How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking
blogs.hbr.org
blogs.hbr.org
Surely, when on hold with some company listening to "your call is valuable to us; please do not hang up; the expected wait time is 45 minutes" he wouldn't advise to just be on the phone.
When I need to run a 5 minute test suite before checking in some code, should I go read my email while I wait? What if it's 30 seconds instead?
Where is that point where switching to another task is the right thing to do?
While waiting for my project to compile and start, I switch to my browser, get lost in HN or e-mail and 5 or 10 min later forget what I was doing in the first place. When this happens several times a day, it becomes a real problem.
Well, sometimes I do that. It is effective when I do it.
For now I think I will try and heed troutwine's advice: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1379082
I think the point at which you can switch is when you can honestly expect to give the thing you are switching to your full attention until it is complete. So sure, go answer a few emails during a compile, but only check for the compile to be done in between emails.
This is good feedback about whether I actually managed to focus on the task that I planned.
However, I find that pomodoros are not the right granularity - to really be productive, I need to focus on one task for an entire day (related: pg's Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule: http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html). This is still really hard for me to do.
I used to do work in 20-minute sprints. It was originally for eye strain, but I found myself very productive for those 20 minutes, as if I was driven to be sure I got things done such that the break didn't severely interrupt me. It really helped me focus on results.
We've all been in the state of flow when we truly give the task at hand our complete attention. Quite impossible while attempting to split your attention.
I think its also worth thinking about the running dialog many people have in their heads. Focus on the past or the future in your head instead of being fully present in this moment is just as distracting.
The power of concentration, focus, impulse refusal and self-control were praised even in Upanishads. Then the Buddha become a great teacher to everyone, next this teachings was evolved into Zen and so on.
Most resent psychiatrist rediscover it again and again as 'gestalt therapy', 'curing experience', 're-framing' and other 'great findings'.
Read something on today's hot topic 'social intelligence' and you will find re-selling exactly the same ideas (from Hindu/Buddhism teachings) along with co-called 'scientific evidence' like scans of brain's activity and the like.
I didn't even mention the Matrix movie =)
In the essence, multitasking is about to decrease your productivity, because this misconception is based on concept that came from an IT field.
In IT multitasking emerged because you have too many unused CPU circles and they could be used to do some additional, background processes. Even today and average server spend most of its time in the idle loops.
In a dramatic contrast, our mind have no idle loops or unused powers. Often people have some deficits instead, like lack of focus, inability to concentrate long enough, to pay attention and so on.
Of course, it is acceptable to listen your ipod while you're doing some hard, dumb, physical job, that distracts your attention from the quite boring task. But if you're trying to use your mental capacity any distractions reducing your efficiency.
Some people are confusing multitasking with creativity, which is an ability to associate and link together things from quite different fields (say, Buddhism and modern cognitive therapy =)
So, it's much better to try to learn some thousands-year-old techniques to boost your concentration, focus, attention and some relaxation and priming up methods, instead of reading crappy blog posts. =)
Buddhism had to start as crappy blog posts, too. =)
As I was writing this, Daniel, my two-year-old son, walked into my office, climbed on my lap, and said "Monsters, Inc. movie please."
So, here we are, I'm finishing this piece on the left side of my computer screen while Daniel is on my lap watching a movie on the right side of my computer screen.
Your selective quote there was a bit out of context for my understanding. It encouraged me to read the article in full, but afterward, I felt it was misleading.
I'm not saying the OP is any better than you accused... I'm just pointing out that not everyone in the HN audience reads the same way.