Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hooked On Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the can't-talk-now-texting dept.

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.'"

46 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry, can you repeat that? by davidwr · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  2. Detailed analysis of why the article is wrong by snowwrestler · · Score: 4, Funny

    As soon as I finish checking Techmeme and Twitter.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Detailed analysis of why the article is wrong by machine321 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Agreed, I find that... SQUIRREL!

  3. Could someone summarize the summary? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Could someone summarize the summary? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      tl;dr

      ft4u

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. Basically by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Basically by EL_mal0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Basically by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Qxe4
    4. Re:Basically by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Basically by EL_mal0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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!"

    6. Re:Basically by anegg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Basically by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Basically by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Basically by Unordained · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

  5. step #1, ignore the phone when it rings by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings by Hylandr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    3. Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings by DeadDecoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  6. Are you sure about it this time? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  7. My favorite line in TFA by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:My favorite line in TFA by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      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!

      --
      which is totally what she said
  8. Focus? by scottwilkins · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have no problems with foc.. Squirrel!

    1. Re:Focus? by imakemusic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Apparently the average persons attention span is

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  9. Obligatory XKCD by lobiusmoop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Addiction

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  10. I agree by pcraven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  11. all these always connected people make me laugh by alen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  12. Research Suggests Brain Has a 2-Task Limit by PatPending · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.'"

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  13. This is absolutely true. by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  14. Why it's wro oo, a comment field by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

    TFA is wrong because
    What does submit button do?

  15. Future Shock by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Future Shock by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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"

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Future Shock by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Future Shock by uniquegeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  16. Harry Kahne's Multiple Mentality Course by orthicviper · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  17. Obligatory "Correlation != Causation" post by DCheesi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  18. No time to read this? Read this. by PatPending · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:No time to read this? Read this. by mmaniaci · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

  19. Training yourself reall is the key by Rastl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. Balance is key by adosch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  21. Sounds like ADHD by nebular · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)

  22. Caller ID costs extra by tepples · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  23. people telling GenYs how smart they are by peter303 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:Why it's wro oo, a comment field by iammani · · Score: 2

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