Psychology and Consensus -

Academic Writing and AD Perspective

ADHD and fundamental concepts such as -
Free will
Consent
The natural consequent of X - logical flow
An analysis of tradition and peer review etc in academia - how consensus is built
How consistency and continuity are prized above inconsistency and discontinuity
Cognitive Jumps

Neurodiversity

Every statement can be followed by - keeping the rest of the worldview absolutely
equal and only this is the thing thats changing.

Lack of knowledge of the entire world at once (in grasp) is creating problems -
what kind of problems? Non observance of the ripples would lead to wrong policy
making - ripples in parable are
the consequences of the hate + knowledge from outside (unexpressed in langue) = in
the whole thing what can be the mist of the flow? Alternations

Different possibilities

Animal X has knowledge of the world but does not communicate it or factor it in his
policy. Animal Y has knowledge of the world and uses it in policy. Animal Z lacks
the requisite knowledge
for logical conclusion.

How do language systems feature? How do we add the linguistic expression to the
previous knowledge in terms of a fitting synthesis. We perceive everything in
language as a story and us as actors
are playing parts of that story.

Insert parable - Animal kingdom Round one - Crow tells dog that cat hates you
(implying that no one else hates you), dog goes after cat as policy response , cat
tells swan that fox hates you (as opposed to
the rest of animals who don't - swan tells crow that pigeon hates you (implies that
only pigeon hates you and no one else does - but crow knows that cat hates dog )

Round 2 :

Tells the Crow (Crow knows: Cat hates dog) that cat hates x
that y hates dog

There is a pattern in these two

Do we leave the rest of the world in pendency? And when do we choose to let
language interact with world and to what extent? And what are the properties of
language that determine it?
In case of the crow, the crow would process the two statements with his earlier
knowledge about cat and dog. He may come up with a statement (as against the
normalcy of the world)
that says that cat is a hater or the dog is a hated. Are there other consequences
that may be drawn? In the paradigmatic case of crow, he may call the cat a hater in
the first instance, linguistic corroboration is
leading to patterns. What is special about corroboration? Maybe it is about a
balance between cat and dog.

Tells the Dog (

Responsibility for the world and free market economy

Academic Consensus is psychological

Hyperfocus involves accepting the central thesis - even if to eventually question

it - the assumption is that when you do question it, you do so in the language that
integrates all of what was discussed. But language can't bear that heavy a burden -
especially english compined with hyperfocused cognitive grasp.

In contrast when AD perceives, it misses the intention completely - so it doesn't

accept the individual sentences - it rather accepts the feel of the paragraph/unit
and then makes inferences about individual sentences - and that feel is just in
temporary storage - to be displaced later. It is the battle of feels.

so nothing reamains as an essential condition its just a swinging pendulum. Hence,

ADHD critique makes more sense as it doesn't apportion cognitive space like
hyperfocus - which can't critique a thing wihout a method external to it. Either
hyperfocus can only critique or it can only accept. It can't swing.

Eg - In academia, critiques end up making a limited statement of what should

happen. They don't leave their own position - whatever it is. The only mindset that
can transcend is ADHD, not hyperfocus.

When describing the causality of a thing, hyperfocus follows a line (dominant

causal line) which is supposed to be sufficiently explanatory. Two things happen
here - lots of exclusions along the way and presence of the line of causality
introduces a bias which goes this way - BECAUSE IT EXISTS IN CAUSATION IT IS MORE
RELIABLE AS A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE - BIAS OF AVAILABILITY AND PRESENCE. IN ICC THE
PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN LIKE THIS. WHEN LANGUAGE POSITS THE ISNESS IN A SUBSYSTEM, IT
IS SENT RATHER TO THE GENERAL ISNESS OF THE WORLD WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BE
NONVARIABLE. SO THE ISNESS OF THE ICC IS PART OF THE ISNESS OF THE WORLD AND THE
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE ICC ARE PART OF THE WORLDS SHORTCOMINGS - THEY ARE INVARIABLE
AND IN BEING SO INVARIABLE, DESTABILISING THE ICC IS SEEN AS A THREAT TO
DESTABILISING THE WORLD. THE CENTER/MONOLITHIC INSTITUTION IS SEEN AS MICROCOSMIC
OF THE WORLD BECAUSE ONLY IT EXISTS AND EVEN THE CRITIQUE ONLY IN REALTION TO IT.

ON THE FLIP SIDE, IN CRITIQUE WHICH ONLY TALKS OF DESTRUCTION - THE DESCRIPTIVE
CATEGORY THAT IS CENTRAL IS AGAIN PRIVILEGED WHICH IS DESTRUCTION ITSELF - EITHER
ICC CAN STAY OR IT CANNOT IS THE ONLY IMPLICATIONS DERIVABLE FROM A HYPERFOCUSED
STUDY OF THE ICC.
ON THE OTHER HAND. ADHD METHOD REVOLVES AROUND ACCEPTANCE OF A PREDOMINANT CATEGORY
TILL IT IS BORED OF IT OR TILL IT STOPS PROVIDING DOPAMINE. ADHD BECAUSE IT CANNOT
FOLLOW A LINE TRIES TO SENSE THE SMALL THINGS OR THE THINGS LIKE FEEL AND MOOD TO
GET AT THE MINIMUM NECESSARY IDEA. SINCE THE WORLD IS ESSENTIALLY UNSTABLE - SINCE
ISNESS IS NOT POSITED THROUGH LANGUAGE BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS NOT IMBIBED AS IT IS
IMBIBED IN HYPERFOCUS, NOTHING IS ESSENTIAL OR WORTH DEFENDING ABSOLUTELY AND
NEITHER IS THE CRITIQUE ABSOLUTE.
THIS IS COMPLETELY VARIABLE - ICC IS NOT TIED TO ISNESS OR SURVIVAL ITSELF.

TWO CHARACTERS OF ADHD BEING VARIABILITY OR NON ISNESS IN THINGS - AND THE
PERCEPTION OF AN EVENTUAL END TO ENGAGEMENT IN THINGS - means ADHD can do
perspective taking easily - because it can be both the critique and the isness in
different points in time.

ISNESS IS A FICTION OF PERMANENCE - THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL AND TIME
NOT BEING PRESENT IN LANGUAGE (IS EXCLUDES THE CONCEPT OF A PAST OR THE FUTURE).

What it means for method ? Infinitely variable scopes method. No description of

anything except with a reworked language (non permanence). Using as many different
scopes to view things through to keep them unsettled as a privileged/dominant mode.

West is not the owner of hyperfocus - it is just a representation of it as the

representation of the greatest power internationally.

The process of an eternal othering - of an eternal subsumption and of an eternal

looking at the past as wicked. We are stuck in it unless we dismantle the
principles, not of governing the world, but of its existence itself.