The Cluttered Mind Uncluttered

Ph.D., Psychology, author, speaker, consultant
About Dr. Jim Taylor

Archive for March, 2011

Myth of Multitasking

Wednesday, March 30, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

Like many wired people, you probably take great pride in being a multitasker. You talk on your mobile phone, send e-mail, check the stock market online, and perhaps even read a letter and jot down notes for an upcoming meeting all at the same time (or so you think). Why do you multitask? Well, how else can you accomplish everything you need to get done (and still have time for a life!)? You believe you are the epitome of productivity and efficiency, getting so much done all at once.

There’s one problem with this scenario: there is no such thing as multitasking —  at least not the way you may think of it. The fact is that multitasking, as most people understand it, is a myth that has been promulgated by the “technological-industrial complex” to make overly scheduled and stressed-out people feel productive and efficient.

Understanding Multitasking

Multitasking involves engaging in two tasks simultaneously. But here’s the catch. It’s only possible if two conditions are met: 1) at least one of the tasks is so well learned as to be automatic, meaning no focus or thought is necessary to engage in the task (e.g., walking or eating) and 2) they involve different types of brain processing. For example, you can read effectively while listening to classical music because reading comprehension and processing instrumental music engage different parts of the brain. However, your ability to retain information while reading and listening to music with lyrics declines significantly because both tasks activate the language center of the brain.

What does this mean for all of you self-proclaimed multitaskers out there? Well, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but it means that what you do isn’t really multitasking. Despite appearances, you simply can’t talk on the phone, read e-mail, send an instant message, and watch YouTube videos all at the same time. In fact, when you think you’re cruising along the information highway, you’re actually stepping on the gas then hitting the brakes, over and over.

Serial Tasking

You and every other so-called multitasker  are actually serial tasking.  Rather than engaging in simultaneous tasks, you are in fact  shifting from one task to another to another in rapid succession.  For example, you switch from your phone conversation to a document on your computer screen to an email and back again in the belief that you are doing them simultaneously. But you’re not.

Compelling Research

A summary of research examining multitasking on the American Psychological Association’s web site describes how so-called multitasking is neither effective nor efficient. These findings have demonstrated that when you shift focus from one task to another, that transition is neither fast nor smooth. Instead, there is a lag time during which your brain must yank itself from the initial task and then glom onto the new task. This shift, though it feels instantaneous, takes time. In fact, up to 40 percent more time than single tasking – especially for complex tasks.

A recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by three Stanford University researchers offers perhaps the most surprising result: those who consider themselves to be great multitaskers are in fact the worst multitaskers. Those who rated themselves as chronic multitaskers made more mistakes, could remember fewer items, and took longer to complete a variety of focusing tasks analogous to multitasking than those self-rated as infrequent multitaskers. In a recent interview with NPR, a co-author of the PNAS study, Clifford Nass, states, “The shocking discovery of this research is that [high multitaskers] are lousy at everything that’s necessary for multitasking.” Nass concluded that this difference appears to be due to an inability to filter past and no-longer-relevant information from the previous task.

A Grain of Salt

Despite the apparent persuasiveness of this research, I would approach Nass’s findings with a grain of salt.  My concerns relate to what is called the “external validity” of research, in layperson’s terms, “the degree to which the conclusions in your study would hold for other persons in other places and at other times.” Like most university research, Nass’s studies used college undergraduates as experimental subjects. We might ask how representative college students are of the general population (and especially the population of technologists). Also, the tasks that they engaged in were not real-life activities but rather analog tasks that purport to test the same attributes as multitasking. Again, we might ask whether those contrived tasks are predictive of behavior in the real world. Even Nass notes in that PNAS article that, “It remains possible that future tests of higher-order cognition will uncover benefits…of heavy media multitasking…”

I should note that other research described in a Wired article involving normal activities has reported, for example, that children perform worse on their homework if it is done while watching TV and employees show greater productivity when they don’t check their email frequently. So there is considerable evidence against multitasking outside of the laboratory as well.

My consulting work with leading technologists, businesspeople, athletes, and coaches offers further support to my belief that multitasking is just not the way to go. The goals of these top performers with whom I work are not just to be productive and efficient, but rather to be the very best in their fields and to push the envelope of what is possible. Even a 1% improvement in their performance or productivity can mean dramatic differences in output. And I have found that single tasking, meaning focusing only on those tasks that are absolutely essential to maximize performance, is an effective tool for making small, yet profound gains in productivity.

Though questions still exist and there is still a need for further study, the preponderance of evidence does suggest that multitasking isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. With all things considered, I believe there is enough evidence to support the notion that other approaches to task completion can be more effective and efficient than multitasking.

Where to Now

Have I convinced you that it’s time to stop (or at least reduce) your multitasking habits? If so, I’ll devote a subsequent post to offering you practical steps you can take to “single task” in order to become more productive and efficient.

Does March Madness Matter?

Monday, March 28, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

The New York Times Magazine had a cover story a few weeks ago that posed the question: Does college basketball matter? In answer to this rather existential question, I thought, well, it depends to which college basketball they are referring.

Are they talking about the game that’s “all about the Benjamins,” including exorbitant coaches’ salaries and shoe contracts (why, for heaven’s sake, should the coaches, not the schools, profit from these deals?), the sponsors of every item or space that could be sold, and the television contracts?

Are they talking about the shady recruiting practices that serve the coaches, the bottom-dwelling and predatory scouts, AAU coaches, summer camps, and boosters?

Are they talking about the fans who, in my view, care far too much about something that is really just a game?

Are they talking about the universities that seem to worry little about the graduation rates of its players (other than those enforced by NCAA rules and regulations), yet have tremendous concern for their piece of the conference and NCAA revenue pies?

Are they talking about college basketball that is about the one-year visit to a college campus by a wannabe NBA superstar because the NBA no longer allows players to turn pro out of high school, unlike every other sport, I might add (these players, who may have prodigious talent, but often lack the technical and tactical fundamentals of the game, are akin to the 40% of incoming college students who need remedial classes because they lack the basic skills to succeed in college)?

In other words, are they talking about a system that cares little about the student-athletes who actually play the game?

If that’s the college basketball that the article is referring to, then my answer is: Never has, never will. That game of college basketball doesn’t deserve my attention or interest, much less my fanatical absorption, even during March Madness. To devote my time and energy to such a corrupt game would be to legitimize and validate its worth in a world where my time and energy are needed elsewhere.

Or, are they talking about the game that allows young basketball players to pursue their dreams, whether a career in the NBA or a seat at the end of the bench on 68th team to make it to the Big Dance?

Are they talking about the mid-major conference teams, such as Butler and VCU, that have been crashing the party and sending the big-name, much-hyped teams home with their tails between their legs?

Are they talking about the unsung heroes, such as Matt Howard, who show that fundamentals and selflessness can trump solo ball and ESPN highlight slam dunks?

Are they talking about the heart-stopping misses (and makes), the come-from-behind victories, the overtime wins, the nail-biting finishes that keep college basketball fans on the edge of their seats?

Are they talking about the wonderful experiences, powerful challenges, and life lessons that college athletics can add to students’ university lives (I can speak first-hand about its tremendous value)?

Are they talking about college basketball that understands its place in the grand scheme of life as a sometimes-compelling, though ultimately unimportant, form of entertainment and vicarious involvement that can be appreciated and enjoyed by anyone who chooses.

If that’s the college basketball that the article is referring to, then my answer is: always has, always will. That game of college basketball deserves my interest and attention. Though as someone who would rather participate than spectate, that interest will only be periodic and short-lived. But for real fans of this game of college basketball, more power to them and may the best team win.

In Public Education, It’s the Family, Stupid

Monday, March 21, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

I love it when I’m right (a rarity some would argue), or rather, when there is compelling evidence supporting a controversial position I’ve taken. This post is one of those moments.

I have argued in previous posts that the billions of dollars being spent on public education reform at the school level, if not a waste of money, was, at a minimum, not an efficient or effective use of our resources. This perspective seems even more compelling these days as the federal and state governments are eviscerating school budgets to reduce budget shortfalls (however short sighted that is in the long run).

Well, now there is good empirical support to back up my claim. A new report by James J. Heckman, an economist at the University of Chicago (a school not typically sympathetic to class differences; read this article in Mother Jones for a shorter and more readable description of the findings), offers clear substantiation that “inequality in performance at school is strongly linked to inequality in family environments. Schools do little to reduce or enlarge the gaps in skills that are present when children enter school.”

The differences between socioeconomic classes that Mr. Heckman reported were evident as early as age three. And the deficits were not only present in cognitive abilities, but also the so-called soft skills, which I have been an advocate for teaching, including “motivation, sociability (the ability to work with and cooperate with others), attention, self regulation, self esteem, and the ability to defer gratification and the like.” As Kevin Drum, the writer of the Mother Jones article, notes, early intervention programs “produce children who learn better, develop critical life skills, have fewer problems in childhood and adolescence, commit fewer crimes, earn more money, and just generally live happier, stabler, more productive lives.”

And Mr. Heckman speaks directly to what I have argued should be patently obvious, “Our current policies to reduce achievement gaps ignore these simple truths. America currently places too much emphasis on improving what goes on in schools compared to improving what goes on in families.”

At this moment, the U.S. Department of Education’s so-called Race to the Top (don’t even get me started on that boondoggle!) is spending over $4 billion to reform our public schools (or should I say attempt to reform them). And how much is budgeted for early childhood education? Only $350 million, a mere drop in the bucket in comparison.

America has always been better at throwing money at problems once they arise (think building more prisons vs. reducing the causes of crime) than trying to prevent the problems before they become, well, problems. The difficulty with prevention is that you never really see the problem, so you can’t be sure that there is a problem or that it is being prevented. Plus, the time between prevention and the reduction or absence of a problem is too great to make the connection for politicians who are more concerned with short-term electoral success than long-term social solutions.

In contrast, the connection between an existing problem and a proposed solution is clear, giving politicians the opportunity score points with their constituents for supporting legislation that sure looks good on paper, but will not prove their value until long after they leave office. Of course, the fact that these “solutions du jour” rarely ever actually work is beside the point for our oh-so-concerned representatives.

Mr. Heckman’s argument should satisfy the most fiscally conservative thinker with a long-term perspective (he even proposes private, rather than public, funding). He suggests that after-the-fact remediation of our current educational problems is neither cost effective, economically efficient, nor fiscally prudent in the long run.

In contrast, early intervention is both cost effective and economically efficient. It has better outcomes than remediation because it’s easier to prevent rather than remediate a problem. Early intervention has a percolation effect such that investing in prevention results in later productivity.  And, importantly, the budgets of the early intervention programs can also be reduced because there will be a coincidental rise in education, economic attainment, and, as a result, improved family functioning which was the focus of the early intervention in the first place.  Truly, this rising tide would lift all boats.

What I don’t understand is why clearly intelligent, evidence-based, and seemingly progressive thinkers, such as President Obama, are locked into the groupthink of No Child Left Behind (which he is pushing to have reauthorized) and other public education reform policies that fly in the face of the existing and compelling research and the wisdom of leading educators.

One thing is clear. Until someone with a whole lot of sense, very large cojones (pardon my crassness), and even more power decides to make this shift a crusade, America will continue to violate the Law of Insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Killing Your Children is Not Good Parenting

Monday, March 14, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

I’ve been reluctant to write this post ever since I read an absolutely shocking story recently. In fact, my wife told me that I shouldn’t write it at all as the post could be seen, at best, as insensitive and, at worst, as distasteful beyond the pale. But I have been eerily attracted to the story and feel compelled to write this post, even with the potential risks, because there is something in the story that resonates with me and, I believe, with all parents.

Now that I have your attention (or you’re about to click off the page), I better tell you what I’m talking about. Have you heard about the suburban Tampa mother, Julie Schenecker, who murdered her two teenage children in January? As an aside, I can’t believe that this story hasn’t been all over the tabloids and cable news the last few months. It has all the makings of a media feeding frenzy: a seemingly typical suburban mother, two seemingly normal teenagers, a husband who works in military intelligence and travels constantly. Its absence from the media miasma might suggest that the seemingly bottomless depths of depravity in which sensationalistic journalism resides might, in fact, have a bottom.

Here is the Cliff Notes version of the story. Mrs. Schenecker bought a handgun and then waited three days for the mandatory “cooling off” period (perhaps it should be longer?). She then shot her 13-year-old son twice (missing once) in their mini-van on the way to soccer practice. He was found in the vehicle in the garage with his seatbelt still on days later. Mrs. Schenecker then went inside their home and shot her 16-year-old daughter in the head while she was studying. Police reports indicated that she admitted to the killings while complaining that her children were “disrespectful and mouthy and that she was going to deal with it.”

Of course, the first thought that enters most everyone’s mind is that Mrs. Schenecker was suffering from some sort of severe mental illness, as it is unthinkable that any mother could perpetrate such a heinous crime (more on that later). And news reports did suggest just such a scenario, possibly related drug or alcohol abuse. And indications from the public defender’s office were that Mrs. Schenecker would plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

When I mentioned the case to several mothers I know they, not surprisingly, expressed both shock and horror toward an event that seems absolutely unimaginable to any mother and a separate world from one inhabited by all mentally healthy mothers. Yet, and here is where I might be wading into dangerous waters, I sensed that some of their response to the crime was a reaction of fear that, but for the grace of God, go they. One mother leaned toward me and admitted in a hushed voice that she has had homicidal fantasies about her children when times were bad and was overwhelmed with shame at the admission.

Now we are entering a forbidden zone where no parents willingly go. As I allowed this mother’s confession to sink in, I thought about my own experiences with my two young children, their infuriating irrationality, their feral tantrums, and the feelings of frustration and anger that they provoke in me. I realized that Mrs. Schenecker’s crime may not be a world distinct from those of us who are “normal,” but rather lies in the nether reaches of a world in which all parents live.

Okay, I said it and I feel relief having said it. All of us get pushed to their emotional limits as we travel the road of parenthood. Fortunately, most of us have the wherewithal to step back from the abyss. At best, we calm ourselves and comfort our child whose behavior is, more often than not, neither intentional nor malicious. Or, we walk out of the room and cool off or hand our child to our spouse. At worst, some of us may lose control a little bit and yell at our child, but then get it together before the situation escalates beyond control.

As we move down the road of every parent’s worst nightmare, we encounter parents who lack that wherewithal. Maybe they are young or alone or under stress or were victims at the hands of their own parents. The result is child abuse that is far more common than any of us would like to admit. And we realize that we could, on our very worst days, go farther down that road than we are ever willing to admit.

At the very end of the road we meet Mrs. Schenecker and, according to the research, hundreds of other mothers in the 1990′s alone (it feels like an episode from the Twilight Zone, existing in our world, yet being other worldly) who, for reasons that only they may be able to fathom, were pushed by their children or their own psychic demons to do a deed that is so incomprehensible and alien to anyone who is a parent, yet so terrifyingly recognizable and near for those very same parents.

With my heart racing and feeling a little teary eyed, I walked into my daughters’ bedrooms where they lay asleep in their beds, so sweet and innocent, yet so very capable of provoking emotions both powerful and harmful. I bent down and gave each a gentle kiss on their foreheads. And as I left their rooms, I promised myself that, no matter how bad it gets, I will never, ever go farther down that road. And my fear turned to resolve and love for those little beings who mean more to me than life itself.

5 Smartphone Rules to Live By

Monday, March 7, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor
Comment
Comments

|
|

The smartphone has become a ubiquitous status symbol of and tool for businesspeople doing business. In offices, on the streets, and in airports, what self-respecting businessperson doesn’t have their smartphone, whether an Android, Blackberry, Windows, Palm, or iPhone, at the ready to make the deal, provide support, change the plan, or just stay up to date on their company’s latest developments at a moment’s notice. The smartphone’s ability to provide businesspeople with instant access to others through email, text messaging, and phone has, in theory, saved time and made the business world run more smoothly by keeping everyone in a company connected all day every day. It can truly be a tool for increased communication, efficiency, and productivity.

The Unintended Consequences of Smartphones

Unfortunately, the smartphone also represents a corporate culture gone mad, in which everyone feels they are so needed that they simply can’t be out of touch with work lest the company collapses without their constant input and output. The smartphone has, falling prey to the theory of unintended consequences, become a weapon against businesspeople that actually hurts corporate discipline, focus, and productivity.

It has also created an upheaval in the already fragile balance between work and life. This state of constant connectedness has blurred (or obliterated) the lines between work and life, creating marital and family conflict, and destroying any hope of peace and quiet when away from the office. Perhaps the last refuge on Earth from the imposition of the smartphone may be the airplane, though that final line of defense against the smartphone onslaught will surely fall in the next few years.

Who’s In Charge Here?

So who’s in charge here? Are you master of your smartphone or does your smartphone own you? Here are a few ways to tell:

  • Do you take your smartphone with you wherever you go?
  • Is your smartphone the last thing you look at before you go to sleep and the first thing you look at when you wake up?
  • Do you make or take business calls regularly when away from work?
  • Do your family or friends give you exasperated looks when you pull out your smartphone constantly?

If you answered “yes” to these questions, you smartphone runs your life.

Yearning For Freedom

Despite the attachment that you have to your smartphone, there is likely a part of you deep inside that resents the power that it has over you. You may feel a subtle, yet delicious, sense of relief when you “accidently” leave it at work or have guilt-laden fantasies of dropping and breaking your smartphone—by accident, of course—requiring you to be without it for a few days while it is fixed or replaced.

If you feel this way, you need to stand up to your smartphone—”I will not let you control my life!”—and choose to reject its captive power over you.

Smartphone Rules to Live By

Despite the obvious tongue-in-cheek tone so far, this unhealthy relationship with your smartphone has real consequences both at work and at home. And there are some tangible things that you can do to break the grip that your smartphone has on you. Here are five simple rules you can follow to help you regain control of your smartphone so it is once again a tool of efficiency and productivity rather than a weapon against your freedom and mental health.

Rule #1: Don’t look at your smartphone in the morning until you get to work. Peeking at your email or phone messages before you have dressed or had breakfast will create unnecessary distraction, worry, and stress. If you’re married with children, it will also prevent you from being engaged with your family during breakfast. In fact, don’t even look at your smartphone during the drive to work; again, it would serve no purpose as you can’t—or, at least, you shouldn’t—be thumb typing during your commute (unless you’re on a train or bus and you can respond to your phone and email messages).

Rule #2: Don’t look at your smartphone during the day unless you are ready to act on it. It’s not uncommon for businesspeople to look at their smartphones as they head into a meeting or just before a conference call. The primary consequence of doing this is that you will be distracted from your next task. You will be thinking about what you found on your smartphone instead of focusing on the task ahead.

Rule #3: Turn off all smartphones during meetings. In fact, every company should have a “no smartphone” rule for all meetings. There are few things more irritating, distracting, and productivity-killing than having people at a meeting looking at and typing into their smartphones. They are clearly not paying attention to the meeting and, therefore, unable to contribute in any meaningful way. It also distracts others at the meeting. It wastes time and prolongs meetings because no one is focusing on the agenda. Quality and productivity suffer too  because the lack of full engagement means that effective problem solving and decision making will be nearly impossible.

Rule #4: Don’t check your smartphone less than 30 minutes before you go to bed. If there are calls or emails you think you must respond to you, you will get to bed later and you’ll get riled up, so you’ll have a harder time falling asleep. The reality is that, in most cases, they can wait until morning, so best not to look. At worst, choose a time between 30 and 60 minutes before bedtime when you take a last look at your smartphone. At best, commit to not checking your smartphone at all in the evening.

Rule #5: Don’t do your smartphone when you are doing life. In other words, don’t look at your smartphone if you are interacting with others, doing something that is supposed to clear your mind of work, such as exercise, meditation, having a meal, watching a movie, or hanging out with family or friends.. There is nothing more annoying to family and friends than to be with you when you are making business calls or responding to email—why are you even with them if you’re with them in body only? It’s okay to check your smartphone periodically, but ONLY IF you don’t interrupt more important life stuff and ONLY IF you are expecting something that you may have to act on quickly.

Letting Go

Your dependence on your smartphone is a habit that develops through repeated use. So you can think of separating from your smartphone as a habit as well; it takes commitment, discipline, and repetition to change. You will find that there are many upsides to regaining control of your smartphone. The people in your life will welcome you back from the smartphone precipice and actually want to be around you. You will be more relaxed, more engaged in life, have more fun, be a whole lot happier and, despite your great fondness for your smartphone, you will find much more interesting and enjoyable things to do with your time.