10/ But there's deeper phenomenon here: metacognition. Mind wandering makes us interrupt driven by design. Metacognition makes us good at it
Conversation
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
2
8
Replying to
12/ We are doing this *constantly*. We factor and refactor recursively all the way down. Defining "tasks" dynamically IS metacognition
3
2
9
Replying to
13/ Unless you're very lucky, the span of activities you have to constantly refactor to avoid getting stuck is quite large.
1
1
4
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
3
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
1
6
Replying to
16/ In summary: "multitasking is bad" is a mix of bad science, pastoral advice from lucky people in exceptional situations, poor semantics
5
8
19
Replying to
totally agree. But although mind-wandering interrupts are distracting, doesn't mean all distractions promote creativity
1
1
Replying to
no but the processing capacity to deal with interrupts is what makes us creative. The ignore/pre-empt algorithm in our heads
1
1
Replying to
agree but target consumers of pop advice are unfortunately much lower on hierarchy. Just surviving in an infoantediluvian world
1
1
Replying to
That's a bit patronizing, like the poor "work against their own interest". I suspect unitasking is actually luxury for higher-ups
Replying to
I meant Knowl. Worker Hierarchy not Maslow. W/out basic stay-on-taskiness, you'll never have freedom to ponder subtlety of multitasking
2

