ADD: Attention Digital Disorder

I'll probably get in trouble for this, but I believe Attention Deficit Disorder to be a myth.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think ADD is interchangeable with, say, learning disabilities. I suffer from mild dyslexia and non-verbal learning disorder. So far be it for me to diminish or discount these factors.

However, you better know that when it came to subjects I didn't enjoy studying -- physics, geometry, computer programming -- I totally had...wait, what was that? Oh, right, I was making a point about Attention Deficit Disorder. Anyway, why was it that I excelled at creative subjects like English literature, creative writing, or history, and that I sucked at math? Because that's the way my brain is wired, that's why!

We're living in an age where everything is overdiagnosed and overprescribed. According to a New York Times article on Sunday, kids are pointing-and-clicking since birth. With all of these distractions today, who's to say that we're not going to see more diagnoses of ADD and even the demise of true social relationships (You know, like talking. Um, that's it).

"The worry is we’re raising a generation of kids in front of screens whose brains are going to be wired differently."

Isn't adding a layer of technology bringing people closer together but also making divides even more prominent. Take for instance some of these high schoolers profiled in the article. Think back to when you were in high school. It was awkward enough, and very easy to withdraw into yourself. Yet, even with levels of social gaming and social networking, it appears as though the "shy" and "quiet" kids aren't becoming more outgoing and social but LESS so.

What is causing this disconnect? Well, I think plain and simple it's a distraction, we're making ourselves less social and putting off what we can do tomorrow to the day after tomorrow. Is technology really doing all that good?

Technology use clearly cannot be curbed, as we are in an eat-or-be-eaten world with computers. However, whatever happened to being active? Going outside to play? Whether you are an adult or high schooler or even a tween, this always stands true.

Yet Dee and I have talked about this ad nauseum: is this the new "busy?" (You'll probably see a post on that soon too) We claim to be "busy." We just add another layer of these complex relationships and technology, and the before we know it, the day has gone by and we've passed the time, how? Writing on people's walls and sharing pictures!

How did this become the new "normal?" Going back to when I was in school, I didn't pay attention in biology class because I found it boring. Are we reduced to mundane lives because of our new addictions to voyeurism and being reduced to never talk vis a vis in real life, stunted critical thinking skills and becoming recluses?

If you have seen a running theme here on Coop Dee Ville, you will see that we notice that unless you are a sociopath, we crave human contact, social and fulfilling relationships.

Our attention to digital media may be causing another level of social dysfunction. I don't know about you, but I'd rather go to boxing class, and not do boxing on Wii at this point.

Only: The Lonely?

En francais, the term is "Fille Unique." A loose translation would be a "unique girl," but that was the term attached to me, the Coop, by my French teacher in high school. When I said, "Je n'ai pa des soeurs ou freres," that red-flagged moi.

That meant, I have no brothers or sisters. Turns out I found a kindred spirit in Dee, in that she is also "une fille unique." (And no, I don't know what the term is for boys...maybe homme unique?)

Growing up in the suburbs in the '80s, and I'm sure Dee can relate, baby boomers were trained to have large families. Today, with Generation Xers starting families, big families are not necessarily better in their views. Needless to say, growing up, Dee and I were indeed "unique" in not having at least one sibling, especially in the towns in which we grew up.

This could pose issues in some respects. One is socialization. I can speak for myself when I say that I was socialized with adults and learned to please my elders at a very early age. When it came time for school, I never had any friends my own age (it wasn't until I was older that I started to have friends of all ages, all walks of life). I remember being in second grade and being thought "weird" that I did not have any brothers or sisters. Then again, my play dates' parents all loved me because I was a little suck up who learned to please adults at a young age.

There were also other people's perceptions of what an only child is, or stereotypes behind it.

If you're an only child, you're SPOILED.

I have nothing to compare it to, but I can say I was raised with an independent spirit that my parents nurtured (especially my mother, who proudly told other parents that me saying NO was expressing my individuality).

That's what DEE said: Right away, people think you are/were spoiled. And maybe I was a little bit. But it wasn’t because I was an only child. My parents would have treated me – and any other children – the same way they did, no matter how many of us there would have been.

The special part is who you become as a result of being the lone offspring of the family, Dee relates. Only children, while definitely feeling a void in their lives at times, tend to be stronger and more in touch with their own selves. At least, they should be.

So there’s no one to blame for the vase that YOU broke.  There’s also no one to have to share your clothes and toys with.  But once you get past a certain age, those things -- spoiled or not -- don’t matter anymore.

View from the COOP: If cultivating our personality and not just TELLING us we are unique (like everyone else, ha ha), perhaps parents of only children are able to nurture those personalities more so with attention. So if that means we're "spoiled," so be it. However, being spoiled is technically interchangeable with getting lots of "stuff." Dee and I can both attest that anything we have, we've earned. That we can blame on our individualistic personalities.

We don't like to share or play well with others.

That's a gigantic crock. This is quite possibly the biggest misconception of only children. Dee and I may be the only offspring in our immediate family, but our extended families are quite sizable. Hello, our mothers are Italian-American: a big family is usually the rigeur du jour in that culture! So we have a ton of cousins. We were never at a loss for events to share. In fact, I remember some little girl I wasn't even friends with lost one of my dolls in the ocean when I was four after allowing her to play with it. My mother was the one who told me that I needed to be more selective in who I allowed to share my toys. Maybe we were too nice, that people would take advantage of us.

That's what DEE said: I was once told by an ex co-worker – after not offering her a stick of gum – that I don’t know how to share because I am an only child and never learned how. Um, did you ever think that maybe I just didn’t like you?

Maybe it’s not that only children are spoiled and "don’t know how to share." Maybe they just want what they want, and want to hold on to what they have, because they fear it’s all they’re ever going to have.  And it's subconsciously that we do it.  Of course, the gum now becomes symbolic here. But I think you get my drift.

View from the COOP: I don't know why only children get pigeonholed like that. Perhaps it's because we are not born with that innate relationship or built-in "sibling rivalry". However, if what Dee says above is true -- that we want what we want and want to hold on to what we have -- sounds to me like a PEOPLE thing, regardless of birth order or how many siblings one has.

Lastly, there is something that Dee and I have talked about ad nauseum in the tenure of our friendship, and has been reiterated over the years:

You must have been really lonely growing up with no brothers or sisters.

This is a convoluted message. There may have been times, personally, I wished to have those built-in relationships, and even as an adult, I can say it's a "relationship" thing. However, I had nothing else to compare it to. Well, maybe I could listen to my mom talk about how loud her house always was, and the nightmarish wait for the bathroom, and be thankful for the fact we had two bathrooms between the the two of us and the quiet nights to do my homework.

I can say there have been times I've felt alone, and well, quite frankly, who hasn't in this life? On the flip side, I can say I rarely get lonely, and that only children as a rule of thumb, tend to handle the "alone time" better than others who may have been surrounded by family members for as long as they remember.

On the flip side, craving relationships -- friendship, intimate, acquaintances, even familial relationships -- is something Dee and I have talked about in our many heart-to-hearts. There are times both of us have experienced relationships that we may be afraid of letting go. Now, this, THIS I wonder if this is something only children experience as a general rule.

Dee openly wondered if the void and fear an only child may experience influence their choices when it comes to relationships? Do we look for more because we lack it elsewhere? Or do we look for less because we don’t know any better?

I can say this: I think that's a human quality, and what human doesn't crave relationships or isn't afraid to lose people who may bring something to the proverbial table? However, perhaps because we didn't have that innate quality to break loose from toxic relationships. That could be based on anything, though. However, I've experienced almost the opposite. I've pushed people away because I'm so ingrained with "I can do it myself, dammit," which I blame COMPLETELY on my status as an only child.

There's a great episode of Sex and the City where the girls are discussing over brunch how "cute" firemen are. Charlotte then makes the observation that "Women just want to be rescued." The four women prided themselves on being strong, independent women who found their strength with their careers and one another. However, Miranda, the prototypical woman who wanted to be in charge, had surgery and realized that she needed help afterwards, and her "not-quite-yet" boyfriend was willing to help.

I had a similar experience. Earlier this year, I had minor outpatient surgery, and the staff neglected to tell me I needed someone to "escort" me home. I am from New York City, babe, we have cabs and buses. I don't drive here. However, my now-husband offered earlier to escort me to and from the hospital, and I had turned him down. My independence and strong sense of self made me think I could do everything on my own, and not accept help when I actually did need it.

That's what DEE said: You take your happiness from wherever you can get it, even if it means making wrong decisions and doing wrong things. Only children may feel slighted and have this type of mentality. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule ... but ... who made the rules up anyway?

And the View from the COOP? There are several misconceptions about any person depending on their birth order (middle child syndrome, anyone?), your appearance (dumb blonde? I hate that especially, because as a blonde I am not dumb, but I am also not blonde), your speech (southern accents = uneducated redneck?). However, why only children get a bum rap is beyond me. We are ambitious, driven, independent, get along with all walks of life and work just as hard if not more than people with a single sibling or 19, like that family in Arkansas.

Only children, the lonely children? Not so. It's brought us a bond with other only children, that we may feel alone at times, but we'll never be lonely in this world in the relationships we choose.

Virtual Reality

A View From The Coop:

Growing up, we’re taught various “rules” by our parents, family, friends, or any significant people in our individual lives about how to live and get along with others. 

Don’t look.  Don’t point.  Don’t judge. 

Yet we all do it.  It’s not that I think it’s right or wrong, I just think it’s human nature to crave relationships, even with strangers.  It may not seem polite, but honestly, there’s an element in all of us to be naturally curious about other people.  I mean, if you are wearing a cotton candy colored frock with a rainbow wig in Wal-Mart, chances are, you want some kind of attention.  Or validation.

Perhaps it is more amplified now that most of us are figuratively and literally putting ourselves “out there” in social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. 

Is there a difference between being nosy and being naturally curious?  Is there an element of voyeurism that is considered “acceptable” these days? 

These may seem like odd questions.  But myself and Dee, co-author of this blog, were talking about experiments in social media, mostly to see how many people would respond to a simple “relationship status” update.  However, this experiment (to be headed by Dee) was cancelled because, well, I basically lived it. 

A few months ago, I got married.  The funny thing was, it was sort of an elopement, as very few people actually knew beforehand.  We went to City Hall and believe it or not, telling our folks was the easy part.  How to inform people we considered our “friends” on Facebook (who constitute those we consider family, friends, and acquaintances purely on Facebook shared interests) was the hard part. 

See, it occurred to me that while no topic is considered off limits or taboo to me, on networks like Facebook it’s hard to be truly “private.”  No matter how hard you try to keep your private life private, there is an element that you feel like you sort of owe an explanation.  Well, forgive me for wanting to keep my relationship to ourselves and special for as long as we could.  Needless to say, when we changed our relationship status to “married,” our virtual lives blew up.  And not in a bad way, either, but still, when it all died down, it really wasn’t that bad. 

I should not have been surprised though.  After all, about a year prior, I had a friend who simply changed her relationship status from “single” to not being on her Info page at all.  Within minutes, a bunch of people had commented, wondering what the occasion was.  Well, my friend (a friend I had made the old-fashioned way, THEN became Facebook buddies) simply said she didn’t want to be reminded of her single life.

Which brings me to why Dee and I are constructing this post today.  See, Dee and I have a unique relationship.  We connected because of a shared interest (baseball, if you must know) but it turns out we were kindred spirits -- sistas from another mista, as I like to call us.  We were discussing Facebook fallout, and it led to Dee calling some folks “nosy,” while I believe them to be “curious.”

We share some aspects of our lives on these media forms, albeit it’s at our own limitation.  If we change our relationship status to single, to married, to divorced or even just take it down, wouldn’t it be hard to keep that business part of ourselves away from those we communicate with on Facebook?

It’s really questioned the limits on what relationships are.  There is a fine line between nosiness and natural curiosity…there is also getting to be a fine line between virtual and reality relationships.  For me personally, I find there are several people I care deeply about, but I may have met once or twice in my life.   And you know with the advent of “Unfriend Day” in the media, many virtual and real feelings get hurt over a perceived slight because of mannerisms and suggested “tone.” 

Yes, it’s an interesting social experiment to see virtual reality kick in on these forms of media.  And yet, even if we get the reaction we expected, sometimes, it’s more than we bargained for.  We still feel things as we used to, and virtual relationships add yet another complex layer to human interactions.


That's What Dee Said:


While some people are in fact naturally curious, you can't deny the fact that others are blatant busy-bodies.  And for that reason, I find no need to wait for an official/unofficial National Unfriend Day to get rid of the dead weight.  However, because of mistakes I made in the past -- one that almost cost me this moment right here and now -- I have to be careful and really think before I act when it comes to hitting that delete button!

The difference between curious and nosy is quite easy to explain.  Curious is just that -- curious. It's not obvious and there is usually a sense of sincerity behind the inquiries of the person.  Nosy is when someone comes out of the woodworks when you have something big going on, and not necessarily something good either. At least this has been my experience.  But for others, including Coop, it may not be the case, in which case you start to wonder if it's not you causing your own privacy issues.

It's unfortunate that along with the things that Coop mentioned, we aren't all also taught to have respect for other people's privacy.  Behind the computer screen, we don't know what someone is really thinking or saying, and that allows people to be cowards, where they may not be directly to one's face.  We have to use covers, such as "lol" and "lmao" to make something harsh seem, well, not so harsh, but also get our point across at the same time.

My mother always told me "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."  More people, including myself, should listen to my mother.

Coop and I indeed have a special relationship.  Our love of baseball (particularly, the Mets) and blogging brought us together, but our friendship has kept us together.  And it grows more and more every day.  Both being only children, we have definitely become the sisters we never had.

Coop has over 500 friends on Facebook.  I have 71.  Neither of us is right or wrong in the way we choose to conduct our online/social media business.  But I found myself creating lists specifying who can or can't see certain information about me on Facebook.  Then I thought, if I have to do that, why am I even friends with these people?  If I have to "hide" information from someone because it's "too personal for them to see", then what is the point?

I started knocking off names left and right.  I could easily have 500 people on my friends list today, but would they all really be "friends"?

I even "unliked" a ton of pages because I didn't want to be connected in any way to people I did not know and/or trust with my personal information. After all, behind each and every page is a real live person.

The truth is, while I enjoy the social media part of life, I don't need something like Facebook to keep in touch with the people I want to keep in touch with.  And while Facebook certainly enhances the experience of my relationships, it sometimes restricts them as well.

Social media sites are a great way to keep in touch with friends and family and are excellent networking tools if you are in "the business".  But how much is too much information to be shared?

Take Foursquare, for example.  I use it occasionally.  But is it really that important that all of Facebook knows where I am at any given time? Plus, is it really smart to announce when my home is unoccupied?

Sometimes I think people try too hard to maintain relationships online.  But the ones who do may also be trying to fill a void in their "real world".  For some, it's all they have.