ADHD and a Weird Stoichiometry-Ish Spoon Theory

Ah, the classic spoon theory! Though spoon theory mainly applies to chronic illness, it applies to a myriad of other areas as well.

Let's say I start the day on average with a nice round number of 10 spoons and my peers have 15. It's only a 5 spoon difference, right? No. That means I have 66% of the spoons of my peers. 66% out of 100% means that there is a missing 34% that my teachers, family, etc. demand from me that I don't have. "Spoons" are subjective units of sustained attention and energy. There is no standardized criteria for what a "spoon" is.

I wake up with ten spoons for a relatively easy day. French and band take one spoon each. That gets me down to seven spoons. Study hall takes another two spoons. That means I have five spoons left. If I have homework, that takes another four spoons to complete. I have 20% of my spoons (1 spoon) left at the end of the day.

However, I realized that I don't always have to give a full spoon to everything I do. One fork equals 1/2 of a spoon. I can give forks instead of spoons when my reserves run low, even when I can technically give a spoon. If I have 10 spoons on some given day, I have 20 forks. On my hard day, chemistry requires three spoons, resource requires two, algebra requires four, and English requires two. That's an eleven spoon demand, but I only have ten! No problem. I can give English three forks if chemistry demands three full spoons. The homework demands five spoons. Now, what? I don't want to be lazy, but I don't want to have negative energy either!

I can break down my energy further into deci-, centi-, milli-, etc. forks. Let's say I wake up and feel terrible. I have five spoons on this day. I also have all my hard classes on this day. I'll give three forks for chemistry, 2.5 deci-forks for resource, another 5.5 deci-forks for algebra, and yet another 2.5 deci-forks to English. I have used 40.5 deci-forks, which is 4.05 forks. I have used about 20% of my energy.

However, despite all these precautions, I can still have negative energy. In the negative energy state, I still expend spoons despite not having any. Some people have the "Kelvin system of spoons" in that they collapse (figuratively or literally) when they run out of spoons. I don't have that advantage. On a day where I have 10 spoons' worth of homework, I will get it done. I won't rest, eat, or sleep until the work is done. If I have one spoon left, I will exert 10 spoons until my negative spoon state catches up with me and I can't focus on anything.

I can wake up with two spoons one day and twenty spoons the next. I don't have a predictable recharge system. If I wake up the next day anticipating something fun like a concert, I'll have (no joke) around fifty-five spoons. However, if I can't anticipate something fun, that leaves me with about a tenth of my potential spoons. On days when I wake up with negative spoons, I will drag myself through and choose things that give me spoons over things that won't regardless of any consequences. I will, then, overgather spoons and end up not using any of them.

ADHD spoons are quite unpredictable. Does anyone have similar experiences?

Hey, Old Sport.

Warning: Major Spoilers for The Great Gatsby novel

Now that I have dropped out of the honors institute and read The Great Gatsby, I have now come to wonder what would have happened if I stayed and if I had met all the requirements. Would I have been glad and exhausted? Would I have just pulled through my "phase" or cracked under pressure? I spent my time reaching out to the green light of the designation and, when I took a closer look, I was disillusioned. Somehow, I was not suited to the imposed rigors. I felt like I had to feign someone who I wasn't.

Gatsby is a character that represents the American dream gone awry. He ran away a penniless farm boy known as James Gatz, imitated the mannerisms of millionaire Dan Cody, started bootlegging, and threw parties in the hopes that Daisy would show up. After first meeting Daisy, he wore his army uniform to conceal the fact that he was poor. Five years later, Daisy married a man as careless as herself and had a child by the name of "Pammy".

It is not the present Daisy that Gatsby loved, the careless Daisy who, with her husband, left destruction in her wake. Gatsby loved a past image of Daisy. He rose to greatness, threw parties, and sold alcohol illegally all for this Daisy. Academic performance was the "Daisy" of my life. I strove and strove for better and better grades. I observed the most intelligent people I knew. I emulated them, tried to understand them and be them. However, when I came closer to my goal, I pushed on despite the fact that it was not for me. My stubborn internal casuistry kept me going. If I can pull this off, I will be great, I thought. However, I slipped away from my dream as I trudged on. I failed. I grew to hate it. It was then that I realized that the dream I had intended for myself was not for me.

Gatsby represents the American dream gone awry: having it all and, at the same time, having nothing. He did everything for Daisy. When he had her, he felt an immediate rush. He wanted to pluck Daisy from Tom's hand, succeeded for a moment, and then lost her again. However, that did not discourage Gatsby. He pined in futility after Daisy to the point where it led to him dying in the pool he had never used. If I continued with my quest for academic excellence, my fate would have been similar. I would never have enjoyed the pool called music and ended up either failing, literally dying from suicide, or figuratively dying from this infatuation with high numbers strip away my enjoyment of life.

The basic principle of the American dream is to be better off than you were. For Gatsby, it was having a relationship with Daisy. For me, it was proving that a student like me can achieve academic greatness. However, both of our dreams went awry rather quickly. Gatsby rose to greatness because he wanted someone (and by extension something) he could not have.When he came close to having it, he denied that it was not for him. It ended up costing him his life, which is a reminder that not all dreams should come true, not all paths should be paved, and that "great" in the traditional sense is not always truly great.

Image Description(s):
Leonardo DiCaprio portraying Jay Gatsby holding a drink and smiling. The image has "Old Sport" written on it with what looks like custom strokes in white. 

"Special Needs" Applies More to Temperament Than it Does to Disability

(Possible Trigger Warning: Ableist quotes with temperament in place of disability. This is intended to be humorous/satirical.)

Needing to eat, drink, excrete wastes, sleep, learn, live in adequate shelter, have society, be as emotionally secure as possible, and to have a means of meeting these needs are among the universal needs of humans. However, when those needs have to be met unconventionally, especially in the case of disability, they become "special".

The term "special"  means "specific for a person, place, or circumstance." Universal needs are not special needs no matter how they are met. Every human has these needs regardless of any other factors. The term "special needs" in reference to disability presents universal needs among the disabled as a foreign concept. Universal needs are universal needs regardless of who has them, how they are fulfilled, or which needs crop up at what time.

On the contrary, temperamental needs are not universal to every person, but are not called "special" needs. Most people recognize temperamental needs as valid although not everyone has the same temperamental needs. Temperamental needs are more "special" than disability-related needs as they are specific to one's temperament. However, most people accommodate the temperamental needs of others and discuss temperament in order to bridge rifts and promote morale in businesses. I have never heard of anyone being actively discriminated against based on their DiSC type or MBTI. However, discussion of disability-related needs, which are in direct correlation with universal needs, seems to create rifts between others rather than bridge them. Discrimination based on disability is more common than discrimination based on temperament. (I can't use statistics for effect because I don't have empirical data on this.)


I have also never heard anyone say the following:

"Oh, you're supine? That's such a pity. I had a relative who used to be a supine, but with (arcane pseudoscience/therapy/hard work/abuse), s/he became (other temperament).

"You're not a real sanguine. I know X, who is a real sanguine."

"You must be a very high-functioning phlegmatic."

"It's 'person with melancholy,' not 'melancholic!"

"I could see why X murdered their choleric child. Cholerics are such a burden on society. These pseudo-choleric 'advocates' have no idea what they're talking about. Haven't they walked in a parent's shoes?"

I see less active perpetuation of negative temperamental stereotypes than I do with disability stereotypes. Sure, there are negative temperamental stereotypes, but they are strongly discouraged and are rarely used to attack others. Temperament enthusiasts also take into account other factors that can play into making the individual such as upbringing, physical health, life experiences, gender, age, and other factors. With disability, however, diagnostic overshadowing leads one to overlook these factors along with temperament.

Diagnostic overshadowing can lead one to believe that temperamental characteristics are parts of a disability/illness when they are not. A choleric and a phlegmatic with the same condition will manage it differently. The choleric goes about their life with great levels of alacrity and energy no matter their
 circumstances while phlegmatics are more laid-back. Diagnostic overshadowing would lead one to believe that the said choleric's illness is "not that bad" when the choleric is just using their internal motivation to work around their illness. Meanwhile, the phlegmatic's fatigue may look like the main
issue when it is not. The choleric's temperamental needs are control and dominance, which a
phlegmatic avoids because assertion taxes their energy reserves.

My question is: Why are disability needs considered "special" and dismissed when they are just about how universal needs are met when temperamental needs, which are not universal, are considered and validated as actual needs?  I am an autistic choleric-sanguine, not a choleric-sanguine with autism or an autistic with choler and sanguine. My autism-related needs are as valid as my choleric-sanguine-related needs. These parts make the whole I am. Take away either part and I will not be who I am. My need for control is more "special" than my need to avoid foods that will make me vomit. I wish for all needs to be respected as valid no matter what they are and how they are to be met.

Autistic/ADHD ENTP (#16Disabilities)

I am an autistic ENTP. Since being an ENTP is a fairly new identity to me, I cannot delve into it as deeply as I would like to. ENTPs are, as a rule, dynamic and adaptable. ENTPs enjoy diving headfirst into new ideas and experiences. They are curious and a witty sense of humor. This MBTI opposes the stereotypical image of "autistic person," which is why I appear to be very "high-functioning" to most people (or maybe I'm a low-functioning ENTP).

I never really feel flustered or upset during breaks in the routine. In fact, I welcome reprieve from the routine. I intuited some aspects of social skills using my thinking function. I did things because no one said I couldn't do them. I pushed boundaries, experimented, gained awareness of the world through ideas, and took on seemingly insurmountable challenges. I had it easier than most, but no life is ever without its downfalls.

I didn't know I was an ENTP until recently. I mistyped as INTJ due to my pretending to be an introvert. Part of that I attribute to being in an introverted family and another part is fear of failure in general. I would rather have the entire world collapse around me than fail to meet a goal I have set for myself. For me, being an extrovert, rejection is failure. I feel rejection is a symphony of pain. The acute stabbing pangs of initial, direct rejections and dull, lingering aches from repeated or perceived rejections leave me erecting defensive walls as armor. 

Most things I do I do out of spite or sheer curiosity. I have rapidly shifting passions and find it difficult to commit to one thing. In order to decide that I wanted to play flute, I tried every other instrument available (clarinet, trumpet, euphonium, and saxophone) before deciding on the flute. It is not uncommon for me to stick with something I did on an impulse. I joined band entirely on a whim and it's an impulse I'm glad I followed. I also started blogging on an impulse, sometimes shifting my niche with no apparent reason other than that I need spontaneity. "P" types tend to be spontaneous in their doings.

I tend to move and fidget when I sit and take notes, but not very conspicuously. I'll jiggle my leg, twirl a pencil, and doodle random things. When I read, I listen to music when I do it because it helps me focus. Others would think it a distraction, but it helps me. I need immersive environments in order to be productive while others would find such a thing overwhelming. In order to swim, I need a "sea of stimulation," as I would call it, whereas others who are content with stimulation pools would feel like they are drowning. I like diving right into new ideas and experiences, but it takes me a few deep breaths to work up the courage to jump into the water.

Image Description:

1.  A horizontal bar graph titled "Your personality type is the debater (ENTP-A). Next to the graph is a fair-skinned, dark-haired man drawn in a geometric style smirking and saying "May I point out a couple mistakes in your argument?" At the bottom is a cyan button that says "Send results by E-mail."
1. Green bar=21% Extraverted 
2. Blue bar=56% Intuitive
3. Red bar=30% Thinking
4. Yellow bar=18% Prospecting 
5. Purple Bar=9% Assertive

Labels Define Me

77% Choleric, 38% Sanguine, 69% Supine, 85% Melancholy, 8% Phlegmatic

Your temperament blend may be Melancholic-Choleric.

Dominance: 45%, Influence: 7%, Steadiness, 15% and Compliance: 33%

Extroverted 8% Intuitive 71% Thinking 71% Judging 28% Turbulent 15%

Introverted 12% Intuitive 79% Thinking 60% Judging 31% Turbulent 9%

Sanguine: 3 ( Strengths 0 Weaknesses 3) Choleric: 13 (Strengths: 7 Weaknesses: 6) Melancholy: 19 (Strenghts: 9 Weaknesses: 10) Phlegmatic: 5 (Strengths: 4 Weaknesses: 1)

My overblown obsession with temperament tests is most likely an autism symptom of mine. I scour the Internet endlessly for temperament tests and quizzes. Being this temperament zealot that I am, I take the same test multiple times to ensure the most accurate results. When taking the temperament test on Fighunter, I got the melancholic-sanguine result the most often after five trials, but got melancholic-choleric the most often after twenty trials. Sometimes, I got melancholic-phlegmatic as a result, which I found odd because I score comparatively very low on phlegmatic traits when compared with other traits.

I have wondered why "Don't let labels define you" and "Labels don't define me" have become common iterations in the disability community. Such statements I find illogical and misleading because, ultimately, labels define everyone and everything. Avoiding labels will not make them define me any less; I outright and actively pursue them in an effort to understand myself and others more clearly. The phrase "Labels are for soup cans" is an example of denying the importance of labels, but I will use it to explain their importance. Most consumers look at the label when purchasing soup to verify the can's contents and choose their soup accordingly. Likewise, if I can "read" someone's labels, I have useful information about why they act the way they do so I can adapt accordingly.

When I first started blogging, I tried to adopt the Keirsey Idealist style I have seen in many disability bloggers. I increased in popularity, but I felt unauthentic and purposeless. It felt as if I were a mirror for other people's opinions rather than someone sharing their own perspective. My five temperaments series was the biggest risk I have ever taken while blogging. It was the first post I truly felt was mine, not just my echoing other opinions.

It was then that I embraced my love for labels.

My love for labels alienates me from others who condemn their use. They say people are too unique to shove into categories and that labels are evil. While some people are forced to fit every parameter of a label or given the wrong ones and, thus, are harmed, correctly-used labels help to create understanding of the individual. One label cannot define a person, but the sum of every one will.

I am not autistic before I am a Keirsey Mastermind. Neither am I a Keirsey Mastermind before I am autistic. The two define me equally. Likewise, my ADHD is not any less of an integral part of me than my supine tendencies or ambiversion. I will not be any less autistic, ambiverted, or I/ENTJ if I chose to disown these classifications rather than embrace them. I would still have labels like forceful, blunt, sensitive, weird, and musical to describe me, but they would not help me to come to the understandings that temperament and disability labels did.

Labels are my main source of pride. If you were to ask me "Do labels define you?" to my face, I would say in true forthright choleric fashion, "Of course they do. How else can I explain my individuality?" In a world without labels, I wouldn't be able to function. I would not be able to adapt to someone else's quirks and foibles if I could not guess their temperament and act accordingly. I would expect everyone to operate by my system and act hostilely towards those who do not understand me. Without labels, I would accidentally hurt my sanguine friends expecting them to be melancholic like myself. However, because I know they are sanguine, I can adapt to meet their needs and better infer the way they perceive the world.

Labels are what we make of them. It is ultimately up to the individual if they are destructive or constructive, harmful or beneficial, significant or trivial, or anything else. I have made them badges of pride and individuality that I proudly display to everyone, no matter how they perceive labels. I never understood the label aversion due to my obsession with them. The labels others see as scarlet letters I will see as badges of pride. The sum of every label defines the individual and it all boils down to one common label: myself.

Links to the Tests In Order That They Appear as Pictures:
http://helloquizzy.okcupid.com/tests/the-five-temperaments-test
http://temperaments.fighunter.com/?page=test
https://www.123test.com/disc-personality-test/
http://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test 

Someone who "Happens to Have"

(Note: Don't read if excess repetition annoys you.)

I'm someone who happens to have Asian ancestry.
I'm someone who happens to have female anatomy.
I'm someone who happens to have a melancholic-choleric temperament.
I'm someone who happens to have an INTJ-T Myers-Briggs/Jung type.
I'm someone who happens to have a Kerisey Mastermind classification.
I'm someone who happens to have a flute.
I'm someone who happens to have musicianship.
I'm someone who happens to have a place in my school's marching band.
I'm someone who happens to have a blog.
I'm someone who happens to have limited skill in using Adobe Illustrator.
I'm someone who happens to have chosen to learn French.
I'm someone who happens to have an affinity for rainbows and all things pink.
I'm someone who happens to have ambiversion.
I'm someone who happens to have a preference for my right hand over my left.
I'm someone who happens to have black hair.
I'm someone who happens to have olive skin.
I'm someone who happens to have dark brown eyes.
I'm someone who happens to have an obsession with temperament classification.
I'm someone who happens to have ADHD.
I'm someone who happens to have autism.
I'm someone who happens to be me.

An Open Letter to Keirsey Website Visitors

Dear Keirsey Website Visitors:

Keirsey wrote about an "ADD Hoax". He said there was "no such 'mental disorder' to 'diagnose' and 'treat'." He went further to write misleading information about ADHD claiming that doctors are "intoxicating them with brain-disabling narcotics." Claiming that ADHD medication, using Ritalin in his example, "differs little in its destructive effects from cocaine or amphetamines", Keirsey created a misleading article about ADHD.

I have predominantly inattentive ADHD. I enjoy academic pursuits, strive for accuracy in my works, listen to my teachers, and mostly do not fit the "symptoms" Keirsey listed. By saying that people with ADHD are just Artisans, he downplayed the seriousness of a disorder whose existence has been backed my numerous studies and promote the "extreme sanguine" stereotype of ADHD. The extreme sanguine stereotype is one that prevented me from receiving a diagnosis in the first place because my temperament and giftedness masked the disorder.

The use of amphetamines in ADHD treatment has been studied more than the use of insulin for diabetes and albuterol sulfate as a rescue asthma treatment combined and stimulant medications do not "disable the brain". They compensate for the chemical imbalances present in people with ADHD by either increasing dopamine levels in the case of stimulants or affecting neurotransmitters in the case of non-stimulants. Personally, I, as of now, do not take any medication, but it greatly benefits the people who do.

Think of attention as distributing pie at a party. A neurotypical person would have enough pie for their priority guests to have larger slices, but enough left for all non-priorities to have their share and still have some left for themselves. However, someone with ADHD is someone who did not bake enough pie. This leads to 1) the guests receiving unsatisfying portions and then demanding more, 2) priority guests receiving satisfactory portions, but non-priority guests receiving none at all, or 3) every guest receiving a satisfactory portion, but the host having none. Depending on one's temperament, ADHD can manifest differently, even within the same subtype.

The "ADD Hoax" article suggests that Keirsey read misleading information about the disorder and proceeded to write about the "hoax" himself. By doing so, he perpetuated misleading information and stereotypes about ADHD, a disorder that plagues many to extents unseen by observers. The "symptoms" listed on the Keirsey website are heavily stereotype-based and are misleading. ADHD is not just an aversion to school, failure on teachers' or parents' parts, or a temperament pattern. It is a neurobiological disorder that can affect anyone regardless of their temperament or upbringing.

Keirsey's work helped me to understand more about the way I think and I admire most of his work greatly, yet, as with anyone, I do not take every word from his mouth as fact simply because he said so. As a Rational (_NT_), I value knowledge and discernment. Keirsey's "ADD Hoax" article is an example of misleading work. The information is archaic and blatantly erroneous; it serves as a reminder of the harmful ADHD stereotypes that continually vex the affected.

Yours Truly,
A Mastermind with ADHD

It's Not Just Temperament: ADHD and the "Extreme Sanguine" (#INJTChallenge)

For those of you who don't know, October is ADHD awareness month. Thus, I find that it is fitting to dispel one of the most common myths surrounding the disorder. The image of stereotypical ADHD represents the sanguine temperament in many ways; however, I am not predominantly sanguine.

The "extreme sanguine" stereotype promotes false positives and false negatives. The sanguines, usually ESFPs, falsely test positive for ADHD if given faulty and misleading diagnostic criteria while melancholics, cholerics, supines, and phlegmatics who have the condition, but don't know it, fall through the cracks. ADHD is a neurobiological disorder that can affect anyone no matter what their temperament is; it is not "just temperament" as the naysayers say it is.

Many sanguines' experiences with ADHD are discounted because they are "just sanguine". A neurotypical sanguine would display inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity to greater extents than what is typical for a melancholic, choleric, phlegmatic, or supine; the "clinical line" when what looks like temperament characteristics indicate ADHD is ambiguous and blurry. Parents may deny that their child has ADHD because they say to themselves "My child can't have a disorder. It's over-diagnosed. They are just sanguine."

On the other hand, ADHD goes unnoticed in people of other temperaments, especially the melancholics and phlegmatics. The melancholic tends to hide their symptoms under their talents while the phlegmatics seem especially lazy and disinterested. A choleric would show more outright belligerence and have little regard for tasks that do not interest them; the supines would perform all tasks to the best of their abilities, but cry and retreat within themselves, wondering why they can't be good enough.

A defect in one's dopamine receptors and differences in neurological pathways are not temperament. They can mask someone's temperament and change the way their temperament manifests itself, but do not change temperament. To the untrained eye, I look like a sanguine when I am indeed a melancholic-choleric with ADHD.

Thus, I challenge you to write a post for ADHD awareness month regarding temperament classifications and ADHD and tag it with #INJTFroma/n(Your MBTI) and/or #INJTChallenge. Alternatively, you can reblog this image with the hashtag redone in AI or Photoshop. The font used for the hashtag is Myanmar MN size 36. The image is below and up for alteration.

Type the tag #INJTChallenge into your search engine to see who else is doing it. The first contributor will get to guest post on my blog.

How That Would Work:

• E-mail me (flutistpride@gmail.com) with the subject as the title of your post, the post text and corresponding images and tell me where you want the images placed. Include a short biography (1-4 sentences) and a link to your blog/other Internet content if you have any.
• I may or may not edit or pare down your submission for conciseness, grammatical correctness, or to censor profanities. I will never add onto your post.
• When I deem your submission edited sufficiently, I will run it by you.
• After we come to an agreement, I will post it and credit you with the first to complete the INJT challenge. 

(A/N: This post is deliberately brief and ill thought-out because I want you to outdo me.)

Participants and Promoters So Far:
Meredith.S
Sylvia Phillips