|
Softpanorama
(slightly skeptical)
Open Source Software Educational Society |
May the
source be with you,
but remember the KISS principle ;-)
|
Information Overload

In Greek mythology, Sisyphus, an evil king,
was condemned to Hades to forever roll a big rock to the top of a mountain,
and then the rock always rolled back down again.
Similar version of Hell is suffered every day by people
managed by micromanagers and control freaks.
There can be several possible reasons if infornation overload:
- Too much information
- Can't understand information
- Don't know if the information exists
- Don't know where to find information
- Can't acccess infornation
- Don't know if the information is accurate
It can occure in large variety of situations:
- Sipping information from a fire hose. this situation is
typical for colledge students, see Mental overload
- Self inflicted overload, suffering from Obsessive-compulsive disorder:
a broad category of "voluntary workaholics" belongs here. Computer
gamers are typical victims of this type of chronic overload. This is a
kind of addition to computers.
- Red Tape induced or bureaucratic overload. Often is
connected with the situation that workload is normal but to
accomplish anything requires tremendous additional and
counterproductive efforts. this is a situation typical for large
corporations, especially when working for a clueless
Control
Freaks: micromanager who makes accomplishing anything extremely difficult
and drown you in useless paperwork supposly needed to him/her to make a decision
that often should be made on the spot.
- Working in the environment where one person has just too many responsibilities
and just cannot cope with then (typical situation in startups', where often
the whole IT department is two or three people).
- Prolonged exposure to stress (Working for
a corporate psychopath
is the most typical example of work situation of this type)
- Drowning in an ocean of mostly information ( spam and associated
email overload is one example of
this trend)
Prolonged exposure to information overload produces so called information fatigue syndrome. Symptoms include paralysis
of analytical capacity, increased anxiety, greater self-doubt, and a tendency to
blame others. Long exposure
produces symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome and in
milder form is intrinsically connected
with demoralization and burnout. Here the most helpful page is probably
Softpanorama Humor Archive. Unique Collection
of Open Source Related Humor. Humor is one of the most affecting methods of
fighting stress and overload. It helps a person to remain positive in difficult
situations more effectively that most drugs.
When people are faced with more information than they can process,
they become unable to make decisions or take action. There are two
important aspects of this problem:
-
Overwhelming complexity
of the situation and/or the fact that useful signal is lost in
noise. Typical examples include intelligence
gathering, pilots in complex meteorological conditions and
during "blind" landing, network troubleshooting. We can also add
to this category troubleshooting of
complex programming and/or networking problem when complexity of the stuff
is over human capacity to comprehend and people spend days trying to figure
out what is wrong and why. Network administrators and security analysts
know this type of situations pretty well.
-
Information
overload with "junk" information when
civilization produces more information than necessary for normal functioning,
with most information of low quality. This is kind of new type of pollution,
information smog. Information smog replaced information
scarcity as an important personal and social problem.
-
Printing press smog. What started out as a liberating stream during the Renaissance
has turned into a deluge of chaos. In the USA, for example, there are ten
thousand of newspapers and magazines. There are also more than 100,000 new
book titles published every year (and it's probably more than a million
world-wide) and just for the record, over 60 billion pieces of advertising
junk mail come into our mail boxes every year. Everything from telegraphy
and photography in the 19th century to the silicon chip in the twentieth
has amplified the instream of information, until matters have reached such
proportions today that for the average person, information no longer has
any relation to the solution of problems. In mild forms printing
press smog is usually pretty benign. You just need to eradiate
the view that 'Knowledge is Power' and start regularly throwing out Computer
magazines that were never opened ;-).
-
Internet smog: Situation
deteriorated due to Internet. Typical Google search is an
example of junk dominance. It also vividly demonstrates that
most information is of low quality, repetitive or outright
deceptive (financial information belongs to the latter
category). Internet smog is larger and more dangerous problem
then printing press smog as it masks useful information making
it essentially unavailable. Some forms of Internet smog such as
email overload and its ultimate manifestation
-- email spam -- can now be effectively controlled by technical means.
Often information overload is typical for
high-tech startups. "Technology has changed, but human nature hasn't. Whether it's
the Gold Rush of 1849 or the Web Rush of l999, people are people. More often than
not, they're miserable, nasty, selfish creatures, driven by vanity and greed, doing
whatever they can to get ahead, even if it means stepping on the person next to
them, crushing the weak, and destroying themselves in the process." Actually this
is not true. The IT industry is a unique environment; we are truly given a more
choice as to where our priorities lie than in many other jobs. But there is no free
lunch. You want a cool job? Don't expect to work for a huge company and get paid
the big bucks. You want to make good money? Don't expect to be able to leave the
office in the middle of the day just to sit in the park and drink coffee. You want
to make great money? Don't expect to work 40 or even 50 hours a week...
Actually startups aren't about the paradise, nor are they viable
for those who crave security. They are about risk, not just financial but
also emotional and intellectual. Some think that the rewards for success are worth
it, some not... It's true that some startups hire, than harass and inflict burnout
on programmers and sys-admins. Life in the fast lane can be brutal - long hours,
almost no employer-employee loyalty, greed and moral cowardice, back-stabbing, pressure,
etc. If you don't want to do what your boss want, a startup can probably find immigrant
that will do it for less money. That is the Silicon Valley Way (TM).
Many visitors to this page are probably system administrators. And
it's sad to say but sysadmins are often the janitors of e-business. To clean up
the messes from the ugly packages superfast growth and unrealistic schedules they
often work long, late hours. It's a thankless job (although not the only one and
not the most miserable one...) Anyway the reality is that sysadmins/programmers
in startups and small companies that are struggling to survive. Sometimes are also
put under substantial stress... I'm surprised most of them aren't more neurotic
from sleep deprivation.
At the same time many sysadmins in established companies working
with "Gold" coverage from Sun or HP can surf the WEB for 80% of the day... And if
you can rarely showed up before 11 a.m., sometimes it is just a survival skill to
stay past midnight once in a while... In large companies most sysadmin roles aren't
always firefighting, and not so much stress, but they tends to wear on a capable
person pretty quickly. Sometimes it is really look like cleaning. You clean it today,
but in a month everything return to the same state. Sometimes it make sense
to play an idiot in large company in best traditions of
Peter Principle. Officially recognized
low-performers often can spend 90% of their time addressing only 10% of problems
that high-performer needs to address. The most valued employees in large companies
are often on the verge of burn-out because they are too overloaded and have way
too many pressures, conflicts and demands combined with too few rewards, acknowledgments
and successes.
For IS top guns it might make sense to stop for a moment to dig
infodirt and ask themselves a simple question "Does working with the fancy hardware
and software (let's assume for a moment that Unix can be fancy first five years
or so ;-) worth 60 hours a week or even 40 hours of cleaning infodirt?". Independent
of your answer thinking about this may help to adjust your priorities :-).
Pseudo-Attention Deficit Disorder: Some programmers
are perversely wired. It is not uncommon for them to be sitting in
a meeting and using a hand-held device to exchange instant messages surreptitiously
— with someone in the same meeting. You have Pseudo-attention deficit disorder if:
- I find my mind wandering from tasks that are uninteresting or difficult
- I say things without thinking and later regret having said them.
- I make quick decisions without thinking enough about their possible
bad results
- I have a quick temper, a short fuse
- I have trouble planning in what order to do a series of tasks or activities
- In group activities it is hard for me to wait my turn.
- I usually work on more than one project at a time, and fail to finish
many of them.
Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov
Notes:
- This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help
You For Free) site written by people for whom English
is not a native language.
Some amount of grammar and spelling errors should be
expected.
- The site contain some broken links
as it develops like a living tree...
Please try to use Google, Open directory,
etc. to find a replacement link (see
HOWTO search the WEB for details). We would appreciate
if you can
mail us a correct link.
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, on the BBC News site, Bill Thompson
takes the discussion in an interesting new
direction:
The Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget
described two processes that he believed lay behind
the development of knowledge in children. The first
is assimilation, where new knowledge fits into
existing conceptual frameworks. More challenging is
accommodation, where the framework itself is
modified to include the new information.
The current generation of 'search engines' seem
to encourage a model of exploration that is disposed
towards assimilative learning, finding sources,
references and documents which can be slotted into
existing frameworks, rather than providing material
for deeper contemplation of the sort that could
provoke accommodation and the extension, revision or
even abandonment of views, opinions or even whole
belief systems.
Perhaps the real danger posed by screen-based
technologies is not that they are rewiring our
brains but that the collection of search engines,
news feeds and social tools encourages us to link
to, follow and read only that which we can easily
assimilate.
Globe and Mail, columnist Margaret Wente becomes the
latest writer to
fess up to an evaporating ability to read long works of prose:
Google has done wondrous things for my stock of general
knowledge. It also seems to have destroyed my attention span.
Like a flea with ADD, I jump back and forth from the Drudge
Report to gardening sites that list the growing time of Green
Zebras …
Thanks to Google, we're all turning into mental fast-food
junkies. Google has taught us to be skimmers, grabbing for news
and insights on the fly. I skim books now too, even good ones.
Once I think I've got the gist, I'll skip to the next chapter or
the next book. Forget the background, the history, the logical
progression of an argument. Just give me the takeaway.
Make information free, and we'll become gluttons of information, as Rob Horning
notes in an interesting post today:
As behavioral economists (most vociferously, Dan Ariely) have pointed
out, we find the promise of free things hard to resist
(even when a little
thinking reveals that the free-ness is illusory). So when with very little
effort we can accumulate massive amounts of “free” stuff from various places
on the internet, we can easily end up with 46 days (and counting) worth
of unplayed music on a hard drive. We end up with a permanent 1,000+ unread
posts in our RSS reader, and a lingering, unshakable feeling that we’ll
never catch up, never be truly informed, never feel comfortable with what
we’ve managed to take in, which is always in the process of being undermined
by the free information feeds we’ve set up for ourselves. We end up haunted
by the potential of the free stuff we accumulate, and our enjoyment of any
of it becomes severely impinged. The leisure and unparalleled bounty of
a virtually unlimited access to culture ends up being an endless source
of further stress, as we feel compelled to take it all in. Nothing sinks
in as we try to rush through it all, and our rushing does nothing to keep
us from falling further behind—often when I attempt to tackle the unread
posts in my RSS reader, I end up finding new feeds to add, and so on, and
I end up further behind than when I started.
Information may be free, but, as Horning explains, it exacts a price in the
time required to collect, organize, and consume it. As we binge on the Net,
the time available for other intellectual activities - like, say, thinking -
shrinks. Eventually, we get bloated, mentally, and a kind of intellectual nausea
sets in. But we can't stop because - hey - it's free.
Posted by kdawson on Monday June 23, @02:20AM
from the but-we-knew-this dept.
djvaselaar
sends along an article from The New Atlantis that summarizes recent research
indicating that
multitasking may be detrimental to work and learning.. It begins, "In
one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield
offered the following advice: 'There is time enough for everything in the course
of the day, if you do but one thing at once, but there is not time enough in
the year, if you will do two things at a time.' To Chesterfield, singular focus
was not merely a practical way to structure one's time; it was a mark of intelligence...
E-mails pouring in, cell phones ringing, televisions blaring, podcasts streaming--all
this may become background noise, like the 'din of a foundry or factory' that
[William] James observed workers could scarcely avoid at first, but which eventually
became just another part of their daily routine. For the younger generation
of multitaskers, the great electronic din is an expected part of everyday life.
And given what neuroscience and anecdotal evidence have shown us, this state
of constant intentional self-distraction could well be of profound detriment
to individual and cultural well-being."
In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s,
Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice:
“There is time enough for
everything in the course of the day, if you do but one thing
at once, but there is not time enough in the year, if you
will do two things at a time.” To
Chesterfield, singular focus was not merely a practical way
to structure one’s time; it was a mark of intelligence.
“This steady and undissipated
attention to one object, is a sure mark of a superior
genius; as hurry, bustle, and agitation, are the
never-failing symptoms of a weak and frivolous mind.”
In modern times, hurry, bustle, and agitation have become a
regular way of life for many people—so much so that we have
embraced a word to describe our efforts to respond to the
many pressing demands on our time: multitasking.
Used for decades to describe the parallel processing
abilities of computers, multitasking is now shorthand for
the human attempt to do simultaneously as many things as
possible, as quickly as possible, preferably marshalling the
power of as many technologies as possible.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, one sensed a kind of
exuberance about the possibilities of multitasking.
Advertisements for new electronic gadgets—particularly the
first generation of handheld digital devices—celebrated the
notion of using technology to accomplish several things at
once. The word multitasking began appearing in the “skills”
sections of résumés, as office workers restyled themselves
as high-tech, high-performing team players. “We have always
multitasked—inability to walk and chew gum is a time-honored
cause for derision—but never so intensely or
self-consciously as now,” James Gleick wrote in his 1999
book
Faster. “We are multitasking
connoisseurs—experts in crowding, pressing, packing, and
overlapping distinct activities in our all-too-finite
moments.” An article in the New York Times Magazine
in 2001 asked, “Who can remember life before multitasking?
These days we all do it.” The article offered advice on “How
to Multitask” with suggestions about giving your brain’s
“multitasking hot spot” an appropriate workout.
But more recently, challenges to the ethos of
multitasking have begun to emerge. Numerous studies have
shown the sometimes-fatal danger of using cell phones and
other electronic devices while driving, for example, and
several states have now made that particular form of
multitasking illegal. In the business world, where concerns
about time-management are perennial, warnings about
workplace distractions spawned by a multitasking culture are
on the rise. In 2005, the BBC reported on a research study,
funded by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by the Institute of
Psychiatry at the University of London, that found,
“Workers distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall
in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers.”
The psychologist who led the study called this new
“infomania” a serious threat to workplace productivity. One
of the Harvard Business Review’s “Breakthrough
Ideas” for 2007 was Linda Stone’s notion of
“continuous partial attention,” which might be understood as
a subspecies of multitasking: using mobile computing power
and the Internet, we are “constantly scanning for
opportunities and staying on top of contacts, events, and
activities in an effort to miss nothing.”
Dr. Edward Hallowell, a Massachusetts-based psychiatrist
who specializes in the treatment of attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder and has written a book with
the self-explanatory title
CrazyBusy, has been offering
therapies to combat extreme multitasking for years; in his
book he calls multitasking a “mythical activity in which
people believe they can perform two or more tasks
simultaneously.” In a 2005 article, he described a new
condition, “Attention Deficit Trait,” which he claims is
rampant in the business world. ADT is “purely a response to
the hyperkinetic environment in which we live,” writes
Hallowell, and its hallmark symptoms mimic those of ADD.
“Never in history has the human brain been asked to track so
many data points,” Hallowell argues, and this challenge “can
be controlled only by creatively engineering one’s
environment and one’s emotional and physical health.”
Limiting multitasking is essential. Best-selling business
advice author Timothy Ferriss also extols the virtues of
“single-tasking” in his book,
The 4-Hour Workweek.
Multitasking might also be taking a toll on the economy.
One study by researchers at the University of California at
Irvine monitored interruptions among office workers; they
found that workers took an average of twenty-five minutes to
recover from interruptions such as phone calls or answering
e-mail and return to their original task. Discussing
multitasking with the New York Times in 2007,
Jonathan B. Spira, an analyst at the business research firm
Basex, estimated that extreme multitasking—information
overload—costs the U.S. economy $650 billion a year in lost
productivity.
Changing Our Brains
To better understand the
multitasking phenomenon, neurologists and psychologists have
studied the workings of the brain. In 1999, Jordan Grafman,
chief of cognitive neuroscience at the National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke (part of the National
Institutes of Health), used functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) scans to determine that when people engage in
“task-switching”—that is, multitasking behavior—the flow of
blood increases to a region of the frontal cortex called
Brodmann area 10. (The flow of blood to particular regions
of the brain is taken as a proxy indication of activity in
those regions.) “This is presumably the last part of the
brain to evolve, the most mysterious and exciting part,”
Grafman told the New York Times in 2001—adding,
with a touch of hyperbole, “It’s what makes us most human.”
It is also what makes multitasking a poor long-term
strategy for learning. Other studies, such as those
performed by psychologist René Marois of Vanderbilt
University, have used fMRI to demonstrate the brain’s
response to handling multiple tasks. Marois found evidence
of a “response selection bottleneck” that occurs when the
brain is forced to respond to several stimuli at once. As a
result, task-switching leads to time lost as the brain
determines which task to perform. Psychologist David Meyer
at the University of Michigan believes that rather than a
bottleneck in the brain, a process of “adaptive executive
control” takes place, which “schedules task processes
appropriately to obey instructions about their relative
priorities and serial order,” as he described to the New
Scientist. Unlike many other researchers who study
multitasking, Meyer is optimistic that, with training, the
brain can learn to task-switch more effectively, and there
is some evidence that certain simple tasks are amenable to
such practice. But his research has also found that
multitasking contributes to the release of stress hormones
and adrenaline, which can cause long-term health problems if
not controlled, and contributes to the loss of short-term
memory.
In one recent study, Russell Poldrack, a psychology
professor at the University of California, Los Angeles,
found that “multitasking adversely affects how you learn.
Even if you learn while multitasking, that learning is less
flexible and more specialized, so you cannot retrieve the
information as easily.” His research demonstrates that
people use different areas of the brain for learning and
storing new information when they are distracted: brain
scans of people who are distracted or multitasking show
activity in the striatum, a region of the brain involved in
learning new skills; brain scans of people who are not
distracted show activity in the hippocampus, a region
involved in storing and recalling information. Discussing
his research on National Public Radio recently, Poldrack
warned, “We have to be aware that there is a cost to the way
that our society is changing, that humans are not built to
work this way. We’re really built to focus. And when we sort
of force ourselves to multitask, we’re driving ourselves to
perhaps be less efficient in the long run even though it
sometimes feels like we’re being more efficient.”
If, as Poldrack concluded, “multitasking changes the way
people learn,” what might this mean for today’s children and
teens, raised with an excess of new entertainment and
educational technology, and avidly multitasking at a young
age? Poldrack calls this the “million-dollar question.”
Media multitasking—that is, the simultaneous use of several
different media, such as television, the Internet, video
games, text messages, telephones, and e-mail—is clearly on
the rise, as a 2006 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation
showed: in 1999, only 16 percent of the time people spent
using any of those media was spent on multiple media at
once; by 2005, 26 percent of media time was spent
multitasking. “I multitask every single second I am online,”
confessed one study participant. “At this very moment I am
watching TV, checking my e-mail every two minutes, reading a
newsgroup about who shot JFK, burning some music to a CD,
and writing this message.”
The Kaiser report noted several factors that increase the
likelihood of media multitasking, including “having a
computer and being able to see a television from it.” Also,
“sensation-seeking” personality types are more likely to
multitask, as are those living in “a highly TV-oriented
household.” The picture that emerges of these pubescent
multitasking mavens is of a generation of great technical
facility and intelligence but of extreme impatience,
unsatisfied with slowness and uncomfortable with silence: “I
get bored if it’s not all going at once, because everything
has gaps—waiting for a website to come up, commercials on
TV, etc.” one participant said. The report concludes on a
very peculiar note, perhaps intended to be optimistic: “In
this media-heavy world, it is likely that brains that are
more adept at media multitasking will be passed along and
these changes will be naturally selected,” the report
states. “After all, information is power, and if one can
process more information all at once, perhaps one can be
more powerful.” This is techno-social Darwinism, nature red
in pixel and claw.
Other experts aren’t so sure. As neurologist Jordan
Grafman told Time magazine: “Kids that are instant
messaging while doing homework, playing games online and
watching TV, I predict, aren’t going to do well in the long
run.” “I think this generation of kids is guinea pigs,”
educational psychologist Jane Healy told the San
Francisco Chronicle; she worries that they might become
adults who engage in “very quick but very shallow thinking.”
Or, as the novelist Walter Kirn suggests in a deft essay in
The Atlantic, we might be headed for an
“Attention-Deficit Recession.”
Paying Attention
When we talk about
multitasking, we are really talking about attention: the art
of paying attention, the ability to shift our attention,
and, more broadly, to exercise judgment about what objects
are worthy of our attention. People who have achieved great
things often credit for their success a finely honed skill
for paying attention. When asked about his particular
genius, Isaac Newton responded that if he had made any
discoveries, it was “owing more to patient attention than to
any other talent.”
William James, the great psychologist, wrote at length
about the varieties of human attention. In
The Principles of Psychology
(1890), he outlined the differences among “sensorial
attention,” “intellectual attention,” “passive attention,”
and the like, and noted the “gray chaotic
indiscriminateness” of the minds of people who were
incapable of paying attention. James compared our stream of
thought to a river, and his observations presaged the
cognitive “bottlenecks” described later by neurologists: “On
the whole easy simple flowing predominates in it, the drift
of things is with the pull of gravity, and effortless
attention is the rule,” he wrote. “But at intervals an
obstruction, a set-back, a log-jam occurs, stops the
current, creates an eddy, and makes things temporarily move
the other way.”
To James, steady attention was thus the default condition
of a mature mind, an ordinary state undone only by
perturbation. To readers a century later, that placid
portrayal may seem alien—as though depicting a bygone world.
Instead, today’s multitasking adult may find something more
familiar in James’s description of the youthful mind: an
“extreme mobility of the attention” that “makes the child
seem to belong less to himself than to every object which
happens to catch his notice.” For some people, James noted,
this challenge is never overcome; such people only get their
work done “in the interstices of their mind-wandering.” Like
Chesterfield, James believed that the transition from
youthful distraction to mature attention was in large part
the result of personal mastery and discipline—and so was
illustrative of character. “The faculty of voluntarily
bringing back a wandering attention, over and over again,”
he wrote, “is the very root of judgment, character, and
will.”
Today, our collective will to pay attention seems fairly
weak. We require advice books to teach us how to avoid
distraction. In the not-too-distant future we may even
employ new devices to help us overcome the unintended
attention deficits created by today’s gadgets. As one
New York Times article recently suggested, “Further
research could help create clever technology, like sensors
or smart software that workers could instruct with their
preferences and priorities to serve as a high tech ‘time
nanny’ to ease the modern multitasker’s plight.” Perhaps we
will all accept as a matter of course a computer
governor—like the devices placed on engines so that people
can’t drive cars beyond a certain speed. Our technological
governors might prompt us with reminders to set mental
limits when we try to do too much, too quickly, all at once.
Then again, perhaps we will simply adjust and come to
accept what James called “acquired inattention.” E-mails
pouring in, cell phones ringing, televisions blaring,
podcasts streaming—all this may become background noise,
like the “din of a foundry or factory” that James observed
workers could scarcely avoid at first, but which eventually
became just another part of their daily routine. For the
younger generation of multitaskers, the great electronic din
is an expected part of everyday life. And given what
neuroscience and anecdotal evidence have shown us, this
state of constant intentional self-distraction could well be
of profound detriment to individual and cultural well-being.
When people do their work only in the “interstices of their
mind-wandering,” with crumbs of attention rationed out among
many competing tasks, their culture may gain in information,
but it will surely weaken in wisdom.
1/1/99 |
Library Trends,
This project combines ideas from mythology, folklore, and library and information
science in an effort to make sense of an aspect of modern culture that is frequently
perceived as troublesome. Discussions of information overload, "data glut,"
or "information anxiety" are abundant in popular culture but do little to shed
light on the origin of this problem. Library and information science work sidesteps
the need to verify the existence of information overload, seeking instead to
mitigate its effects. The discipline has produced a vast literature that addresses
user perceptions, information needs, and information-seeking behavior. Information
management, information retrieval, and attendant notions such as relevance have
also received much attention. Within both popular culture and library and information
science research, information overload is usually described or defined by means
of anecdote or by associated symptoms.
However constituted, popular and scholarly attention confirms information
overload as a recognized and resonant cultural concept that persists even without
solid corroboration. Mythology and folkloristics are used here as analytic tools
to suggest that information overload can be viewed as a myth of modern culture.
Here myth does not mean something that is not true
but an overarching prescriptive belief.
Motivation.
If you have arrived at this page, you may well be asking "why?". In fact,
"Why does someone want to write about the disadvantages of hard work, when we
are all told incessantly how beneficial it is?"
I conducted an experiment. I entered the terms
"hard work" disadvantages
into http://www.google.com/ (try it for
yourself) and found over 21,000 hits.
I then rephrased my question and entered
"disadvantages of hard work"
into Google and got precisely zero hits. No-one on the entire web, it would
seem, has written this phrase. Why not? Clearly it is "culturally verboten".
I was motivated to ask this question of the search engine, as, after many
years of teaching in the University sector, I have met a significant number
of people who I consider have been significantly damaged as individuals by subscribing
to the "hard work is necessary" hypothesis.
So let us put the record straight here, and spell out some of the advantages
of working just sufficiently to satisfy the various criteria of emotional and
spiritual need, the demands of the job, the necessity of keeping body supplied
with food clothing and shelter, and the social requirements of interacting with
others.
Case histories
Among the people I have observed who subscribe to the "hard work is good"
hypothesis are several University academics whose ability to think clearly,
and administer effectively, are adversely affected by their permanent state
of tiredness. Often, these folk feel the need to intervene when it is inappropriate.
People like this generally are unhappy with the status quo, and feel that any
change or intervention is bound to be for the better.
Among the students I have met, there are significant numbers whose ability
to learn and retain information, let alone process it effectively, have been
compromised by years of being forced to acquire unnecessary skills and learn
unnecessary facts; I maintain this has actually physically damaged their brains,
and that an enlightened court of law would award them damages against their
educational institutions. Often, this kind of mental overload seems to be a
prerequisite for admission to the course being taken.
At Berkeley (Uni Calif) in the 1960s I noticed that the ability of overworked
students to express themselves clearly in spoken English was severely impaired.
This was confirmed in the early 1980s when a telephone conversation with a Physics
grad student in a Californian University had to be abandoned as the person in
question could not communicate fluently. It is also noticeable that overworked
students cannot sequence or recall simple facts like names, addresses, and telephone
numbers with accuracy. Neither can they spell accurately or proof read what
they have written. They also try to "rote learn" ineffectually, as they cannot
repeat accurately what they have just seen, read, or heard.
Among the medics I have met, there are a significant number, likewise, who
"do what they do, regardless" - thus if you go to a physician you get dosed
up with drugs; to a surgeon, you get cut open; in fact, each specialist tries
to fit your ailment into his own field of competence. This activity is unrelated
to the needs of the case.
Among the politicians I have known, the greatest damage to society is caused
by those people who regard themselves as the greatest "movers and shakers".
Moreover, there is a class of commentator that regards the activity of "moving
and shaking" to be intrinsically beneficial, without regard to the end effects.
Choice in the marketplace
Much of the excessive pressure to work harder, to produce more for less,
and to drive staff harder is justified by the mantra "choice for the consumer".
It is a psychological observation that given excessive choice, the majority
of people have extreme difficulty in exercising it and arriving at a rational
purchasing decision. Supermarkets should note this. It is far easier to choose
from a limited range of goods than from acres of produce spread out among miles
of shelving.
The same observation applies to the motivation of students on modular degree
courses. Excessive choice leads to a shallow educational experience. It is also
somewhat demotivating for the student. I am often asked to delimit my course
materials so that the student knows what is not to be covered in the exam tests.
Feedback regulation
There is a report at
www.discover.com
that the brain (specifically, the left pre-frontal cortex) undergoes structural
changes on long exposure (many years) to stress such as overwork. This makes
the brain's owner more disposed to see the negative side of events, rather than
the positive. One can see a certain amount of self-regulation here, for positive
disposition in a person predisposes him/her to work harder. We can also identify
the scientific reasons for negative reactions to excessive perceived stress
and the onset of depressive illness caused directly by being subjected to a
heavy workload.
Optimum range of workload
It is apparent that most people have a range of demand that they can tolerate,
or even feel comfortably happy with. Below the lower limit they feel discontented
and underutilised, and above the upper limit they seek to shed work and may
even become bad-tempered. An attribute of people who rise to high positions
within their organisations is that they are very tolerant of a wide range of
work demands; they find occupations for themselves if lightly loaded, and they
are benign under pressure, even if it is unreasonable. For this reason, they
are candidates for promotion.
Shared views
The tenor of this argument is shared by
Prince Charles
in a report in the Guardian newspaper on Tuesday 13th Sept 2005.
Trying to sip information from the fire hose is a difficult and challenging
task :-). This memo might help.
In today’s world, mental overload is a fact of life. Fortunately, by applying
some simple techniques from the computer world, you can avoid some of the costly
consequences of a too full brain!
SIGNS OF AN OVERLOAD
A too-full computer can:
· give you error messages
· run slower
· take longer to process information
· crash
A too-full brain can cause you to:
· make mistakes
· forget to do something
· let things slip through the cracks
· become sluggish
· loose creativity
· become unproductive
· procrastinate
· become indecisive
· get stressed out
· experience a total mental break down
[ Mar 09, 2007]
Mental overload by Katherine Lewis
Does excessive multi-tasking like happens to college students make us stupid?
The answer is tentative yes:
-
"You are trying to feed information through various kinds of processing
channels in the brain which have limited capacity and are really only available
for one thing at a time."
-
"A lot of tasks we have to do, there are little moments of gaps which
you can steal for another task," said Hal Pashler, psychology professor at the
University of California in San Diego. "The interesting
hidden cost ... is that (we) may be strikingly unable to recollect what happened."
-
"To the degree that tasks rely on similar processes,
they are more likely to interfere with each other. For instance, talking
on the phone and writing an e-mail is hard, because both involve language, Poldrack
said."
-
"The answer is to choose carefully when you take on more than one job at
once. For high-priority or complex tasks, you might want to shut down your e-mail,
turn off the phone and close your office door.
Multi-tasking may be too much for the brain to handle
Friday, March 09, 2007
BY KATHERINE REYNOLDS LEWIS
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
We feel so efficient, listening to a teleconference while sorting e-mail
and eating lunch at the same time. But experts warn that instead of completing
three tasks in the space of one, we're really spending more time to achieve
mediocre results.
"Research that's looked at multi-tasking shows that you can't do it well
-- no one can," said Kristin Byron, assistant professor of management at Syracuse
University. "You're fighting the way your brain works."
The brain acts on just one task at a time. What we perceive as simultaneous
multi-tasking is really rapid switching back and forth to keep different tasks
going -- even if one is as simple as deciding to lift the sandwich for another
bite.
It's like the classic vaudeville act of spinning plates. Your brain can set
a task in motion, then another, and then another, before returning to pick up
the first task, explained David Strayer, a psychology professor at the University
of Utah in Salt Lake City.
"If the demands of any given task aren't too taxing, you can get two, three,
four plates going up, but at some point you're going to reach a threshold when
they're going to crash."
You may avoid driving while talking on a cell phone because of the physical
challenge of holding both phone and steering wheel. But Strayer's research shows
hands-free cell phone use is just as dangerous while driving. The risk comes
in toggling between the two mental demands.
Moreover, subjects in a recent study scored significantly lower on IQ tests
they took while driving. "When your attention is taken away from a task, you
are not going to perform it as smartly," Strayer said.
So does multi-tasking make us stupid?
It's not an outlandish conclusion. A 2005 study sponsored by Hewlett-Packard
found the average worker lost 10 IQ points when interrupted by ringing telephones
and incoming e-mails -- about equal to the cost of missing an entire night of
sleep.
"Interruptions are time-consuming, and they are dangerous in the sense that
they can lead to errors," said David E. Meyer, a psychology professor at the
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "You are trying to feed information through
various kinds of processing channels in the brain which have limited capacity
and are really only available for one thing at a time."
Whenever we drop one task to perform another, we face "resumption costs"
-- the time and energy it takes to orient ourselves when we return to the original
task. It's true that interweaving two lengthy tasks can take less total time
than performing the tasks separately. But there's a price.
"A lot of tasks we have to do, there are little moments of gaps which you
can steal for another task," said Hal Pashler, psychology professor at the University
of California in San Diego. "The interesting hidden cost ... is that (we) may
be strikingly unable to recollect what happened."
That's because the free moments in each task -- such as waiting for a partner
to respond in a conversation -- appear to be used to store or consolidate memories.
If we talk on the phone while checking e-mail, it's at the expense of downtime
our brains need.
"The conversation plus the e-mail may take less of your life, but the cost
is that tomorrow you may not know exactly what you said," Pashler said.
Thus, if you try to take in new material or facts while multi-tasking, you'll
have a tougher time learning, said Russell A. Poldrack, psychology professor
at the University of California in Los Angeles.
Does all this mean we should never check our Blackberries while waiting in
line at the grocery store? Or even sip a cup of coffee while listening to a
conference speaker? After all, multi-tasking is woven into the fabric of modern
life. More than 85 percent of people multi-task, and 67 percent believe they
do it well, according to a survey by Apex Performance, a Charlotte, N.C., training
firm.
Fortunately, the experts give us some slack. "You can't say in every situation
it would be better to always focus on one task," Poldrack said.
If you're a stock trader who has to respond quickly to a lot of information,
it makes sense to monitor multiple televisions and computer screens at once,
he said. It may not matter that the next day you're hazy about which news anchor
said what.
Certain physical actions, like walking or eating, are so hard-wired that
they don't tax our brains much. There's certainly no harm in combining simple,
low-stakes tasks, like folding laundry and watching television. And if background
music energizes you to finish your work, that may outweigh the cost of your
mind shifting between listening and crafting a report, Poldrack said.
Similarly, talking to an adult passenger doesn't hurt your driving the way
talking on a cell phone does, Strayer has found. That's because the person in
your car is attuned to the driving environment, and will pause the conversation
when a tricky maneuver approaches.
To the degree that tasks rely on similar processes, they are more likely
to interfere with each other. For instance, talking on the phone and writing
an e-mail is hard, because both involve language, Poldrack said.
The answer is to choose carefully when you take on more than one job at once.
For high-priority or complex tasks, you might want to shut down your e-mail,
turn off the phone and close your office door. Apex Performance founder Louis
Czoka even recommends that clients shut their eyes to focus on a teleconference.
Just how bad have things gotten? That's the subject of Extreme Jobs: The
Dangerous Allure of the 70-Hour Workweek, a recent study from the Center for
Work-Life Policy. The study found that 1.7 million people consider their jobs
and their work hours extreme, thanks to globalization, BlackBerries, corporate
expectations and their own Type A personalities.
... .... ....
What Hewlett and Buck Luce found in their survey was that workers were
themselves to blame. Many of the people interviewed for the study say they love
their jobs and are reluctant to lessen their work load. In Agoglia's case, working
for the small business consulting group was exactly what she wished for. Now
she only comes into the office on a need basis. "It offers an opportunity for
someone like me who needs more breathing room," she says, "but it also fulfills
my desire to be challenged in my job."
That kind of fulfillment has
its hazards. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said their work pressures
are self-inflicted but say it is taking a real toll on them individually. Nationally,
70 percent, and globally, 81 percent, say their jobs undermine their health
in terms of exercise, diet and the impact of stress. Nationally, 46 percent,
and globally, 59 percent, say it gets in the way of their relationships and
nationally, 50 percent, say it affects their sex life.
Not surprisingly, men and
women have a different take on the extreme nature of their jobs. In the global
survey, 58 percent of men and 80 percent of women say they didn't want to work
these hours for more than one more year. Says Buck Luce: "For women there's
a flight risk. But men get burned out and are able to stick with it. There's
a tremendous stigma for men who say, 'I can't do this.' That means there aren't
going to be women at the top ranks of companies."
I wasn't surprised to read that 40% of Americans work 50 hours or more per week
and rarely disconnect from their work, even on vacation. I hear about it all the
time in my seminars where people feel like an 8 hour day is slacking off and working
at night after the kids go to bed and in the morning before the office really opens
is the only way they can stay on top of things.
Is it that people have too much to do or is it that they just don't have trusted
systems (ala GTD) to feel like they can disconnect?
I've heard David Allen mention that we've always had too much to do. I don't
think BlackBerry's necessarily create more work, it's just now people have higher
expectations about how fast the work needs to get done.
Someone in one of my seminars recently told me she takes her laptop on vacation
just to stay on top of her email (people actually hissed when she said this, perhaps
from the fear that this will become expected.) The "vacation tax" of coming back
to hundreds, if not thousands, of emails is just not worth it to her.
August 13, 2006 (
Los Angeles Times) It's vacation prime time. Millions of wage-earners are
on the road, in the air or on the water in search of overdue recreation, relaxation
and adventure. But for too many, it will be a futile quest, thanks to a big,
fat killjoy stowed away on the trip: OCP, or obsessive-compulsive productivity,
a frantic fixation to wring results from every minute of the day, even our play.
Americans have always had an insistent work ethic. But thanks to technology
that allows us to get things done 24/7, growing job demands and the elevation
of efficiency to an unofficial national religion, many vacationers simply can't
turn off their productive machinery. Every minute of the day, even of play,
must be productive.
It's a habit that's increasingly counterproductive, evident in soaring job-stress
bills (a $300-billion-a-year tab for U.S. business, according to the American
Institute of Stress, a nonprofit organization) and longer workweeks. Nearly
40% of Americans work more than 50 hours a week. The all-output, all-the-time
mandate of OCP wires us to do holidays like jobs. We cram downtime with to-do
lists and a performance-review mentality that dooms trips to disappointment
because we couldn't see or do everything we wanted. The trip's experience is
an afterthought in a crazed race to polish off sights to the finish line of
the holiday.
But trying to make a vacation productive is like trying to get a cat to bark.
It's the wrong animal for the outcome, because vacations aren't about output.
Instead, they're about the realm of an increasingly rare species — input — that
can't be measured by a performance yardstick. The most packed itinerary can't
quantify play, fun, wonder, discovery, adventure. How do you tally the spray
of an exploding waterfall? The pattern of ripples on a sand dune? How do you
produce quiet?
The productivity of U.S. workers has doubled since 1969, according to Boston
College economist Juliet Schor. But none of the dividends have come back in
additional free time. The added time that greater productivity creates is simply
fodder for more productivity increases — and OCP jitters that we must get more
done. How much production is enough?
Even on the job, too much time on task can lead to burnout, heart disease, carpal
tunnel syndrome, mistakes, costly do-overs and rote performance. A study last
year by the University of Massachusetts Medical School found that chronic 12-hour
workdays increase your risk of illness or injury by 37%.
Work without time to think, analyze or recharge feeds knee-jerk performance
and the hurry-worry of stress. Everything appears urgent when there isn't time
to judge what is truly urgent and what isn't.
More than anybody else's, Americans' identity comes through labor. But the reflex
to define self-worth by what we get done makes it hard to relax without a heap
of guilt because there's always something next on the horizon to handle. Our
focus on future results shrinks our experience of living and, ironically, the
very thing we need for optimum performance — input.
The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. asked managers where they got their best
ideas. It wasn't at the office. Rather, inspiration came when people were at
play — on the golf course, running. Research on fatigue in the workplace since
the 1920s shows that performance rises after a break in the action, whether
a break of a few seconds or 15 minutes.
Studies have also found that job performance improves after a vacation. Income
doubled at the H Group, an investment services company in Salem, Ore., after
owner Ron Kelemen increased employee time off to 3 1/2 weeks. When Jancoa, a
Cincinnati cleaning company, switched to a three-week vacation policy, worker
productivity soared enough to cut overtime. Profits jumped 15%.
The true source of productivity isn't nonstop output. It's a refreshed and energized
mind, something vacations specialize in.
But for that to happen, we must leave the OCP drill sergeant at home. Vacations
require a different skill set — leisure skills. Without them, we lapse into
default mode — produce, produce, produce. My retired father was stunned when
he visited his former company and found a couple of his fellow retirees back
at their desks. They didn't know what else to do.
As kids, we knew how to entertain ourselves. But many of us lost the knack when
we learned that play for its own sake didn't produce rewards — status, pats
on the back, money, goodies. Once we're in OCP territory, we've forgotten how
to do things simply because we enjoy doing them.
Researchers say we had it right as kids. "Quality of life does not depend on
what others think of us or what we own," contends psychology professor Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi in "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience." "The bottom
line is, rather, how we feel about ourselves, and about what happens to us.
To improve life one must improve the quality of experience."
Famed for his studies on when people are at their happiest, Csikszentmihalyi
adds that "when experience is intrinsically rewarding, life is justified in
the present."
Things we do for our amusement are particularly good at improving that experience,
delivering what's supposed to come out of all that production — self-worth,
a sense of competence and, best of all, life satisfaction. Upping levels of
performance can't generate happiness, psychologists contend, because production
is tied to external approval, which is gone by the next morning's to-do list.
But research shows that the more active your leisure lifestyle is, the higher
your life satisfaction. Leisure also increases initiative, confidence and a
positive mood.
So, if you haven't taken your vacation yet, maybe it's time to dust off the
leisure portfolio and resuscitate the childhood practice of play. The packing
list should include participation, engagement, spontaneity, a nonjudgmental
attitude, the ability to ferret out amusements, take detours, wander without
aim, plunge into things you haven't done before, and get out of your head and
into direct experience. Along the way you may discover something long forgotten.
Recess rules.
In case of broken links
please try to use Google search. If you find the page please notify
us about new location
Computer addicts tend to lose all sense of time
when they are on-line. They are drawn so deeply into the world of bytes and
bits that they do not notice entire days passing by. They forget to eat, sleep,
go to school, and even care for their children. They shirk responsibilities,
slack off at work, and miss appointments because they are unable to pull themselves
away. The virtual world and the real world are competing for their attention,
and the virtual world often wins.
The Anxiety Disorders Education Program is a
national education campaign developed by the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) to increase awareness among the public and health care professionals
that anxiety disorders are real medical illnesses that can be effectively diagnosed
and treated. More than 19 million Americans suffer from anxiety disorders, which
include panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder, phobias and generalized anxiety disorder. They suffer from symptoms
that are chronic, unremitting and usually grow progressively worse if left untreated.
Tormented by panic attacks, irrational thoughts and fears, compulsive behaviors
or rituals, flashbacks, nightmares, or countless frightening physical symptoms,
people with anxiety disorders are heavy utilizers of emergency rooms and other
medical services. Their work, family and social lives are disrupted, and some
even become housebound. Many of them have co-occuring disorders such as depression,
alcohol or drug abuse, or other mental disorders. Because of widespread lack
of understanding and the stigma associated with these disorders, many people
with anxiety disorders are not diagnosed and are not receiving treatments that
have been proven effective through research.
A reader from America , July 2, 1999
Excellent! A DYI approach to OCD and related disorders. A friend gave
me this book and it is excellent. If you have OCD or even a related disorder
it gives you a practical approach to learning to deal with and outsmart your
disorder.
Take me, frinstance, while I do not have any checking compulsions,
I have suffered from anxiety disorder and occasionally intrusive, disturbing
thoughts for a number of years. (Other than that I am your regular guy, you
wouldn't know I had a disorder if you saw me). This book gives you a 4-step
method of "reframing" OCD in a way that makes it manageable. Ultimately, the
authors say, by using their method you can "retrain your brain" and actually
alter your brain chemistry in a positive direction and thus reduce the original
symptoms to something liveable.
Buy it (or have a friend give it to you...) :-)
A reader from Santa Fe, NM , July 16, 1998
A good description of the problem and some solutions This book contains
well-written descriptions of obsessive-compulsive disorder -- it's informative,
clear, and a pleasure to read. And for those of us who either suffer from these
disorders or are close to someone who does, it's an eye-opener: you are NOT
the only person who's ever had to deal with this problem, and there IS hope
for curing it! For all these reasons, I highly recommend the book. Two cautions,
however: (1) The book gave a good description of the ways of treating OCD as
of the date it was written. Since then, however, there have been many new developments,
so, if you're specifically interested in treatments, you'll need to look up
some more recent books and articles. (2) "Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder"
(OCPD) is a related but different condition, and it's possible that someone
who exhibits similar symptoms but doesn't have full-blown OCD suffers from this
instead. (My mother has never gone in for compulsive hand-washing, but she's
rigid, intolerant, controlling, and a pack rat on a truly monumental scale.
That's OCPD.) The treatments for the two conditions differ -- drugs are more
helpful for OCD than OCPD, for example. As with any mental condition, it's absolutely
necessary to have a thorough professional diagnosis; don't just march into your
doctor's office demanding Prozac, or stock up on St. John's Wort at your local
herbalist's.
KIEV (Reuters) - A Ukraine businessman who bought
a pager for each member of his staff as a New Year gift was so alarmed when
all 50 of them went off at the same time that he drove his car into a lamp post,
a newspaper said Thursday.
The unnamed businessman was returning from the
pager shop when the accident happened, the Fakty daily reported. ''With no more
than 100 meters to go to the office, the 50 pagers on the back seat suddenly
burst out screeching. The businessman's fright was such that he simply let go
of the steering wheel and the car ploughed into a lamp post.''
After he had assessed the damage to the car,
the businessman turned his attention to the message on the 50 pagers. It read:
''Congratulations on a successful purchase!''
The tremendous growth in the price-performance of networking
and storage has fueled the explosive growth of the web. The amount of information
easily accessible from the desktop has dramatically increased by several orders
of magnitude in the last few years, and shows no signs of abating. Users of
the web are being confronted with the consequent information overload problem.
It can be exceedingly difficult to locate resources that are both high-quality
and relevant to their information needs. Traditional automated methods for locating
information are easily overwhelmed by low-quality and unrelated content. Thus,
the second generation of search engines will have to have effective methods
for focusing on the most authoritative among these documents. The rich structure
implicit in the hyperlinks among Web documents offers a simple, and effective,
means to deal with many of these problems. The CLEVER search engine incorporates
several algorithms that make use of hyperlink structure for discovering high-quality
information on the Web.
Copyright © 1996-2008 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov.
www.softpanorama.org was
created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
in the author free time.
Submit
comments This document is an industrial compilation designed and created
exclusively for educational use and is placed under the copyright of the
Open Content License(OPL).
Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made
for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
Standard disclaimer: The statements, views and opinions presented on
this web page are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily
reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other
organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
Last modified:
November 09, 2008