Multitaskers are poor at multitasking

[syrakusos]

from

http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Turn-Their-Attention/63746/

Divided Attention

In an age of classroom multitasking, scholars probe the nature of learning and memory

That illusion of competence is one of the things that worry scholars who study attention, cognition, and the classroom. Students' minds have been wandering since the dawn of education. But until recently—so the worry goes—students at least knew when they had checked out. A student today who moves his attention rapid-fire from text-messaging to the lecture to Facebook to note-taking and back again may walk away from the class feeling buzzed and alert, with a sense that he has absorbed much more of the lesson than he actually has.

"Heavy multitaskers are often extremely confident in their abilities," says Clifford I. Nass, a professor of psychology at Stanford University. "But there's evidence that those people are actually worse at multitasking than most people."

Indeed, last summer Nass and two colleagues published a study that found that self-described multitaskers performed much worse on cognitive and memory tasks that involved distraction than did people who said they preferred to focus on single tasks.

In other words—to borrow a metaphor from other scholars—people with strong working-memory capacities don't have a larger nightclub in their brains. They just have better bouncers working the velvet rope outside. Strong attentional abilities produce stronger fluid intelligence, Kane and others believe.

[Reidy]

A related article showed up recently at the Pope Center site. Against the claim that the decline in reading skills has been compensated by in increase in "media savvy," Bertonneau says that students don't understand video either.

[Christopher]

Cool

[Selene]

Reidy:

Very interesting. I am going to poke around in their site.

I am interested in how he is going to tie in Jacques Ellul - very interesting man, a christian anarchist.

Great book- Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. New York: Vintage Books, 1973:

"The uncultured man cannot be reached by propaganda. Experience and research done by the Germans between 1933 and 1938 showed that in remote areas, where people hardly knew how to read, propaganda had no effect The same holds true for the enormous effort in the Communist world to teach people how to read. In Korea, the local script was terribly difficult and complicated; so, in North Korea, the Communists created an entirely new alphabet and a simple script in order to teach all the people how to read. In China, Mao simplified the script in his battle with illiteracy, and in some places in China new alphabets are being created. This would have no particular significance except that the texts used to teach the adult students how to read — and which are the only texts to which they have access — are exclusively propaganda texts; they are political tracts, poems to the glory of the Communist regime, extracts of classical Marxism. Among the Tibetans, the Mongols, the Ouighbours, the Manchus, the only texts in the new script are Mao's works. Thus, we see here a wonderful shaping tool: The illiterates are taught to read only the new script; nothing is published in that script except propaganda texts; therefore, the illiterates cannot possibly read — or know — anything else."

He was a marxist and converted to Christianity when he was 22.

Adam

Edited February 5, 2010 by Selene

[anthony]

Michael,

To a confirmed uni-tasker this could be good news. At least something to stop those smug 'multi-taskers' in their tracks!

Maybe that legend that women are better at multi-tasking will also be burst.

One I know, used as proof of m-t, the fact that she could put on lipstick, and drive at the same time.

Yep, she's still alive.

Tony

[klnielsen]

Michael,

To a confirmed uni-tasker this could be good news. At least something to stop those smug 'multi-taskers' in their tracks!

Maybe that legend that women are better at multi-tasking will also be burst.

One I know, used as proof of m-t, the fact that she could put on lipstick, and drive at the same time.

Yep, she's still alive.

Tony

Go read where a very eloquent woman, Kathy Sierra, rips multi-tasking a new orifice.

Creating Passionate Users: Multitasking Makes Us Stupid?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kelly,

I have a few Head First technical books (from the same world as Sierra). They are very, very good.

Michael

[psychoanaleesis]

I read something of the sort in a newspaper article about a year ago. Turns out, multi-taskers produce less output than those who focus on singular tasks. Based also on my observations, those who multi-task on activities forget more the main idea of the said activities.

Consequently, this begs a grave philosophical question: If people forget the essence of what they have done, then would it mean that they have not lived at that time? I say this because I see the life of man, cannot be expressed in quantities upon quantities of detail but rather in higher concepts such as "moments".

[Selene]

David:

Consequently, this begs a grave philosophical question: If people forget the essence of what they have done, then would it mean that they have not lived at that time? I say this because I see the life of man, cannot be expressed in quantities upon quantities of detail but rather in higher concepts such as "moments".

Very interesting. Would you clarify, as best you can, the term "essence" as you mean to use it please.

Adam

Post Script:

The anarchist threads became so, you know, crazy and uncontrolled...so chaotic...so anarchistic, lol. So I will have to look for one that was not hijacked into the great anarchistic swirling void...

[psychoanaleesis]

David:

Consequently, this begs a grave philosophical question: If people forget the essence of what they have done, then would it mean that they have not lived at that time? I say this because I see the life of man, cannot be expressed in quantities upon quantities of detail but rather in higher concepts such as "moments".

Very interesting. Would you clarify, as best you can, the term "essence" as you mean to use it please.

Adam

Post Script:

The anarchist threads became so, you know, crazy and uncontrolled...so chaotic...so anarchistic, lol. So I will have to look for one that was not hijacked into the great anarchistic swirling void...

Ooh, touche, rather difficult to explain even for me... I was referring to the purpose of an activity, the intent for which you did it. Take as an example: the task of filing is considered by some to be monotonous and boring but they consciously forgot its essence or purpose which is: To make searches easier to perform - increasing production rate and (as far I can go) ultimately "freeing" time. For who? Primarily her. Since it would lighten other tasks and she gets compensated for it!

I made this an example because I think clerks are the ones who are prone to resent these sort of duties and they (at least in theory) opt to switch to "auto-pilot" in doing so. As far as I see it, one cannot multi-task unless they implement a system i.e. the auto-pilot or intuition where one does not perceive reality but rather continually dispenses their energies.

This is of course, acceptable to a degree, but it trends to every other endeavor they pursue since the job requires it. Think of this: They auto-pilot at least 44 hours of the week where instead of living life consciously and selectively therefore evaluating and creating valuable moments.

In my case, after a week's worth of work (rest day) a person would think, "What have I done thus far?" and they who were auto-piloting these seemingly menial tasks, become frustrated since they cannot remember the moment where they have achieved success in the littlest pursuit and turn out exhausted in doing so. May these people be helped should they often engage in this kind of system so much that it eats away their personalities and I believe it already has taken victims e.g. Office Zombies.

In another point of view, I could also be referring to a product of man's knowledge, not rote memory but something greater- an infinity of first hand information. An example of this is Atlas Shrugged or the books of Ayn Rand where she could have presented, loads upon loads of detail but did not. According to her, she does not want to make a textbook. I understood that as because it would lose its "essence" OR better yet! it gives the book its essence! as one cannot delve too deeply in a textbook or manual. It would be "meaning-less" to do so unless one can make it his own without rigidly or just following what is said and therefore making it first-hand already.

P.S.

I just realized...By goodness! How we could pursue this to its highest principle!

About the anarchist thread, in light of what you said, I don't think I can find one... They are so DISORGANIZED that they can never organize as a group, only in a lynch mob.

Edited February 26, 2010 by David Lee

[Selene]

Peter:

I thought that was where you were drawing your picture of "essence."

I heard an interview with one of the smartest politicians in the last twenty (20) years, the sexual predator who used to occupy the White House, William Jefferson Clinton, wherein he talked about playing solitaire for hours. Within the essence of playing solitaire, he did some of his best thinking.

Now, strangely enough, I have done the same action with the same results. I also employ pinball with no sound for the same effect. I do not consider that multi-tasking at all.

Same with sweeping, concentrating on the essence of sweeping is completely freeing.

Your thoughts?

Adam

[psychoanaleesis]

Selene, was that last post for me? I'm David.

I'm assuming because of that ad hominem there that you disprove of Clinton? sexual predator is a slang, am I correct? On his playing solitaire where he does his best thinking: I do not consider that as multi-tasking, but it's entertainment.

Pin-balling also - whether with sounds or none - is a task which provides entertainment, to divert your conscious awareness from the problem at hand but with such sensory overload still from following the ball, how do you create time for your subconscious to process anything else? Sweeping meanwhile is a domestic chore, what you're doing could be done as a form of meditation as in Zen but this provides little value since you'll tend to do this every so often. I cannot say that any of the abovementioned is recreation. In the sense that it does not allow one complete freedom of time and allow him to selectively focus on certain subjects i.e. style.

Yes, I think Clinton's right in what he said by implication (I don't know whether he's conscious of it) that all men, cannot appreciate a piece of work while it's being made, you'd have to take a step back and see the progress and eventually its completed form. Similarly, you cannot look at fine details without the aid of lenses (relative to one's acuteness of vision) the product would be blurred out.

In psychology, the phenomenon which you and Clinton experienced is known as the Incubation effect where one usually leaves a problem to be digested - usually a complex issue - from conscious thought, replacing it with a recreational activity and letting the subconscious "take a crack at it" but relative to the extent of one's learning of course. I think this is best illustrated when you drink a glass of water when you attempt to chew on tough food because it makes it easier to swallow. (The link is in the context of creativity, but as I understood it in school, this is the same thing).

Meanwhile, focus is to allocate a significant amount of your consciousness into the completion of a task insomuch as whatever else that task requires. It does not mean you tune out other senses. Multi-tasking is the attempt to do many different tasks within a limited span of time usually by mechanical speed and intuit. I have extracted filing as only one task but the point there being if you multiply this with other clerical tasks without having a period to take a step back and examine your output. In practice, it is also not advisable to invest too much thought in something especially when you're stuck.

To think, one must focus his mind on a singular subject and let it "exist". On a side note, I read in the area of metaphysics, some guy came with this idea of etymological difference between "being" and "existing". Precisely the point, once you perceive it is almost simultaneous for that body/being to exist. A is A. Existence exists. This axiom I believe Aristotle has been summed up in his Analytics and Rand reiterated in her magnum opus: Atlas Shrugged.

However, in my last paragraph, I sense there is something still amiss in my explanation, kindly point that out if you find it. I have digressed as well. Again, the point is: Take time to introspect, look back and see how far have you gone and if possible, find a hobby. Recreation is the key to the moments i.e. A summation I'm pertaining to not necessarily just entertainment. Thanks.

P.S. In playing solitaire, Bill Clinton did his best thinking. It would depend on what he meant by best. It could be when he hatched the plan on how to seduce Monica Lewinski. But in having an affair with her, I see nothing wrong provided my assumptions are right.

Edited February 26, 2010 by David Lee

[Selene]

David:

My apologies. Yes, I was responding to your post. Just did not double check my work...lol. I have no "excuse" I was not playing solitaire!

I will respond to your post today. Your raise some interesting observations.

Quickly, "best" was my poor choice of words, he meant his most "profound" or "substantial" thinking.

Clinton, as smart a political animal as he was, is personally despicable to me, in that there are "rules" when it comes to a "Monica" type event, and he did not acquit himself well.

Adam

[psychoanaleesis]

David:

My apologies. Yes, I was responding to your post. Just did not double check my work...lol. I have no "excuse" I was not playing solitaire!

I will respond to your post today. Your raise some interesting observations.

Quickly, "best" was my poor choice of words, he meant his most "profound" or "substantial" thinking.

Clinton, as smart a political animal as he was, is personally despicable to me, in that there are "rules" when it comes to a "Monica" type event, and he did not acquit himself well.

Adam

Adam:

Hahaha. I had to re-read your first paragraph to grasp it. Still, that falls in the category of what Clinton refers to as "substantial" and by that I mean, "getting in her pants plan" was a profound/substantial idea. It could be that laying with Monica or women comes high in his set of values and by there, we can now infer of his true nature. This can be better discussed in another place here in OL. In "Humor" perhaps?

I have some idea how you found him personally despicable. The rules that you are probably referring to is the "contract" of marriage which he vowed to uphold and did not. I can empathize with you since I can see you are a conscientious man. Breach of contract is such an ugly thing even for me! In this light, one can find him "guilty as charged". How can one possibly acquit himself to something that is so damningly self-evident! At first, his words betray him and then, (good thing he proved to be more of a man than a predator) he admitted to later on? At least that's the news that got to me... I remember Hank Rearden in this scenario but the difference is in their veracity.

Edited February 26, 2010 by David Lee

[Selene]

David:

My apologies. Yes, I was responding to your post. Just did not double check my work...lol. I have no "excuse" I was not playing solitaire!

I will respond to your post today. Your raise some interesting observations.

Quickly, "best" was my poor choice of words, he meant his most "profound" or "substantial" thinking.

Clinton, as smart a political animal as he was, is personally despicable to me, in that there are "rules" when it comes to a "Monica" type event, and he did not acquit himself well.

Adam

Adam:

Hahaha. I had to re-read your first paragraph to grasp it. Still, that falls in the category of what Clinton refers to as "substantial" and by that I mean, "getting in her pants plan" was a profound/substantial idea. It could be that laying with Monica or women comes high in his set of values and by there, we can now infer of his true nature. This can be better discussed in another place here in OL. In "Humor" perhaps?

I have some idea how you found him personally despicable. The rules that you are probably referring to is the "contract" of marriage which he vowed to uphold and did not. I can empathize with you since I can see you are a conscientious man. Breach of contract is such an ugly thing even for me! In this light, one can find him "guilty as charged". How can one possibly acquit himself to something that is so damningly self-evident! At first, his words betray him and then, (good thing he proved to be more of a man than a predator) he admitted to later on? At least that's the news that got to me... I remember Hank Rearden in this scenario but the difference is in their veracity.

David:

The marriage contract may have been modified by the Clintons themselves. In other words, an "open" marriage. We are not privy to those details.

However, the rules that I was talking about are the male rules and very young women who are in a disproportionate "power" relationship. She should have been protected by him.

Let's be serious, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. My other rule problem was, if it was going to happen, take it out of the people's house. Do not shit where you eat. Hell, even a dog knows that rule.

Finally, if I was Mr. Lewinsky, well...enough said.

Adam

old school in ways you do not want to discover lol