Co-dependent for friendships?

[Naj]

I've noticed on the show that certain people tend to hang out together. I know this past season Jeffries and Stillman talked about it when Jeffries was having another birthday. They are tied to their work, don't know what else to do with themselves and with Vera's breakup they are now all single.


I was reflecting back to my banking days and we seemed to do that too. We had long days and many times in our off times opted to hang out. So do you think these detectives are co-dependent on the other detectives for companionship or it's just a natural thing how they tend to hang out.

[Disasterfreak]

I think it's natural to wanna fall back on your peers for fun. It might be healthier to see people outside work (at least I know for sure for me it would be), but you naturally tend to relate more to those you DO work with, you share common experiences, a common language, common rants... you know. I don't really see them as co-dependent at all. Co-dependent are like those best friends who can't live or breathe away from one another (at least that's how I understand it) or those moms who feel like their life has no meaning with their kids gone. It's a little pathological. I don't see that happening on the show.

[LillyKat]

I don't think its codependency ... that suggests, as Disasterfreak mentioned, more of an unhealthy, can't-exist-without mentality.

I think it is natural to hang with co-workers, especially if everyone works so closely - and so intently - for long hours at a time (which is the case with cops). My dad is a fireman, and there is a very similar togetherness. Firemen tend to hang with ... well, firemen - especially those who work the same shift, but even those who work other stations on other shifts. It is a built-in bond given the nature of the job, which - for both police and fire - can be team oriented. Thus, I think that tends to spill over into associating with one another off-hours.

But, I think having no one except co-workers as friends is somewhat limiting and may prevent the development of a true personal life "outside the office" ... but even still, that does not necessarily mean codependency.

[boxman]

I think when people who work together also hang out together is rather normal. Healthy even, because co-workers tend to have similar interests and schedules.

It's when co-workers hang out together in cliques to gossip and whine about other co-workers--that's when it gets co-dependant. People like that need the reassurance of others, and they can't solve work-related problems on their own. Those are the ones who are co-dependant.

I thought Jeffries and Stillman's hanging out late-night was more of a comraderie/fraternity thing. You know, "male bonding" to keeping friendship in what is otherwise normally a boss-employee relationship.

[boxman]

I just read this on ABCNews.com:

Americans Have Fewer Friends, Researchers Say
Smaller Social Circles Could Be Bad for Health, Too
By BHARATHI RADHAKRISHNAN, ABC News Medical Unit

June 23, 2006 — - Paul Friday's 88-year-old mother frequently talks to her sister via the Internet, a fact that still sometimes surprises him.

"This wouldn't happen 20 years ago," said Friday, chief of clinical psychology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Shadyside.

His mother's online chats highlight a changing trend in society -- Americans' close network of friends and the way they stay in touch.

In general, most people report fewer close friends, according to a new sociological survey, but detractors, like Friday, note that it's hard to say for sure whether Americans actually have fewer friends or just define that term differently than they used to.

The survey, from Duke University, showed that Americans reported a smaller circle of friends in 2004 than in 1985. The number decreased in size by one-third, or about one friend, over about 20 years.

Known as the "General Social Survey," it asked the question "Who have you discussed important matters with?" in 1985 and 2004.

Researchers then analyzed and compared the two sets of data. The number of "close confidants" Americans could confide in decreased; however, spouses and partners were more likely to be mentioned in 2004 than in 1985.

What could cause such a decrease of close confidants among Americans? Some people contribute it to changes in U.S. culture.

"People are working more … living in more dispersed circumstances in the suburbs … and keeping in touch through technological means" more so than in the mid-'80s, said Lynn Smith-Lovin, head author of the study and a Duke sociologist.

Researchers in the Netherlands and Hungary reported the same trend in their citizens over a few years, she said.

These rather swiftly occurring changes mean fewer friends, said Bruce Spring, a psychiatry professor at the University of Southern California.

"The acceleration of [these cultures] and the amount of things that we have available to keep us busy and to distract us interfere with time available for friendships," he said.

Besides potentially making us more lonely, not having as many close confidants can affect both physical and mental health, such as a creating a higher risk for depression and high blood pressure, according to Redford Williams, who directed a study in 1992 on heart patients and their relationships.

He and his colleagues at Duke found that 50 percent of patients with heart disease who did not have a spouse or someone to confide in died within five years, while 18 percent of those who did have a confidant died.

A smaller inner circle among parents also may impact their kids, said Bruce Rabin, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Healthy Lifestyle Program. He said parents needed to demonstrate to their kids the joys of interacting with people.

"We need to be very concerned about the future," Rabin said. "If there is a continued decrease in social interaction, this may affect the quality of mental and physical health of the next generation."

To promote social and physical health, Rabin said he and his colleagues were teaching leaders of an international company to engage in healthy behaviors both at work and at home, including engaging in more social activities with colleagues, such as book clubs where employees could interact outside of work.

However, not everyone feels a lack of social interaction at work. Jeffrey Johnson, a Northeastern University grad student in his early 20s, says that he receives a good amount of social connections at his internship at a storage management company.

"Usually when you work in a big company, the general notion is that you are always working and do not have time off," Johnson says. However, interactions through company ice cream socials and weekly gatherings allow employees to connect on a greater level outside of work.

While few could argue that having a decreased amount of close friends is a good thing, there is some debate about the Duke findings.

Friday, the Pittsburgh psychologist, warned that people should "not take an isolated study and use it as the academically rationalizing gun to shoot down the idea that we're an effective society."

Culture has shifted a great deal from 1985 into the 21st century, he said, explaining that technology has greatly advanced because of e-mail and instant messaging. He said these things helped our society by allowing us to reach out and communicate with each other.

Johnson, for example, states that Orkut, an international online community that serves as a friends network similar to MySpace, is a great resource for people to become further connected.

"I have made some great friends through this network," he says.

Smith-Lovin and her colleagues are planning to re-interview the participants of the study in August, which marks two years since the 2004 study.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Disasterfreak]

Very interesting article, Boxman. Can't say I don't agree. Nowadays' culture is based on individualism, especially in the larger urban settings... so probably people DO have fewer friends. And certainly having a weaker/inexistent social support network makes people more likely to suffer from depression and other mental conditions. One thing I WOULD say though, is that, while technology might make people less likely to have LOTS of friends--it makes it easier to keep in touch with those few good ones you DO have.

[myril]

Interesting article, boxman, thanks. But the researchers based their assumptions mainly on this one question, with who people talk about important matters? Hmmm. What if people just define "important matters" slightly different by now? What if the significance of family increased over the last years without a decrease in number of friends? One thing is a change in quantity, another a change in quality, something people (and worse scientists) like to mix up. I mean, having a few but very good friends (=quality) can be as good or even better than having many (=quantity). The article sounds a bit like: we have a statement, now we need to find the right data to support it. I'm not as sure as some researchers seem to be, that there is a decrease in social interaction and a risk for next generation's mental and physical health, though the ways of social interaction might change. Come one, thousands of years ago we couldn't meet many people because there hadn't been so many people in one place, so did our ancestors have more depression?
Haha, feel the itch to get this Duke study and tear it up.

I agree with what others said before, it's more of natural thing, that the detectives hang out with each other. You share experience (esp. in a job like this), common language etc. and you already spend most time of a day with these people, getting used to have them around so to speak. In addition it's a question of organizing time: I've done a lot of shift-work jobs, even in other jobs seldom had regular schedules, and it always was easier for me to hang out with my co-workers then organizing meetings with other friends outside work. Guess our detectives have the same problem.

But what do we know? The focus of the show is the work life of these people. We assume, that because we don't see them spending time with others or hear them talk about it, they don't do it. But is it so?

[eurache]

naj said:

I've noticed on the show that certain people tend to hang out together. I know this past season Jeffries and Stillman talked about it when Jeffries was having another birthday. They are tied to their work, don't know what else to do with themselves and with Vera's breakup they are now all single.


I was reflecting back to my banking days and we seemed to do that too. We had long days and many times in our off times opted to hang out. So do you think these detectives are co-dependent on the other detectives for companionship or it's just a natural thing how they tend to hang out.

Hey Naj, I remember those days ;D Back then, alot of us would meet on a Friday night to go to a bar just around the corner. Some us would go there to just have fun and maybe at times blow some steam off. I think it was just for the companionship b/c we were all in banking and in different departments too. Nowadays, I am not sure the companionship is like it used to be. Most ppl just want to get home and relax. I believe the workforce atmosphere has changed so much since the time we were working. It used to be family like atmosphere, now it's like to each their own. A screw you type feeling That's my opinon and I could be wrong.

[boxman]

disasterfreak said:

Very interesting article, Boxman. Can't say I don't agree. Nowadays' culture is based on individualism, especially in the larger urban settings... so probably people DO have fewer friends.

See, this is what I don't like about "Season One" and "Season Two" Lilly. There's no lack of this kind of "Individualism" here in Philly, the country's fifth-largest urban area--and believe me, it's a real pain in the rear to deal with. When one meets someone here for the first time, the first thing you have to do is measure-up the person. Nearly *everyone* puts up a "Me First" front here, and you have to figure out whether or not this front is the real-deal hardcore selfishness of "Individualism" gone unchecked, or if they're just fronting like a lot of people do so that they don't fall victim to another's scam. There's nothing wrong with looking out for yourself. But there's also a lot of "Individuals" that need to realize that "No Man Is An Island", and that "Individuals" also need to work together with others in Teams. This means making compromises and forgiving people--something Lilly seems to have a hard time doing with Scotty and a whole bunch of people. Anyway, Scotty and Stillman seem to know this need to balance Individuality with Friendship and have that ability to open up a friendlier side to people. Hence, you have the offering of a late-night drink to a co-worker who's sitting in the penalty box (i.e. compromising police conduct rules), getting the DA office to drop charges (i.e. scratching each other's back, as a form of backdoor diplomacy), or pizza and beer to a guy who got kicked out of the house (i.e. sacrificing one's precious time off to back up a friend in need). Lilly doesn't seem to have this kind of sense, that's why I'm not so fond of her character and was humored to see her have to rely on Scotty for once to cover for her slip-up in "Joseph". If "Individualism" is the reason why some people have fewer friends, then I'd say they're pretty screwed up. There's no reason why someone can't be their own individual *and* be a good friend to others and not be a loner. And unfortunately, that's how I see Lilly--a loner with only two cats as her friends, and a woman who puts her career before her personal relationships. BLEACCCKKK!!! Fortunately, it seems as if the Cold Case writers are showing that "Season One" and "Season Two" Lilly is just one phase of her life, and not a final and ultimate level of her persona....

disasterfreak said:

...One thing I WOULD say though, is that, while technology might make people less likely to have LOTS of friends--it makes it easier to keep in touch with those few good ones you DO have.

That's certainly true!

myril said:

... One thing is a change in quantity, another a change in quality, something people (and worse scientists) like to mix up. I mean, having a few but very good friends (=quality) can be as good or even better than having many (=quantity). ...

I think there's also value in having friends who *don't* believe in the same things that you do. Having a friend who has an opposing viewpoint can be valuable in bringing both of you towards the center; towards compromise. This, I think, is a valuable skill that many don't learn when they associate only with like-minded people. People don't learn how to sit nicely next to someone who has different--but not necessarily better or worse--opinions. I think this study missed out on studying friendships between people who have different values, something probably just as important as "number of friends"...

[Naj]

The Early show had a segment on friendships yesterday too. That younger people don't have them and online interaction is not a substitute for friendships in real life. We haven't seen any of the detectives running around with blackberries (sp).

[Naj]

Hey Naj, I remember those days Back then, alot of us would meet on a Friday night to go to a bar just around the corner. Some us would go there to just have fun and maybe at times blow some steam off. I think it was just for the companionship b/c we were all in banking and in different departments too. Nowadays, I am not sure the companionship is like it used to be. Most ppl just want to get home and relax. I believe the workforce atmosphere has changed so much since the time we were working. It used to be family like atmosphere, now it's like to each their own. A screw you type feeling That's my opinon and I could be wrong

I tend to agree with you Eurache. 70's 80's even 90's were special times and maybe it depends on your job too! When I left the bank and went to other places to work and eventually the university I've never been able to have the same feeling I had when I was with the bank. It was a family. It's sad. Very sad. I'm so glad I was born when I was and experienced what I have though. Wouldn't trade it for being born, say, now.

[Disasterfreak]

Whoa, I had a little trouble following your discourse on Lilly's season 1 individuality, Boxman--but think I got it right now. Personally, I think they overdid Lilly's "individuality". It's ok if she's a loner without TOO many friends or a relationship, but a person with NO contact at all with the outer world other than her job is a little hard to believe. I didn't really get that vibe from Lilly season 1, a bit more in Lilly season 2 maybe. In season 1 she seemed to socialize fine with her peers and function ok in a group. In season 2, she sort of shut herself up. I always assumed it was a phase though--brought on by Scotty's 'betrayal of her trust'. Not that I think it was that bad myself, but I can see why SHE would have.

[boxman]

disasterfreak said:

Whoa, I had a little trouble following your discourse on Lilly's season 1 individuality, Boxman--but think I got it right now. Personally, I think they overdid Lilly's "individuality". It's ok if she's a loner without TOO many friends or a relationship, but a person with NO contact at all with the outer world other than her job is a little hard to believe. I didn't really get that vibe from Lilly season 1, a bit more in Lilly season 2 maybe. In season 1 she seemed to socialize fine with her peers and function ok in a group. In season 2, she sort of shut herself up. I always assumed it was a phase though--brought on by Scotty's 'betrayal of her trust'. Not that I think it was that bad myself, but I can see why SHE would have.

Well, an important reason why we need those DVDs is so people like me can catch up with the show!! I get bits and pieces of seasons one and two on TNT.... Rather time-consuming..