Perhaps the text itself is functioning as working memory.
Both ADHD people and neurotypicals have deeply structured thoughts. "Serializing" those thoughts without planning ahead leads to the "stream of consciousness" writing style, which includes things like run-on sentences and deeply nested parentheses. This style is considered poor form, because it is hard to follow. To serialize and communicate thoughts in a way that avoids this style, it is necessary to plan ahead and rely on working memory to hold several sub-goals simultaneously, instead of simply scanning back through the text to see which parentheses have not been closed yet.
It could also be simply that ADHD people have "branchier" thoughts, hopping around a constellation of related concepts that they feel compelled to communicate despite being tangential to the main point; parentheses are the main lexical construct used to convey such asides.
It's not just "branchier" thought that make it hard to communicate, it's graphier thoughts, when you mean (it's important) to communicate that it's not just a tree, but that connections may also go both ways, and sometimes they even have cycles. That to see the full picture in more nuance you've got to consider those feedback loops, and that they don't necessarily have precedence one over the other but that they must be all taken account simultaneously.
When you explain it serially you are forced to choose a spanning tree, and people usually stop listening when the spanning tree has touched all the relevant concepts, then they persuade themselves they got the full picture but miss some connections, that make the problem more complex and nuanced.
When graphs have more than one loop, loopy belief propagation doesn't work anymore and you need an another algorithm to update your belief without introducing bias.
This explanation resonates with me a lot. I use Logseq to store my notes in a graph now, which works pretty darned good for me, but it still bothers me that I can't have polyhierarcies in the namespaces and/or compound aliases.
I want to be able to simultaneously encode [[Computer Science]] and [[Computer]] [[Science]].
And [[Project1/Computer Science]] to at least provide a connection to [[Project2/Computer Science]].
I am not familiar with logseq. The sort of connection you want to made can often be made automatically using some embeddings. Because [[Project1/Computer Science]] and [[Project2/Computer Science]] likely have similar content, their semantic embedding are probably close, and a neighborhood search can help find them easily.
Communication is kind of the game of transmitting the information in such a way that your interlocutor internal representation of things ends up mapping to yours. Low dimensional embeddings are often very useful, but sometimes graph are not planar. Symmetry is usually useful, and a symmetric higher dimensional embedding is often better, because the symmetry constrain it more making it easier to be sure it was transmitted correctly.
When people ends up with different concept maps, in one of which some concepts are located near each other and in the other the same concepts are located far apart, interesting things usually happen when they communicate, ranging from culture enlightenment to culture war.
Some of these mapping are sometimes constrained to 3d, by things like memory palaces, (method of loci), but this is somewhat arbitrary, and staying more abstract and working in higher dimension until you "feel" everything fall into the right place intuitively is often preferable, (aka the Feynman method).
Yes I think embeddings using some sort of analysis is the correct answer.
I have a basic natural language processing system implemented in Neo4J (what I tried to use before Logseq). But to take notes I like plain text more than a database. Less dependencies.
The problem with embeddings, is I don't know how I would wire that into my workflow yet. Plain text notes have links, I would need a separate interface or mode to browse and analyze the connections.
Both ADHD people and neurotypicals have deeply structured thoughts. "Serializing" those thoughts without planning ahead leads to the "stream of consciousness" writing style, which includes things like run-on sentences and deeply nested parentheses. This style is considered poor form, because it is hard to follow. To serialize and communicate thoughts in a way that avoids this style, it is necessary to plan ahead and rely on working memory to hold several sub-goals simultaneously, instead of simply scanning back through the text to see which parentheses have not been closed yet.
It could also be simply that ADHD people have "branchier" thoughts, hopping around a constellation of related concepts that they feel compelled to communicate despite being tangential to the main point; parentheses are the main lexical construct used to convey such asides.