The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

Page 15 of 16  
On 8/18/2015 8:13 AM, SeaNymph wrote:

Well, that sure is the flippin answer.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per The Real Bev:

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.
People who "multitask" are really time slicing.
Back in The Day, computers used to TimeSlice and the makers called it multitasking.
Now computers can actually MultiTask because they have multiple CPUs and programmers can write code that runs parallel threads.
Dunno about people... We have only one brain, but the brain has multiple areas dedicated to different processing so I would think the jury is still out.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 9:04 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

the brain can only focus on one thing at a time.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201103/technology-myth-multitasking
https://laurenpietila.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/multitasking-is-not-possible-according-to-neuroscience-attention-part-3/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId 256794
http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2014/10/08/multitasking-damages-your-brain-and-career-new-studies-suggest/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 7:39 AM, SeaNymph wrote:

The key word there is *focus*.
Note that you can be in a crowded room, engaged in a conversation and still manage to "pick out" a conversation of interest "in the background", amidst all the other noise and conversations. I.e., something in your head is "monitoring", looking for triggers of interest.
There are also short-term memory issues in play. Your mind can only hold onto a relatively small number of "ideas" at any given time. An exercise we used to do when younger was to listen to long numeric strings read to us. Then, engage in conversation for a while. Finally, be quizzed to recall a *specific* string ("the one that begins with '3'").
The strings don't get a chance to be committed to your long term memory (like your home phone number, SSN, etc.). And, the other topics of discussion compete for the few spots in that short term memory. Inevitably, the numeric strings get crowded out -- because they were "least recently referenced"
If you are bouncing back and forth between tasks, all of the stuff in your short term memory becomes vulnerable; it's not had a chance to be committed to long term memory so you risk losing it -- details of the previous task, etc.
E.g., you can pick up a home repair project some WEEKS after having been called away from it. But, there is a considerable effort required to sort out (i.e., RECALL!) what you were doing, before you were interrupted. The major issues had previously been committed to long term memory and could be "refreshed" with an examination of the MESS before you.
Multitasking calls for far more frequent "attention switches"; you don't have the luxury of spending a bit of time trying to recall what you were previously doing (because you'll soon be expected to move on to the *next* task!).
Notice how many email/sms replies you receive that don't properly address the questions you posed in the *preceding* message. As if the respondent just threw a quick/inexpensive (not well thought out) answer to ONE of your comments and failed to perceive the others.
You, in turn, repeat those unaddressed issues and, over the course of several exchanges, manage to get an ALMOST complete reply. And, find it unsatisfying, to boot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 3:51 PM, Don Y wrote:

I simply do not believe, nor have I seen any real evidence, that people can actually multitask. I've seen people switch quickly between 2 things, but that's not multitasking.
I have a photographic memory for numbers, even long numeric strings. While I see no practical use for that in my daily life, it's an interesting thing.
Personally, I prefer to do something and finish it if that's possible. I just work better that way. It probably has to do with what I did during most of my working life, which involved the big picture and a lot of smaller details. But it all had a beginning, a middle and an end.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 2:39 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

It's a question of degrees -- as I was trying to suggest elsewhere this thread.
We *all* are capable of starting something, NOT finishing it, then returning to it at a later date. E.g., pull the sink out of the bathroom, discover you need some compression fittings, drive off to the store, purchase them, then return home and RESUME the sink repair.
You switched from one task (the sink) to another (driving to store) to yet another (buying the items in the store) and back, again.
In each case, you had to make a note of what you were doing at the time ("remember" where you are in a particular task) so you could later RECALL what you were doing in order to resume it.
Multitasking is the same phenomenon -- but on a much finer time scale.
How well you can manage it is largely a result of how *small* that interval devoted to any particular task can get before things fall apart. This, in turn, is a function of how efficiently you can do that "remember"/"recall" (save/restore) operation. If it takes you a long time to get back on track, then you are a poor multitasker :> If you forget lots of detail (and end up having to do things over again *or* omit entire portions of a task), then you are a poor multitasker!
In software (where multitasking is common), you can actually point to these costs and put a number on just how much "overhead" is involved; how *efficiently* your PROGRAM can multitask.
In either case, some amount of time is spent "making progress" on your "tasks". And, some amount of time is WASTED juggling them. The goal is to get the waste down (as a percentage of total time/effort) AND to get the rate/speed at which you can switch between tasks *up*.
In software, the cost for the switch is essentially constant. So, if you switch twice as often, you spend twice as much time *in* the switching -- you are twice as INefficient!

Most of my projects (software) are designed with multitasking in mind. It acknowledges the fact that there are times when a program (task) has to WAIT for something that it needs. E.g., wait for the user to type the next key on the keyboard. So, rather than spend time twiddling thumbs "waiting", SWITCH to some other task (program) that doesn't NEED to wait (perhaps it is sending a file to your printer and can now push another page out to the printer).
This is what we do as humans, day-to-day -- when we are waiting for something, we try to switch our attention to something ELSE that we can make some progress.
If, OTOH, you spend all your time *switching*, then you're getting LESS work done!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hi Pete,
On 8/18/2015 7:04 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

No. Running two or more programs in parallel on multiple cores is multiprocessing. What you call timeslicing is multitasking. It is similar, conceptually, to time SHARING but at a much finer grain.

The brain is not a single processor (to draw a parallel to computers). You can chew gum, walk, see, hear, etc. simultaneously. The problem with "multitasking" is that it calls upon higher functions that are more language oriented -- if you are 'thinking' about something (solve a problem) you tend to draw on language. This is a largely "serial" activity -- you can't keep multiple "conversations" going in your head concurrently.
Think about how hard it is to be engaged in two or more conversations at a party. OTOH, think about how *easy* it is to be eating hors d'oeuvres, sipping a cocktail, talking *and* walking across the room (while carefully avoiding others along the way) at the same time!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 10:58 AM, Don Y wrote:

When I was learning ballroom dancing the ladies would always comment that no matter how hard the man thought it was to lead, we always had it tougher because we had to do everything going backwards and in heels plus we had to trust the man knew HOW to lead!
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 11:37 AM, Muggles wrote:

I love Fred Astaire, but Ginger Rogers did all the work :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 11:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

Multitask is just another meaningless buzzword. If you count walking and chew gum you can put it on your resume. People that claim to be able to do so are just juggling two or three tasks and building in inefficiency.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 9:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Sometimes, according to scientists, people can walk and chew gum because walking is deeply ingrained in the brain and requires no thought. Attempts to multitasks seem to reduce productivity as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Don Y:

Ever since being almost run down on my bike on two occasions less than 2 weeks apart - the common thread being that I was wearing dark clothing - I have worn nothing but red shirts. Black shorts because that's the only color that works for cycling.
Don't even know how many red shirts I have now... but I'm thinking that the people who see me every day think I'm disturbed-but-harmless - wearing the same clothes all the time.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 8:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Around here people wear neon colors when their biking. I don't think I've seen anyone wearing black shorts with a red shirt yet.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/18/2015 06:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

:-)

I like neon colors, orange or kawasaki green especially. Solids, not a pattern. Anybody who hits me should NOT be able to tell the judge he didn't see me.
--
Cheers, Bev
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 6:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Bicycling, here, is a hazardous activity -- despite being a "bike friendly" community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once* in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many crazy drivers!

A neighbor once "threatened" to buy me a red shirt -- just because she always saw me in black/navy or white. I'm not fond of bright colors (and particularly hate *green*!) Given that I have complete control over my appearance, I figure I should wear what I'm "happiest" with! (if clothes can be said to make you "happy")
I've always adopted the "many of the same" approach. E.g., when I used to wear dress shirts/slacks, I would have three or four of the same shirt hanging side by side in the closet. So, it was not uncommon to see me in the same "outfit" on successive days. Or, several times in a week.
Of course, it was typically the women who would notice such things (I think all men check is whether or not you have clothes *on*!). One lady commented once and I made a point of bringing in a handfull of hangers with identical shirts hung on each: "Oh! I see..."
[Unfortunately, dark colors are bad for things like mosquitos; they are *drawn* to darker colors]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Don Y:

I ride a *lot* - but would never, ever recommend it to anybody else.
The core of my being able to feel reasonably not-in-danger is avoiding proximity with motor vehicles. But that leads one into behavior that is largely illegal, probably does not scale, and depends on an continuous series of decisions.

Yes but that may be the lesser of two evils: <https://picasaweb.google.com/108149798664924808733/Humor#6009321546127227042
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 5:42 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

When I was younger (back when the dinosaurs ruled Urth), I used to regularly make a 25 mi ride to school, in traffic. Never had any problems (but, then again, my body could do more things than it can, now!). But, even the highways that I rode on were just 2 or 4 lanes. And that's passing through 4 or 5 towns!
Here, the roads in *town* are 4 and 6 lanes. And the drivers tend to all think their urgency is the utmost! Heaven forbid they leave home 3 minutes sooner so they wouldn't have to try to make up that *3* minutes on the road!

Most places, here, require you to drive *on* the road. No sidewalks to exploit (driving on sidewalks is illegal -- even if they existed).
When I walk up to the local library, the first ~1/2 mile I can cheat and cut through the wash -- no traffic. But, thereafter, I walk along the side of a 4 lane, 50MPH road (not "highway"). No sidewalks. So, I walk *well* up on the grass, facing traffic. And, still must remain vigilant that someone doesn't drift off the road and run me over (it's not uncommon -- a young woman was run over while walking he child in a stroller... a young kid busy changing radio stations instead of watching the road)

<groan> I'm not into spandex! :>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Don Y:

If/when somebody challenges me on my bike riding style, my reply is "Yes, people have written books about bike riding and the books say that your observations about what I do are 100% correct. The books clearly say that my behavior is wrong. But I do not believe that any of those books were written in the context of drivers talking on cell phones, drivers texting, and drivers doing email while trying to drive."
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 5:24 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

As I said, we are a "bike friendly" community. Encourage "bicycle tourism", etc. (we have a large, annual, 40/55/75/104 mile race, here, that draws about 9,000 cyclists). It is not uncommon to encounter singleton cyclists and packs of cyclists several times on a commute into town.
Bicyclists are *so* common that I suspect there will soon be some sort of legislation requiring licensing and/or carrying insurance (several hundred "crashes" each year -- though the trend has seemed to be down in recent years)
Among (car) drivers, there is a sense that bicyclists have adopted a "we have the right of way, watch out for *us*" attitude; as if they are entitled to do whatever they choose and traffic must adapt. Of course, in any "confrontation" with a motor vehicle, the cyclist loses -- in a big way!
Our neighborhood is effectively a dead end. However, there is a gated street that connects ours to the neighborhood behind us. So, on a map, it appears that you can "cut the corner" (a busy intersection) by riding through our two neighborhoods.
The neighborhood behind ours keeps the gate locked. So, vehicular traffic is prevented from "cutting the corner". But, bicyclists don't hesitate to thread their bikes around the locked gate.
The folks behind us have obviously decided that they don't like this and have incurred considerable expense to erect a chain link fence that "plugs all the holes" through which cyclists could sneak through.
I'm sure they (cyclists) are annoyed with this development!
OTOH, they never seemed to be polite users of these roadways -- riding three or four abreast down our residential streets, as if the street was put there solely for their use. Failing to heed the stop signs, etc. ("The-rules-don't-apply-to-us" attitude)
So, there's plenty of "blame" to go around!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

LOL! yeah! We like to look.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.