Here is some food for thought.

Of all wonders in the universe, to me, the individual personality is this most wondrous of all. Since we can not not work from models and/or/theories, and in the interest of honoring each life, I think it would behoove us to build in a theory that says-

"Look, here we have this individual, this unique person who is going to do it (what ever the case may be) differently".

We allow for this. But, and I ask this with a very gentle softness-- Are you, I, or any of us willing to take that step? To say, well I really don't know. I really have little idea about how people get to be who they are, or where they are at. But, if I am willing to put aside any biases when I do approach this person, or the person, save the one that says I do not know (Might be an open approach, but is still a model none the less) then I can learn how THIS person, or THAT person got to be where they are at.

Now, the way in which you pose the questions tends to cause the brain, my brain, to begin looking for a stencil that I can apply to ALL people. But ALL is to big. Even if we chunk it down to a particular culture, or sub inside of that particular culture, we are still going to be preventing ourselves from learning more by the simply act of trying to generalize the how across the group. I am sure there are times when we might want to generalize across a group, but when we begin believing that our generalization is true, then we are gong to be alienating all of the individuals in that group to some degree. I'm not saying don't generalize a particular pattern across a group. What I am saying though, is that we need to know when we are doing it, and to what degree. You may find genius in a group, but it will only be there as a result of the individuals, or an individual(s) in that group.

First and foremost I am a modeler. I pride myself on being able to find what works, model it, test it---and if need be improve on it. And, after that process bears itself out through time, I then teach it. But, when modeling, if I approach the PERSON from whom I am about to model a skill set with any other preset other than, I wonder how this person does this?, Will not be standing in my own way? Not to mention any risks of posing limits on the person being modeled.

So, I am of the belief, and by choice, that there is no one way to look at anything. This child might generalize this Cacti experience to include pin cushions, and he may not. And even if he did, that means nothing about how the next child might generalize his first experience with that Cacti. That is where psychologists has gone wrong. Rather then allowing for the inherent differences that will exist across the individuals that make up the group, they took the findings of the one, and did their best to force them on the rest of the group.

To further this, let us take a look at how the educational system works in the US. They took a broad analysis of the members of a given group, averaged out the findings to calculate a midline, and built from there. I call this building in mediocrity. Sort of like taking Prozac. No highs, no lows, just the middle. But, the problem with this is that it takes away from the group as a whole. Human beings, in my experience (here is an example of my choosing to generalize across a group), have demonstrated an interesting ability to be competitive. What causes this will be different from one person to the next, but if you take children and place them in a group, they will find a way to compete with one another. And if you model this phenom down, one child to the next, I am certain that you will find varying core outcomes driving the pattern. This has been the case in my investigations (Even when I set out to find a common denominator, I found only difference. More on this another time).

Now, by building in and teaching from a baseline that is designed to function at an average, you wind up turning out more people who will fit that average. But even more, by building in an average baseline, you are in effect hampering academic competition. And since you are not going to eliminate competition, then the children wind up finding other things to become competitive about while in the academic context. Part of what is known as ADHD, or what I refer to as "Protective Re-contextualization Attention Response(c)", or PRAR(c).

See, You can not take away the fact that human beings are going to be different one from another. Some will start off by responding to their experience by learning quickly, some slowly, and others somewhere in-between. Now, if you try to inhibit this by building a program that is designed to be fair to those that start off more slowly, then you are not going to be giving the those who respond more quickly anything useful to do with there brains, while at the same time taking away the challenge from those who are starting off more slowly, by having the faster children respond by mentally leaving the context. Just think about sensory deprivation right now. How when human beings are deprived of sensory input, they fill in by hallucinating.

Now, we have three things going on. 1, The children that start off faster are having to shift their attention to something other than the academic setting as a means of remaining sane (either they shift to some other context, or they daydream. Both only signs of inadequate sensory based stimulation). 2, There is a lack of contextual competition as a result of trying to serve the midline, so the children begin finding other contexts in which they can compete. And 3., The children who start off slower are not going to be able to benefit by modeling the children who start off more quickly because these children who responded by starting off by learning faster have shirted their attention elsewhere.

"Protective Re-contextualization Attention Response (PRAR), or what is more inaccurately called Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is not a disease. It is a response to how the system has been designed. And, If you really think about it, the cause, in this case, is not the effect. And they do what? Give kids drugs to combat the effects of a system that is lacking a useful design?

I will not go in to this any further right now, after all it is part of a larger model I am working out that will include a designed educational program that creates a more appropriate contextual response. I do not believe in fixing a problem, so to speak. I prefer a line of thought that thinks about how to design a different response to begin with. It's like the stress thing. People are working hard at eliminating stress. But, what is it that they are dong that creates it in the first place? And how do you teach them how do something different to begin with? And what might that something different be? Well, that could be an overall set of strategies. But even if it is, it will still have to be fine tuned for each specific individual personality. This way, you build a new model that contains a certain premise. But, you also add in a set of tools that allows the individual to adjust that model to fit perfectly.

I am sure that I have given you ample food for thought right now. But I warn you, this food is very rich, and must be savored slowly. And if you eat too much to soon. . . Well Just take it one bite at a time, and enjoy.

Carmine