the heck that is...
Haha! "Normal."
I wish someone would write a book to unpack our relationship to that word. I'm sure it has a lot to do with our deep genetic need to belong to a pack. Loners are rarely better off than humans who are properly socialized. So "normal" probably just means "not in danger of being shunned." Which is pretty important!
Very intriguing, I almost have too many thoughts to put anything down (Polyfocal, what can I say). Definitely something worth being louder about so we can help fix this issue
Based on the stuff that shows up in my instagram feed every day, my algorithm is CONVINCED I have undiagnosed ADD. I'm pretty convinced I could get that diagnosis if I went for it — everything I see about it online (including everything you listed in the polyfocal traits list) describes my thinking and behavior pretty thoroughly.
I've thought about taking a test, or bringing it up with my therapist, but I've always stopped at "well, then what?" What would my desired outcome be from having someone confirm what I seem to already know about myself? I don't think it's something I necessarily want to change about myself. Parts of it are difficult, to be sure, but the same could be said for every variation of being human. I get a lot of joy and fulfillment from working on nine different creative projects before lunch. And as I've matured, I've developed strategies that help me cope with the more, you know, "negative" sides of polyfocalism — like my tendency to abandon projects I really would rather see through to the end.
I, for one, think polyfocal is a great and empowering term! It's inspiring/heartening/relieving/consoling to hear that other people are thinking about how to frame these traits as okay, positive, and even downright advantageous qualities to be tapped into, not abnormalities to be overcome or corrected.
As for question #2, I'm hoping someone is able to chime in here cause I feel just as lost as you. It is NOT obvious — and certainly not in most traditional workplaces. Perhaps the first steps are simply being able to identify these traits in yourself and being willing to communicate them to those around you — not as disclaimers explaining why you might not be the person others expect you to be, but as an act of self-awareness that empowers others to interact with you in powerful and creative ways.
Ah, the algorithm, ever eager to diagnose us with a scroll and a click!
Your reflection echoes the core sentiment of my piece – the quest for self-understanding versus the need for an external label. It's the eternal “well, then what?” that always follows. I want to congratulate your self-awareness, a ray of clarity to pierce the clouds of medical jargon and social expectation.
And way to embrace the creative chaos of polyfocalism. This is frankly the kind of response I was hoping for -- relatable and inspiring.
Also, obviously, I'm delighted that the term resonates. Let's spread it around!
Question 2... Maybe there are no good answers. Maybe the cost of whatever benefits you can get out of being polyfocal is that you just have to workshop what works best for you. This is probably true for everyone -- monofocals, too -- it's just that there's an over-representation of tools and tactics tuned to monofocalism. Not that they're framed that way, but we might as well start.
Dude, I've been thinking about this all month. I would probably qualify as ADD. But should I? Constant background debate for me. Kinda ADD :)
Sounds to me like you qualify as POLYFOCAL. Now you just gotta go use your powers for good!
I’m in my late 40’s. Was ‘officially’ diagnosed a few years ago.
‘Polyfocal,’ is accurate in some ways. But in my case, I sought help because I had to set a recurring 5 minute timer to stay on task, while trying to get something done. In some jobs, polyfocal can have its advantages, but for me, it was coming down to an utter inability to actually get things done that I needed to get done.
Your Sci. American article does say that the diagnoses look higher than the actual cases. But it doesn’t deny that there are actual cases.
So, for me, the meds are a godsend. And when I watched my son start to develop the same inner demons I had, around his own inability to focus enough to get something done, to emotionally regulate... I made sure he got help. And his handwriting went from looking like he was grappling for control over his pencil, to being nominally readable. He’s in elementary school, so a lot of things are still developing.
I do honestly agree (I think) with the overall sentiment of the piece, especially re: semantics. I think the qualifier I would add in is that the diagnosis is helpful if you’re actually trying to fix or manage something that’s a real problem.
I think parents who get their kids medicated (or over-medicated) so their grades will hopefully get better, can be just as bad as the parents who refuse to have their kids tested, because they don’t want to have to worry about the stigma. (I met a woman in grad school for engineering who was breaking down EVERY DAY. She got the ADHD diagnosis, and it helped her immensely. When she mentioned it to her mom, the response was “Oh, yeah. I know. You got diagnosed years ago, but there was such a stigma...” And this woman had been struggling for YEARS.
So... yeah. I think the semantic argument is fair. And I don’t think I’m a “SAD” introvert.
More of a Finally Understand, Collective Kinship Often Fails to Fulfill kind of introvert. But those aren’t the socially acceptable ones. It’s not that I can’t handle social settings: It’s just that once the tank runs dry, it’s time to leave. And sometimes the best way to exit stage left, is to convince others to escort me out.
Anyway...
I’ve also seen what it’s like when there’s an actual problem, and people actually refuse to be helpful, and/ or imply that it’s my fault. (‘Don’t care enough,’ ‘Don’t want to listen,’ ‘Willful child,’ or my all-time favorite: “We LOVE you, SO MUCH. And we know that when you finally decide to set your mind to it, you’ll make us SO proud.”)
The first step when it comes to fixing a problem is diagnosing the problem. If there’s an actual problem, it’s important to get help. And while I’m 100% on board with your semantic arguments, and love the tone of the overall piece, it’s an opinion piece, nothing more.
I like your approach & earnestness .. .. very thorough .. you’re not a Healthcare Professional.. are you .. nor am I
I have never suffered from a DSM-5 Mood Disorder.. a stunning hit of agoraphobia on Whistler once in very flat light on a chairlift & once a tich o panicky snorkelling in Mexico - till I recognized a light rip. But.. I’ve produced, directed, shot, edited more CME - Accredited Continuing Medical Education than almost anyone I ever met.. Dozens of Symposia, Conferences, Drug Launches.. I was just like you in school.. except I had no mom or dad
My teachers were mainly vicious nuns, brothers or priests.. even my grandparents & aunts - guardians helped ensure any interest in Drawing or Athletics were crushed & at 12 was migrated to a new family farm ..... & everything changed.. for the better mainly.. but I still sucked scholastically !
My point ? Who knows.. re my case.. Your situation is much different .. mucho..
On the plus side - you’re an adult now, highly informed, high function, fine communicator, expressive.. excellent
Downside ? You’re publicly espousing your medical expertise.. uh.. opinion er.. uh Differential Self Diagnosis
& you’re doing so, during a Pandemic/Epidemic of historic proportions - morbidity, mortality & mystery
that’s also triggering mass frustration, misunderstanding, myth, fantasy, anger, rage.. partisan political failure
disaster capitalism, massive fraud, fear.. and the myriad post infection consequences almost impossible to measure
Ah yes.. ‘fear of the jab, & the mask’ - conspiracy raging..
& so I ask.. in that context.. Are you part of a problem.. or a solution.. and for whom ?
another tonight, but soon, at your request - would related a case study presented at an Accredited symposium on ADD etc
to approx 300 attendees, plus an online audience - all responding during that particular lecture via hand held device
such that immediate response / data & feedback could roll in. In a nutshell, he was asking his Healthcare Pro ‘class’
to consider the facts of the Differential Diagnosis he had made.. the History etc etc etc..
and then to project or make educated guess about the patient, their life circumstances, upbringing, sex, race, age,
compliance, treatment modalities, schooling..
Collective gasp when their ‘scoring’ was revealed.. we’re talking perhaps 1000 or more clinicians
that failed miserably at what was a challenging task of reverse engineering a ‘whom’
from a tremendous medical workup & truly thorough history.. They did not see a photo
Most recognized Non Compliance .. you bet they did ! abut as he confronted them with
They collectively thought - Mid to upper middle class white Philadelphia, live at home
indolent re meds or therapy.. their typical patient, access to a car, several accidents
poor student, possible comorbid dyslexia, junk food..
But hey ! Patient X was very slight (50 lb black male weakling & living with six sibling & single mom
in 6th floor walk up, in run down housing complex & was being robbed in the hallways or stairwells
& his meds stolen to be sold or traded on the streets .. his night driving skills almost non existent
The good doctor pointed out the obvious - in more ways than one that day..
and that once the compliance issue was identified.. & effective treatment underway
there was tremendous progress .. but also warned that at 17 years old
he would soon be in the ‘adult cohort’ with interest in alcohol, perhaps girls, driving
and likely enter the work force rather than further education..
With my usual sense of humour .. there’s a song in my head..
something about Love Potion Number Nine ..
& ‘Doctor doctor - What Condition My Condition Was In ..’
Are you that sure what condition your uh .. condition was/is in ?
You don’t appear to appreciate the word/term ‘disorder’ .. 🦎🏴☠️
The "art" of "model" (models, modeling) = money machine?
https://mikestone.substack.com/p/the-virus-model
That's a fascinating post!
And I'm not sure I understand the equation you're laying out, but does it have something to do with late-stage capitalism converting everything into a machine of commerce?
Can’t understand how these terms haven’t been coined before—they’re brilliant: polyfocal vs monofocal = so much more descriptive of what’s going on inside!
Great essay.
AD(h)D has apparently also taken (yet another) historic leap thanks to Social Media (of course): https://www.legacycommunityhealth.org/newsblogmental-health-mondays-study-finds-link-between-heavy-social-media-adhd/ .
And Thom Hartmann also has written books about another, also healthy way to frame the same topic. I believe he's even launched a Substack themed around that: https://www.hunterinafarmersworld.com/
Re-framing away from medicalizing...well, *life* is a sound plan, IMO.
Count me in.
Thanks for the recs -- I subscribed. Reframing is critical for mental and spiritual progress. Our frames dictate our reality more than we can comprehend.
Hey, if you wouldn't mind, what's your Substack (or regular) email? Looking to mind meld offline, if possible...
I'd love to! You can email me at jepetersen411 [at] gmail
What if polyfocal and monofocal behaviors are strategies in response to situational constraints rather than personality traits? Especially when we're young, innate (and learned) tendencies interface with complex situational constraints supplied by school and peers. I love how your mother went to bat for you at all your schools, rooting for your adaptive capacities to be allowed to grow and develop. Her belief in you must have been a huge support... Interesting to parse constraint and support... so individual!
I know two key, to my mind, things about ADD: First, I know a young man, close to me, meaning related, who was diagnosed and inappropriately treated with Adderall who became emaciated at 16 and only after getting away was able to get off the drug and become himself. I watched with horror. Second, I've taught in university for a long time and most young people diagnosed with ADD also have super smarts. Hurrah for this essay, J.E., and check your email for mail from me about your upcoming post on https://innerlifecollaborative.substack.com ~ xo Mary