Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce anxiety, by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing anxiety, or by combinations of such thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions). OCD is the fourth most common mental disorder and is diagnosed nearly as often as asthma and diabetes mellitus.
So, now that you have close to a medical definition, let us wind back those formalities and just have a look at the more placated social OCD's that people may/do have (I do believe these may be also referred to as idiosyncrasies to allay the serious inference of a mental condition!)
Personally I have to say, two specific habits spring to mind:
1 - I can only turn anti-clockwise in the shower. I heard it mentioned on TV many years ago that people have a preferential direction, which extended to rotational direction in activities like showering. For me, I've found that whilst I can turn to my right, I only get to about a quarter turn and then find I change direction and pivot through 450 degrees to maintain a sense of balance. Stop and think about it... does it make any difference to you which way you rotate when trying to get all of your body covered in water? Make yourself aware of this and see what your habits are the next few times you shower.
2 - My FireFox tabs have to be in a set order. It's something I deal with every day and it's such a habit to have my work site, iGoogle, Gmail, Facebook, Forums, Webmail, News and then other sites set up in my browser that I find I get confused and disoriented if they're not in this order. I like things set out in a particular manner (I think most people with a sense of cleanliness/order/space/even pride would experience similar things). It makes a work or living space feel together, in sync and functional. I guess that's what extends to something as basic as my browser tabs.
Call me weird if you must - sticks and stones and all that crap! Just reflect.. what are those little things that make you, you?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Classic!
What do you think of when you hear the word 'classic'? Does it conjure up images of shiny metal car bonnets with big glistening headlights?
How about an orchestral symphony with the finest instruments?
Or do you just get a visual transformation of all things to black and white?
To me, classic reflects style - something which hasn't dated, and wont date. I found myself engrossed in many things which I would consider to be classic and stylish today whilst reading The Australian's WISH magazine. This month's magazine is based in New York, the 'city that never sleeps' and a location which is promoted as the epitome of fashion, class and making/breaking dreams. Having never been to NY I cannot pass comment, however I will grant the city on being one of great imagery, enthusiasm and encouragement for the grand and divine. It appears to be a world of growth and change, diversity and tradition. I know nothing of the streets, buildings or facilities, but if you mention the name to me, I will always see the black dress of Hepburn and the little blue box of Tiffany. Now that's style which is classic!
How about an orchestral symphony with the finest instruments?
Or do you just get a visual transformation of all things to black and white?
To me, classic reflects style - something which hasn't dated, and wont date. I found myself engrossed in many things which I would consider to be classic and stylish today whilst reading The Australian's WISH magazine. This month's magazine is based in New York, the 'city that never sleeps' and a location which is promoted as the epitome of fashion, class and making/breaking dreams. Having never been to NY I cannot pass comment, however I will grant the city on being one of great imagery, enthusiasm and encouragement for the grand and divine. It appears to be a world of growth and change, diversity and tradition. I know nothing of the streets, buildings or facilities, but if you mention the name to me, I will always see the black dress of Hepburn and the little blue box of Tiffany. Now that's style which is classic!
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Sounds gracing my ears today
It's been a few days of headaches, heartaches and general all-over aches. I've tried to maintain a productive level of concentration, but it hasn't been easy. So, to eliminate as much external noise and distraction as possible, I've been plugged in to my extensive music collection.
The problem therein lies with being able to select something worthy of listening to, which I don't get bored of within the first 45 seconds. It's not been an easy task I tell you! So here's a little bit of musical culture for you to also enjoy.
Today, my aural senses have been satisfied with the likes of:
Buena Vista Social Club
A little bit of ol' Dean Martin and Roger Miller
**Oh, I've decided to put up a post every day/couple of days just linking interesting things, or making a ragey comment about something which is irking me, or just generally taking up intarweb space which I claim to feel should be 'mine', just, because!
The problem therein lies with being able to select something worthy of listening to, which I don't get bored of within the first 45 seconds. It's not been an easy task I tell you! So here's a little bit of musical culture for you to also enjoy.
Today, my aural senses have been satisfied with the likes of:
Buena Vista Social Club
A little bit of ol' Dean Martin and Roger Miller
**Oh, I've decided to put up a post every day/couple of days just linking interesting things, or making a ragey comment about something which is irking me, or just generally taking up intarweb space which I claim to feel should be 'mine', just, because!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Has technology made us lazy in our relationships?
It's something I've been pondering for a while.
The most notable change in our personal interactions comes by way of time spent either physically with another person or in communicating to them via several means. In the days where you kept physical company with a friend/partner/family member you would be required to uphold a level of conversation and activity where it would be obvious if you waned in attention. But now, we can communicate via text, whereby it takes longer to type a sentence than it does to say it; you get thinking time about your responses without the other person interpreting your expressions and body language.
Essentially you can make a 20 minute verbal conversation last all day (or several days) if you need to when it's conducted via email or chat. And when all else fails, you can be AFK and unavailable to respond! Is it easier to just have a pleasant "Hi" from an sms than having to see someone, go through the spiel of "How was your day? What did you get up to?" But surely this contravenes the idea that with all this fantastic technology available to us, we can share more about ourselves and our lives to a greater audience in less time.
So what does that mean for our concept of sharing information with others? Or how well do we effectively know someone these days?
If you spread out how much detail you provide someone over days, weeks, months and years, how much of yourself are you truly letting them see? And then, does this mean we base our relationships on only a small fragment of what we believe the other person to be? - perhaps this is why so many relationships, marriages and associations fall apart, because we believe we know so much about another, and yet we've only just seen a small portion of their true self.
I'm a believer that yes, it generally is easier to communicate in dribs and drabs, but it's not the best way to do it... you may be buying time now, but by elongating the interaction period could very well be wasting that time you've just bought in the long run.
The most notable change in our personal interactions comes by way of time spent either physically with another person or in communicating to them via several means. In the days where you kept physical company with a friend/partner/family member you would be required to uphold a level of conversation and activity where it would be obvious if you waned in attention. But now, we can communicate via text, whereby it takes longer to type a sentence than it does to say it; you get thinking time about your responses without the other person interpreting your expressions and body language.
Essentially you can make a 20 minute verbal conversation last all day (or several days) if you need to when it's conducted via email or chat. And when all else fails, you can be AFK and unavailable to respond! Is it easier to just have a pleasant "Hi" from an sms than having to see someone, go through the spiel of "How was your day? What did you get up to?" But surely this contravenes the idea that with all this fantastic technology available to us, we can share more about ourselves and our lives to a greater audience in less time.
So what does that mean for our concept of sharing information with others? Or how well do we effectively know someone these days?
If you spread out how much detail you provide someone over days, weeks, months and years, how much of yourself are you truly letting them see? And then, does this mean we base our relationships on only a small fragment of what we believe the other person to be? - perhaps this is why so many relationships, marriages and associations fall apart, because we believe we know so much about another, and yet we've only just seen a small portion of their true self.I'm a believer that yes, it generally is easier to communicate in dribs and drabs, but it's not the best way to do it... you may be buying time now, but by elongating the interaction period could very well be wasting that time you've just bought in the long run.
