Based on research, it seems more appropriate to consider the brain as an ecosystem instead of a computer. No hardware, no software but wetware, a complex organic organization of nerve networks, with many feedback loops and

How the networks are constructed and how and when they become active differs from person to person, such as the external differences between people: we all have a body with a head, arms and legs and we are all different in shape. So is the organization of the brain.

Instead of talking about disorder categories that create the appearance of a clear dividing line between normal and disorder, it is better to speak of continua of competences: based on the differences in brain organisation, certain networks are very well developed, or sometimes less well developed or effective.

On the continuum of the impulsive property, for example, we all score somewhere between not impulsive and excessively impulsive. It has to do with how the inhibition in the brain is regulated and functions, and that is different for everyone. The same goes for all kinds of other characteristics such as concentration, reading skills, social and emotional skills etc.

Based on research, it seems more appropriate to consider the brain as an ecosystem instead of a computer. No hardware, no software but wetware, a complex organic organization of nerve networks, with many feedback loops and

How the networks are constructed and how and when they become active differs from person to person, such as the external differences between people: we all have a body with a head, arms and legs and we are all different in shape. So is the organization of the brain.

A lot of skills are expected of a person who can learn them: more practice means that you can master them better. This is often true, but when in the brain the construction of nerve pathways or the availability of neurtransmitters (substances that provide the stimulus transfer between nerve connections) is more limited, this has consequences for learnability.

Compare it to someone 1.50 meters long. He/she cannot reach the same height as someone from 1.85. There is nothing to be learned from that.
Give someone like that a stool and it'll work! For the reaching itself is not limited.

If, for example, the nerve networks in your brain are connected by much less long orbits, as is assumed with autism, the learnability and adaptability in those networks is more limited. However, connections in local networks are often very well developed.
When the availability of neurotransmitters is reduced in certain parts of the networks, activation is limited and thus has consequences for how much information can be processed. In ADHD it is assumed that the substances dopamine and norepinephrine are (much) less present. And that limits the activity of the networks involved. In many cases this can be dealt with with medication. And the body itself knows ways to increase the dopamine e.g. when something is bere-interesting or needs immediate intervention then the dopamine shoots up.

For dopamine and norepinephrine there are medications on the market that increase the availability of these substances in the brain and that can help. But not all of the brain's idiosyncrasies have such tools available.

With dyslexia, the automation of sounds, punctuation marks, writing and speech in early childhood was not fully achieved. There is no medicine for that, there are many ways to support someone (the stool) in order to record information more easily. In our culture it is customary to transfer information mostly in writing, but aural can just as well. In the Middle Ages, when oral transmission was common, there were no people with dyslexia.

How well a person can manage to deal with the points of attention and develop the talents depends strongly on the environment.