Conversation

Replying to
2/ This is multitasking defined by tasks like "click only when the arrow is red and and pointing the opposite direction from other arrows"
1
2
Replying to
4/ I'm convinced both academic and pop-wisdom takes on multitasking are deeply wrong. We're multi-tasking beings. Unit asking is unnatural
3
12
Replying to
5/ Why? Nature isn't like movie villains, sending mooks (disposable minions) at you 1 at a time in order. Reality comes at you multithreaded
2
9
Replying to
7/ Our brains are designed to be constantly scanning in wandering pattern (presumably for threats and opportunities). It's feature, not bug
3
13
Replying to
8/ I've seen research indicating that mind-wandering is at heart of creativity, play. Multitasking is less efficient, but is more creative
2
16
Replying to
9/ If you think about it environments that allow extended focus on one activity are unnatural and historically anomalous: the Industrial Age
2
11
Replying to
10/ But there's deeper phenomenon here: metacognition. Mind wandering makes us interrupt driven by design. Metacognition makes us good at it
1
11
Replying to
11/ The critical thing to understand is that a "task" or "thread" is not magically defined *for* us by psychologists or Charlie Munger
1
8
Replying to
12/ We are doing this *constantly*. We factor and refactor recursively all the way down. Defining "tasks" dynamically IS metacognition
3
9
Replying to
14/ Arguments that multitasking are "bad" are like arguments that compiled high level code is less "efficient" than hand-coded assembly or C
1
9
Replying to
15/ True, but entirely besides the point in most domains. Metacognition and high-level coding both give you higher level gains that are 10x
1
6
Show replies