- there’s no such thing as multi-tasking

July 28, 2010

There is no end to what we will say to allow ourselves to feel better about things that we should not feel better about.  Large men will rub their beer bellies and claim that women find it “sexy.”  Sometimes they will say they’re not heavy, they’re “big boned,” which isn’t possible.  Overweight women will convince others that they’re happier that way, but I suspect they’re not.  Those beer-bellied men also say that the belly gives them “character.”  Yes, if that character is “Wimpy” from the old Popeye cartoons.  I won’t pick on bald men because nobody chooses to be bald.  You can choose to gain weight, but you can’t choose to gain hair.  Well, not naturally.  We’ve also become blissfully ignorant, sometimes pretending to enjoy being unaware of things in order to avoid any responsibility.  However, one claim that particularly bothers me is what we are doing for which we have adopted the term “multi-tasking.”

We are bored, and we have been bored a long time.  It starts in daycare when they packed us in a room full of toys with a big television in the corner with Barney and Sesame Street playing all day.  It got worse in elementary school when inflation forced both parents to work, leaving us home alone for a few hours after school.  If you didn’t have both parents, then you were already alone and bored.  It got worse in high school when more teachers learned that it was easier to give us pages to read and questions to answer instead of engaging us in conversation.  As video games grew in capability, graphics, and popularity, we ourselves became boring because we choose more often to sit home and play instead of playing after school sports.  Real sports are a little tougher to play because they do not have a “reset” button.  Once we reached the workplace, we sealed the boredom deal when they stuffed us in cubicles, which functioned much like blinders on a horse.

When we are given a task at work, it doesn’t take long for us to become disinterested, looking for something else.  It seems we’re always searching for that “reset” button.  Because of our general inability to commit to anything, many of us do not even last a full year at one job before moving on to another one.  Those who do last might only do so because we could not find something or somewhere else to which to jump, thanks to record unemployment.  Sometimes we do not last long at a job not by choice but by management’s choice to get rid of the slackers.  Some of us, however, have figured out how to make it appear that we are actually working when in reality we are not.  This is what we now call “multi-tasking” (MT), and it goes something like this:

You’re given task B, which might normally take you five total hours to complete.  During the first hour you stop to check e-mail, send a few “tweets,” and post the first line of your favorite song on Facebook after you leave some comments on your sister’s Disney vacation photos, something about getting sick on Tower of Terror.  Later in that first hour, you remember that you still haven’t finished task A that you were given the day before.  So B goes on hold while you take a few minutes to remind yourself on what task A was all about.  You find notes, double check a few numbers, and slowly get up to speed.  You then put in a solid fifteen minutes before you stand up to stretch, lose your train of thought, and drift back to task B again. 

Your first 60 minutes of task B turns out to be only about 30 productive minutes.  In the next hour of task A or B, those 30 productive minutes will decrease further because you’re going to touch base with a co-worker and coffee.  What will seem like collaboration is really only procrastination, and it will get worse after lunch when task C comes across your desk.

Each transition from task to task requires about two minutes to check e-mail, refill coffee, or say “hi” to someone else.  It also requires two minutes to refamiliarize yourself with one of the other tasks in order to slowly catch up to the point you were out when you bailed the last time.  When your boss asks why tasks A and B aren’t finished yet, you tell him they’re both in progress but not yet complete because you’re “multi-tasking.”  Feel better?  Of course, because you’re not multi-tasking.  You’re just jumping back and forth between three different things while giving less attention and taking more time to do so.

Before I even started writing this, I had already heard from two people who insist that they multi-task regularly with examples such as driving a stick shift, smoking, and talking on the phone.  That is not multi-tasking.  That is doing two mechanical motions while speaking.  Multi-tasking requires pensive focus activities such as reading or writing.  It’s not multi-tasking if I’m riding a bike, breathing, and blinking.

If there was such a thing as multi-tasking, women would definitely be better at it than men.  Actually, I’m sure they all believe they can do it because I’ve seen women talk on the phone, watch television, and bake lasagna at the same time.  In females, there are two connections, two pathways that connect the right and left hemispheres of their brains.  Men only have one connection, leaving us only half as good at efficiently moving information back and forth as we do things.  So while women would easily talk to their mothers, watch General Hospital, and bake lasagna, men would probably end up in General Hospital after eating chemicals from the battery of the cell phone that we accidentally dropped in the lasagna.


- an image of a no-brainer

July 27, 2010

According to the 7/19 issue of Time magazine, researchers studied brain images to learn that college students who had recently been dumped by a girlfriend or boyfriend were more likely to still be deeply in love with that ex when compared to someone who had been dumped further back.  They probably could have reached the same conclusion by simply counting the beer cans in the dorm trash.


blowing up and building brain cells

January 20, 2007

Minesweeper
Click click click boom. Click flag click flag – wrong flag – boom.
As far back as I can remember using Windows, Minesweeper was always there, and it wasn’t until about four years ago that I actually learned how it works. I’d start a game, click random blocks, after about five of which I’d get blown up. One afternoon, in an education workshop, I watched someone with a laptop clicking away, planting flags, but without getting blasted. I waited until her game was over and then asked her to please teach me how it works. Only recently did I realize that this simple game is actually a very good learning tool that should be used in classrooms whenever possible.

For those of you who have already played the game, skip down a few paragraphs. Those who are clueless, as I recently was, keep reading from here. Minesweeper begins with a grid of gray squares with two number boxes above. The box on the right keeps the time in seconds from start to finish. The box on the left is the total number of bombs on the board. Your job is to find all of the bombs and mark them with a flag by right clicking and eventually clear all of the non-bomb spaces with a left click. Each time you right-click, it plants a flag and counts down the bomb spaces. Unfortunately, you must first take a few guesses and left click on a handful of hopefully non-bomb spaces at the beginning of the game. You should never plant a flag unless you are absolutely sure that a bomb is there. If you wrongly plant a flag to indicate a bomb, but there is no bomb, then you’ve got a good chance of hitting a bomb on a space that you’re going to think is safe. That part seems simple, but what about all those numbers?

Hopefully, when you left-click on all those gray blocks, you’ll see a number instead of an explosion. Numbers range from 1 up to 5, I think, because I can’t recall seeing anything higher than 5, but in theory I suppose they could go as high as 8. Lemme ‘splain. Each block is surrounded by up to eight other blocks, provided the clicked-upon block is not on the outer border of the entire grid. If left-clicking reveals a 1, it means that block is touching one bomb. Think of each block as the middle square of a tic-tac-toe board. If there is a 1 in the middle, then there is a bomb somewhere in one of the other spaces around it. If there is a 2 in that space, then there are two bombs all around it, even on the corners that seems to just barely be touching it. Some blocks are blank after clicking because they don’t touch any bombs.

You’ve got to begin the game by randomly clicking in about ten or so spaces until you’ll suddenly see a large portion of the grid, about 30 to 40% of it, open up cleanly. Once that opens up, then you can begin to pick away at corners. Again imagine the tic-tac-toe board with a 1 in the middle and all surrounding blocks blank except for a still-waiting block in the upper right corner. Since that 1 in the middle is touching only one bomb, and since there is only one unclicked block, then that block must be the bomb, and that’s where you plant the flag with a right-click. Once you plant that flag, look around for any other number blocks touching that now-safe bomb with a flag on it. If there is a 2 in that middle space of the imagined tic-tac-toe board and there are three unclicked blocks, then one is safe and two are bombs. One bomb is already flagged, so you’ve got two blocks to check, one a bomb and one safe. This is where the learning takes place.

The initial strategy is to seek the 1 blocks. If there is a 1 and you already know where the one bomb is that it’s touching, then you know that any other block can NOT be a bomb. That’s when you click away at anything that is also touching that 1 block because you know it can’t be a bomb as the one bomb for that 1 block is already flagged. Usually, you can find 1 blocks that are only touching one block, meaning it must be a bomb. Very often the rest of those blocks will be 1’s, and that will help you clear out safe blocks. Occasionally, you will have to guess, and sometimes you’ll guess wrong, but that should only happen maybe once in the entire game. I usually try to avoid the guesses and save it until the end by going elsewhere on the board and working my way back to that guess situation. Maybe something will uncover itself, maybe not. Some people choose to get the guess out of the way because, if you’re wrong, game over. So why wait until the end just to guess wrong and lose when you’re one or two clicks from the end of the game? Because the puzzle might solve itself from the other side, which won’t make sense until you’ve played and learned it.

Now, the educational part. First, it’s a counting game. Finding the numbers, counting the bombs that are touching it, numbers, and counting are all mathematical. It’s also a test of your powers of deduction. You’ve got to strategize and build skills in order to figure out where bombs are and are not. There are also patterns to follow. What’s great about this game is that it’s not just hand-eye coordination. Children can eventually win at any game that is no more than learning the timing of several clicks of buttons at a precise moment all wrapped with interesting and colorful graphics. Those games are not challenging because it’s just a matter of trial and error leading to proper timing. If I click too fast and lose, then I’ll learn to click a little more slowly next time and adjust continually until I get it right. This is not the case with Minesweeper. The only timing that counts is having your name or initials next to the high score for each level, if you’re interested in the recognition. There are small (beginner), intermediate, and large (expert) grids with more bombs as the grid grows.

Try the game. It can be addictive, but in a good way because it’s making you more smarter, not more drunker – er.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 816 other followers

%d bloggers like this: