RECEVEZ GRATUITEMENT LES FAMEUSES VIDÉOS PAR EMAIL
L'article ci-dessous est en anglais.
Si vous n'ĂŞtes pas Ă  l'aise avec l'anglais, utilisez ceci :
Cet outil vous fournit une traduction automatisée en français.

Adult Adhd Are You An Idea Machine

Retour Au Sommaire
lacreativite
Adult Adhd: Are You An Idea Machine?

Chances are, if you have Adult ADHD, you're an "idea machine"--you come up with great new ideas all the time, maybe several in a day!

Problem is, the ideas are often unrelated to what you already decided to work on, and so each new idea becomes a distraction that takes you further away from your larger goals. What can a person with Adult ADHD and too many good ideas do?

I have Adult ADHD myself, and I have 10 great ideas a day, minimum, that are "million-dollar ideas." How do I actually implement one of them and get something done? I don't want to just stop having great ideas. I love thinking about new ideas. ItÂ’s one of the things I'm best at doing.

I say, "Okay, when I have a great idea, itÂ’s my job to figure out how I can take whatÂ’s really great about that idea, and apply it to what I'm working on--that is, working on ALREADY." This is something every person with Adult ADHD needs to train themselves to do.

Here's how it works:

LetÂ’s say I'm working on a website about Attention-Deficit Disorder. What happens if I have a great idea about a restaurant they should open up in my local town? I know it would be a great idea. Why don't I just go out and open a restaurant?

Well, I don't really want to open a restaurant. I've worked in a lot of restaurants, and I know that I don't want to deal with the restaurant business. For one thing, it's boring, and boredom kills people with Adult ADHD. But still, itÂ’s a great idea.

So what I say to myself is, "WhatÂ’s so great about this idea, and how can I apply the essence of whatÂ’s so great about this idea to my Adult ADHD website?

Do you see how that works?

As people with Adult ADHD, we tend to think in an all-or-nothing, black-or-white kind of way: "Do I follow the entire idea and go open a restaurant or not?"

But what you really want to say, to make your Adult ADHD work for you, instead of against you is: "How can I apply this great new idea to the project I'm working on already?"

You train yourself to do this over time. You can even do it in conversations when you're brainstorming with friends or business partners or whatever.

When random ideas come up, just say, "Hey, thatÂ’s a really good idea. How do we apply that to what we're working on? What makes that idea so good? Why am I so excited about that idea?"

In the case of the restaurant idea, the original idea was, "It would be great to have a Mexican Restaurant here because there isn't one in town and everyone wants one."

So, when I applied that concept to my current business, it became "What does everyone with Adult ADHD want that isn't being given to them?" If I can come up with that, then I'm all set.

The point is, if you can use your Adult ADHD to figure out how to flip your ideas up and switch them around to be focused on your bigger goals, then you're way ahead of people without Adult ADHD--because you have about 5 great new innovative ideas a day!

Just imagine how much progress you will make if you apply them to your main project every day, instead of getting distracted...you'll be a powerhouse!

To find out more about how to turn your Adult ADHD distractions into advantages, like how to use multi-sensory stimulation to focus in on your projects, just see below.
lacreativite
----
Retour Au Sommaire
BONUS : Being First, Being Original, Being Innovative

There is an often missed distinction between Being the First, Being Original, and Being Innovative.

To determine that someone (or something) has been the first, we need to apply a temporal test. It should answer at least three questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.

To determine whether someone (or something) is original - a test of substance has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, when exactly was it done and was this ever done before.

To determine if someone (or something) is innovative - a practical test has to be applied. It should answer at least the following questions: what exactly was done, in which way was it done and was exactly this ever done before in exactly the same way.

Reviewing the tests above leads us to two conclusions:

1.. Being first and being original are more closely linked than being first and being innovative or than being original and being innovative. The tests applied to determine "firstness" and originality are the same.
2.. Though the tests are the same, the emphasis is not. To determine whether someone or something is a first, we primarily ask "when" - while to determine originality we primarily ask "what".
Innovation helps in the conservation of resources and, therefore, in the delicate act of human survival. Being first demonstrates feasibility ("it is possible"). By being original, what is needed or can be done is expounded upon. And by being innovative, the practical aspect is revealed: how should it be done.

Society rewards these pathfinders with status and lavishes other tangible and intangible benefits upon them - mainly upon the Originators and the Innovators. The Firsts are often ignored because they do not directly open a new path - they merely demonstrate that such a path is there. The Originators and the Innovators are the ones who discover, expose, invent, put together, or verbalize something in a way which enables others to repeat the feat (really to reconstruct the process) with a lesser investment of effort and resources.

It is possible to be First and not be Original. This is because Being First is context dependent. For instance: had I traveled to a tribe in the Amazon forests and quoted a speech of Kennedy to them - I would hardly have been original but I would definitely have been the first to have done so in that context (of that particular tribe at that particular time). Popularizers of modern science and religious missionaries are all first at doing their thing - but they are not original. It is their audience which determines their First-ness - and history which proves their (lack of) originality.

Many of us reinvent the wheel. It is humanly impossible to be aware of all that was written and done by others before us. Unaware of the fact that we are not the first, neither original or innovative - we file patent applications, make "discoveries" in science, exploit (not so) "new" themes in the arts.

Society may judge us differently than we perceive ourselves to be - less original and innovative. Hence, perhaps, is the syndrome of the "misunderstood genius". Admittedly, things are easier for those of us who use words as their raw material: there are so many permutations, that the likelihood of not being first or innovative with words is minuscule. Hence the copyright laws.

Yet, since originality is measured by the substance of the created (idea) content, the chances of being original as well as first are slim. At most, we end up restating or re-phrasing old ideas. The situation is worse (and the tests more rigorous) when it comes to non-verbal fields of human endeavor, as any applicant for a patent can attest.

But then surely this is too severe! Don't we all stand on the shoulders of giants? Can one be original, first, even innovative without assimilating the experience of past generations? Can innovation occur in vacuum, discontinuously and disruptively? Isn't intellectual continuity a prerequisite?

True, a scientist innovates, explores, and discovers on the basis of (a limited and somewhat random) selection of previous explorations and research. He even uses equipment - to measure and perform other functions - that was invented by his predecessors. But progress and advance are conceivable without access to the treasure troves of the past. True again, the very concept of progress entails comparison with the past. But language, in this case, defies reality. Some innovation comes "out of the blue" with no "predecessors".

Scientific revolutions are not smooth evolutionary processes (even biological evolution is no longer considered a smooth affair). They are phase transitions, paradigmatic changes, jumps, fits and starts rather than orderly unfolding syllogisms (Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").

There is very little continuity in quantum mechanics (or even in the Relativity Theories). There is even less in modern genetics and immunology. The notion of laboriously using building blocks to construct an ebony tower of science is not supported by the history of human knowledge. And what about the first human being who had a thought or invented a device - on what did he base himself and whose work did he continue?

Innovation is the father of new context. Original thoughts shape the human community and the firsts among us dictate the rules of the game. There is very little continuity in the discontinuous processes called invention and revolution. But our reactions to new things and adaptation to the new world in their wake essentially remain the same. It is there that continuity is to be found.
lacreativite
----

"Comment Produire 200 Idées de l'Heure"
de Didier PÉNISSARD

Si vous aimez Les Fameuses Vidéos, partagez LesFameusesVideos.com avec vos amis :

Je veux :

TRAVAILLEURS INDEPENDANTS : LIBEREZ DU TEMPS
JOUEZ, GAGNEZ A L'EURO MILLIONS
SOS COUPLE EN DETRESSE
APPRENEZ LA MANIPULATION MENTALE
LES FAMEUSES VIDEOS EN MARS 2024
Logo 1TPE MARS 2024
Logo Clickbank MARS 2024
Logo Aweber MARS 2024
Logo SystemeIO MARS 2024

( Affiliation 1TPE & ClickBank ) Les Fameuses VidĂ©os de James Colin © Mars 2024 - Faire un lien
LOGO OFFICIEL FLUX RSS

29 EUROS