Aspergers and ADD

As promised, this the second one of my very personal perspectives on living with Asperger Syndrome.  If you have missed my introduction, you can find it here.

Not being professionally trained in these fields, I can only offer the most basic observations.  Many people diagnosed with ‘Asperger Syndrome’ are also diagnosed with one or more of other ‘problems’, such as ‘Attention Deficit Syndrome’ (ADD).  I wanted to link the ‘ADD’ bit to some good site that defines it, but, well, I could not find one that reflects reality.  My reality, anyway!

Contrary to popular belief (and the focus of most ‘ADD’ articles and treatments), this does not denote the inability to pay attention.  Rather, it denotes difficulties in contolling one’s ‘concentration’.  It’s like the ‘focus switch’ is very, very deep:  it takes a lot for something to trigger it, but when it does – it is just as hard for it to get un-triggered.  This is a much more complex thing than just being unable to settle down or to control one’s impulses. 

Rather, these are possible symptoms, not the causes of the problem.  Yet, it seems that no professional seems to want to see , discuss, treat or, indeed, acknowledge anything other than the symptoms…which is why they usually are not much help at all.

This is my personal suspicion of a small part of the causes:  it has a lot to do with ‘filtering’ the stimulae we are constantly bombarded with.  It’s like the ‘light’ and ‘medium’ filters are completely missing.  So, the only options the brain has is to use the ‘extra-strenght-don’t-let-anything-through’ filters, or no filters at all…

For example, I have a problem with my hair:  if it is cut short (or if I have bangs), the areas of my skin which are touched by the ends of the individuals hairs are constantly being stimulated.  I cannot, no matter how hard I try, control this continuous input.  It is constantly rubbing and I cannot block it.  The continuous stimulation to the skin results in a physiological response – exczema.  Mine is not a reaction to any hair product – this was tested for. 

It is a response to the constant, minor yet unceassing stimulation due to the hair-ends rubbing against my skin and it is something that fails to be filtered by the brain.  My only solution is to have hair long enough to pin up or tie back, so it does not touch my skin….then I have to rearrange it often so the ‘position’ of the hair does not become painful.  To other people, it looks like I am always fidgeting with my hair – like a nervous habit or a mannerism.  Yet, I am only relieving built up pain.

Compare this to a ‘normal’ (or, as many ‘Aspergers pride’ people refer somewhat condescendingly to the rest of the population, the ‘neurotypicals’, or NTs) response:  after being exposed to a repetitive stimulus for several minutes (less for some individuals), their brain automatically compensates.  An example is ‘getting used to’ the cool temperature of the lake, or the hot water in a bath.  The skin sends initial signals informing the brain of the new stimulus, but after a while, the intensity is decreased. 

For many people who have ADD (and most ‘Aspies’ do have some form of it), this ‘filtering’ does not always happen.  You are always aware of the clothing that is touching you.  You are always aware of even the minutest breeze rubbing your skin (I, for one, I experience even a tiny draft in a room as intense pain on my skin – I could never understand how people could stand in front of a fan, or go outside in the wind).

For me, it’s my skin (well, that’s one of my ‘things’).  Other people can have other things that they have trouble filtering out.  Bright light can make them feel blinded or anxious, or the light contrast between the digital display of a clock in a dark room can trigger such anxiety as to prevent one from being able to fall asleep.  Falling asleep in front of a TV would be unimaginable for these people.

On the other hand, I know several people who can only sleep with the TV on:  the constant yet irregular changes in light and sound levels help block the regular cyclicity of the white noise of the heating system, air conditioner, and so on which seem to feed into the subconscious and cause bad reactions.  If the TV is turned off after they fall asleep, the cyclicity of the white noise will be enough to trigger some feenback loop, which keeps buildig up until they get an axiety attack while they are sleeping!  Not a pleasant way to wake up…

And don’t even let me get started on the rustling of leaves, crickets chirping or wind chimes!

On the other hand, when my brain focuses on something – and I mean, really focuses on something – external stimula have about zero chance of breaking through.  People can talk to me – and claim I made responses – yet I am not aware of it…not even a little bit!  Little things, like fire alarms, can go completely unnoticed.  And I am not alone! 

When my younger son was only a few months old, we became worried because there were times – but only some times – when we could make a very loud noise, directly behind him – and I mean LOUD – yet it would produce absolutely no response in him whatsoever!  Not even the tiniest twitch!  His brain was being used in processing something else – so it paid no attention to the audial input.  The physical reaction was the same as if he had never registered the stimulus at all!  I must admit, I am also guilty of this – as are both my husband, and my father….

But, here comes the interesting bit:  and yes, my father, my son and my husband all display this:  sometimes, you speak to them, they hear what is said and their brain stores it in some sort of a ‘buffer’ – but it never gets to the bit of brain that actually processes it.  They are completely unaware of whatever it was that was said, and appear oblivious to having been spoken to.  But, if you ask them to go back, they can ‘replay’ the message from the ‘buffer’ in their brain and ‘listen’ to it.  ‘Oh, yes’, they say, ‘I get what you want now!’

Hopefully, this will help give people a little bit of understanding of what is happening in those of us with ADD.

Aspergers

Since mentioning in past posts that I had Asperger Syndrome, I have received many private messages on this topic….and requests to explain how it affects me – and what strategies I employed to develop coping skills.  So, every now and then, I will write a bit about my experiences in this area.

 However, before I start, some qualifications are in order…

I am not a physician, and the closest I ever came to being a therapist was an after-school job in a gift shop down the hall from the hotel bar with a pianist so loud, the bartender could not hear ‘life stories’ over the music – so I had to fill in!  Whatever I post about Aspergers are my personal experiences, observations and ideas – and are not to be mistaken for an expert opinion or the prevailing medical opinion -or, in fact, any respected opinion on this topic whatsoever.  These are just my musings!

Yet, I hope that it might offer an insight into how at least one ‘Aspergers’ brain processes the surrounding world, and help to relieve the frustration that people often experience when dealing with an ‘Aspergers’ child or colleague.  And it CAN be challenging!!!

Perhaps I am completely off on this, but it seems to me that what we call ‘Asperger Syndrome’ is actually several very different conditions.  They may present similarly, but have underlying causes…and if you read my rants, you know how I abhor it when people confuse symptoms with causes!  I can only address my particular variety.  ;0)

Aspergers has been described in many ways, given many nicknames:  the absentminded professor syndrome, the Silicone Valley syndrome, the uber-geek/nerd syndrome…there are more labels.  When I was in high school, I watched the original Star Trek series in order to figure out why some of my classmates kept addressing me as Ms. Spock…  Yet lately (and perhaps due to the success of people like Bill Gates – I don’t know if he has Aspergers, but he does have the appearance of a ‘nerd’, just as many ‘Aspies’ do), there has been a literary (well, as close as TV comes) explosion of characters who undeniably portray different manifestations of the Asperger syndrome – outside of the ‘Trekkies’.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive, rather, it is meant to demonstrate the very different ways (and severity – it is much more like a continuum than an on/off thingy) that Aspergers people behave  (or, at least, ones that we, Aspies, consider to be ‘our ways’):

Dr. Gregory House

Mr. Monk

Just about everyone (excepting Penny) on ‘The Big Bang Theory’

Dr. Spence Reid from ‘Criminal Minds’

Chuck Bartowski

 …and that does not even account for Mr. Bean!

So, if this topic is of interest to you, drop in every now and then – more on Aspergers is going to trickle in!

Symptoms and Causes

Advertizing and politics are some of the most obvious examples of ‘idea bundling’, as I discussed in my last post.  But, these are not, by far, the only fields.  This trend can be seen everywhere around us.

Bundling ideas can be useful by helping us categorize our surroundings, yet it can also hinder us – especially when other people try to do the ‘bundling’ for us.  Sometimes it is intentional manipulation (advertizing, ‘spin’, propaganda), but often, the people doing the ‘bundling’ are not even aware they are doing it…..and these ‘bundles’ are often the hardest to ‘unpack’ into their components, since there is no ‘false note’ to detect!

One of the greatest dangers of this is that when a specific ‘solution’ is a part of a ‘bundle’, it is harder for us to recognize whether it is a ‘symptom fix’ or a ‘root cause solution’.  And mistaking symptoms with causes is so easy…and so unfortunatelly frequent in our society!

Perhaps it is a human characteristic, perhaps there is a lapse in the schooling we received in critical reasoning … but confusing symptoms for causes is just SO rampant!!!!  And so many of us do not even seem to recognize that this is even going on, much less see it as a problem.

The whole ‘banning cellphones while driving’ debate is a case in point: the cellphones are a symptom of distraction, the underlying cause is the apalling disrespect some drivers accord to the act of driving – considering driving an ‘automatic right’ instead of an earned privilege.  And, while bannig cellphones while driving may make us feel as if we are ‘protecting society’, and politicians may get a few extra photops, it does not fix the underlying problem of getting drivers to pay attention to driving….  What’s next:  banning the application of ‘mauve dreams’  shade of lipstick because statistics clearly showe that more people crash while applying that shade of lipstick during driving than any other?

Another example is the alarming attitude in our schools:  volunteers who wanted to help kids who were falling behind in math were turned away, on the grounds that being seen as singled out for extra help would stigmatize a child.  Oh no, the lack of math skills (for whatever reason) was not a problem at all.  No, the problem was being seen getting help!!!  The symptom (potential embarassment) is treated, not the undelying problem (lack of skills).  I would not have believed it if I had not seen it with my own eyes. 

It is part of the same absence of critical thinking that ‘protects’ children from being ‘stigmatized’ by having them repeat a grade when they have not learned material, and instead allows illiterate children to graduate from schools.  They will be completely unprepared to face the challenges in life, but they will not have had their feelings hurt along the way…..  We are teaching our kids that it is OK to be ignorant, but not OK to be seen working hard to improve… What was that about ‘learned helplessness’?

Perhaps it sounds like I’m picking on the educators (and they do make it so easy), but this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Just look around you – the examples aboud! 

We, ‘the Western society’, seem to be rapidly loosing the ability to distinguish between causes of problems – which need remedying, and the symptoms of problems – which can lead us to the causes, but would which it would be pointless and a waste of time and resources to address in isolation.

 …and don’t get me started on separating valid from silly idead which had been ‘bundled’ together!

Epicurean, Epidurean…paradoxes everywhere!

As far as Greek philosophers go, Epicurus was pretty O.K. 

Contrary to the customs of his era, he allowed women as students in his school.  Though there is absolutely no historical fact to justify this, I would love to think that the legendary Xanthippe (of whom he most certainly knew) and her famous debates versus Socrates, may have influenced him in this.  After all, his philosophy was not really all that far removed from hers (at least, the few little bits of her philosophy that have survived).

But, unlike Socrates, who was busy gazing at the navel of his immortal soul, Epicurus saw humans as having physical, intellectual, spiritual and social needs:  the ideal, then, was to strike a harmonious balance in one’s life.  Frankly, this seems almost too reasonable an opinion to be held by a ‘philosopher’! 

After all, where is the brooding, the derisive scowl at the cares of the world – isn’t that the image the word ‘philosopher’ is supposed to evoke?  I bet his ‘reasonableness’ cost him a lot of ‘pretentiousness points’ among the lofty circles…

 

He would likely have been written off and forgotten, had he not also voiced some very provocative ideas.  Most (though certainly not all) of his contemporaries aspired to the creed of monotheism, describing God in a way modern day Christians would recognize:  omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent towards mankind, his creation. In the still predominantly polytheistic environment, this idea – coupled with the notion Socrates had taught of the immortality of one’s soul – seemed very deep and mystical.  Yet, Epicurus directed some very pointed questions at this creed…and none of them have been satisfactorily answered as yet!

 

            Is God willing to prevent evil, and not able?

                        Then he is not omnipotent.

            Is He able, but not willing?

                        Then he is malevolent.

            Is God both able and willing?

                        Then whence cometh evil?

            Is He neither able, nor willing?

                        Then why call him God?

                                                     Epicurus, 341-271 BCE

This is perhaps the most famous group of his questions and has been handed down to us under the name the ‘Epicurean riddle’, or the ‘Epicurean paradox’.  It has been much paraphrased over the millennia, but the above is one of my favourite renditions.

People say that pain can, at times, bring ‘things’ into a sharp focus.  This was true for me, as I deeply questioned every single one of my life’s decisions, whiling away the endless hours of late-stage labour.  Truly, I came to question everything!

And then, it occurred to me:  in order to make people (especially female people) truly comprehend the meaning of the Epicurean paradox, perhaps I could re-phrase it into terms that had more immediate impact on our lives.  It’s almost as if the words came to me of their own volition:

Is God is truly omniscient?  Then He must know the pain of childbirth! 

And if He is also omnipotent, and he did not invent ‘the epidural’ waaaay before inventing this whole childbirth thing, then he is most certainly not benevolent!

I like to think of this as the Epidurean paradox!

I would go on, but I don’t want to belabour the point….

I am therefore I think….I think

I think therefore I am…yeah, right! Go ahead and pull the other one!

For the life of me (please, excuse the expression), I cannot understand why people consider ‘I think therefore I am’ to be somehow ‘profound’, or ‘remarkable’, or – frankly – anything other than ludicrous and demonstrably unsupportable.

Since so many really smart people think it a ‘valid’ statement, I must be missing some salient point – not understanding something ‘deep’. Please, let me walk through my reasoning: perhaps someone will post an insightful comment which points out my error and just lead me to ‘reason’.

To begin with, there appear to me to be two interpretations of the meaning of this phrase. So, let us consider the literal one first:

I think therefore I am.

First, what is ‘I’? If one cannot define ‘I’, then how can it be determined what ‘I’ may, or may not, be doing?

‘Ah, but there ‘must’ be some ‘self-aware entity’ to be doing the thinking!’ says conventional thought. And I ask ‘Why?

What if our brain is akin to some sort of a weird ‘antenna’, which is picking up some background EM radiation….which then generates the biochemical reactions in the brain…which then generate other EM radiation we call ‘thinking’? How do we know this is not so? After all, the differences in the biological makeup of different brains might cause them to generate differing ‘thoughts’ in response to the same outside stimulus. What we consider ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ and ‘reacting’ might just be weird co-incidences, natural phenomena interacting in a random way….why should we assume anything different?

So, I have managed to convince myself that ‘thinking’ may not be a deliberate expression in and of itself, it might be a weird natural resonance of some kind….so there may not be any ‘independent I’… that self-awareness really may be an illusion, a ‘trick of light and shadows’.

What about ‘I am’ – generally understood to express one’s ‘existence’. What a nebulous concept! Some people say we are an indestructible energy, which animates our physical shell. Other people say we are our physical shell, which then generates an energy which animates it. Either way, without ‘thinking about it’, we cannot even ‘conceive of’ our physical shell, regardless of any ‘animation’!

So, we don’t really know even what ‘am’ is…without doing the ‘thinking’. In other words, the ‘thinking’ defines the ‘existing’ – they are both different ways of expressing one and the same concept.

So why stick a ‘therefore’ between them? It should be an equal sign… Saying one ‘implies’ the other is flawed logic…a circular argument at best.

So what about the ‘pragmatic’ interpretation? What if ‘I think therefore I am’ is a statement designed to prove the futility of what I had just attempted to do with the literal interpretation above? And then take it one step further, by saying ‘stop your navel-gazing and react to what you might, perhaps, be perceiving as life’?

Well, that is rather silly.

If we were to follow this chain of thought, we would find it impossible to define the ‘I’ in any meaningful way. A rock does not ‘think’, yet we react to one which appears to be hurled at us as if it truly existed. Even without thought. (I mean, the rock’s…)

But, some might say, it does not really exist in any way other than in your thoughts! It is your perception of the rock, the thought generated by your perception of it, which makes the rock ‘real’ enough to impact you (i.e. defines its existence). But, of course, that would not work for the original premise: it is not the rock’s ‘thoughts’ which make it ‘exist’, it is the ‘observer’s thought’ which ‘perceives’ the rock that makes it ‘exist’. ‘The rock only exists in your mind/thought.’ In other words, in order to prove its existence, the rock needs a reference point outside of itself.

This is congruent with mathematical logic: any self-consistent system, to be ‘proven’ real, requires a reference point outside of ‘itself’. Similarly, (and since we are going through the ‘pragmatic’ interpretation of the phrase) the ‘thinker’ would require a reference point outside of the ‘thinker’ in order to be proven to ‘be’. Yet, the statement hinges on the assertion that since we are only aware of our own ‘thoughts’, the ‘thinker’ cannot actually have a reference point outside of itself – without violating its own rules. (In other words, thinking defines the ‘thinkee’, not the thinker.)

I’m not sure if I am being clear, so let me go back to the ‘rock’: it is the act of being perceived by something separate from itself (like the observer’s mind) which ‘proves’ the rock’s existence. Similarly, the ‘thinker’ needs to be perceived by something separate from the ‘thinker’ to prove the ‘thinker’s’ existence….and ‘thinking’ is a property of the ‘thinker’, it is not separate from the ‘thinker’….which makes this a circular argument at best.

I think this is were I am supposed to say QED…..except that I am hoping I have committed some glaring error or oversight, and that someone will point it out to me. Soon!