Multitasking Is Evil?

When I finally get down to business, interruptions infuriate me. I like to work and be completely focused on the task at hand and finish it and be done. Motherhood has thwarted me over and over. Motherhood is non-stop interruptions. But so is working online from home.

I’m writing and BAM! an IM. I’m IMing and BAM! and email. Basically, working on line from home, though better than being in a cubicle, can be just as frustrating. I’ll interrupt myself with a YouTube clip or a Twitter check or a Facebook update or an email to do. I have online ADD and it can make me crazy. Does it make me evil, too?

Bruce Weinstein, PhD, the EthicsGuy from Business Week says yes.

But then a funny thing happened: I noticed that the more things I could do with ease on my computer, the harder it was to focus on any one activity. My natural inclination to jump from one thing to another prematurely was now aided and abetted by technology—the very thing that was supposed to be helping me. Then, after the PDA and cell phone became a part of my daily life, I found myself, like millions of others, faced with even more interruptions, and it became increasingly difficult to concentrate. The technological advances that once seemed so liberating had become oppressive.

I came to realize that multitasking isn’t something to be proud of. In fact, it’s unethical, and good managers won’t do it themselves and will not require it of those they manage.

Here’s why multitasking is unethical.

When you multitask, you’re doing a lot of work, but you’re not doing most (or any) of it well. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences revealed that people who fired off e-mails while talking on the phone and watching YouTube videos did each activity less well than those who focused on one thing at a time. Psychiatrist Edward M. Hallowell, author of CrazyBusy: Overstretched, Overbooked, and About to Snap! (Ballantine, 2006), puts it this way: “Multitasking is shifting focus from one task to another in rapid succession. It gives the illusion that we’re simultaneously tasking, but we’re really not. It’s like playing tennis with three balls.”

A friend of mine complained because when I IM’d I might be doing something else, too. “You’re not paying attention and you’re not doing anything very well.” When I’d write an incoherent sentence that was unrelated to the conversation, she’d complain. My brother and sister roll their eyes and say, “There she goes again” when I lose interest and start doing something else.

My multitasking is not only counter-productive, it’s rude. Holy cow! Multitasking is evil!

So how can I stop this? How can I ignore the Twitter updates, the IM ping, the email whoosh, the phone call, the text alert? I might miss something!

My solution is vicious deadlines. Deadlines freak me out and the potential of dropping a responsibility scares me. As for human relationships, I’m trying to be more focused and present when I engage. My attention span is so short….

Anyway, I think Bruce has a point. Multitasking–having too many things going simultaneously–means that nothing gets ones full attention. This is a problem. Something worth doing, is worth giving full energy to.

Technology can solve problems, but it has created some, too. The ability to have so many things going has made it so people pay less attention to things that matter most–usually that’s the people in their lives.

Posted in Corrupted Culture, Nerd Stuff | 1 Comment »

Michael Gerson Sums Up Obama’s Narcissism

Wow:

On several occasions, Obama attacked American conduct in simplistic caricatures a European diplomat might employ or applaud. He accused America of acing “unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others” — a slander against every American ally who has made sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan. He argued that, “America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy” — which is hardly a challenge for the Obama administration, which has yet to make a priority of promoting democracy or human rights anywhere in the world.

The world, of course, has its problems, too. It has accepted “misperceptions and misinformation.” It can be guilty of a “reflexive anti-Americanism.” “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.” Translation: I know you adore me because I am better than America’s flawed past. But don’t just stand there loving me, do something.

And, wow again:

Twice in his United Nations speech, Obama dares to quote Franklin Roosevelt. I have read quite a bit of Roosevelt’s rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine him, under any circumstances, unfairly criticizing his own country in an international forum in order to make himself look better in comparison. He would have considered such a rhetorical strategy shameful — as indeed it is.

At the United Nations, Obama set out to denigrate American goodness so he can become our rescuer. The speech had nothing to do with the confident style of Democratic rhetoric found in Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. It insulted that tradition. And no one is likely ever to quote the speech — except to deride it.

Here’s my take, though. President Obama is no different from candidate Obama. What did you moderates out there think he meant when he said that he would rise the tides and save the planet and BE the change you can believe in? Why do you think President Obama wanted to “remake America”?

I’ll answer it for you: Because he felt that America is fundamentally flawed. Because he believes HE is the fix. Pretty simple. And he’s no different today than he was a year ago. it’s just rather startling to hear the President of the United States apologize for his own country inherent badness and say that his inherent goodness is the cure.

Arrogant and narcissistic? Yep. But he had a lot of useful idiots help him get elected. His America-hating speechifying is nothing new. Some people are just hearing for the first time.

H/T @allahpundit

Posted in Political Animals | 10 Comments »

Spanking Lowers I.Q.

Well, that will disappoint some of the readers here. Oh wait! Not that kind of spanking. Here’s the study:

The results of a survey of more than 17,000 university students from 32 countries “show that the higher the percent of parents who used corporal punishment, the lower the national average IQ,” Straus wrote in his presentation.

In looking at spanking just in the United States, Straus and a fellow researcher reviewed data on IQ scores from 806 children between 2 and 4 years old and another 704 kids aged 5 to 9.

When their IQs were tested again four years later, children in the younger group who were not spanked scored five points higher, on average, than did children who had been spanked. In the group of older children, spanking resulted in an average loss of 2.8 points.

“How often parents spanked made a difference,” Straus said in a news release from the university. “The more spanking, the slower the development of the child’s mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference.”

I think the study writers were beaten as children.

First, when looking across cultures, how does one control for something like spanking? All Australian children eat vegemite, or however you spell it. Does that make an IQ difference? Do spanked children who eat vegemite have higher or lower IQs?

Not to mention, this statement, an obvious one, invalidates the whole study:

Those findings are plausible and make some sense, Briggs said, but she added that it’s difficult to tease out all the other factors that could play a role in IQ scores — including poverty and parental education.

Ya think? How about the parents being morons themselves since IQ is highly heritable?

Second, the presumption is that spanking a child is an out-of-control parenting experience:

Dr. Stephen Ajl, a child abuse pediatrician, director of pediatric ambulatory care at the Brooklyn Hospital Center and medical director of the Jane Barker Brooklyn Children’s Advocacy Center in New York City, said that “spanking and other forms of corporal punishment mean that someone has lost control, and if that goes on on a chronic basis, it may affect some part of children’s psychological well-being.”

And though some people believe that they can use spanking as a form of punishment without losing control, Briggs said that’s very difficult to do all the time.

“When you’re physical with your child, you open that floodgate, and the likelihood that it could veer into where you don’t have as much control increases,” Briggs said. “Plus, if you’re just spanking, you haven’t taught your child anything.”

You can’t tell me the culture of beating a kid with a stick for every response is the same as a parent who spanks a kid for running into the street. Even if the second parent is out-of-control or angry, sometimes it’s not bad for a kid to get “rebooted” now and again.

This study was put forth for political reasons. Liberals don’t like spanking. They think it’s barbaric. They also believe everyone can be rehabilitated. Ironically, the children who never learn consequences as a kid grows up to being surprised, and in jail, dealing with consequences.

Can a child grow up without ever being spanked and turn out fine? Yes. Can a child receive corporal punishment and turn out fine? Yes. The bigger thing is love being the foundation.

Also: Spanking is NOT hitting. There is a huge difference between the two. Beating is another whole level of abuse. Liberals like conflating these things because nuance scares them. They want a rule for parents to follow, but the fact is, every child is different. Family personalities are different. Parents must make different choices with different kids.

Bottom line, libs need to butt out.

Posted in America, Corrupted Culture, Mind | 4 Comments »

Forced Abortions: Majority Of American Women Feel Coerced To Abort

Many women experience pressure, abuse, and coercion when faced with a surprise pregnancy. This is bearing out with research reported by LifeNews:

Elliot Institute director David Reardon, co-authored a Medical Science Monitor study of American and Russian women with the 64 percent figure.

His new report, Forced Abortion in America, documents cases of violence against women who refused to have an abortion.

It also highlights cases like the one in Maine, which saw a couple charged with abducting their pregnant daughter in an attempt to force her to have an abortion, and another in Georgia, where a woman forced her pregnant daughter to drink turpentine to cause an abortion.

Reardon says the cases are just part of an epidemic of coerced and forced abortions in the U.S.

Reardon said that cases of women being pressured, threatened, or subjected to violence if they refuse to abort are not unusual.

He pointed out that studies have shown that homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S. and that women in abusive relationships are at risk for increased violence during pregnancy.

“In many of the cases documented for our ‘Forced Abortion in America’ report, police and witnesses reported that acts of violence and murder took place after the woman refused to abort or because the attacker didn’t want the pregnancy,” he said in a statement LifeNews.com received.

“Even if a woman isn’t physically threatened, she often faces intense pressure, abandonment, lack of support, or emotional blackmail if she doesn’t abort. While abortion is often described as a ‘choice,’ women who’ve been there tell a very different story,” he added.

It has been the rare woman in my practice who sought the abortion and feels no guilt years later. Most women were either pressured to abort or chose the abortion and feel guilt later and remorse later. It is the rare woman who truly “chose”. It is a rarer woman who has no regret over her choice.

Posted in Body, Corrupted Culture, Mind | 4 Comments »

It’s A Dangerous World In Here

The internet ain’t no place for the innocent. It’s the wild west around these parts, with infrastructure still being built and social feedback loops yet to fully developed. There is little policing, few laws. At times, it can feel like an ominous town, with bad guys sizing you up from under their ten-gallon hat–just waiting for a moment of weakness.

Bad guys don’t have to be quick on the draw on the internet. They can be stupid, unemployed ner-do-wells with nothing better to do than sit around and hassle people. In fact, a big part of the discourse online is just that. People with too much time on their hands hassling people who actually work and produce something.

I have written before that the internet is a place to share information, not hide it, and I wanted to illustrate that with some examples:

First, the not-so-anonymous blogger. There are many bloggers out there who don a nom de plume to hide their identity. America has a very long history regarding pseudonyms. And many people use them online for professional reasons–they have a job or profession where it wouldn’t do to have their opinion known. But online anonymity is an illusion. A determined person or P.I. can find a persons true identity fairly easily.

Example 1: Congressional staffer boinking Congressmen and writing about it.
Example 2: Hacker terrorizing others. (He’s a professional, mind you, and STILL got caught.)
Example 3: All the anonymous asshats cyber stalking Governor Palin.

In all cases, the bloggers were smart. They knew the internet and they were exposed. Word to the wise. If you’re going to be anonymous, know that a controversial topic will likely uncover you.

Second, social media as a weapon. The above folks were using blogs rather destructively, but some anonymous bloggers are constructive and deserve anonymity. Still, it doesn’t take much to uncover someone. People can also use social media to destroy.

Danny Glover recounts how a not-so-sweet mommy blogger stomped her cyber feet:

Extortion has found its way into the blogosphere — and all for a pair of Crocs. A greedy “mommy blogger” at the recent BlogHer conference threatened to write something bad about the maker of Crocs if its representative didn’t find her a free pair of the comfy sandals.

No doubt about it, that’s low. As I see it, there would have been nothing wrong with said mommy blogger bemoaning her missed opportunity to get good swag at the conference. But threatening to go negative as a way to get a gift she clearly didn’t deserve is completely unethical.

The same is true for anyone who uses social media as a weapon. The blogosphere is an effective check against bad customer service, but customers who abuse it are as bad, or worse, than the companies who mistreat them.

It is as easy as a couple clicks to ruin a person’s reputation–or try to. While the vile creatures who spread false rumors and invective about Sarah Palin are now outed and exposed for frauds, Andrew Sullivan continues on his merry way after being as salacious and evil as his online equivalent Perez Hilton. Cruel language can be devastatingly effective as both of these rumor mongers have proven.

Finally, the internet world connects directly to the real world. It is the real world. The notion that there is a separation is an illusion. People assume that those online are somehow more trustworthy–or, that they’re so far away that even if they are kinda bad, they’re harmless. That is not true. Consider this:

U.K. insurance company, Legal & General, took a survey of 2,092 users of social networking Web sites. Almost four out of ten (38 percent) of those who use social media at places like Twitter or Facebook post their vacation plans. Potential burglars could find this information valuable in seeking targets of crime.

The report titled “The Digital Criminal,” said that criminals could obtain vital, personal information from online users of social media.

It is nigh to impossible to hide my own activities. Someone in my family inevitably gives it away. You’re in Michigan?! Where? Or, in the case of my Australia trip, my family didn’t have to write, tweet, Facebook or say anything. I live-tweeted the whole trip. Still, I try to not give away my activities–exact location. I try to have a house sitter. Those sorts of things to mitigate against the dangers.

The internet should be interacted with rationally. It isn’t a magical place. There are people on the ends of the intertubes. They can be bad, good and as mixed as a real life person can be. They are real live people. Even anonymously. Even remotely.

Posted in America, Corrupted Culture, Nerd Stuff | 4 Comments »

Podcast 33: The Psychology Of Success & Happiness With Guest John Hawkins

Why aren’t Leftists happy even when they run everything and get what they want? John Hawkins and I talk about that and much more on this podcast:

Download MP3
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.

Posted in Political Animals | No Comments »

The Name Rule

Robert Stacy McCain wrote a slice of genius the other day. He writes of names and relationships and psychology:

All Girls Named Tonya, the title of that childhood memoir no publisher will ever pay me to write, derives from a principle of human psychology first postulated by a genuinely evil little bastard who became one of my dope buddies in 10th grade. That title is 67% of what I call Art Hembree’s Law:

All Girls Named Tonya Are Sluts.

If your name is Tonya, I apologize on my old friend’s behalf, but as a lowlife trying to score some easy action circa 1978-86, I can testify that Hembree’s Law proved amazingly reliable.

Well, he swapped momentary, if unfulfilled pleasure with Tonya, for a lost lifetime of love with Amy, but I say he got lucky.

If all girls named Tonya are sluts, then all girls named Amy are mean gossips. Now, I’ve lived long enough that the rules have had too many exceptions to be valid, but I’m still suspicious when I meet an Amy. She has a threshold of niceness that she must scale that Anns (they’re smart) just don’t have to.

Don’t forget Susans. To a person, they’ve all been smug, self-righteous smarty-pants. Is there a Susan who is a C-student? I don’t think so. Is there a Susan who isn’t a competitive-better-than-you ball of high achievement? Haven’t met her yet.

My sister says all Melinda’s are fat. That’s not true.

I like John’s. They are unoffensive.

Have to be careful with Michael’s. They can go either way–mean or nice. They are usually smart.

Do names determine behavior? I wonder.

I know a Chiropractor named Dr. Bone. I know a Proctologist named Dr. Butts. No, I don’t know a Gynecologist named Dr. Vagina, but you get the idea.

Anyway, Stacy needs to let it go. He dodged a name bullet. I hope his wife’s name isn’t Amy.

Posted in America, Corrupted Culture, Entertain Me, Mind | 4 Comments »

Word Games By Democrats…Latest Pajama’s Media Column

The Dems are doing it again. First, it was talking “reform” instead of overhaul, which would be a more accurate representation of their legislative aims. Now, they’re taking the “public option” out [the word has become synonymous with single payer which is synonymous with Government Run Health Care] and using Co-ops, instead.

It’s all the same. The progressives want to wrest control of health care choices out of the hands of the individual and put the power into the collective, i.e. the government, i.e. them.

Democrats use language to try to achieve their ends. Orwellian double-talk and inverted definitions make for confusing the public discourse. People wonder what the heck the Democrats really mean. All this confusion is back-firing. People simply distrust the President and Congress on everything related to health care now. And no wonder! The Democrats have been playing word games and trying to obscure their true intent from the beginning.

Please go take a look at my article over in Pajama’s Media about the word games. The word games matter because they end up defining the narrative. Republicans need to stop playing along and being more mindful of the words they use, lest they give credence to the ideas of the opposition. Here’s just a bit of what I say:

What is described in the bill here is not simply a reform. The tax code, legal system, hospitals, insurance companies, doctors, and the patient experience are radically changed. Radical change does not suggest reform. It suggests transformation.

Republicans and conservatives need to be smarter that the Democrats on this. Insist upon using proper descriptive words–not the language the reinforces the opposition.

Posted in Political Animals | 4 Comments »

We’re All Mothers Now

A friend of mine likes to quote that saying when she wants to provoke her husband. Works every time. The saying came to mind again when I read an article about the necessity of smart phones–to stay connected and working. From the New York Times’s Steve Lohr a week ago:

Such a digital connection can have its downside. The perils of obsessive smartphone use have been well documented, including distracted driving and the stress of multitasking. CrackBerry, a term coined years ago, is telling.

The smartphone, said Mr. Meyer, a cognitive psychologist, can be seen as a digital “Skinner box,” a reference to the experiments of the behavioral psychologist B. F. Skinner in which rats were conditioned to press a lever repeatedly to get food pellets.

With the smartphone, he said, the stimuli are information feeds. “It can be powerfully reinforcing behavior,” he said. “But the key is to make sure this technology helps you carry out the tasks of daily life instead of interfering with them. It’s about balance and managing things.”

James Joyner muses:

The social — and, increasingly, professional — expectation of being constantly available, however, is much more bane than boon. I’m generally more than happy to take a couple minutes out of my evening or weekend to help someone out with a quick question so they can continue progress on whatever they’re doing without waiting until 9 am the next workday. But, for many people, it has become more than that: a culture where one is never truly off work. While I have no idea what to do about it, that’s not a positive development.

Eh, I don’t know why these people are complaining. Moms are never off the clock. And there’s always a kid interrupting, bugging, and harrying the mother during her tasks. I’ve breastfed. The smart phone has got nothing on a 3 month old.

With smart phones, we’re all mothers now.

Via @Armano

Posted in Corrupted Culture, Nerd Stuff | 5 Comments »

Wow, Michelle Obama Hates Carla Bruni…A lot

I saw this picture on Drudge and had to put it before you guys. It says it all. And for you lefties who think I’m reading waaaaaay too much into this look here:

Anger:
THE BROWS ARE LOWERED AND DRAWN TOGETHER.
VERTICAL LINES APPEAR BETWEEN THE BROWS.
THE LOWER LID IS TENSED AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE RAISED.
THE UPPER LID IS TENSED AND MAY OR MAY NOT BE LOWERED BY THE ACTION OF THE BROW.
THE EYES HAVE A HARD STARE AND MAY HAVE A BULGING APPEARANCE.
THE LIPS ARE IN EITHER OF TWO BASIC POSITIONS: PRESSED FIRMLY TOGETHER WITH THE CORNERS STRAIGHT OR DOWN; OR OPEN, TENSED IN A SQUARISH SHAPE AS IF SHOUTING.
THE NOSTRILS MAY BE DILATED, BUT THIS IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE ANGER FACIAL EXPRESSION AND MAY ALSO OCCUR IN SADNESS.
THERE IS AMBIGUITY UNLESS ANGER IS REGISTERED IN ALL THREE FACIAL AREAS.

Care to caption?

Posted in Political Animals | 13 Comments »