Why Your Devices Are Probably Eroding Your Productivity (kqed.org) 99
University of California, San Francisco neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley and California State University, Dominguez Hills professor emeritus Larry Rosen explain in their book "The Distracted Mind: Ancient Brains in a High Tech World" why people have trouble multitasking, and specifically why one's productivity output is lowered when keeping up with emails, for example. Lesley McClurg writes via KQED Science: When you engage in one task at a time, the prefrontal cortex works in harmony with other parts of the brain, but when you toss in another task it forces the left and right sides of the brain to work independently. The process of splitting our attention usually leads to mistakes. In other words, each time our eyes glance away from our computer monitor to sneak a peak at a text message, the brain takes in new information, which reduces our primary focus. We think the mind can juggle two or three activities successfully at once, but Gazzaley says we woefully overestimate our ability to multitask. In regard to answering emails, McClurg writes: Gazzaley stresses that our tendency to respond immediately to emails and texts hinders high-level thinking. If you're working on a project and you stop to answer an email, the research shows, it will take you nearly a half-hour to get back on task. "When a focused stream of thought is interrupted it needs to be reset," explains Gazzaley. "You can't just press a button and switch back to it. You have to re-engage those thought processes, and recreate all the elements of what you were engaged in. That takes time, and frequently one interruption leads to another." In other words, repetitively switching tasks lowers performance and productivity because your brain can only fully and efficiently focus on one thing at a time. Plus, mounting evidence shows that multitasking could impair the brain's cognitive abilities. Stanford researchers studied the minds of people who regularly engage in several digital communication streams at once. They found that high-tech jugglers struggle to pay attention, recall information, or complete one task at a time. And the habit of multitasking could lower your score on an IQ test, according to researchers at the University of London. The saving grace is that we don't need to ditch technology as "there's a time and place for multitasking," according to Gazzaley. "If you're in the midst of a mundane task that just has to get done, it's probably not detrimental to have your phone nearby or a bunch of tabs open. The distractions may reduce boredom and help you stay engaged. But if you're finishing a business plan, or a high-level writing project, then it's a good idea to set yourself up to stay focused."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trump, really, go get some sleep. You've got to stop posting whatever happens to cross your mind in the middle of the night.
TL;DR (Score:3, Insightful)
"People can't multitask" because reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
well, people _can_ multitask.
paying attention to multiple people at the same time, now that's a problem. project management software that _automates_ pestering of the people who are supposed to be working isn't really that big of a help either...
Re: (Score:2)
Not many can. They stand up to get something, and forget what it was they needed. They need to look back at what they were doing to remember what other item they had to get.
Or is that just me?
Re:TL;DR (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is that just me?
It's not just you. Science says that women are better at multitasking than men, but they're still shit at it. We all are. We have to context switch as surely as does a processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Or is that just me?
It's not just you. Science says that women are better at multitasking than men, but they're still shit at it. We all are. We have to context switch as surely as does a processor.
You're dead-on. One of the incidents where ADD (as a concept, not modern day popular naming convention) is a great help.
Re: (Score:2)
Science says that women are better at multitasking than men, but they're still shit at it.
Actually, "science" is still not sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But yes, even if they are a little better, they're still crap at it.
Re: (Score:2)
I see one indicator on how good people are at multitasking in whether they blow up applications full screen or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not many can. They stand up to get something, and forget what it was they needed. They need to look back at what they were doing to remember what other item they had to get.
Or is that just me?
Nope, not just you. Throughout my career and personal life, I've been called on to multitask, and efficiency just drops off terribly as more tasks are added. To the point where I found that I have to get away, turn off the cell phone or leave a service area for a plausible excuse, and allow myself to work a problem without distraction. As well, I very often dream solutions. I call that neurotic dreams, as opposed to erotic ones.
So for multitasking, you can sortakinda do it, but anyone claiming great succe
Re: (Score:2)
well, people _can_ multitask.
Yes they can but not without being cognitively impaired compared to full focus on a single task. There are people who can truly multi-task but they are rare, 1% of the population. There are scientific evaluations that can be performed to assess whether you are cognitively impaired when attempting to focus on two tasks at the same time. The majority of us context switch like a pre-emptive multitasking operating system with a single core while the rare segment of the population is essentially "multi-core" with actual parallel processing. It seems to be a trait you're either born with or you're not.
Re: (Score:1)
>well, people _can_ multitask.
Actually, people timeshare. That looks like multitasking but it is very different. Time sharing means a supervisor routing and swapping in and out. When you have stuff swapped out and then the system is rebooted it makes a hell of a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TL;DR (Score:5, Insightful)
"People can't multitask" because reasons.
Sudden burst of common sense here. I find it amusing that even Fortune 500 companies can't seem to figure this out. First of all, the level of noise in a corporation in all kinds of forms like corporate email, meetings, etc. is pretty bad. What's worse is that lack of workflow management. All the time, I find myself working on a task only to be interrupted to work on a "this just in and on fire" task only to be interrupted to work on a "this just in and on fire" task ad infinitum.
Let me break this down. Person P starts working on task A only to be interrupted to focus on task B only to be interrupted to focus on task C only to be interrupted to work on task D. Assuming this pattern doesn't go on at the same rate of speed infinitely thus allowing the completion of the task at the top of the stack, eventually what it looks like is this:
Task D completes
[pop]
Resume Task C and recall context
Complete Task C
[pop]
Resume Task B and recall context
Complete Task B
[pop]
Resume Task A and recall context
Complete Task A
[pop]
[empty stack, find new task]
If only corporations new how much productivity was lost at the Resume Task X and recall context step. But you know, keep whipping us for being slackers. The other thing executives don't seem to comprehend is if the deluge of new "on fire" tasks keeps coming in interrupting the one before it, absolutely ZERO work gets done because all the work is half done. This is why LEAN has a concept of waste and work in progress limits. It really works C suite if you could be bothered to read an actual book instead of thinking you already know everything.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome distraction (Score:4, Interesting)
I find that after a couple of hours at a task I welcome a break whether it be to grab a cup of hot chocolate, I don't drink coffee, chat with a colleague, answer the phone or check the email's, or glance at Amazon, or https://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] , or even this place.
you have way too much time on your hands (Score:2)
"Oh, so you're a fag."
No I don't smoke cigarettes either.
Re:Welcome distraction (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no problem multi-tasking so long as they are simple tasks and not problem solving... Some times I need to distract myself from a difficult problem making coffee, a snack, or whatever thoughtless diversion... email though is too much of a diversion since at least some of it actually important.
Re:Welcome distraction (Score:5, Funny)
... email though is too much of a diversion since at least some of it actually important.
An obvious solution is to use a reverse spam-filter to ensure that you only see the unimportant messages.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I find that after a couple of hours at a task I welcome a break whether it be to grab a cup of hot chocolate, I don't drink coffee, chat with a colleague, answer the phone or check the email's, or glance at Amazon, or https://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] , or even this place.
Switch that to receiving a query is it done yet every 15 minutes, a request for a conference call every 1 hour and some technical query every 30 minutes.
And 15 automatic daily messages from project management software!
Re:Welcome distraction (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like working in the repair room at a national computer store chain (that is now out of business).
"Fix those 15 computers, while answering the phone every five minutes for people checking if their computer is done yet, let every customer on the sales floor stop you to ask what's on sale while you are trying to get a part for one of those 15 computers, and keep full notes on each work order's progress using the online forms written in ASCII ten years earlier."
Surprisingly, I increased my work output several percent just by buying my own tape gun. [images-amazon.com] No more having to find where the overnight stock crew left them, to be able to tape the work orders to the finished computers.
LOL (Score:2)
Sorry but I can't help but ask, did you get your own stapler Wilton ?
http://rs692.pbsrc.com/albums/... [pbsrc.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"A couple of hours" isn't multi-tasking. After a couple of hours, you should take a break, specifically to allow you to recover, forget the dead-ends and be capable of resuming later with only the best of what you did earlier.
What business wants as multi-tasking is to be simultaneously writing a business proposal, carrying on a phone conversation, responding to emails and tracking 3 different online text conversations. While re-wiring a network.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you're an idiot (Score:3)
I don't have a facebook account, nor a linked in account, nor any other social media. When I'm in the flow I don't use WWW, unless it's to look up the interface to SomeAPII'veNeverUsedBefore(). When I'm in the flow I'm typically taken out of it by some dumass manager who couldn't manage their way to the coffee machine without help, or my CD (on a USB stick) ends and I realize I need to stretch, pee, and get more coffee, in that order. If you don't realize social media fucks up your productivity, you're an idiot. Pure and simple, you're a fucking idiot.
CSB
Had a manager some 15 years ago. She was a micro-manager. She couldn't keep track of what anyone was working on at any given time. She would drop into my office to ask the stupidest questions. Finally got her to send email instead of bugging me. She would send me email, then show up in my office as I was replying to it to ask "did you get my email?".
She was a hella nice woman, bad engineer (we "co-wrote" some Linux device drivers, she sucked at it), and a horrendous manager.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, a manager who is manipulative (micro manager) and incompetent at a technical job. How surprising! I suppose next you're going to tell me they stab coworkers in the back, particularly other managers.
FTFY. Pretty standard for managers, regardless of gender.
Idiot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella?
Re: (Score:2)
you probably don't even know what MMR means
Measles, Mumps, Rubella?
That was my first thought.
Personally I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But what do you *do* during those mini-breaks? I'm speaking from experience and intuition here, without data to back me up, but I doubt you would find yourself any more prepared to tackle the task if you were switching to another of similar importance & difficulty, as opposed to doing something relaxing. I find there is a big difference between a conscious decision to take a break from doing something, and having things intrude on your time and attention in an uncontrolled manner.
Concentrating on someth
Re: (Score:2)
It has to do with focused and diffused modes of the brain. In focused mode, you're using neuro pathways that are already established to perform a task you already know how to do. Diffused mode is where you're trying to subconsciously use untapped areas of your brain to gain that creative ah-ha moment to do something you've not done before. Most people can't be in both modes at the same time, much like optical illusions where you can't discern two different pictures superimposed in the same image. https://up [wikimedia.org]
Human Task Switches Considered Harmful (Score:3, Informative)
The article's links seem to have better real experimental data backing them up, but I still think I prefer reading http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ [joelonsoftware.com]'s 15 year old article "Human Task Switches Considered Harmful" [joelonsoftware.com]. The second half of "Where do These People Get Their (Unoriginal) Ideas?" [joelonsoftware.com] is also relevant.
In the last few years he has posted much less often, and when he posts, it is usually only announcing the latest product his company has made, but most of his older "reading list" articles (from the front page) are still excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
Multitask? That's far from the problem with most "apps". Most of them store half the GUI in the cloud and simply can't display anything without an Internet connection to pull down the HTML (WebView in disguise).
The zone (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember getting in the zone when coding and then that moron would come up to you then talk about their car, lawn or how their daughter was attending a private school and other mundane information I don't want to know.
They're the people that think multitasking is something more than a bullshit buzzword to be thrown around as a criticism of people who are able to concentrate on the task at hand. I doubt they would feel the same way if they were told to cross a busy road and only look at their phone while they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Multi-Core Processors (Score:2)
Did they just confirm that my brain is a multi-core processor!? SWEET!
Re: (Score:2)
Our brain is multi-core but the software is terrible. It's like the developers never heard about mutexes.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine is being over-clocked by caffeine.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory XKCD reply to that: https://xkcd.com/323/ [xkcd.com]
We're supposed to be surprised? (Score:5, Funny)
...one's productivity output is lowered when keeping up with emails,
I've known this for years. That's why I rarely check email, and just let it sit in the inbox until the person calls me the following week asking if I got their message.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that you are the annoying people who don't respond to emails and have to eventually be called about something that I needed a week ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that you are the annoying people who don't respond to emails and have to eventually be called about something that I needed a week ago?
As I told one of them once,"You can either respond right away, or I will pay you a visit in person. And since I have to go by the office of the guy I'm working for - the Director - I'll bring him with me. And neither of us will be very happy.". That shot over the bow message was delivered by me in person, and not very happy. At some level, a week is a week too long to wait for the answer to a simple question or two.
The guy figured out he was mistaken, and it was a good idea to pay attention to my phone
Re: (Score:3)
That's a tad aggressive but I completely understand where you are coming from. The way I see it is this: Emailing somebody is a courtesy to both parties. It means that I can fully and properly express what I need to say or ask as concisely as possible and in my own time. The recipient then has the opportunity to do the same provided that I give them reasonable leeway to decide when "in my own time" is. I figure that in most cases 48 hours is generous. In addition, there is a record on both sides which means
Re: (Score:2)
There's a conflict there, between your employee getting serious work done and you getting your answers. You told the guy that he has to pay immediate attention to each incoming email, lest it be one of yours that you want an immediate reply to. You told him implicitly that immediate responses are more important than actually getting work done. People do pick up on those things.
Now, if you'd told him you want answers in a few hours, your employee could concentrate for a couple of hours and then take ca
Re: (Score:2)
You told him implicitly that immediate responses are more important than actually getting work done.
Maybe reinforcing other people's sense of their own importance is the work.
There is something to be said for that. Often, the more important the work, the more you have to jump to do it. It was important to get the info to me. The guy I had to get info from needed to realize that. And the way it unfolded was the guy went potato on me immediately - telling me what he would or wouldn't do for me. A visit from the Top Boss will convince you of the importance of your work pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a conflict there, between your employee getting serious work done and you getting your answers. You told the guy that he has to pay immediate attention to each incoming email, lest it be one of yours that you want an immediate reply to. You told him implicitly that immediate responses are more important than actually getting work done. People do pick up on those things.
I worked for the director. The director often needed things he was assigned by his boss in a few hours.
I sometimes had only a few minutes. Dude didn't even want to answer the phone. If I had half a day or more, I might be able to email. His work was giving me the answers I needed. If I didn't get them quickly, the Director catches hell, I catch hell, and I eventually find that the guy might be better off working in a different place.
So yes, I have to respond immediately, so I need immediate access
Re: (Score:2)
There are uncooperative employees (although very few in my personal experience), and there are requests that have to be attended to immediately. There's also jobs that require concentration, and aren't really compatible with instant attention to every email. Over my career, I've had more problems from interruptions than from colleagues.
Re: (Score:2)
There are uncooperative employees (although very few in my personal experience), and there are requests that have to be attended to immediately. There's also jobs that require concentration, and aren't really compatible with instant attention to every email. Over my career, I've had more problems from interruptions than from colleagues.
I've had horrific times with interruptions, including what I call Job assignment by being seen in the hallway. Meanwhile the colleague issues tend to sort themselves out pretty quickly. Not everyone needs instant attention, and sure as hell not everyone wants to work in that environment. But it has its rewards. People who need a slower pace get moved to places where their need can be satisfied.
Email time once or twice per day (Score:2)
What works best for me is to scan my emails once in the morning, and reply/handle non-emergencies once per day, typically in the afternoon. I'm not constantly distracted, and people don't wait a week for a reply.
I certainly don't always stick to that schedule, but it works well when I do.
Re: (Score:2)
As you can see, I lack your admirable self-control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife definitely think I should ignore all such emails. :^P
But I'm Busy! (Score:1)
And it's easy to convince yourself (and hopefully, signal to your boss) that you're more "effective" - certainly more busy. After all, the only things that count are appearances and perception, right?
So of course I have a browser window open . . . . (Score:2)
Maybe that is how we are made... (Score:1)
The natural world has a TON of information to process. Things like predators, weather, food... all of those things require being able to process a vast quantity of constantly changing external outputs simultaneously. We are probably attention deficit for a reason. Can you imagine if in the wilds we were able to focus on something at the exclusion of everything else going on around us. We would be dead in a day. I think that the modern world is expecting things from us that we were never designed to do, and
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of "Distracted mind" (Score:2)
one track mind (Score:3)
My favourite touch is the two giant call-outs in the linked article.
Few of the sites I read regularly have these any more (meaning since I got good at "inspect element" and custom User CSS overrides; appears I've accumulated 150 of these over the past three years, also used to defeat anything that hovers or slides annoyingly).
commentsubject (Score:2)
That said, there's also tasks that involve a lot of "click and wait" (incl literal clicking and waiting), that don't engage you much, that are usually unimportant anyway. Depending on t
Obvious (Score:2)