The Cluttered Mind Uncluttered

Ph.D., Psychology, author, speaker, consultant

Archive for 2011

Ad Out!

Monday, May 9, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor

No, I’m not talking about the upcoming French Open Tennis Championships being held in Paris later this month. I’m talking about the invasion of Web site real estate by all manner of ads. Have you looked at your most frequently visited Web sites lately, I mean really looked at them. Go back to a few and take a really careful look. What do you see? That’s right, you may not have noticed it before because you’ve become so inured to them, but you may actually see more ads than content on any given Web page.

In researching this post, I have learned far more than I cared to about the ways in which on-line advertisers try to entice us into giving them that little bit of “click love” that they so crave. Sex, money, outlandish claims, nothing is out of bounds when it comes to grabbing our attention and generating the almighty dollar.

I also learned about all of the different types of Web ads and their evolution in sophistication. Banner and sidebar ads at the top of a Web site? Gosh, I don’t even notice them anymore. Those crafty Web advertisers need to do better than that to get my attention. And they sure try. Remember pop-up ads? Boy, were those dinosaurs a nuisance. But no longer thanks to those clever pop-up blockers (though those pesky Netflix ads still seem to get through).

How about those before-you-even-get-to-the-home-page ads that you must “Skip This Ad” to even get to what you want to see. Those are beyond irritating. Now we’re getting into Web ad territory that really gets my knickers in an uproar (haven’t used that one in a few decades). Have you ever arrived at a Web page excited to read something of interest and, just as you’re about to start reading, a pull-down banner ad blocks your view? Aarrgghh! These days, you can’t move your mouse very far on the screen without some infuriating little pop-up window appearing. What do you think of interstitials? Uh?, you ask. These are the ads that appear when you transition from one page of a site to the next, forcing you to wait it out or suffer the indignity of having to click again just to get the page you wanted in the first place. I find roll-overs, those ads that look like links, but have a double underline and cause a small window to pop up when you roll over it, especially annoying. Scrolling on sites with roll-overs is like playing an obstacle-course video game trying to avoid the booby traps as you move down the page. Then there are floating ads that move across the screen and follow your scrolling movements. And unicast ads bombard us with video and sound without prompting and require effort to find the ad and turn off the darned thing off.

I accept that Web sites need to be financially self-sustaining. And Web ads allow us to access a vast universe of information and services free of charge. I can live with many Web ads; I just ignore them. My basic philosophy is that if they don’t bother me (too much), I won’t bother them. But I get really steamed when Web ads infringe on my ability to accomplish what I want on a Web site, namely, view content. When Web ads waste my time and distract me from my purpose, then they have gone too far. That’s when I stand with Howard Beale, the fictional newscaster in the film Network who, on the brink of insanity, declares, “I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.”

Has that line been crossed from necessary evil to unacceptable intrusion? Should these ads be labeled for what I think they are: spam and an unwelcome and inappropriate infringement on my Web-viewing experience? Should we be able to opt out of Web ads? We don’t boycott TV, radio, or magazines because we are in inundated with commercials and ads. We’ve just come to accept them as a part of television (though commercial-free HBO sure is a joy to watch). In fact, advertising on TV has become another form of viewing entertainment, for example, the commercials seen during the Super Bowl. Should Web advertising be any different?

And prepare yourself, this is just the beginning. Web advertising, only about a dozen or so years old now, is still in its infancy. There are some very smart people out there looking for new and more intrusive ways to get our attention and lure us into clicking on their ads. So do we accept them as we do on TV, radio, and magazines? Or do we demand legislation that gives us the power to opt out? My sense is that, at least for the foreseeable future, we’ll just have to suck it up. I don’t see Web ads going away any time soon, so if we want the wheat, we’ll have to accept the chaff, at least until other smart people find ways to block more of those irritating little…buggers.

Three Words for Better Parenting

Monday, May 2, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor

I have a confession to make: I wrote my first two parenting books before I had children. Is this a great country or what, where you can become an “expert” at something you have never done before (of course, I had worked with families for many years in my practice)? I now have two children of mine and, though they are still young, so far, so good; the parenting ideas from those two books are holding up, at least to this point. But I have to admit that in another 15 years or so, I might be writing another book titled I’m Sorry, They Seemed Like Good Ideas at the Time!

My latest parenting book, Your Children are Listening: Nine Messages They Need to Hear From You will be published in June (apologies for the shameless plug) and, yes, it is based largely on my actual parenting experiences. Now that I’m hip deep in real parenting, I have learned more than a few things about what it takes to be a decent parent (I say ‘decent’ because trying to be a great parent often leads to the problems that result in horrible parents).

Though I just wrote a lengthy book about what I have learned as a parent, I think I can distill what parents need to do to raise healthy children down three simple words (so if you read this post, I suppose you won’t need to buy my new book, thus mitigating my shameless plug).

The first word is calm. As any parent will attest, raising children is an emotional roller coaster with soaring highs, involving love, joy, and pride, and plummeting lows that include fear, frustration, anger, and despair. Moreover, children have the ability to bring out the worst in us. Once they learn what our hot buttons are, they just keep on pushing until they get what they want, either another cookie or to see their parents lose it. And lose it parents do. A recent informal poll I conducted with friends found that every single parent I questioned get so angry at their children that they yell at them regularly.

Yet the ability to remain calm in the storm of family life is essential to children’s healthy development for several reasons. First, losing control and yelling at children is truly terrifying to them. When parents yell at their children, they are sending messages of hate to those whom they are supposed to love the most and be loved by the most.

Second, children look to their parents to be their safe haven in a world that, through their eyes and limited experience and capabilities, is really scary. What message do parents send to their children by losing control? That even their parents aren’t strong enough to protect them from that scary world in which they live or, even worse, that their parents are part of that scary world. And, sadly, for some parents, yelling is just one step away from physical abuse.

Third, calm is especially important when children get out of control with either seemingly inconsolable crying or temper tantrums. When parents yell at their children, the children’s emotional maelstrom is only heightened. Equanimity, in turn, conveys the message to them that their parents are unruffled and in control (a real challenge, to be sure) and that things are going to be okay.

Finally, where do you think most parents learned to yell when they get angry? From their parents, of course. And when parents lose control with their children, they’re sending the message that yelling is an acceptable way of expressing anger and they pass the yelling “gene” on to their children.

Of course, parents are human and can’t be expected to be Zen-like with their children all the time. Occasional loss of control and yelling will probably do no harm and might, in fact, send a healthy messages to children, namely, that their behavior can hurt others, and that everyone has their limits and that’s a not a place children should go.

The second word is tough. If you haven’t gotten a sense from my previous writing, I’m not a touchy-feely kind of guy. Yes, I’m loving to my children, but I’m also very tough on them. But tough doesn’t mean being angry, callous, or punitive. Rather, being tough means knowing what is best for children and don’t what is best for them whether they like it or not. It also means establishing expectations and consequences about what is acceptable behavior, and staying firm in the face of sometimes vociferous resistance. If parents give in and lose the battle of wills, their children may have a temporary victory, but they will certainly lose the war.

Being tough is so important for children because, though they aren’t going to admit it, having unfettered freedom to do as they choose is actually scary to them. The boundaries that parents provide when they are firm helps them feel secure because they can’t trust themselves to set safe and comfortable limits. Also, being tough prepares children for a “real world” that, especially these days, is really tough. Being tough also counters the messages from popular culture that children should be able to have and do whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want.

The final word is persistence. Let’s be honest here. Raising children is frustrating and exhausting. The old parenting cliche “How many times have I told you no?” says it all. You can tell your children something a hundred times and they still don’t get it. It’s just so easy to throw up your hands in despair and say “I give up.” But when you do that, what you are really saying is “I give up on myself and my children.” And that reaction, however strong and seductive it is, will do your children no good.

But you must be persistent. Because if you don’t keep sending those healthy messages to your children, they turn their attention and get their messages from elsewhere, most likely the one source of messages that is relentlessly persistent, namely, popular culture. And I can assure you that those are messages that you don’t want your children to get.

No matter how tired or frustrated you get, or how pointless sending messages to your kids seems, never, ever give up because you know what? They may seem not to hear, ignore what you say, or do the exact opposite of what you are asking, but they are listening and after, say, a few thousand times, they will probably say, “Why didn’t you say so in the first place?”

So post those three words — calm, tough, and persistent — on your fridge, put them on your screensaver, or tattoo them on your forehead, whatever it takes so that you don’t forget them. Of course, saying those three simple words is easy; the hard part is putting them into action. Unfortunately, I don’t have the space to tell you how to do that. You may just have to buy my book after all to figure that part out!

Caught in the ‘Net

Monday, April 25, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor

If you’ve followed my tech-related blog posts over the last few years (if you haven’t, you can catch up here), you know that I have real concerns and what I consider to be some healthy skepticism about the impact of new technology and social media on people, particularly their biggest consumers, children and young people. I know I can come across as either a Luddite or an old fuddy-duddy, but I’m really neither. Though I’m far too old to be a “digital native,” I am certainly a long-time “digital transplant;” thoroughly dependent on technology for my work and also trying to keep up with the tech curve by actively using Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. And, yes, like so many digiterati, I too struggle with finding a balance between being connected and unplugged.

With that said, a recent international study (more than 1000 students from ten countries across five continents) that asked students to disconnect from technology for 24 hours revealed results and insights that were startling, disturbing, sobering, and just a little bit hopeful. Just to give you a little taste of the findings, the adjectives most frequently associated with this period of disconnection were addiction, failure, boredom, confusion, distress, loneliness, anxiety, and depression; not one feel-good descriptor in the bunch. On a positive note, about 25 percent of the sample actually saw the benefits of unplugging. Here are some of the more compelling conclusions.

Addiction was the most widely used descriptor of the one-day moratorium on technology. Though there is considerable debate within the mental-health field about whether tech dependence is a true addiction, like alcohol, drugs, or sex, the students’ expressions of their need to be connected certainly looked like addiction (and if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s probably a duck). Not only did they miss the functions that the technology offered, for example, texting, surfing the Web, and listening to music, but they actually craved the devices themselves. Said a English student, “Media is my drug; without it I was lost. I am an addict. How could I survive 24 hours without it?” Added an American student, “After experiencing this dreadful 24-hours, I realized that our obsession with media is almost scary. I could not even begin to imagine the world if it was media-free.”

Not surprisingly given the students’ seemingly unhealthy relationship with technology and social media, a “clear majority” was unable to last 24 hours unplugged. The study revealed the indispensable role that technology now plays in students’ and, by extension, all of our lives. A Chilean student screams, “I didn’t use my cell phone all night. It was a difficult day…a horrible day. After this, I CAN’T LIVE WITHOUT MEDIA!” As with many aspects of our popular culture, young people (and many adults) seem to have lost sight of what “need” means. People may really, really, really want their smartphone, mp3 player, or tablet, but I tend to view need as related to food, water, and shelter.

Technology seems to be shifting from a tool that people use to, as the study suggests, something that is a part of who we are, an element of our identity and sense of self, almost as if we are becoming cyborgs without the implantation. When separated from their technology, many students described themselves as feeling lost, incomplete, confused. A student from Lebanon said, “The idea of my phone kept jumping into my mind. I was not eager to message or call anyone, I was more eager to just ‘see’ my phone in front of me.“

Abstention from media revealed an unrecognized loneliness among the students who participated in the study. They not only realized how shallow their relationships were when mediated by technology, but that their deepest relationship was with their technology. “All I wanted to do was pick up my phone and become a part of the human race again,” said a UK-based student (don’t miss the irony of this statement).

The limits in information set by text messages and tweets (did someone say 140 characters?) also becomes the default depth of that information. The study found that the constant inundation of information that flows through technology and social media prevents most students from having the time or interest to read beyond the headlines. What’s the possible outcome of this superficial knowledge of the world? Well, how about a poorly informed citizenry incapable of fully grasping and making reasoned decisions about the complex issues with which they will be faced in their lives.

The study showed how incredibly bored students were without technology to entertain them and many had difficulty finding ways to fill their time. Said another Chilean student, “I started to think about things to do without media, and found out that actually I couldn’t think of many.” One troublesome aspect of this boredom is that dependence on technology may be taking its toll on this generation’s initiative and imagination.

And just so I don’t end this post on such a downer note, there is a small ray of optimism that came out of this research. Many students in the study found the 24 hours of disconnection to be an eye opener and a wake-up call. Many were shocked at learning how much time they actually devoted to technology and social media. They also noticed how the quality and depth of their relationships improved while unplugged. Wrote a Mexican student, “I interacted with my parents more than the usual. I fully heard what they said to me without being distracted.”

Others learned that they could actually enjoy life without the leash of technology. Said a US student, “I’ve lived with the same people for three years now, they’re my best friends, and I think that this is one of the best days we’ve spent together. I was able to really see them, without any distractions, and we were able to revert to simple pleasures.”

The one-day vacation from cyberspace also put its use in perspective. Another student from Mexico insightfully observed, “Media put us close to the people who are far away but they separate us from the ones who are nearby.”

Importantly, a number of students learned that they didn’t actually NEED technology and could, in fact, survive without it. In fact, some students experienced a transcendental moment in which, for that one disconnected day, they walked the path of quiet and calm and saw that there was much to be gained from unplugging from technology and plugging into life. Said another US student, “I became more aware with my own thoughts. I realized that maybe it’s important to disconnect every once in awhile and let your brain remember you.”

If I were a true cynic, I would probably say, “We’ll see how long that epiphany lasts after plugging back into the ‘Matrix.’”

But, as a cautious optimist, I’ll conclude by saying, “Ah, hope springs eternal…”

Is the Self-help Industry a Fraud?

Monday, April 18, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor

Change. Whether you call it self-help, personal transformation, growth, or just plain change, it is a goal to which virtually everyone aspires. Gaining self-esteem, losing weight, improving relationships, achieving success, getting rich, or finding happiness are just a few of the ways in which people the world over want to alter their lives. Our ability to achieve these goals depends on whether we can change the way we think, feel, and behave in ways that will encourage the pursuit of those goals. Without change, as the old Texas adage goes, “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”

Yet is there anything that we devote more time, effort, and money to than attempting to achieve that elusive goal? And is there anything that we pursue with such vigor and yet with such poor results than the quest for change?

Thankfully, there are a lot of people out there more than willing to help you change, for a small price, of course. Did you know that self-help is a $10 billion-a-year industry? By the way, as the late and great comedian George Carlin riffs in one of his stand-up routines, “I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, ‘Where’s the self-help section?’ She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.”

What does the size of the self-help industry say about change? For one, no one has found The Secret or The Answer (titles, I should note, of two best-selling personal-transformation books); people are still looking for honest-to-goodness ways to change. And, let’s be really frank here, as George Carlin has also observed, “If you’re reading it in a book, folks, it ain’t self-help. It’s help.” But help is okay too as long as it actually, well, helps.

Unfortunately, change has gotten a bad rap because of the self-help industry; it has become a parody of itself and many of its leading proponents, such as Dr. Phil and Anthony Robbins, have truly “jumped the shark.” Watching self-help gurus on TV is like watching a Saturday Night Live skit of self-help gurus on TV.

Numerous articles have been written about the disingenuousness and downright dishonesty of self-help gurus and their services and products (just do a web search of “self-help industry” and see for yourself). We hear the outrageous promises of fast and easy change that simply affirm the well-known saying often attributed to P. T. Barnum, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” We hear claims cloaked in scientific language (e.g., the Law of Attraction offered in The Secret is, according to its author Rhonda Byrnes, a natural law as real as gravity). We hear the sardonic commentary that the only people who are being helped are the gurus who are making millions off of gullible buyers of self-help books, CDs, and DVDs.

You might say to me, “I really do want to change and I really want to be one of those people who actually changes, but it’s the how to change that’s the mystery!” Well, despite the protestations of Rhonda Byrnes, there really is no mystery. Change is simple. You decide what you want to change, you find a strategy that will facilitate the change, and then you commit yourself to making that change

Change, however, is not easy. In fact, it is downright difficult. That’s why most people don’t change and why the self-help industry is so robust; no one has offered a way for those millions upon millions of self-help consumers to make the changes they want. If someone had actually found the answer to the question, “How do people change?,” there would be no self-help industry, just one very rich person.

People are willing to plunk down $23.95 for a book or $15.95 for a DVD that promises that its method is really—no, I mean really—the one that will help them change (what’s a few bucks for the possibility—whatever the improbability—of finding that pot of gold at the end of the “I can change my life” rainbow?). Of course, when that book, CD, or DVD doesn’t produce the desired change, another self-help product comes along that promises to do the trick. And as long as the price is right, people will continue to line the pockets of the self-help industry in perpetuity. To do otherwise would be to admit defeat and be labeled a loser in our aspirational, “I can have everything I want without any effort” culture. Such an admission would mean a life-long sentence of not being successful, happy, rich, slim, or loved. And that is just plain unacceptable

There are many obstacles that stand in the way of change, ranging from emotional baggage and ingrained habits to an environment that reinforces the status quo and is hostile to change. And, contrary to the assertions of just about every self-help book that has ever been written, change takes incredible commitment, time, energy, and effort. Someone might be able to show you the way, but you have to make the journey yourself.

So if you’re looking for a quick and easy path to change from any self-help book, CD, or DVD that promises you instant and effortless change, put it back on the shelf or return it to amazon. I can assure you that you’re wasting your money and time.

Too Bad Kids Can’t Vote

Monday, April 11, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor

If children could vote, then I’m sure politicians in both our federal and state governments would demonstrate some actual concern for them rather than demonstrating a wanton disregard for these little citizens who are the future of America.

This profound indifference to the needs of our children is displayed starkly in how the federal and state governments are responding to the ongoing economic crisis and current obsession with reducing the federal deficit and state budget shortfalls. A scathing article titled Beyond the Geezer Wars shows how our elected representatives are doing everything they can to pander to their most reliable voting bloc, that would be our citizens over 55 years old, while leaving those who have no vote, that would be America’s children, to scrounge for scraps, literally and metaphorically, where they can find them.

According to the article, “less than 10% of the federal budget is spent on programs that benefit children–in contrast to the more than 1/3 of the federal budget that goes to fund health care and income support for the elderly.” Yet, children’s programs assume a disproportionately large slice of the spending cuts (about 22 percent) outlined in the recently released Republican budget plan; the funding for so many programs devoted to helping children, from the child tax credit to Medicaid to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to Head Start, are being axed in the name of fiscal responsibility. And what about that 1/3 of the federal budget devoted to our graying population? Well, the “geezers” get off largely scot-free, with zero cuts to their Social Security or Medicare benefits. And I’d go off on the proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, but I don’t want this post to turn into a political catfight and take the focus away from its real purpose, namely, to express my incredulity at the unjust price children are paying for their elders’ fiscal negligence.

Now where’s the fairness in all this? Oh, how utterly naïve of me to use the word fair when it comes to economic policy. I don’t mean to devalue our senior citizens; they deserve our respect and appreciation for all they’ve done for our country. But what about our children, those sweet, innocent, and powerless little creatures whom we’re supposed to protect and prepare for the future?

Yet, the only future that politicians seem concerned about is the next election cycle. And remember who votes and who doesn’t. Can you imagine the outcry by our senior citizens if their entitlements were touched? There would be millions of grandpas and grandmas marching on Capitol Hill. And our elected representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, are far to cowardly to do what is right for all of their constituents rather than what is in their own interests.

So who suffers then? Well, the most defenseless of our citizens. Gosh, didn’t someone say something about how the character of a nation is defined by how it treats its most vulnerable members? Sure doesn’t say much about America, does it?

And wouldn’t it be great if children could vote? In fact, these days, I would probably trust them more than our current electorate. Children smell disingenuousness (read BS) a mile away, which would preclude most politicians from getting reelected. And they also have very strong innate moral compasses, so they wouldn’t allow the neediness Americans, whatever their age, to be abandoned in the name of fiscal austerity. And tax cuts for the wealthy? A nonstarter if children could vote. Imagine the political power children could wield: a Million Toddler March on Washington, used diapers put in politicians’ mailboxes, water balloon attacks on Congress, and wrapping Capitol Hill in toilet paper.

If kids could vote, then you’d see some real change in our nation’s priorities. All of a sudden, even our neediest children would be well fed, well cared for, and well educated. Politicians wouldn’t just be reading The Pet Goat during visits to schools, but would be forced to answer the tough questions that only children can ask, for example, when will their school have its leaky roof repaired, why are their teachers being laid off, how are they going to fix our public education system, and Hannah Montana or iCarly?

I’m sorry if I’m getting a bit snarky here, but this kind of shameless neglect just lights a fire in my boxers.

What adds insult to injury is that this desertion of our children is not only callous to our children, but it’s also myopic because it will likely cripple our country in the future. Poor health care, inadequate child care, and substandard early education, the three places where children are the hardest hit, will leave many in this generation of children ill-prepared to survive, much less lead America into the future. All because children can’t vote.

Single Tasking

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor

Having established in a previous post that what most people call multitasking is not the most productive and efficient way to work, the next question I want to address is how to effectively engage in single tasking. The answer is definitely not rocket science; it just requires prioritizing, delegation, focus, and, most importantly, commitment and discipline. But, as with most things in life, single tasking is easier said than done.

Start Single Tasking

A good starting point when trying to become a single-tasker is to rethink how you structure your day. First, prioritize your daily activities. If you are like most technologists, you have such confidence in your ability to be productive that you schedule far more to do than you can actually get done. Add in the daily crises plus the so-called multitasking and you have little chance of completing everything on your daily calendar. You end up overestimating your capabilities and being disappointed at the end of the day because your work wasn’t of the quality that you expect of yourself or you weren’t able to check off everything on your task list.

Instead of falling into this pattern, I encourage you to underestimate what you can accomplish—it will still be a lot—and be pleasantly surprised at the end of the day at how much you get done. An added bonus is that you will be less stressed, enjoy your day more, and produce higher quality work to boot. So rank your upcoming tasks based on how important they are, when they need to be accomplished, and how much time they will take to finish. Then choose the activities that rank highest on your priority list and commit to finishing them regardless of the potential distractions that may arise. If you finish the highest-priority tasks, you can then tackle those of a lower priority (or really live on the edge and leave work a bit earlier than usual!).

Second, be selective in responding to what you perceive as crises. You know that much of what disrupts a day are unexpected “fires” that must be put out immediately. These unanticipated events disrupt your focus, take up time, and set your schedule back, often so far that you can’t catch up. But in my experience in the business world, I have found that many of the so-called crises aren’t as calamitous as they seem and could be dealt with at a later point or delegated to co-workers. Remind yourself that an emergency on someone else’s part doesn’t necessarily constitute an emergency for you. So be clear in defining a crisis and be willing to set aside those that don’t quite clear that bar.

Next, use your administrative assistant – if you have one – as a gatekeeper. I have found that there are few people more important than a competent and strong “admin.” By educating your admin on your new work habits, he or she can turn away unnecessary visitors and nonurgent calls, as well as monitor your email while you’re single tasking in case there is an actual emergency that requires your attention.

Fourth, if you work with a team, delegate as much as possible to reduce the pile of work on your desk. I have found this is often a challenge for technologists for several reasons. You may love doing everything and not want to miss out. You may believe that you are the only one on your team capable of completing the task to your rigorous standards. Or, you may be a control freak who simply must be on top of every little thing on your radar screen.

But delegating is win-win. You are freed to focus on really important work, thus elevating your productivity and efficiency. You are less stressed and more creative. Your team wins even more: They feel empowered because you have shown faith in their abilities. Your team gains valuable experience that makes them even more capable. You are actually doing what teams are supposed to do: that is, work together. And together, you and your team get a whole lot more done.

Maximize Focus

Now that you have set the stage for effective single tasking, your next step is to structure your immediate environment in a way that will maximize your ability to focus and minimize potential distractions. Here are some of the most common multitasking distractions and recommended solutions:

People coming in and out of your office or walking by your cubicle. Solution: close your office door or configure your cubicle so you face away from the opening.

Uncomfortable work space. Solution: Identify and create the setting in which you are most comfortable and productive, for example, a well-lit room, in a comfortable chair, or with your shoes off.

Cluttered workspace. Solution: organize your workspace in a way that will allow you to work efficiently, with easy access to available information and a minimum of distracting clutter.

The compulsive and frequent desire to check your smartphone. Solution: turn it off for periods when you need to focus on another task.

Too many tasks in your field of vision. Solution: clear your desk of everything except that which is immediately relevant to the task at hand.

It Takes Discipline and Practice

Remember when you were in high school and your parents were always popping into your room to see if you were working? Wouldn’t it be great if they did that now? They would provide discipline and force you to focus on one task at a time. Unfortunately, you’re probably on your own now and, as a result, have to discipline yourself. This can certainly be a challenge in an environment with what seems like too many things to do and not enough time to do them.

Don’t think for a minute that implementing these changes will be easy. Like many technologists, you may be a multitasking junkie, feeling a constant urge to check your email, read the latest tech news, or connect with colleagues. But, as with most “addictions,” acknowledgement and acceptance are the first steps to “cure.”

I wouldn’t recommend trying to break your multitasking “jones” cold turkey. An incremental approach seems to be most effective. Pick one or two strategies that I have described above and commit yourself to them. With dedication, time, and practice, you will learn how to focus more effectively. And the great thing about breaking yourself of your multitasking habits is that its benefits are self-evident and substantial.

Is the NFL Bad For Women’s Health?

Monday, April 4, 2011 by:Dr. Jim Taylor

Just prior to the Super Bowl in 1993, a news conference was held by a coalition of women’s groups informing reporters of substantial evidence that domestic violence rose significantly (as much as 40 percent) on Super Bowl Sunday. The subsequent flurry of media attention resulted in this news becoming a “fact” (you’ll see why I have added the quotes shortly) in the psyches of professional football fans and detractors alike. It also led many people to affirm their belief, however inaccurate, that football fans were a bunch of knuckle-dragging misogynists who, out of frustration at seeing their team lose, beat their wives and girlfriends. However, several investigations reported by the urban-legend-debunking web site snopes.com demonstrated that “the claim that Super Bowl Sunday is ‘the biggest day of the year for violence against women’” was simply not true.

Now move ahead 18 years and a new scientifically rigorous study conducted by two economists offers compelling evidence that there is a significant link between the outcomes of professional football games and family violence (not the Super Bowl specifically), though only with certain game outcomes. Let me explain.

The researchers compared data compiled from the National Incident Based Reporting System of crime statistics from 750 law enforcement agencies with more than 900 NFL regular season game scores involving six teams (Carolina Panthers, Denver Broncos, Detroit Lions, Kansas City Chiefs, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans) over an 11-year period . But they went behind just wins and losses. They also looked at which team was favored, whether the opposing team was a traditional rival or in playoff contention, and whether the game was at home or away.

The results are disturbing, though not that surprising. The study reported that, in games that ended in an “upset loss” (the home team was favored to win by four or more points by the Las Vegas point spread), domestic violence spiked by ten percent. When the upset winner was a rival, domestic assault calls rose by 20 percent. These researchers are obviously real data hounds because they also reported that the rise in violence occurred when the fans’ teams were in playoff contention, were penalized significantly, and when the quarterback was sacked more than three times. Moreover, increases in reported violence occurred within a window of a few hours following the conclusion of the game.

Close games, away-game upset losses, and “upset wins” (when the home team wasn’t expected to win) didn’t have any impact on the rate of domestic violence. And there were no increases in violence by women against men.

I should note that this ten percent spike domestic violence is not nearly as high as that occurs on major holidays (New Year’s Day shows the greatest increase at 31 percent) and is about the same as occurs on hot days, another high point (or should I say low point) of family violence.

The researchers assert that emotional cues caused by the outcomes of NFL games have a significant effect on domestic violence, specifically the emotional shock and frustration that male fans experience when their team loses a game that it was expected to win. Additionally, they posit that the loss of control that occurs following their team’s unexpected loss can further trigger violent behavior. Though not addressed in the study, it’s also likely that the consumption of alcohol, a well-documented behavioral disinhibitor (sorry for the psych-speak), and the testosterone and adrenaline that often saturates the viewing environments of football games (sorry for the stereotype) may very well contribute to the increase in domestic violence.

What is particularly interesting, and perhaps controversial, is that they assert that “any difference between the rate of family violence following a win or loss as a causal effect (italics added by me) of the outcome of the game.” The researchers aren’t simply arguing that this relationship is just coincidental or correlational, rather they’re saying that the results of professional football games are the direct cause of the increase in domestic violence. They do, however, suggest that any activity that triggers strong emotional reactions, such as getting a speeding ticket, would have a similar effect. In conjunction with the theories they form the foundation of their analysis, they postulate that these scenarios increase the chances of such assaults occurring in families in which conflict is already present.

So what conclusions can we draw from this unsettling study? First, and I say this in dead seriousness, football fans need to get a grip and get a life. What causes the aforementioned emotional cues to have such a significant impact on fans is that they are so heavily invested in their teams. I studied fan violence a number of years ago and found that the line between fan and fanatic is crossed when fans “over-identify” with their teams, meaning their self-esteem becomes inextricably linked to the successes and failures of their team. Indications of this overinvestment may be in evidence when, for example, fans talk about “my” team or how “we” are doing, when their emotional reactions are out of proportion to the impact the team has on their lives, and when, I suppose, fans paint their houses the team colors.

I’m all for rooting for the home team. Following a favorite team is an exciting and bonding experience. And reveling vicariously in the team’s victories and mourning their defeats can be equally engaging. But when the line between being a fan and being a fanatic is crossed, that level of fandom strikes me as being pretty darned unhealthy. It should, at a minimum, be a sign to such fans that they may need step back, take a hard look in the mirror, and reflect on the role that watching football plays in their lives. At a maximum, these fans might consider finding fulfilling activities in which they can actually participate rather than just spectate.

Before I move on, I want to make it clear that I am not an authority on domestic violence, so the following suggestions are simply offered as common-sense steps for a very sad situation. Women whose husbands and boyfriends (or, for that matter, fathers, brothers, and uncles) are prone to violence should take this research to heart and ensure that they aren’t home for that short window of time following upset losses. It sure seems unfair that the onus has to be on the potential victims (e.g., find out who the team is playing, check the point spread, etc.) to avoid such egregious behavior; they shouldn’t have to live in fear of their significant others’ inexcusable behavior. But better control and proaction than falling victim to domestic violence.

Myth of Multitasking

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

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.

Page 3 of 6« Previous 1 234 5...Next »Last »