I am reading my book that’s supposed to explain to me why I have trouble reading… Driven to Distraction. I came to a realization. I think that when I’m reading a book, no matter how engaging, I’m always on the virge of putting the book down and doing something else. It’s not a super monumental discovery when written out, but I just became aware of the tangibility of this feeling. Seriously, after every pause I kind of have to push myself to keep reading - no matter what I’m reading. I think this realization helps me a lot, because I had previously thought that only things that interest me engage me and that I have trouble focusing on things that don’t interest me.
Although this above is actually a charactarizing statement for ADD in general, I think it’s a crap one. In fact, I was reading about some dude who was also diagnosed post-highschool and how he was struggling with the diagnosis, and I think I might also be that type of person. It’s so political - you have all these people writing about how ADD is a lump diagnosis (it is) and how it might not even exist. On the other hand, you have all these diehard ADD proponents that wildly refute these assertions, and of course make themselves look out of control and misinformed. The truth is that the symptoms of ADD do describe a lot of general cases with kids and students, and I think some careful introspection or an outside diagnosis is essential to weed out the normal kids. I think the defining factor for me is the passion. There is a lot of passion, so much so in some instances that the lack of motivation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. In some cases it’s also very directed passion, not the rampant type that runs wild occasionally.
This whole ADD battle among the scholars and others actually reminds me a lot of bipartisan politics. I’m very prideful of my moderate stance, because I feel like if you ever really gravitate towards a defined side, the tendency to undermine your own beliefs gets much more loominous. As soon as you have something to defend, to take personally, to guard, the neutrality of your reasoning is jeopardized. This isn’t to say that you should be polically moderate to be logically neutral, that is precisely not the point. I just think if you try to stay away from the political wings, the sanctity of your logic might be preserved. I personally respect people much more when they appear moderate as a whole (again, not necessarily from issue to issue, but on a whole). In that sense, if I’m going to waste my time being political, I think I’d like to be respected as well. It’s just so much harder when you have to spend time proving to people that you’re not fanatical just so they will listen to you.

Funny thing is I just read my above paragraph and I’m not sure I like what I’m reading. I guess instead of proving I’m not a fanatic, I get to prove to people that I’m not apathetic, uninformed, or *gasp* too much of a pansy to take a stance. I think most people that know me would probably know that those aren’t true, so we’re good.

Another funny thing about ADD - it actually kind of explains why my writing is so sporatic. There are a few things I know are good for me in that realm. Writing helps to keep my mind going. Even though the writing itself might not be too cohesive, on my side of things my thoughts are materializing, which is a very good thing. Exercise is pretty key, on the physiological side more than anything else. Aside from keeping the belly off, the endorphans are good for focusing, and in the later stages of the day I think that working out helps me sleep better. I haven’t kept it up long enough to really verify this, but its pretty sound reasoning. Finally we have organization, which I’m always struggling with. I do have the resources - a good calendar, whiteboard, etc. For when I am keeping up at it.

I think when I haven’t written for awhile it all splurges out like ketchup after a battle with a restaurant patron.

I’m also pretty bad at spelling.