Hooked On Gadgets, and Paying a Mental Price 180
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.'"
My favorite line in TFA (Score:3, 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.
Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings (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.
Re:Basically (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.
Re:Basically (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 [psychologytoday.com]. 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:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
This is absolutely true. (Score:3, 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.
Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings (Score:3, 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.
Re:step #1, ignore the phone when it rings (Score:1, Insightful)
Obligatory "Correlation != Causation" post (Score:4, 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?
Training yourself reall is the key (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.
Re:Basically (Score:4, 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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like ADHD (Score:3, 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)
Re:Future Shock (Score:3, 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.
Re:No time to read this? Read this. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Basically (Score:3, 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.
people telling GenYs how smart they are (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Basically (Score:4, 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
Re:Future Shock (Score:3, 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.