2/ The most intuitive example of this is multitasking. If you try doing multiple things at once, you generally just do a bunch of things poorly, and the total time actually increases.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ Of course, in many cases, you're trying to induce useful errors -- creativity. So, you don't necessarily want too narrow an attentive focus, because your error rate is insufficient to fuel creative activities.
Show this thread -
4/ But all of this leads me to wonder two things, 1. Is making your error rate observable useful? 2. Can you train your error rate (less sloppy work)?
Show this thread -
5/ Mostly, I think it's painfully hard (and maybe intractable) for one person to measure. If you're doing the same exact task over and over again, you'll get better at it, so environmental manipulation isn't all that telling.
Show this thread -
6/ But, over populations, you may get an interesting picture. And, for people in my field, there may be cases where there are nice objective measures (e.g. frequency of syntax errors while coding).
Show this thread -
7/ This is just me thinking out loud. But, wouldn't it be wonderful if you could dial in your environment to something that achieves the error rate you want for a given task?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Umm, delete twitter?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.