Focus

Just thought I'd begin with a little interesting fact I picked up on the radio the other day. I've always heard that females are better at multi-tasking than males, but never really understood why - especially when I didn't really fit into that stereotype. My attempts at multi-tasking generally end in a breakdown. But it turns out there's a scientific explanation - women have a thicker corpus callosum than men (the part of the brain that separates the two hemispheres) hence we have a larger mass of nerves and receptors within that area and can more easily switch between different areas/functions of the brain, giving us the increased ability to switch concentration between tasks. Yet it strikes me as rather odd that they were discussing this, when in actual fact multi-tasking isn't really possible. So google defines multi-tasking as "The handling of more than one task at the same time by a single person" So I suppose it is possible -but my point is it doesn't allow for a good and complete execution of those tasks. 

How it's changed

As we only have one brain, we can only focus 100% of our attention on one task at a time - multi-tasking therefore should be cast in a negative light as it infers that we're half-heartedly doing various tasks instead of doing your best at one. But isn't that what society's slightly turned into? The ability to do everything all at once while living a fast paced existence, as we attempt to conserve as much time as possible to doing more more more... Isn't that what so many of us subconsciously strive for? One of the things that I used to get upset about was catching up with friends while they simultaneously stared transfixed at their phone screens. Having a conversation and being brushed aside mid-way as a far more important matter on their phone came up that they had to attend to immediately. I remember sitting in the canteen at lunch time, I sat on the table that was constantly engaged in heated arguments and debates over social or political issues. Generally revolving around the legalization of marijuana or another taboo subject. But there were some tables on which 5 - 7 people would sit (predominantly girls) with their heads all bent over as they 'multi-tasked' - picking food up with their left hand, and tapping tweeting/emailing/facebooking/texting with their right hand. It was so funny to me, because when we all got home, my newsfeed would fill up with  news about those same people writing or posting things to each other - so who were they writing to at lunch?! I still don't understand the desire to constantly live in a virtual world when so much is going on around you.

I'm not going to lie, I can see myself doing it sometimes; my granny was talking about how rude mobiles were the other day, especially at mealtimes - how they completely destroyed the social dynamic - and I couldn't disagree. Looking around me in the fish and chip restaurant, I'd say at least half of the people in there were tapping away at their phones, while the other half were trying to control their screaming children. My phone was placed on the table next to me, as was dads - ready to grab at the slightest buzz. The need to be constantly connected and talking to others without focusing all of your efforts on engaging in the situation you're presently in. We can't really be blamed though, seeing as we're constantly being offered various mediums to do this through - Facebook, phones, emails, skype - yes this is the generation that we are. We're in the age of technology, but can people really be surprised at the increased cases of ADD when we're being taught to focus our attention on a million things at once?

Jeanloup Sieff

On the subject of straying attention, 'woman's hour' can faintly be heard playing on the radio. They're discussing the subject of monogamy. Staying with one person for your whole life - what a task! The divorce rates have never been higher, and the average age of marriage is also increasing with time as people begin to feed into more 'alternative' ways, 'commitment ceremonies', not putting a label on it, all that non-permanent jazz. A lot of it I think is psychological, I know I'm only 18 but I can still infer. Putting label's on relationships and suddenly having to live up to all of these 'rules' and 'expectations' freakspeople out. I studied a sect of psychology called 'human relationships' and one of the most interesting things I looked into was the satisfaction curve. As couples start out, the honeymoon phase occurs and satisfaction rates are obviously high due to the lust and passion etc. (these 'rates' are measured in terms of happiness levels for different criteria, feeling appreciated, whether routine questions like 'how was your day' are still asked, engaging in sexual activity ladidadida. The studies occured cross-culturally with both men and women of different ages, all of whom were in relationships) but as time went on, the rates of satisfaction went down - a lot of people refer to this stage as 'reality' but I don't really like that idea. Reality doesn't have to lack satisfaction it just has to be handled right, whatever that means. But as couples reached the 20/ 30 year mark of being together, the rates rose again to where they were at the beginning. So happy ending's do exist in the world of data and statistics. It's just a question of whether couples can actually hack it out for that long to reach that the ecstasy they'd once felt.

The reality?

On the radio, the main theme was surprisingly infidelity in relationships - and the focus was more on the positive aspects of it. How it brings couples closer and allows for that adrenaline rush that gets lost over time. I wondered whether that's what we were all moving towards.. open relationships? I still don't really see how someone can be totally attached and want to stray without feeling a sense of betrayal or hurt. Being someone who has cheated before - I understand how and why it can happen, I think most people do. I don't regret a thing because it taught me a lot in the long run - about myself, the relationship I was in and what I needed at the time (a taste of single-dome). And I know it may seem hypocritical, but I still don't really believe in, or like the concept of cheating, if everything's supposed to revolve around trust and honesty - how exactly does cheating fit in? I know I still have a lot to learn - but at the rate we're going now, I'm not neccesarily looking forward to learning from experience, movies and books are good enough.

Lackadaisical

There's an organization called the Honey Trap, that a lot of women, and men use. It's basically hiring a woman or man to hit on/ attempt to seduce your significant other. And what did the stats show? 99% of men fell for it. I think the statistics with women were below 80% - 'great' news there. Then again, to be a relativist, if you're going behind their back to hire someone to seduce them you're not exactly setting yourself up for a good scenario - as well as revealing a few trust issues. It's interesting to see who's attention span lasts longer, yours or your partners. Watching how all the extraneous variables come into play.
Time for an over-done, predictable hollywood rom-com for a taste of fantasy! Followed by lamb chops and new potatoes for dins, I got a little over-excited earlier picking raspberries so we have a bucket to get through for pudding with a bit of cream, omnomnom.



 Recipe of the day: Lamb chops (serve with mint sauce and new potatoes) 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/lamb_chop