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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 6 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next