Tag: relationships

  • The Caring Relationship Between Marlin and Dory from Finding Nemo

    The Caring Relationship Between Marlin and Dory from Finding Nemo

    It is the common, but unfortunate, truth of aging that everyone’s memory slowly decays. With this comes lapses in memory in various forms, whether that be for events of the past, or for in-the-moment decisions, like Dory from Finding Nemo. This loveable fish is known for her forgetfulness and inability to retain new information.

    Similarly, certain neurodegenerative diseases such as Mild Cognitive Impairment, or MCI, cause older adults to experience what are referred to as memory “blips,” or errors, which can cause inconveniences and difficulties for that individual (Petersen, 2011; Gauthier et al., 2006). Because of this, typically individuals diagnosed with MCI who are also in a romantic relationship end up forming a care partner and care recipient dynamic with their spouse (Hoppman & Gerstorf, 2016). Much like Dory and Marlin, they work together and the care partner assists the recipient on a daily basis (Lara-Ruiz et al., 2019; Paradise et al, 2015). Throughout their adventure, it is seen how Marlin regularly steps in to give her a helping “fin,” by giving her reminders or working collaboratively with her to remember important information.

    This is characteristic of something known as collaborative cognition, which refers to a strategy employed by couples to remember and approach daily tasks in a manner that is interactive by nature (Barnier et al., 2008; Harris et al., 2019; Rogoff, 1998). Such techniques can have implications in relationships and how effective they are. There are many components to consider regarding interactions between the couple, as depending on each other can have effects on both the individual with MCI, as well as their caregiver, such as increased stress and potential frustration – known as caregiver burden.

    These daily interactions between couples are important to capture, even if it is as simple as the encouragement to “just keep swimming,” as this could lead to information to incorporate into interventions and the bettering of the quality of later life.

     

    References

    Barnier, A.J., Sutton, J., Harris, C.B., & Wilson, R.A. (2008). A conceptual and empirical framework for the social distribution of cognition: The case of memory. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1-2), 33-51. doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.07.002 

    Gauthier, S., Reisberg, B., Zaudig, M., Petersen, R C., Ritchie, K., Broich, K., … & Winblad, B. (2006). Mild cognitive impairment. The lancet, 367(9518), 1262-1270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68542-5

    Harris, C.B., Barnier, A.J., Sutton, J., & Savage, G. (2019). Features of successful and unsuccessful collaborative memory conversations in long‐married couples. Topics in cognitive science, 11(4), 668-686. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12350 

    Hoppmann, C.A., & Gerstorf, D. (2016). Social interrelations in aging: The sample case of married couples. In Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 263-277). Academic Press. 

    Lara-Ruiz, J., Kauzor, K., Gonzalez, K., Nakhla, M. Z., Banuelos, D., Woo, E., … & Razani, J. (2019). The functional ability of MCI and Alzheimer’s patients predicts caregiver burden. GeroPsych. 32(1), 31-39. doi: 10.1024/1662-9647/a000200

    Paradise, M., McCade, D., Hickie, I.B., Diamond, K., Lewis, S.J., & Naismith, S. L. (2015). Caregiver burden in mild cognitive impairment. Aging & mental health, 19(1), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.915922 

    Petersen, R. C. (2011). Mild cognitive impairment. New England Journal of Medicine, 364(23), 2227–2234. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmcp0910237 

    Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 679–744). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Unkrich, L., & Stanton, A. (2003). Finding Nemo. Buena Vista Pictures.

  • Facebook Friends: Why We Have So Many

    Facebook Friends: Why We Have So Many

    Me and my friends in a tour group in Amsterdam.

    You meet that hot rocker guy/girl at that concert you really like, and you guys trade names. You say, “Find me on Facebook”, and the next day or so, he/she adds you. You talk about wishing you were closer to the stage, the length of the concession lines, and why on Earth the T-shirt prices are so expensive. Typically, the conversation blossoms into a beautifully uninteresting synopsis of your daily routine: how tired you are despite normal hours of sleep, what YouTube links you think they’ll absolutely enjoy watching (because you do), and figuring out ways to make money without actually having a job.

    The chatter dwindles to a few comments or posts on one’s wall, then a “like”, and finally you’re down to that yearly “Happy Birthday (insert name here)” because you know they know its their birthday, and you don’t want to be that one guy/girl who doesn’t say anything. Why do we do this? Why don’t we talk to our friends anymore, and why have they forgotten us? Weren’t our YouTube links interesting?

    In the social media powerhouse we know as Facebook, I use the term “friend” lightly. Discussed by David McRaney in his blog, You Are Not So Smart, acquiring hundreds of friends on Facebook becomes a zero sum numbers game, with 150 as its approximate cap. You will typically be able to maintain a personal relationship with 150 people at any given time.

    The seemingly magical amount is the Dunbar number, developed by Robin Dunbar, a renowned anthropologist who correlated the size of the brain with the amount of potential social connections within a group. Even at this physiological limit, you’ll actively (on a daily or semi daily basis) talk to about 20. This doesn’t mean you’re a bad friend. You just have a limited neocortex.

    This cranial region takes into account social nuances and personal relationships. As your circle of friends increases, your maintenance of existing friendships increases several fold. Also, friends that have left your circle (be it geographic separation or interpersonal reasons) are harder to keep in contact with, as they require a portion of your processing power to keep the connection.

    The average person has 130 friends on Facebook (close to the Dunbar number), but there are people out there with +2,000. Do they talk to every single person they’ve ever friended? Of course not. It’s nearly impossible to do so with every other aspect of our lives screaming for attention. That’s not to say our social network isn’t a good thing. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and numerous other platforms for social networking are making communication easier than ever.

    We can have a great many loose connections to people, through our fascination with franchise coffeehouses, the latest Rube Goldberg contraption, or even that band that you like so much. 1 out of every 13 people on Earth is playing this never-ending game to increase their “friend stock”. Take solace in the fact that regardless of the number of Facebook friends we acquire, biologically, we’re basically average.