I had come to the conclusion that my ADD was getting worse and I had lost the ability to read long-form narratives. Having read about about a new book, The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains I’m now not so sure about the ADD being the culprit.   Author Nicholas Carr says that the Internet has changed our brains to the the point where we can’t concentrate on most deep-thinking tasks without seeking distractions.  See The Glove and Mail website here for more about Carr’s thesis.

I feel a bit vindicated that the problem may be our modern world and not the disorder I thought I had wrestled into some form of manageability.  One thing I do know, as I am now in the middle of the third novel this year, is that things started to change two years ago. Why then?  I was making frequent trips to a lodge in Algonquin Park where the only distractions were the forest, the other guests, the animals, the odd canoe and some of the best cooking I have ever tasted.  I did take up my notebook computer and once every evening I would watch a DVD on it. Most of the rest of the time I read novels. I knocked off about four that summer and although I only went up half the time last summer I completed a couple more.  Two summers ago those novels were the first I had read to completion in more than a decade. With no distractions it seemed my brain was content to revert to a state where it didn’t require new and novel distractions every couple of minutes.

Now don’t get me wrong I’m not complaining and I don’t think the Internet is the end of the world as we know it. I’m just observing. I’m also aware of a quote from Canada’s premier literary critic Northrup Frye who said,”The book is the most technologically advanced communications medium ever invented because it moves at precisely the speed of the reader.”  Frye died before the Internet reached its current level of penetration into our lives. I wonder if he would agree with those words today.

Carr says that long-form narratives are not the way our brains have always worked.  To the contrary, according to him we are programed to be easily distracted.  He goes on to say that gathering information from Google or other methods on the Internet, take in information from many different sources at a fairly shallow level and the information never makes the transition in our brains from short-term memory to long-term.  With print there are no distractions and we get much more information more deeply into the brain and thus into long-term memory.  That information can then connect in our brains to other information, other material we have read, or even with our own experience.  Using the Internet  information is held and manipulated mostly in short-term or working memory but then it is gone or is not available to connect with our own experience or learning.  In other words, I guess, we don’t learn at depth.

When asked how he managed to keep from being distracted enough to write the book, Carr said it took him two weeks before he could overcome the panic of not checking his email or other activities on his computer.

What’s my point? Well it comes back to the up side and the down side of neuroplasticity again. If you think reading long-form narratives is a good thing then the Internet can change your brain for the worse.  The up side is that you can change back if circumstances, or desires, warrant it.

For myself, I am renewing a resolution I and a friend made last year. We had done our grading for first degree black belts in karate two years previously, and were going to go for our second degree. We didn’t make it. His health had worked against him and as for me…well the teachers who were guiding us didn’t think I was ready. So this New Year’s resolution is the same. Just last week I ran into another black belt that went for the grading as my friend and I and he told me he did the second degree grading last June. I was dismayed and amongst the many thoughts that ran through my head was one about dropping out of karate altogether. That one saddens me since I took up the martial art in the first place to improve my cognitive functioning. I didn’t entertain that thought for long and have now recommitted.

More on this at a subsequent date…

It is called buyer remorse or, more correctly, cognitive dissonance and I came across an excellent explanation of it here.  Essentially cognitive dissonance according to this blog describes “the negative tension that results from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one’s beliefs.”  Wikipedia says the cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.  It goes on to say that beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.  Buyer remorse is a well-known consumer phenomenon and with high-ticket items, the manufacturers’ often include a folder or card that explains to the buyer why they have made a wise choice.  The point is, of course, to keep them from returning the item.

There are far more serious consequences though in terms of addiction and cognitive dissonance then expresses itself as denial.  The plays out in the scenario where the individual is getting drunk, or stoned, everyday.  Addicts get stoned everyday.  I can’t be an addict so therefore getting stoned everyday is okay.

To make this whole post even more relevant you could say that the world is living in a time of global warming.  Governments, and individuals, aren’t doing much about it.  Therefore, if we are all sane, then doing nothing must be okay.  Or even better, since we aren’t doing anything about it then global warming can’t be happening.

Addiction and the accompanying denial are the downside of neuroplasticity.  Neural pathways can keep us in habits that are self-destructive.  To change this requires deliberate and continuous action to move us in the opposite direction.

I’ve taken this far from just a bit of Christmas shopping and in so, in keeping with the most positive actions of the season, I will stop and wish you all a great holiday.  (Or is breaking off here just more denial…)

What has changed? It was a little book known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, now in its fourth version. This DSM-IV, used by most physicians and health care workers in North America, categorizes disorders by symptomology and with it comes a rather novel idea in the world of mental health and this is the concept that if you don’t have symptoms–you don’t have the disorder. This means, for example, if you have been diagnosed with ADHD and you work in a high stimulation environment, say as a firefighter, and don’t exhibit symptoms, technically you don’t have ADHD. You can, of course, at some point have symptoms and then you once again have ADHD. But the diagnosis is not something that is going to be with you for the rest of your life nor is it your defining characteristic. The label is separate from the individual.

A few months ago I interviewed the Director of the Learning Center at one of Canada’s most prestigious independent schools and she told me she tells students with a diagnosis that they own the label and are free to use it as they will. At the time, I remember appreciating the simplicity and innate compassion in what she said.

But what am I getting at here? It is this–the DSM-IV has taken the witch doctoring out of psychiatric treatment by removing all the psycho-analytic terms from common practice, and it has made the labelling process, and the shame that can go with it, temporary and practical. The primary purpose of the DSM in the first place was not to create labels for patients but to create a common language amongst mental health practitioners.

The manual is not new.  It has been around in some form or other since 1950 but now it is employed by almost everyone in the field, at least in North America.  And in Europe, there is a similar tool known as the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.

New ideas about neuroplasticity mean that there are now effective and permanent treatments from many disorders, acquired and innate.  Finally, we have been freed from this notion that if you have a mental disorder, the best you can hope for is symptom alleviation.  Now you can be made well and whole again.  A diagnosis is no longer a label for life but the beginning of a treatment program leading to a cure.

According to the study’s lead researcher Dr. Nuno Sousa in an article in Science magazine, “Behaviors become habitual faster in stressed animals than in the controls, and worse, the stressed animals can’t shift back to goal-directed behaviors when that would be a better approach.”

Take heart though, even though your brain may have rewired itself for the worse, it still has the potential to unlearn these habits and learn new more advantageous ones.

Dr. Sousa said, “The brain is a very resilient and plastic organ. Dendrites and synapses retract and reform and reversible remodeling can occur throughout life.”

Am I self-centered?

The truth is that some decades ago when I was in my last year at university and going through a bout of real, black-dog depression the psychiatrist I was seeing fired me saying I wasn’t cooperating with him. I went home one weekend and my mother said to me, “You just can’t be always thinking of yourself.” I then telephoned the psychiatrist and begged to be taken back saying that I would try to do whatever he asked me. He agreed and within days I seemed back to normal. Were my friends right then, that depressives and anxiety sufferers are self-centered?
I think not. Just because getting out of self is effective with these disorders doesn’t mean sufferers are self-centered. Besides, the trouble with that line of reasoning is that if you believe that then everyone who has depression or anxiety or panic attacks is self-centered and what kind of world would that be?
Well it would be a world not unlike that described in Erewhon by Samuel Butler in the 19th century in which criminals are treated as being ill and confined to asylums and citizens with mental illness are put in prison. Erewhon, in its earlier chapters, appears to be a utopia but this is not the case and on close reading it is actually a satire. In other words putting the mentally ill in prison is a joke.

The world of mental disorders, in my experience is a world where only the very frontiers are now being mapped and where neuroscientists are currently revising almost everything we know about how our brains work. Besides if you believe you are self-centered when you are suffer from depression or anxiety then everyone who is depressed or anxious or has panic attacks is self-centered and this would be a world without compassion. It would be a world I wouldn’t want to live in. It would be an Erewhon and Butler called it Erewhon because if you look at it backwards, it is nowhere.