Hooked On Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price

Zecheus writes "In the New York Times: 'Scientists say juggling e-mail, phone calls, and other incoming information can change how people think and behave. They say our ability to focus is being undermined by bursts of information.'"

Comments

Sorry, can you repeat that?

[davidwr]

I'm sorry, can you repeat that, I lost my train of thought. My crackberry just buzzed and I had to read an important email. By the way, tomorrow's department lunch is canceled.

Re:Sorry, can you repeat that?

[Dan541]

I just missed a Uni exam because I found the email with the exam details 2 days after the exam. Email was sent a Month prior to exam :/.

Detailed analysis of why the article is wrong

[snowwrestler]

As soon as I finish checking Techmeme and Twitter.

Re:Detailed analysis of why the article is wrong

[machine321]

Agreed, I find that... SQUIRREL!

Re:Detailed analysis of why the article is wrong

[fractoid]

Can I help you cross your porch?

Could someone summarize the summary?

[circletimessquare]

It was too long to read.

Read the article? Who are you kidding?

Also I think that... wait what? Hold on, I'll be right back

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[Hognoxious]

tl;dr

ft4u

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[Anonymous Coward]

ft4u

l

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[fractoid]

lol wat

Post your comments while the story is fresh

[Anonymous Coward]

There'll be a new story in about half an hour.

Basically

[phantomfive]

If you want to be good at multi-tasking, practice multi-tasking.
If you want to be good at focusing, practice focusing.
If you want to be good at both, practice both.

There is no false dichotomy that you can only be good at one or the other, and neither one comes naturally. By nature we are only good at focusing on whatever attracts us emotionally in the moment, focusing on boring things, or multi-tasking on various boring things both take practice. So do what you want and stop worrying.

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no false dichotomy that you can only be good at one or the other

Does that mean that there is a true dichotomy? Seems like that would contradict most of the rest of your post.

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

And what proof do you have to back up the last claim? Show me a car that can win the Indy 500 and is the most fuel efficient of all cars. Your statement is just words without testing it to prove it is valid.

Re:Basically

[EL_mal0]

There is no false dichotomy that you can only be good at one or the other, and neither one comes naturally

But there is research suggesting that you can't be good at multitasking, or rather very few people actually are. Link. Even though talking on the phone and driving isn't necessarily what this article is talking about, I think it does fall into your classification of "boring things".

It would be interesting to see some research actually showing whether you can improve your multitasking skills.

Re:Basically

[Dragee]

Honest question: what activities are recommended for improving focus? I've identified a general decline since high school in my ability to focus on things that aren't highly stimulating. I did some brief searching a while back, and most of the advice just boiled down to, "make a conscious effort to not let distractions (internal or external) break your focus, and over time, your ability to focus will improve." I've wondered if there are specific activities (marathon video game sessions?) that can more easily hone one's ability to focus. An analogy would be (for me) riding a bicycle to get exercise. I just generally enjoy heading out on a bike and exploring, so as a side effect, my physical fitness improves. Can I find a similar solution for improving focus?

Re:Basically

[Mindcontrolled]

Good question. I wouldn't think that video game sessions help, as you probably enjoy the process and find it stimulating, so focusing is no problem. You gotta find something that definitely needs focus to succeed, is annoying (to you) in the process so you keep being tempted to lose focus, but is rewarding in the result so you have enough motivation to stick with it. I don't think there is a general solution - you gotta find something that fulfills the above criteria for you.

Re:Basically

[God'sDuck]

Honest question: what activities are recommended for improving focus?

I've noticed the same, and I would say: something along the lines of prayer and meditation, and maybe reading long-form books. Anything like video games does not count, because what you are doing changes each second. I'm even suspicious of some traditional things like gardening, since I tend to garden like I play on my computer -- weeding, pruning, pondering, picking, watering, weeding...something new every minute. It's amazingly easy to subvert something linear into something disorganized.

Re:Basically

[circletimessquare]

If you want to be good at over-simplistic thinking, practice over-simplistic thinking.

Re:Basically

[DarkOx]

Right the brain is fairly plastic and certainly can and does orient itself around certain work loads. It even at least while we are fairly young seems able to reorient iteself. IE if you change jobs from something high interrupt to something more focus oriented after a few months you can adapt. I went from Network Admin to programming for instance and than back.

Each of those transitions tooks some some. In my personal experience I do not think my brain could arrange itself into a form that would be good at both at the same time; good enough perhaps but not as good as doing one or the other.

Re:Basically

[imakemusic]

I'd suggest a martial art. Also helps you keep fit, teaches you self defence, helps self-esteem...

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

Ask any chess player and they will definitely have advice on how to focus better.

I can tell what I have found in my experience. Definitely exercise, it helps calm a lot of crazy distractions in your head. Get enough sleep and eat well, too. Alekhine said, "A brain without sugar is no brain" and Bobby Fischer would drink fruit juice to help him focus.

From there, try to get rid of things that will distract you. Sometimes they are surprising things, like not being clear what you are trying to do. Tal mentions that one time during a game, in a difficult position, he was having trouble focusing and thought about something else for nearly 20 minutes; he just couldn't force himself to focus. Then he realized that the position was too deep, it was impossible for any human to calculate all the possible branches. Once he realized that, his goal changed, and he was able to focus again. So the 'distraction' in that case was the fact that his task was impossible.

I really do find playing chess useful for this, because you know you haven't been focusing as soon as you lose a piece. It can help you notice when you are losing focus and try to diagnose the problem, and figure out ways to work around them.

Re:Basically

[Hognoxious]

There is no false dichotomy that you can only be good at one or the other

Does that mean that there is a true dichotomy?

Well it stands to reason that there's either a false dichotomy or there's a true one.

Re:Basically

[Dragee]

I hope the "insightful" mod is in regard to the lack of proof, and not the ridiculous car analogy. The biology and functionality of the human brain is several orders of magnitude more complex than the mechanics of an automobile, to say nothing of the fact that fuel efficiency is completely off-topic, even as an analogy. That's comparing apples and solid rocket boosters.

Re:Basically

[the-empty-string]

You gotta find something that definitely needs focus to succeed, is annoying (to you) in the process so you keep being tempted to lose focus, but is rewarding in the result so you have enough motivation to stick with it.

Playing piano music on sight is the perfect example. It is a tremendously computationally intensive task and requires a very high degree of parallel processing. However, while one will definitely improve with arduous practice, it is unlikely it will translate into increased multitasking ability in other situations.

Re:Basically

[Okind]

"Show me a car that can win the Indy 500 and is the most fuel efficient of all cars."

To be good at something does not mean you'll be rated among the best. And that is what is takes to even have a chance at winning the Indy 500. Or to be the most fuel efficient of all cars -- by definition of the word "most" an extreme case.

BUT: by practicing you can actually be good at both multi-tasking and focusing. Obviously you'll not be the best at either, because there's always someone with more talent and time spent on either multi-tasking or focussing (at the exclusion of the other).

Re:Basically

[mrchaotica]

Or there's no dichotomy at all.

Re:Basically

[Hognoxious]

Do you play chess in a room full of annoying co-workers who don't get the middle bit (the electric signals and cables) about how telephones work? Or with a toddler whose main hobby is using you as a tackle dummy? Or a spouse who sees any moment of silence as an aural blank canvas just begging to be worked upon?

Because if you don't it's going to be fuck all use helping you focus in the real world.

Re:Basically

[CarpetShark]

Good at multitasking...very few people actually are.

I don't believe this 2.5% of so-called supertaskers are in any way better at doing multiple things at once. Everyone knows it's possible to multitask, so long as each task isn't too demanding, but that's not the issue. We can drive and talk at the same time after practice, but not so much when just learning to drive. The same is going to be true of people who are extremely socially skilled and confident and talking on the phone to a friend: it's easier for them to do that without much processing power, leaving their brain more free to handle other things like unexpected road hazards.

Re:Basically

[welcher]

So you didn't read the article. there is a whole section entitled "The Myth of Multitaking" quoting research that shows your argument to be total shit.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

I can tell you my thought and experience, though others may not agree with me.

I have found that becoming good at multi-tasking is a combination of two things: becoming good at focusing, and becoming good at quickly switching focus. The guy in the article didn't seem like a multi-tasker, he seemed like someone with ADD. He had trouble focusing on anything.

So, as an example, to minimize switching times, you can do things like having different projects open on different desktops. Choose to work on one, and block out all thought of the other, until it is time to work on it. If an email comes, focus completely on the email until it is done, then go back to your other project. Whatever it is, focus completely on it. You need to detach yourself from the projects emotionally so they are not still nagging on you when you are not working on them. This is similar to leaving work at work, and not worrying about it when you get home.

Another example would be driving, when you first start driving, there is so much to do, it is hard to focus on it all. But soon you can switch easily between looking at the speedometer, checking your mirrors, looking in front, checking the temperature gauge, etc. It isn't so much that you are focusing on multiple things at once so much as you've gotten good at switching between them all, and can do them all without any trouble. I suspect if you could fit texting into the rotation in short enough increments of time, you could do that too, but I don't think you can divide the task of texting into such small pieces.

Professional Starcraft players are the same way, if you look at what they do, it is amazing how they can focus efficiently on so many things at once. Also, the first time you try to do it yourself, it is exhausting and hard to even do a quarter of what they do. Then slowly, after practicing, you can begin to build units continually while assigning them to different places, then you are able to do it while simultaneously fighting a battle, then you are able to fight two battles simultaneously. They way to do it, once again, is to switch focus between all the tasks.

So this is some anecdotal (and I think reasonable) evidence that multi-tasking is doable. It would be interesting to see some studies done along these lines.

Re:Basically

[Gilmoure]

By fuel efficient, do you mean in distance driven per fuel burned or power produced per fuel burned?

Re:Basically

[EL_mal0]

But that study wasn't done with people who were just learning to drive, so I think your point has a little less weight. I think this bit from the article I linked is an apt response:

Researchers Jason Watson and David L. Strayer go on to say that "inattention blindness associated with cell phone conversations makes drivers unaware of their own driving impairments." That's research-speak for "Hey, I am not even aware of my unawareness while gabbing with my pals. I am special. I can do this!"

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

In general, it's poor form to reply to a post asking for evidence, without giving even a reason why you think it might be false. The way you did it adds nothing to the conversation.

Nevertheless: here and here. The thing is, focusing on one thing is just a subset of focusing on many things. I don't see why you even think that a person who can focus well on many things would not be able to focus well on one thing, unless your only experience is with people who focus on many things, but don't do it very well.

Re:Basically

[anegg]

Brains have a limited amount of "attention" resource to focus on problems, just like computers have a limited amount of CPU time to give to processes. Multi-tasking on the brain is similar to multi-tasking on a CPU. You can do it, but it does impair efficiency. The more frequently you switch tasks, the more switching overhead you incur. Perhaps you can improve your task-switching speed to minimize overhead.

The process of learning to drive is a bit different (I think) than normal multi-tasking demands. In driving, you are training your brain to take care of certain functions without conscious attention - developing low-level subroutines (checking gauges, mirrors, monitoring distance to the cars around you). To the extent that your "multi-tasking" can involve tasks that can be done subconsciously, you can probably improve your multi-tasking ability by training your brain to use low-level subroutines.

I don't think of "multi-tasking" as the development of semi-autonomous capabilities like I describe above. To me, multi-tasking is when you are switching conscious attention from one thing to another, such as having a conversation with one person while undertaking another focused task. To a certain extent, you can balance the attention you pay to one or the other, but there is probably a cost. Your focused task may proceed more slowly, or you may realize at some point that although you have been automatically responding to your conversational partner, you haven't really been "hearing" what they are saying. If your focused task is "driving your car in traffic" I hope the impact is to the latter rather than the former.

With this in mind, I think there are variations in multi-tasking ability among people, and I think that it may be possible to achieve some improvements in multi-tasking abilities through practice, but in general the article matches my experience and beliefs. I think that multi-tasking may feel like more is being accomplished but actual measured performance will suffer. If some of the tasks involve synchronous interaction with other people, the multi-taskers perception of improved experience will probably come at a cost to the other folks with whom the multi-tasker is interacting.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

Oh, interesting idea, do you have any tips for how to practice over-simplistic thinking?

Re:Basically

[Belial6]

Another example would be driving, when you first start driving, there is so much to do, it is hard to focus on it all. But soon you can switch easily between looking at the speedometer, checking your mirrors, looking in front, checking the temperature gauge, etc. It isn't so much that you are focusing on multiple things at once so much as you've gotten good at switching between them all, and can do them all without any trouble.

While I agree with what you say, I don't believe that it is the whole story with new drivers, or even the biggest piece of a multi-piece problem. Bigger than efficient task switching is that experienced drivers DON'T focus on many of the tasks you point out. Frequently they ignore some tasks that new drivers are told to focus on, and often the ones they don't ignore, they only watch for a change that would call greater attention. I can honestly say that I haven't looked at my temperature gauge more than a couple of times in years. Why? Because I have good reliable cars that don't over heat. I do glance at my dash, and take note if anything looks out of place, but the temperature gauge does not get any actual focus. Even the speedometer isn't used as much as new drivers a lead to believe. After years of driving, we get good at gauging our speed based on the feel of the car and looking out the window. We tend to use the car's speedometer as a calibration tool for our own biological speedometer. New drivers on the other hand, have to keep looking at the speedometer because they are just not as good at gauging their speed. New drivers are also told to read all the street signs. That is just dangerous. With experience, they learn to ignore the signs that don't matter. They stop looking for signs where they won't find them.

Professional Starcraft players are the same way, if you look at what they do, it is amazing how they can focus efficiently on so many things at once. Also, the first time you try to do it yourself, it is exhausting and hard to even do a quarter of what they do. Then slowly, after practicing, you can begin to build units continually while assigning them to different places, then you are able to do it while simultaneously fighting a battle, then you are able to fight two battles simultaneously. They way to do it, once again, is to switch focus between all the tasks.

This is actually also a good example of NOT paying attention. These guy don't fight multiple battles just buy switching tasks quickly. A major component of what they do is knowing their troop capabilities, and know what will happen when they are not looking. Then they stop looking instead of watching to see what happens. They issue a command, and move to the next group. Much like looking at the speedometer, they might pop over periodically to calibrate their assumptions to reality, but they don't focus on the unimportant details. As much as people don't want to admit it, driving is accomplished through huge amounts of assumption. New drivers are regularly told to perform the impossible. Old drivers don't recognize that their assumptions are not physically taking place. It reminds me of the old saying "You know what happens when you Assume don't you? You make an Ass out of U and Me." That saying is always followed in my head with "And you get up in the morning because you assume that you still have a job." You eat your meal at a restaurant because you assume your credit card will not be declined. You open your front door because you assume that the outside air is not filled with a poison gas....". Life is impossible to live without making millions of assumptions every day. Likewise driving is impossible to do safely without making tons of assumptions.

So, while I agree with your sentiment on task switching, just as important is the ability to make good assumptions.

Of course the fact that every single 'study' I have seen done on 'distracted driving' has been horribly biased to produce the results that cell phones are evil doesn't help the whole discussion.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

The article follows some people who appear to have ADD. The section you refer to shows nothing except that people who follow certain patterns of technology usage are not as good at multi-tasking as others (or rather, that they are not as good at performing certain game-like tasks). It most certainly does not address what I said. If anything it supports the idea that some people are better at multi-tasking than others. Make sure you understand what your links say before you tell people that their arguments are shit.

Re:Basically

[Idbar]

1. The GP doesn't say you can do both at the same time, but you can practice to learn the skills. Instead of being distracted, you can perform multiple things at the time.
2. Indy cars I'd assume are very efficient, and I'd assume F1 cars even more. I don't think they are economic, but I'm positive the research done is that they will take advantage of each drop of gas (or ethanol) to boost their performance. I'm also positive that if the goal of maximizing efficiency in those cars was to achieve a balance between power and mileage, then they could be easily fixed, but they are efficiently design to maximize power while minimizing consumption.

Re:Basically

[Effexor]

Wait. Did you just cite yourself as evidence to back up your claim?

While others will no doubt mock you for it, I salute your impressive self confidence.

Re:Basically

[BobMcD]

FTFA:

In a test created by Mr. Ophir and his colleagues, subjects at a computer were briefly shown an image of red rectangles. Then they saw a similar image and were asked whether any of the rectangles had moved. It was a simple task until the addition of a twist: blue rectangles were added, and the subjects were told to ignore them. (Play a game testing how well you filter out distractions.)

The multitaskers then did a significantly worse job than the non-multitaskers at recognizing whether red rectangles had changed position. In other words, they had trouble filtering out the blue ones — the irrelevant information.

This study is more interesting as an example of selection bias than it is about anything around "tasking". The scenario measures the impact of distraction, which is well known to have a deficit on focus. This is a non-finding, at least as described in the article.

My challenge would be summarized as: How well did the people who had only red rectangles do at noticing movement in the blue ones?

Multi-tasking generally happens because we have the capacity to handle it. The example I quoted demonstrates that by placing 100 points of focus into 'red rectangles' you get 100% efficiency. By placing only 90 points into it, you get less, clearly. What is isn't pointing out is that by placing 80 points into 'red' and 20 into 'blue' you can get 90% performance on 'red' and, say, 60% in 'blue'. This is a benefit since in a lot of areas, 100% isn't exactly required. Driving is a fine example of it, at least on your typical commute. Otherwise we would have banned road ads, radios, and passengers. And for most, if not all 'while-driving' cell conversations, 60% is more than adequate as well. "I'm sorry, could you repeat that" works wonders. Many rational people would find a net-gain here, in that '150 > 100'.

Problems do arise, to be sure, but in my view it usually only happens when people flip their 'red' and 'blue' tasks. This would mean they've prioritized their driving task too low, for example, and have an accident. The technology isn't to blame, though, any more than makeup or McDonald's coffee.

Re:Basically

[Unordained]

For those too lazy to read the parent's links: anecdotes, personal experience, a priori reasoning, and asking for experiments. In the actual article, you'll find references to actual scientific studies on the subject already done. One of the cool things about science is that it often comes across counter-intuitive results, as seems to have been the case here; maybe you're having trouble accepting their conclusions, or you didn't notice, or you have other evidence (real, this time) you'd care to share with us. The article states that most people aren't good at multi-tasking, only 3% are considered "super-taskers". Maybe you're one of them. Congratulations. But just because that doesn't jive with your personal experience doesn't justify responding to a call for evidence with:

a) poor-form arguments (it's also poor form to spew opinions without backup in the first place [woah, citation needed!]), and
b) anecdotal evidence as if it were the evidence being requested

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

That sounds like an excellent environment to play in if you want to improve your concentration.

IT is amazing to me how good small children are at grabbing attention, even if they are not actively tackling you. If you can maintain focus with a toddler in the room, you can maintain focus anywhere.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

Read the article, it is mostly anecdotes about people who appear to have ADD. The actual studies they cite show nothing except that some people are better multi-taskers than others. It appears that your personal experience is different than mine. Sorry about that.

Re:Basically

[Skippyboy]

Or a spouse who sees any moment of silence as an aural blank canvas just begging to be worked upon?

Best euphemism EVER to describe a talkative spouse. An Aural Artist. LOL!

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

Pretty great, eh? I was just too lazy to type all that in again, especially for the sake of an anonymous coward. It's not so much myself that I think is great, so much as what I said there is just about all I have to say.

Re:Basically

[Endo13]

The problem is that no one can actually focus on more than one thing at a time. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what "focus" means: to pay attention to only one thing. People who are good multi-taskers are merely better at switching focus from one thing to another. The premise of the article is that as you increase your ability in switching focus quickly between many things, you lose your ability to maintain focus on one thing.

While it may be debatable whether or not that's good or bad, I tend to agree with the article that it definitely is the case. The human brain, while very complex, is still quite limited in capacity. In my own personal experience I've found that trying to go beyond capacity generally ends badly.

Re:Basically

[The Grim Reefer2]

Show me a car that can win the Indy 500 and is the most fuel efficient of all cars.

While your analogy is silly I'll point you to the Consulier GTP was getting 21/27 mpg in the 1990 version and was banned from most if not all racing circuits it was in because it always won. Not being "pretty" enough was it's downfall.

http://www.allpar.com/cars/adopted/consulier-gtp.html

http://fueleconomydb.com/specs/1990/CONSULIER/CONSULIER%2520GTP

Re:Basically

[Unordained]

There's a difference between anecdotes used to explain or make more personal a point already made more fully in a study, and using them as examples of your own a priori reasoning. Journalists have to find a way to make otherwise dry material more palatable, by "bringing it home" to the readers. So yes, the article does use one long-running anecdote for structure, but it's not the true source material. Note that I'm not saying you're wrong -- but at this point, the opposition has provided more evidence than you have.

As to ADD -- yeah, they do appear to have that. But that's kind of the point, no? That multitaskers are actually incapable of ignoring the irrelevant, can't stay focused, are driven to multitask more than they're actually capable of, or would otherwise desire to? That would result in ADD-like symptoms. There's no dichotomy. Multiple causes can have the same apparent effects, particularly to the lay public (of which I am myself a member, I'll completely admit.)

Re:Basically

[treeves]

Yeah, it could be a trichotomy. Or a tracheotomy.

Re:Basically

[swb]

Children are genetically engineered to gain the attention of adults.

As babies they have that magic crying sound that cannot be ignored.

As a 5 year old, my son will automagically escalate his desire for attention to the point where he will inflict pain on me if I ignore him long enough -- not that he wants to hurt me (I think..) but because he knows that ultimately whacking me with a baseball bat will get my attention. He never actually hit me with the bat, and this was after at least 10 minutes of literally being climbed on, yelled in both ears, eyes covered and any other way of annoying me he could think of.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

You shouldn't put up with that. It is true that children go through a stage where they will harass, but by age five, you need to teach him that people have personal boundaries, and that sometimes, it isn't ok to keep bothering you. Let him know that sometimes it's ok to get your attention, but other times he needs to solve the problem himself, or wait until you are available.

As babies they have that magic crying sound that cannot be ignored.

You are right and this is an amazing thing that I think cannot be fully appreciated by anyone who has not experienced. Even if the baby is just in the room, and not making any noise, it is like an attention magnet.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

Basically, if it matters to you to be able to multitask, practice it and you'll get better. If it matters to you to be able to focus, practice focusing and you'll get better. If you practice both, you'll get better at both. You can either believe some poorly-conceived study which doesn't really even address the question of how to get better, or believe some random weird guy (me) on slashdot, or you can experiment for yourself and see what you come up with. From my perspective, I have way stronger evidence than these guys, because I practiced and got better at both. I reached my objective. That is not such strong proof for you, because I'm just one person, but you can do the same. It is kind of a proof by construction.

If you aren't interested in getting better at multi-tasking or focusing, then it's kind of pointless and doesn't matter much what I or the article says, and in that case I don't particularly care about you as far as this conversation goes.

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical foolishness proclaiming your distractions are more severe/difficult than others'. Focus is focus. If you can't ignore the distractions, you haven't achieved a very in depth level of focus yet. Keep practicing.

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how focused I am.

Re:Basically

[nine-times]

The original article, which seems to be somewhat based on scientific studies, suggests that our new technological "multitasking" is rewiring our brains to always give priority to newer incoming information.

Mr. Nass says the Stanford studies are important because they show multitasking’s lingering effects: “The scary part for guys like Kord is, they can’t shut off their multitasking tendencies when they’re not multitasking.”

In most of your examples, you are not engaging in the sort of "multitasking" being described. For example, you talk about setting up different desktops for different tasks, and ignoring anything going on with other desktops. You focus entirely on the task you're working on. That's not multitasking.

There are some very good strategies for achieving greater focus, but most of them come down to diminishing your attempts to multitask. Don't read email whenever it comes in. Set aside time to read your email, and deal with it then. Do one thing at a time. Don't surf the web or chat on IM or check Facebook while you're trying to complete a task. These are good strategies, but they are not examples of "being good at multitasking". They're examples of "coping with our always-connected culture by refusing to multitask".

Re:Basically

[Unordained]

But I care about you, as a member of the slashdot community. I want to improve you, so that when you're right, you'll be a more effective voice, more convincing. Being right once is great; but having a method by which you can be right time and time again is better. That's the point of rigor. You say you reached your objective; how did you measure that? How do we know you didn't delude yourself into thinking you improved? The article gives examples of people thinking they're great at multitasking when they're not, could that not be the case with you, too? How have you made sure you're not fooling yourself? After all, you've put effort into improving your skills, so you have a motive for believing in your own success. It's not a matter of choosing who I want to believe -- that leads to error. It's a matter of choosing who has the right methods in place to avoid error -- that leads to fewer errors.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

That's very kind of you, but there are so many examples in real life of people multitasking in some form or another that, to say it is impossible, as you seem to be implying, is rather silly. The driving example has already been brought up, there are people who can play music on the piano they have never seen before, while playing along with someone who is singing. This is accomplishing no less than three things at a time (reading music, playing the piano, listening to the singer). Rubbing your belly and patting your head is a silly example. Doing live interpretation from English to Spanish is another common example: you have to both listen and speak simultaneously (and translate!).

Now, I am not entirely sure if these are done in the brain by using the pre-frontal cortext switching rapidly between various tasks, or if some of the tasks are offloaded into other parts of the brain, but it happens.

Re:Basically

[vertinox]

That sounds like an excellent environment to play in if you want to improve your concentration.

I remember reading in a book about meditation, that although you are tempted to only meditate in a quiet environment, you also want to try learning how to do it in a noisy one. Say on a noisy bus or when your neighbors are playing loud music again.

That way, you are able to relax all the time regardless of distractions.

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though talking on the phone and driving isn't necessarily what this article is talking about, I think it does fall into your classification of "boring things".

I always find driving boring. I sleep most of the way home.

Re:Basically

[ignavus]

It would be interesting to see some research actually showing whether you can improve your multitasking skills.

Sex change?

Re:Basically

[swb]

Oh, I do, but it doesn't stop ANY 5 year old I know from being insistent.

In the particular case I described I was deliberately ignoring him to annoy him and see how far he'd go.

Re:Basically

[fractoid]

Well it stands to reason that there's either a false dichotomy or there's a true one.

Waaaait a minute. I see what you did there.

Re:Basically

[anotherzeb]

Haven't tried prayer but agree with meditation and reading. Add playing (and practising) a musical instrument. Basically anything that requires attention to be focussed for a prolonged (40 minutes to an hour) period but that the mind might naturally wander away from, so you have to practise returning your focus to the relevant subject all the time. Just like any kind of exercise, it gets easier the more you do it. If focus is a real problem or you want to become a focus ninja, reduce or cut out the mind wandering distractions and take time paying attention to whatever you're doing (really take in the smell and feel of what you're cooking rather than thinking of what's on television next, that sort of thing). I bet you'll notice things you hadn't seen before. I bet you'll also find it easier to have all of your attention on any particular task AND be able to switch it all to another task just as quickly as you already do, making you a better multitasker than if you multitask by only having part of your attention on a few different things.

Re:Basically

[anotherzeb]

I agree, but learn and practise in a quiet place first

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

Best euphemism EVER to describe a talkative spouse. An Aural Artist. LOL!

I said I was looking for an Oral Artist, damnit!

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a recent study (forget where now) that showed nobody is really good at multitasking regardless of what they think. People who stay focused and finish tasks always got more done in the same time period.

Re:Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you have failed to understand the study which the article alleges to explain. This is not entirely your fault. The author of the article has crammed in a bunch of irrelevant and somewhat misleading anecdotes in an attempt to add human interest. (This is an often-misused journalistic technique.)

I urge you to read this press release about the study: "Media multitaskers pay mental price, Stanford study shows". It is rather drier but explains the actual methods and findings much more clearly.

The study naturally has its limitations, so one ought not to draw inappropriate conclusions from it. Nevertheless, it is an interesting result and has convinced me that some common practices can de-train a person's capacity for focus without their realizing it.

After you read the press release, you may want to try out the Flash game which is linked from the NYT article's page. You can compare your own performance to the 'high' and 'low' multitaskers' results.

Re:Basically

[sjames]

My challenge would be summarized as: How well did the people who had only red rectangles do at noticing movement in the blue ones?

You completely whooshed on that one! The blue ones are by definition irrelevant. They are the guy in the office bragging about his new car or the annoying commercial on somebody's radio. They are the guy spinning in his office chair in the control room while the reactor coolant pump fails. They are the caller on the cellphone as the driver plows through the children going to school.

Missing 90% of the kids or missing all of the kids 90% of the time just won't cut it. Nine women can't make a baby in a month and 10 half assed tasks don't add up to even one well done one.

In programming, it is well documented that some small portion of programmers are more productive than ten average ones. Not one of them is a multi-tasker.

The problem, as multiple studies have shown, is that only 3% of the population ACTUALLY gets the kind of results you seem to expect. Unfortunately, as with many things, much more than 3% of the population THINK they are in that 3%.

It may also be that what you are seeing is that multi-tasking on purpose isn't TOO damaging to performance compared to unintentional multi-tasking. Perhaps you have never seen what you could accomplish if you ever actually single tasked.

I do agree that the technology isn't to blame. It IS possible to pay appropriate attention. The technology doesn't MAKE you talk and drive or check your email every 5 seconds. The technology only provides the temptation.

Re:Basically

[sjames]

As TFA points out, some people have gotten SO bad at focus that they can't even focus on enjoyable and stimulating tasks anymore. For those people it may be necessary to start with video games.

Re:Basically

[thsths]

> If you want to be good at multi-tasking, practice multi-tasking.
> If you want to be good at focusing, practice focusing.

The problem is that research shows multi-tasking to be a given ability, you have it from birth, or you don't.

The question is still open for focusing. It depends a lot on physical processes within your body, but personally I think there is an element of practice to it.

The important thing to remember is that people who say they are good at focusing usually are, while people who say they are good at multi-tasking are usually just bad at focusing.

Re:Basically

[phantomfive]

The problem is that research shows multi-tasking to be a given ability, you have it from birth, or you don't.

Are you sure about this? I am unaware of such research. I do agree with your final conclusion, however.

step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[petes_PoV]

We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a phonecall. Even if we have no idea who's calling, we are prepared to interrupt most activities and (unforgivably) most people in order to speak to a little voice who almost certainly only called because they want something.

I say, let them wait. If it's important they can leave a message - although there's nothing that a normal person can tell us that can't bear being delayed for an hour or two. If they are prepared to do some work themselves, they can TEXT you, instead.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[Ephemeriis]

We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a phonecall. Even if we have no idea who's calling, we are prepared to interrupt most activities and (unforgivably) most people in order to speak to a little voice who almost certainly only called because they want something.

I say, let them wait. If it's important they can leave a message - although there's nothing that a normal person can tell us that can't bear being delayed for an hour or two. If they are prepared to do some work themselves, they can TEXT you, instead.

Exactly.

The problem isn't the technology itself, it is our reaction to it.

We've built some kind of always-on, instant gratification communication system. Folks expect to be able to instantly communicate with basically anyone about basically anything at basically any time.

I get bombarded all day long with phone calls, instant messages, emails, whatever. Many of these are just useless status updates or questions that they could have answered themselves with about 30 seconds of thought... But the impulse is to reach out and touch someone.

And my impulse is to stop whatever I'm doing and respond to the phone call/text message/IM/email/whatever.

It is horribly distracting, but I can't really blame anyone but myself.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[couchslug]

"We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a phonecall. "

In the immortal words of Tonto when surrounded by hostile warriors: "Who's "we", Kemosabe?"

I direct all practical commo to EMAIL because I DEMAND non-synchronous communication with a trail. I DEMAND the time to reply with a composed response, and I will have that. (I'm polite, use passive resistance where expedient, but generally "either use email or fuck off".) I don't care to text, I'm away from the landline, and my cell reception officially sucks unless I want to talk to you.

I don't do conversations to set a mood. Pass the info and "clear the channel".

Modern comms cut both ways. Use them to get what you want instead of yielding to others, but sell what you want as a way to improve their experience. (Lying when useful, fuck 'em.)

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[drummerboybac]

I bet you are a RIOT at parties :-D

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[Hylandr]

I fixed this a while ago.

By not having a phone, or a TV. Instant messages can be ignored. If it's a bill it can come via Snail Mail, and email is checked once when I get home, and then again right before I go to bed.

The problem is, as previously stated, our reaction to the interception. We do have a cell phone, but I can count the number of people that have the number on one hand. Even then, it's for emergencies and checking on children.

And seriously, there's no point in risking your life, or anyone elses for that matter, trying to call your Boss on the cell while driving to tell them you're going to be 5 minutes late. We dealt with no cell phones or instant contact before cell phones. Try to remember what that was like, and lets get back there again. Buggers can wait!

- Dan.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[PolygamousRanchKid]

We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a phonecall.

The PolygamousRanchMother forbid the PolygamousRanchSiblings and myself from answering the phone during dinner. Her comment was, "if it's important, they'll call back."

Today, I appreciate that training. Especially when I am having a one-on-one with somebody, and the phone rings, and the person jumps as if startled, and that life on our planet will cease to exist if he or she does not answer the phone.

The coolest execs or distinguished engineers that I have met, just take a quick glance at the phone to see who is calling, and then gets back to the business that we were discussing.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[Lumpy]

some people are. I gladly let the phone ring, or if I am busy I reach over and click silence. I "trained" myself that the phone is my tool and it will do my bidding. not the other way around.

I find it odd how many love to enslave themselves to an object.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, yes. I had a similar epiphany quite a while ago so it's refreshing that other people are feeling the same way. Maybe 10 years ago now, I was at a friend's house and we were catching up with some people on IRC, then we decided to go to the shop for snacks, I was actually concerned that he had four or five private chat whindows open with messages waiting and he didn't even put in an afk message - then it suddenly occurred to me, why the hell are we shaping our lives around the demands of technology? Those four or five people won't be offended if we take ten minutes out to go buy munchies, and if they are they're probably not the kind of people you want to have in your social circle anyway - once you realise this it's very liberating, especially when it comes to mobiles, mine used to be a constant interruption but now I decide when I have time to talk or when I'm busy. When a friend genuinely needs me, I'll go out of my way to make time for them, the rest of the time I'm not prepared to chase around after my various devices. Some people still think it's odd when a call comes through to me and I'll flip it to silent and let it go to answerphone, like the person calling is using technology and is therefore much more deserving of my attention than the person I'm in the same physical space as. Crazy.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[DeadDecoy]

Ya, I have similar habits, which is funny because I'm considered the 'tech' guy in my family. I have no cable, leave my landline unplugged (to stop annoying solicitors), and leave my cell at home on silent. Email is about as close as I get to 'instant messaging' nowadays. And this helps me focus on whatever tasks need my immediate attention (like commenting on slashdot :D).
My family (parents and siblings), interestingly enough, finds this annoying because they want instant access. I think because I spend more time around computers than them, I'm a bit disenchanted as to the utility, or life-quality improvements yet-another-device will add to my life.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[Hognoxious]

I have no cable, leave my landline unplugged (to stop annoying solicitors)

Don't you have call barristering?

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[Anonymous Coward]

The nice thing about cell phones (or at least a subset of them) is that you can silence them without having to answer them. Doing that for a land line doesn't work very well but with most cellphones these days you can check to see who's calling, make a decision and silence it and call back later when it's convenient for you. Removes so much stress.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[DeadDecoy]

Erm, I don't know if barristering is the right word, but I did register my number on the no-call list and a few calls still got through. I like having the landline around in case I need to make faxes, but otherwise it doesn't see much use. So, I keep it unplugged. Easier than fiddling with another gadget to filter my calls.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[Gilmoure]

Yup. Even at work (remote tech support), I've gone from trying to answer every call and work as many problems at once to only working a couple active issues at a time and letting VM catch things.

I've also turned off all audible alarms for email, IM, etc.

For outside of work, I find doing anything with my hands (wood work, drawing, music) really helps stress relief and getting my concentration back.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[calmofthestorm]

This is why I pass all calls through to voicemail unless the call is by appointment. People abuse the phone to ask me simple questions where an email would have done it in a fraction of the time. If you want to call and chat for an hour that's still doable, but my phone no longer generates interrupts.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[mentar]

How come you people get bombarded with so much information? I felt lonely now that I read all of these comments.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[MoriaOrc]

Both of my last two phones have been able to be silenced by pressing the volume button (in either direction). They were also flip phones, so they were answered by opening the case (and in the older phones case, also pressing a button since it didn't have an external LCD).

This was very convenient when I got a call that I wanted to silence ASAP (in class, in a meeting, etc), since I could just squeeze the pocket the phone was in, and 90% of the time I'd hit one of the volume buttons, and there was no chance of accidentally answering.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[mhajicek]

That's the nice thing about having your friends / spouse text you; you can look at it when you have a spare moment. Also if I'm talking with someone and I get a call, I look to see who's calling and decide which is more important at the moment. I don't answer blocked calls at any time.

Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings

[dargaud]

We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a phonecall. Even if we have no idea who's calling, we are prepared to interrupt most activities and (unforgivably) most people

Story to illustrate the point: I go to my local camera store during off-peak hours in order to purchase a big lens. 3 salesmen, each with a customer. I think: "ok, this isn't gonna take long". Phone rings. 1st salesman answers, interrupting his customer for 10 minutes. 2nd phone rings, 2nd salesman does the same. Repeat with 3rd one. And a couple more times after the first calls.

Eventually one of them finishes with his customer, after half an hour. I step forward and open my mouth when the telephone rings... I say very loudly: "either you speak with a paying customer or with a non-paying one, your call". The guy answered the call. I left and ordered my lens on the 'net.

It also reminds me of the story of a guy standing in a long line where the attendant kept answering the phone. Eventually he found out the phone number, called, and asked to be taken care off while waving. Big cheer from the crowd. After that the attendant left the phone off the hook.

Are you sure about it this time?

[jeffmeden]

I was convinced I couldn't concentrate thanks to Toxoplasmosis... But I guess if I managed to get through an entire Economist article, I can't be doing *too* bad. Maybe it's just hypochondria?

Right topic, wrong answer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that concentrating is very easy. Sitting down and working out a specific task, even if I'm jumping all over the place. How-ever, paying attention to what I'm actually doing, spending my life in-front of a glowing screen for reward units, is more difficult to notice.

My favorite line in TFA

[mcgrew]

"This is your brain on computers". It brought back memories of a funny poster they used to have:

This is your brain.
This is your brain on drugs.
This is your brain on drugs with a side of bacon.

Re:My favorite line in TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BTLwDZxhL._SS500_.jpg

Re:My favorite line in TFA

[somersault]

My favourite paragraph:

In high school, he balanced computers, basketball and a romance with Brenda, a cheerleader with a gorgeous singing voice. He studied too, with focus, uninterrupted by e-mail. “I did my homework because I needed to get it done,” he said. “I didn’t have anything else to do.”

Huh? Poor show, Brenda!

Focus?

[scottwilkins]

I have no problems with foc.. Squirrel!

Re:Focus?

[imakemusic]

Apparently the average persons attention span is

Re:Focus?

[karnal]

I really don't understand why

Focus

[thijsh]

I could focus if only Slashdot would stop posting these (very) short bursts of information...

Obligatory XKCD

[lobiusmoop]

Addiction

Re:Obligatory XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

best xkcd ever!

My thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is .. hold on... the facts are ... wait a sec, gotta take this. Now, where was I? Oh, right. Slashdot. What the fickle finger of fate am I doing here?

I don't buy it

[jollyreaper]

Totally ridiculous. I ... hold on, gotta take this call.

Paying a Mental Price.

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists and everything they say undermine my ability to focus.

I agree

[pcraven]

I used to be a good programmer until I got into management. The flood of information, calls, and e-mails that came in seriously did a number on my brain. It felt like it was being remapped.

I've gotten out of that field, but I still feel the effects from it. Now I've taken to learning Russian. I think I enjoy it because of the concentration required.

Re:I agree

[alen]

managers learn to use software tools to prioritize. Outlook calendar, tasks, MS Project and the others. this is about the ADHD people that think they are the borg, but they are not. and making things worse for themselves. it's like a small family business i recently dealt with. one guy they hired was very overworked and they needed another person. but they probably don't want to hire someone because they think it's money out of their pocket instead of growing the business. so i gave my business to someone that gave me better service

Re:I agree

[bmwEnthusiast]

In Soviet Russia, the phone answers you!

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

So then you understand the phrase: "In Soviet Russia, Russian remaps you!"

Re:I agree

[nine-times]

I'm sure your brain was remapping itself. Whenever I've gotten into programming, I can feel the verbal/emotional parts of my brain getting repurposed for other things. After spending a lot of time coding, I basically wouldn't be able to talk to people.

I think the brain is very malleable in certain ways. You can't make it do anything you want, but if you spend enough time thinking about certain kinds of problems, your brain will try to optimize itself for solving those problems, and learn to ignore everything else.

Re:I agree

[sciencewhiz]

My program manager claims it's necessary to have a frontal lobotomy to get into management.

all these always connected people make me laugh

[alen]

i carry a blackberry and an iphone and think tech is great, but some of these people that are trying to do 5 things at once look like ADHD or OCD cases that can't do one thing right. they get halfway done with something until the next email or IM comes in and it's off to the next thing.

i don't even have the corporate IM client installed because i think it's annoying. worst thing is to be constantly interrupted while writing SQL code or reading an interesting article by someone asking about something not important that can easily be done over email. where i'll read it when i have the chance. i already have all kinds of alerts set up for a real emergency that needs to be looked at right away. the worst people are those that want to call on the phone about things that can be done over email and need to have a written record of communication

it still amazes me that we're in a software dev reboot where our most used OS's and software are going from multi-gigabyte sizes to less than 1GB on mobile devices. and yet it's still full of bugs. sometimes worse than the bloat of desktop software. this may be a reason why. people don't concentrate and are always jumping from one thing to the next.

Re:all these always connected people make me laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

It works both ways though. I work in a small shop for a mid-sized company. I live or die by e-mails when I'm at work, which are naturally tied into my phone. That quickdraw response to messages is built in out of habit now.

However, prioritizing is the name of game. People multitask all the time. It just takes on different forms. Any task can be honed with time.

If you wanna completely throw off this study, lock a 13 year old in a white room filled with tech...although, that mind get your some jailtime.

Ability to focus lost long ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we already left school, and don't spend our lives in an academic lab

Time to catch up with the rest of the world, little miss ivory tower

Research Suggests Brain Has a 2-Task Limit

[PatPending]

In related news:

Research Suggests Brain Has a 2-Task Limit for Multitasking

Summary:

"The brain is set up to manage two tasks, but not more, a new study suggests. That's because, when faced with two tasks, a part of the brain known as the medial prefrontal cortex (MFC) divides so that half of the region focuses on one task and the other half on the other task. This division of labor allows a person to keep track of two tasks pretty readily, but if you throw in a third, things get a bit muddled. 'What really the results show is that we can readily divide tasking. We can cook, and at the same time talk on the phone, and switch back and forth between these two activities,' said study researcher Etienne Koechlin of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France. 'However, we cannot multitask with more than two tasks.'"

Re:Research Suggests Brain Has a 2-Task Limit

[PatPending]

Replying to self:

Ah, so that's what "MFC" stands for.

And given that it divides half and half, it explains why programs written with it would not support more than two simultaneous threads.

Re:Research Suggests Brain Has a 2-Task Limit

[Anonymous Coward]

You set them up... and... you knock them down.

Re:Research Suggests Brain Has a 2-Task Limit

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly those scientists haven't seen a Korean Starcraft Tournament.

This is absolutely true.

[rAiNsT0rm]

I used to work a job that require me to be on-call 24/7 and I was tethered by these kinds of gadgets... I kind of burnt out and took a job not requiring on-call at all and I also ditched a smartphone altogether. I use a plain Samsung phone and I have an iPod Touch. That's it now. I'm far happier even though I'm less "connected" and it isn't just because of the job change.

Life is essentially one big distraction these days and no one knows how to just enjoy what it happening. People have to contantly be tweeting or on Facebook or snapping pics and talking about the concert/meal/vacation/whatever *while* it is happening. They barely actually enjoy the event because it is instead spent telling everyone else about it. This is going to have a terrible impact long-term and already is. People are more easily frustrated and distracted and have lost the ability to just singularly enjoy something. It's a shame.

Re:This is absolutely true.

[vlm]

They barely actually enjoy the event because it is instead spent telling everyone else about it. This is going to have a terrible impact long-term and already is.

How long have cameras been widely available to the public? There have been people with that character fault for at least a century and we're still mostly OK.

Your kid is playing soccer and you're watching instead of fiddling with your camera? Hell yeah I'm enjoying the game.

We're at (insert scenic outlook/cultural event) and you're looking instead of fiddling with your camera? Hell yeah I'm enjoying the view.

Despite the VERY LOUD claims by the smartphone'd / camera'd folks whom think their lifestyle is the ONLY outlook on life that could possibly exist, the rest of us disagree and we are absolutely loving life...

Re:This is absolutely true.

[rAiNsT0rm]

I understand where you are coming from since we are in the same boat... and if you only hang with similarly-minded folks it would seem that we are all "mostly" OK... but that isn't the case. I worked for some time at a private university and when you actually spend time with and in close proximity to the youth you realize it is not "OK" it isn't a minority, it is an overwhelming majority. Easily 75-80%.

Re:This is absolutely true.

[vlm]

Well, I hate to respond with the weirdest ever combination of Social Darwinism, AA theory, and Buddhism, but either:

1) It's working for them, in which case that's nice for them, and nice for me as long as they stop trying to recruit me into their bizarre worldview.

2) Or life isn't working for them, its all eternally reoccurring suffering and slow death by their own bad choices, in which case you have to have faith they'll admit they have a problem, then find their way thru it, perhaps with our help, in order to join the rest of "us" whom are having fun with life.

So, I'd still stand by its "OK" as long as they shut up and leave me alone. And get off my lawn.

Why it's wro oo, a comment field

[Culture20]

TFA is wrong because
What does submit button do?

Future Shock

[handy_vandal]

See Future Shock by Alvin Toffler:

Toffler argues that society is undergoing an enormous structural change, a revolution from an industrial society to a "super-industrial society". This change will overwhelm people, the accelerated rate of technological and social change leaving them disconnected and suffering from "shattering stress and disorientation" – future shocked. Toffler stated that the majority of social problems were symptoms of the future shock. In his discussion of the components of such shock, he also coined the term information overload.

Published in 1970 -- based on a 1965 article -- and still timely today.

Re:Future Shock

[vlm]

Published in 1970 -- based on a 1965 article -- and still timely today.

Toffler is pretty much obsolete. He never really understood the shifts the labor market.

Toffler's theory was the middle class would become rich by taking lower-upper class type jobs and educations, leading to the stress of how to spend all that money on things they don't really culturally understand. Kind of like watching folks flail around randomly during the housing bubble run-up when they suddenly got more money than they could handle, but on a larger scale. You could summarize his book to an analysis of the cultural stresses of an upwardly mobile society.

The way it turned out, is the jobs disappeared. Everyone but the extremely rich is poorer. Rather than stressing about which ipod to buy, and what that means culturally, for most people, the stress is the more traditional concerns but with more financial pressure, like how to pay the mortgage on a walmart greeter salary, or wouldn't it be nice to afford health care. You could summarize reality to being a stressed downwardly mobile society.

His "shattering stress and disorientation" turned out to be "I lost my job and there are no jobs in my field in this country anymore" rather than his idea of "how will I fit into the country club conspicuous consumption crowd". Or the "shattering stress and disorientation" of "we've downsized your five person department to ... you, and you get to do all the work yourself. Now hurry up and meet the growth goals or there's four people in line to replace you"

Re:Future Shock

[handy_vandal]

I agree with your assessment that Toffler got it wrong when forecasting shifts in labor.

But I believe he was right about "information overload" -- too much, too fast -- and the accelerating rate of technological and social change.

Re:Future Shock

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaarg! I've spent all my mod points by this point. :-(
Mod parent up!

Re:Future Shock

[Rockoon]

Toffler's theory was the middle class would become rich by taking lower-upper class type jobs and educations, leading to the stress of how to spend all that money on things they don't really culturally understand.

...

The way it turned out, is the jobs disappeared. Everyone but the extremely rich is poorer. Rather than stressing about which ipod to buy...

Poorer, but buying iPods? Future Shock was writing in a period where something like a portable music player was a pipe dream. Now everyone has one. We all also have cell phones, dvd and blueray players.. We can feed ourselves for a month on one to two days of salary.

We are poor in the sense that you are a jealous ass that doesnt know how well off you are.

The reality is that you are also wrong because your criticism is two decades late. He wasn't writing about now.. Future Shock is about what eventually happened in the 80's and early 90's. Its not relevant today because we are in the middle of the 3rd wave.. you are so informed by the global communication system he predicted, and so rich just as predicted, that you do not even worry about making the wrong choice when buying a piece of technology. There are plenty of good choices and you can afford all of them. Its hard to fuck it up badly. Thus, you don't worry.

Technology is now hyper-disposable because we are insanely rich. Period. You are rich. Individuals in our society throws away the equivalent of a billion 1950's room-sized mainframe computers as if it was nothing. You do it. I do it. We all do it.

He did write a books about now, and we are in the overlap of The Third Wave and Power Shift.

Nations have less and less control. Multinationals have more and more control. Predicted. Even the rise of the global communication network, and the exponential growth of the value of information.. predicted. Slashdot is all about putting up articles about Intelectual Property and so forth.. the very shit he predicted would be a defining concern of this age.

Re:Future Shock

[uniquegeek]

And those of us who are perfectionists beat ourselves up for not being able to "handle" it all.

Bookmarks and lesser to-do lists, unfinished projects or "projects I should really do sometime" become a guilty burden. When we have the expectation that we're supposed to do everything and follow every lead, we feel like failures when we don't.

Re:Future Shock

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology is now hyper-disposable because we are insanely indebted. Period.

FTFY

Re:Future Shock

[vlm]

We are poor in the sense that you are a jealous ass that doesnt know how well off you are.

Oh, I'm well aware indeed. The lifestyle you describe is for us few remaining middle class folks.

Now everyone has one.

We can feed ourselves for a month on one to two days of salary.

Technology is now hyper-disposable because we are insanely rich. Period. You are rich.

Yes, us rich extremely highly technically trained slashdotters. Joe 6 pack at the median income? No freaking way. Yes I personally am kind of rich, not quite up to the "no longer need to work" level or "buy my own tropical island" level, and I get the feeling you're vaguely near my situation, but everyone is by no means at that point. At the national median income level, your preposterous assumption that one days work feeds you for a month comes out, after taxes and split amongst a family of four, to about one can of soda per person per meal. Or maybe a big bowl of rice instead. Not exactly the steak and shrimp lifestyle I enjoy.

Individuals in our society throws away the equivalent of a billion 1950's room-sized mainframe computers as if it was nothing. You do it. I do it. We all do it.

Actually, the poor don't. They don't get health care either.

Nations have less and less control. Multinationals have more and more control. Predicted. Even the rise of the global communication network, and the exponential growth of the value of information.. predicted. Slashdot is all about putting up articles about Intelectual Property and so forth.. the very shit he predicted would be a defining concern of this age.

Agreed. But thats all for us "slashdotters" not the worlds TV watchers.

Re:Future Shock

[nine-times]

Toffler's theory was the middle class would become rich by taking lower-upper class type jobs and educations, leading to the stress of how to spend all that money on things they don't really culturally understand.

I'm not sure that sounds wrong to me. Sure, there are still a lot of poor people, but the "middle class" family has 3 cars. Each "middle class" person has a TV, a computer, a cell phone, and an iPod. Everyone goes to college. It seems to me that there is a stress of figuring out how to spend/invest money on things that they don't understand and don't necessarily "need", which is part of what's exacerbating the boom/bust economic cycle.

Re:Future Shock

[Rockoon]

Oh, I'm well aware indeed. The lifestyle you describe is for us few remaining middle class folks.

Our poor people buy these things. Open your eyes.

262 million cell phones subscribers in the united states.

227 million internet users in the united states

The median income of the united states is enough to afford plenty of shit we dont need.

Dont be a jealous ass. We are rich. The whole "upper class" vs "middle class" vs "lower class" shit is exactly that.. shit. That doesnt tell you how rich you are. How rich you are is irrespective of how much more other people have. If I had a 100 trillion dollars, would that instantly make everyone else poor? This tactic of class separation is tired old shit pulled by politicians that want to sell you a story and get your vote. They prey on your jealousy and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Harry Kahne's Multiple Mentality Course

[orthicviper]

the best multi-tasker i ever heard about was Harry Kahne. he wrote a book that he claims could help anyone do lots of feats simultaneously. he's worth reading about if you want to be impressed! http://www.rexresearch.com/kahne/kahne.htm

In Soviet Russia,

[circletimessquare]

Russian is better than management!

According to one researcher

[DynaSoar]

..."There is no doubt that technology which is only marginally related influences behavior. We've always had a more or less informal delineation of clubs into "hunting club", "fighting club" and "hit woman over head to catch her club". If one morning we happened to grab the wrong club, what would come of it other than some good natured ribbing from our fellows? But now, with the advent of painting the cave walls with streaks of dye and colored rock powders, creating images of incidents from everyday cave life, one never knows when one might be captured in such an image. Having one's soul swallowed whole by these images is problematic enough, but to be encased in an image showing one bringing home a gazelle while carrying the woman hunting club, well that's the origin of the sort of social upheaval that results in fragmentation of groupings and loss of contact with our cultural mores." The investigator's researcher partner only added "Hyuck hyuck hyuck, oh that Fred sure can get wound up when you get him talking.

Obligatory "Correlation != Causation" post

[DCheesi]

The two main studies highlighted in the article both suffer from a sort of self-selection bias: the people in the "heavy-multitasking" group(s) are there because of a chosen lifestyle. Perhaps the reason they multitask so much in everyday life is *because* they can't filter out information as well as the average person?

They can't help but be constantly distracted, so they suffer the downsides of multitasking whether they use technology or not. Deliberate multitasking might actually represent a coping mechanism for them, saturating their awareness with tasks and information sources that are at least somewhat productive, thus leaving no room for truly random distractions. Or perhaps priding themselves on their "multitasking skills" is just a way to paper over their inherent weakness and re-frame it as a positive attribute?

Re:Obligatory "Correlation != Causation" post

[phantomfive]

Not only that, they don't sound like multi-taskers so much as people with ADD. The first guy doesn't seem to be choosing to multi-task, he seems unable to ignore any stimulus that comes his way. A new email comes? He must check it. Interesting news story? Must read it. That can be a serious problem.

Re:Obligatory "Correlation != Causation" post

[nebular]

Welcom to the world of ADHD.

We either see it all, or only see the one, and most often we have no control over which.

Re:Obligatory "Correlation != Causation" post

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. While articles/studies of multitasking aren't unnecessary, I find they often overlook something we already know much about: basic human nature. Of course, I didn't RTFA (beyond skimming the first 4 paragraphs), but once again I was thinking: (1)again they've chosen an extreme case for the focal point of the article, and (2)to what entent are these people looking for a distraction? Are they not wanting to deal with some unpleasant aspect of their personality or deal with a personal problem, such that incessant exposure to information serves as the coping mechanism you mentioned?

In terms of ego, yes, as you pointed out, people do pride themselves on being "busy" and telling everyone around them how "busy" they are. I'm 41, and I've seen this happen with friends/family for years, be it through excessive multimedia exposure or otherwise. Something is lacking in their lives and they are yearning for a substitute or a distraction. Consider the couple you've known for a long time who then have children. I've seen people handle child-rearing well, and I've seen others running in circles, completely disorganized but always "busy" doing something so important that everything and everyone else should get out of their way because their excessive sense of self-importance tells them so. Whether people are wrapped up in child-rearing or media inundation, they are doing _something_ (no matter how mindless or mindful it might be) that makes them feel like an important person on the go doing important things, and the result at the end of the day is a twitter/facebook page that will just wow their "friends" (honestly, who cares?!) or, in the case of child rearing, an exhausted parent who might not be so tired if they weren't so disorganized. But if they were not so tired then they couldn't so easily cast aside whatever internal dissonance they might have to deal with. Again, this is not the case with all parents, just as it is not the case that all tech users are in multitask hell. I think many people spinelessly choose to just drift wherever the winds blow them, feeling uberimportant all the while.

Did anyone read the title as:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hookers with gadgets, and paying a mental price... *shudder*

No time to read this? Read this.

[PatPending]

This article is immensely helpful (print link with pop-up):

No time to read this? Read this.

Of the three techniques mentioned, the "Pomodoro Technique" works best for me:

I start each day by making a log of things to do, then tackle each in 25-minute intervals called Pomodoros. When a Pomodoro is over, I mark an X on the log next to the item I am working on, then take a refreshing 3- to 5-minute break. Nothing must be allowed to interrupt a Pomodoro. If co-workers barge in, Mr. Cirillo advises trying to defer the conversation.

Re:No time to read this? Read this.

[mmaniaci]

Waste. Of. Time.

The method is based on the idea that time-management tools and techniques should be simple

But the reality is that all aspects of time management are not simple, and any plan you make at the beginning of the day will change dramatically by the time you leave the office. Like he mentioned in the paragraph you quoted, if a co-worker barges in, your entire plan is ruined. You have to spend a few minutes rescheduling with the co-worker and then get back into your work... all before the 25min timer goes "ding." What if your boss drops a very important, time-sensitive task in your lap? "Sorry sir, I made a list this morning and it can't be changed without messing up my crackpot time-management schedule." The overhead to this method seems absolutely ridiculous, and IMHO everyone should come up with their own techniques for handling their work day. Buying into internet theories day after day is probably the reason why those mentioned in TFA are so incapable of concentration.

Re:No time to read this? Read this.

[jrumney]

The Pomodoro technique does not involve rigid scheduling. It encourages you to only list the tasks that need to be done in order of priority at the start of the day along with estimates of how long they will take, not to come up with a full schedule. You then mark off how many 25 minute slots that you spend on each task. It also allows for writing off a 25 minute slot if an urgent interruption comes in. In that case, you don't count the 25 minutes as spent productively on the task you were doing, it counts only as time wasted. The aim is to condition you and others who interrupt your day to allow long enough stretches of working to get things done, and also to force you to clear your mind every half hour by taking a break.

Re:step #1, -- Stop leting Tech define YOU!

[Azarman]

This will always be a problem with instant communication,

However, I have NEVER let my mobile phone dictate my social interaction, for example if my phone goes when my friends and I are chatting I DO NOT ANSWER IT, they see this action and if they then call me and I dont pick up the assume I am currently busy. This dynamic has taken rather a lot to work in to my every day life since most people expect instant reply but its now understood that if it is important leave a VM or text message and I will get back to you when I can.

This also works with Email, Best practice is to only look at your mail once every hour instead of always letting it run how your day goes.

Take control people and stop letting technology and the people around you decide what you do and when :/

once you've mastered chess try go

[Anonymous Coward]

once you've mastered chess try go. well, anyway, as a chess enthusiast i found go quite mind expanding. when you can handle playing on a full size board after working your way up from a 9x9, 13x13 ... or just make the jump from small to the full 19x19, when you make that adaption its quite a moment of satori. initially i was incapable of seeing the whole board shape, fuseki, and its still what really interests me, but you have to keep ontop of the micro too. i really feel that go will definitely improve your ability to focus. other than that, the other thing that has coincided with improved focus in my life has been semesters of several proof based mathematical courses, analysis/group theory. that kind of math really involves creativity, well it does when you need to solve problems and actually apply the theory (even if there is nobody setting assignments) which i think is required to really benefit.

500 bucks for an iPad?

[Hognoxious]

500 bucks for an iPad? Now that price really is mental!

more on multitasking limitations

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only are human brains limited to 2 tasks by the medial prefrontal cortex, some grey matter subsystems are not reentrant.
Try these simple experiments:
1) Draw a cirlce with the right hand while drawing a triangle with the left hand.
2) Start to make clockwise circles with one of your feet. While continuing the foot action, draw a circle in the counter clockwise direction.
YMMV

I read the 5-page NYT article first

[Protoslo]

I had to slog my way through all five pages of the dull anecdote-filled profile of some random internet entrepreneur just so I could deride it on Slashdot. There are a handful of studies cited in TFA, all of which have been reported on before, and none of which actually establish the premise of the article. My primary conclusion was that the boring subject of the article (and possibly the rest of his family) would benefit a lot more from pharmaceutical amphetamines than from junking his Blackberry.

Training yourself reall is the key

[Rastl]

Caller ID + voice mail means I can choose which calls to take at any time.

Cell phone profiles mean I can also choose which types of communication actually alert me and which ones are silent until I decide to check my phone.

Not having a Crackberry means that I check e-mail at a time of my choosing.

The "Later" button on my cell phone means that I can postpone reading that text until I have the time and/or inclination to do so.

Not having a smart phone means that I can be away from the internet and all that it distracts.

Not being logged onto a chat program means that I again have control over how people contact me.

It seems a lot of the problems being described are self-inflicted by our fascination with technology and being connected. It's a conscious decision to disconnect at my convenience and then to stick with it. Being 'always on' is the default state for so many people that they have no concept of not immediately picking up a call, answering a text, seeing an e-mail or doing any of the other things that distract from the task at hand. Multi-tasking is not easy nor do you get the same results as when you're concentrating on a single task unless it's all fluff.

Re:Training yourself reall is the key

[MBGMorden]

Not having a Crackberry means that I check e-mail at a time of my choosing.

And a Blackberry doesn't allow you to check your mail when you choose? Sorry, but I see a small problem with those who claim that completely ridding themselves of technology is needed in order to not be consumed by it. A little personal discipline isn't hard to achieve.

Re:Training yourself reall is the key

[Rastl]

By removing the option/temptation it's much easier to not even worry about it. It's a shiny - you can't help but look at some point.

Re:Training yourself reall is the key

[xanalogical]

But if you are not available to participate with the others *right now*, they will meet and make decisions without your input. If you cannot supply answers to the boss when he needs them, he will start consulting someone else and your value to him drops.

Basically when the rest of the Borg collective are collaborating without you and progressing toward the future, you are being left behind and treated as non-essential. You had better produce some kick-ass value when you do choose to engage others or you are gone.

I actually sympathize with you and live in the disconnected world you describe but I also work hard to provide great value to offset my inconvenience to others. It works but many are not cut out for that way of life - it can be stressful and you better not stumble.

I agree, but people (and their abilities) evolve

[curmudgeous]

I used to be all about the tech, but as I age I'm finding not only that I can't keep up, but that I don't want to keep up.

Discussions like this remind me of a documentary I saw once about the building of the Erie Canal. It was reported that people along the route hated it when it first opened because it made their lives "too hectic." Barges along the canal averaged at a blistering 3 mph. :)

I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I forgot what I was thinking about. Where am I anyways?

Balance is key

[adosch]

FTFA, IMHO, the guy clearly has an addiction to the internet. He just needs to find a balance between his digital life and his real life. I find slinging code, programming AVR microcontrollers, hacking around in Linux, ect. ect. ect. on top of being a UNIX/Linux sysadmin for a living to be quite the wet dream, but it doesn't consume my life. Who wouldn't overwhelmed with hundreds of e-mails in their inbox on a daily basis? I know I am when I'm gone even a long weekend at work. The problem is technologies like text messages, e-mail and instant messaging get abused and often, more times than none, used for the completely wrong situations. What could be solved in a simple hall way conversation gets exacerbated in some bloated, word-smithed e-mail or instant message. Everyone does it for CYA, I get it. They think our brains are going to be re-wired is a big problem? Look at how real, human social interaction has tappered off the face of the earth. Kids next to eachother text one another in the mall. People refuse to pick up a phone and talk to someone because they want their Facebook profile to tell them all the information without any contact.

I mean, anyone wanting to buy my xyz-online company better have met me in person and at least take me out for dinner to discuss the proposal or I'd pass it off as another Nigerian e-mail scam.

Re:Balance is key

[xanalogical]

Hallway conversations are a hassle and waste of much time, at least the ones I'm involved in:

"Hey X, I've been waiting to catch you this morning. The alpha server app is hanging at midnight when we do backups and restart the db. What do you think is the problem?"

"No idea. You'll have to email me the logs and point me at the current source for that app. Then give me an hour and I'll have some suggestions for you. I had some time this morning; you could have emailed me last night when you got alerted and I might have had a fix for you already."

"Well uh, I wanted to discuss it with you in person."

"Not much to go on with just a verbal description - can't help you until later."

(inefficient...happens to me all the time, people who prefer talk over writing an email)

Re:Balance is key

[adosch]

Sounds like you're both inefficient to me. You either don't have a clue what runs where on your network, don't understand the 'big picture' operations at your department or company you support or you don't even monitor your server infrastructure, which includes what apps run on them. Regardless of requesting a reminder e-mail, you should have noticed it yourself IMHO if that's your job.

Miaaaaaow

[Hognoxious]

Or there's one that's both false and true, but you don't know until you open the box.

Sounds like ADHD

[nebular]

Sounds so very similar to ADHD. Only those of us with ADHD aren't just distracted by gadgets, we're potentially distracted by everything. Hell I get distracted by the array of spices in my cupboard (when I'm supposed to be preparing dinner, to the frustration of my wife)

Caller ID costs extra

[tepples]

The coolest execs or distinguished engineers that I have met, just take a quick glance at the phone to see who is calling

That requires an extra $100 per year service from the phone company. Execs can afford it; others not necessarily.

people telling GenYs how smart they are

[peter303]

The recurring PBS special "all things digital" had a segment on MIT and Stanford students who thought they were "so smart" because they could multi-task digital devices all the time. The PBS show reported an earlier version of the Stanford study showing these students were performing worse than their less-taxed associates. I am guessing that self-perception doesnt always match reality.

Needing a ride home; texting a land line

[tepples]

I say, let them wait. If it's important they can leave a message - although there's nothing that a normal person can tell us that can't bear being delayed for an hour or two.

Can "I need a ride home" bear being delayed for an hour or two? That's really almost all I use my cell phone for anyway, which is why I'm on Virgin Mobile's $7 per month plan.

If they are prepared to do some work themselves, they can TEXT you, instead.

Three issues:

• You can't text to or from a land line.
• U.S. cell phone carriers have tended to overcharge for texting.
• We've conditioned ourselves to stop doing almost everything in order to answer a text. Even if we have no idea who's texting, we are prepared to interrupt most activities and (unforgivably) most people in order to write a reply to a little [???] who almost certainly only texted because they want something.

Take their tests

[phantomcircuit]

I took their tests and scored perfectly in the first one and better than average in the second.

I'm a heavy multitasker.

SHENANIGANS

Re:Squirrel

[TaoPhoenix]

Database!

I have ADD

[Anonymous Coward]

What you describe as dysfunctional multi-tasking is how I am when my ADD is at its worse. I will be working on one thing when an email comes in and I start working on that when another email comes in and I'll start working on that, except I'm still thinking about the things I was working on before and will switch to the original task but then when I figure out where I left off I'll be reminded of that email I got that originally interrupted me so I will go back to replying to that and then another email will come in...
I am prescribed amphetamines, they are like installing a task manager in my brain. Most days they help tremendously and I can actually manage where my focus goes. Instead of uselessly cycling through tasks I can keep track of them and logically prioritize them at a meta level.

Fatal Utopianism

[handy_vandal]

I'm very familiar with the phenomenon you're describing.

I call it "Fatal Utopianism" -- the overwhelming, irrational, and unrealistic desire to make Everything Perfect.

I'll bet this accounts for something like 75% of all late software deliverables. (Doesn't it just bug the hell out of you that the variable named "column3" doesn't really refer to a column, but rather to a pull quote? Okay okay, the usage is consistent, the program works perfectly, no one but me will ever see the variable name ... but man, I so want to refactor that variable name!)

Re:Why it's wro oo, a comment field

[iammani]

Cant wait for you to find what the cancel button does!

The real reason?

[Foozy]

MTV.

MTV videos started the depressing slide into 'attention avoidance' by flipping a scene every 1-2 seconds. At that rate there just isn't time to *focus* on anything. The result is that the brain enters passive mode and just avoids paying attention to anything.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

A whole generation is now incapable of focusing on *anything* for a whole hour.

Wait. What?

[kriston]

Wait. What?

True that

[handy_vandal]

Well said; thanks for that humanitarian analysis.

According to the US Census Bureau:

"In 2008, 39.8 million [Americans] were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the second consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty." -- Source

Poverty overstated by census bureau?

[handy_vandal]

According to a report cited (2004) by the Heritage Foundation:

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or welloff just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowestincome onefifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

-- heritage.org

Re:Poverty overstated by census bureau?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Please do not cite anything said by the Heritage Foundation as if it came from a reliable source.

When I was hammered, not once did I see a brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what, when I was on drugs, not once did I ever see a frying pan full of eggs or bacon as ever being a brain. Not once!

After 4 days without sleep, I fuckin' thought that was breakfast!

You know it's really sad a bunch of unarmed goofy people on drugs can beat entire violent heavily-armed armies and organized deceptive entrapment raiders.

Heritage Foundation

[handy_vandal]

I should make clear: I have nothing but astonished contempt that anyone -- even a dogmatic nuthouse like the Heritage Foundation -- would try to rationalize away poverty in America.

Quoting the Heritage Foundation (or their ideological allies) is my way of saying: "My God -- people actually believe such things?"

Indy Car? Ouch

[helios17]

"Show me a car that can win the Indy 500"..... Unfortunately it wasn't this one...trust me...I know... http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9723221-1.html

Re:I agree, but people (and their abilities) evolv

[xanalogical]

>> I used to be all about the tech, but as I age I'm finding not only that I can't keep up, but that I don't want to keep up.

Then you will be left behind... are you sure that is really better? Perhaps it is, for your comfort zone but not for your career.

Re:I agree, but people (and their abilities) evolv

[curmudgeous]

I don't think of it as being left behind, but rather of getting tired of the freeway and deciding to take the scenic route for awhile. If I can't find another on ramp down the road, then so be it. ;)

I don't have an iPad, an iPhone, nor even an iPod, and I feel none the less for it.