BRITE Conference Blog

Do You Mind if I Multi-Task?

Quick question:

Is the use of twitter, IM, and Wikipedia during a meeting…
a)    An aid to enrich the conversation?
b)    Better than just doodling on paper?
c)    Likely to prevent you from engaging fully?
d)    Rude?

I read two fascinating posts this week on the impact of continuous partial attention in our lives.  I highly suggest both, however you answered the question above.

In "The Myth of MultiTasking", Adam Singer gives a passionate and thoughtful argument that slipping into a habit of constant digital multi-tasking can stymie creativity, deep thinking, and quality work.

"Twitter, email, phone calls, instant messages, web browsing – they are all distractions and ultimately collateral tasks… Unfortunately focusing is a lost art, especially in my generation [Gen Y]… We grew up working on projects and studying while browsing the web, eating dinner, and talking with our peers.  I only learned self-discipline later in life, but I had to unlearn the habits I acquired growing up multitasking"

Adam doesn’t address the potential benefits of multi-tasking for some kinds of work, or stages of the creative process.   But he makes an eloquent plea for the value of an intent focus, undistracted by urgencies of the moment, to the kind of work that for many of us "leads to productivity, fulfillment and ultimately happiness." As someone engaged in writing a book, I share his need for long blocks of uninterrupted time.

In "I Want My Cyborg Life," danah boyd offers a revealing counterpoint.  She relates a story of being rebuked for her use of her laptop in the audience at an academic conference in Italy (on Modernity 2.0, of all things).  Boyd details how her use of Twitter, blogging, and Wikipedia during presentations enriches her understanding and participation:

"During the talk, I had looked up six different concepts he had introduced (thank you Wikipedia), scanned two of the speakers' papers to try to grok what on earth he was talking about, and used Babelfish to translate the Italian conversations taking place on Twitter and FriendFeed in attempt to understand what was being said. Of course, I had also looked up half the people in the room (including the condescending man next to me) and posted a tweet of my own."

Boyd, and others in her comments, describe using the mobile web in the classroom, in museum galleries, and at dinner parties, to expand on and enliven their daily experiences.  But, as reported in recent MSM articles, there are many others who are offended when a Blackberry or iPhone is enlisted during a meeting.

What's the difference between the two camps?  Theories in boyd's discussants include: sex (men can't multitask), culture (Italians don't get it), and age (some people are dinosaurs).

My guess is none of these. 

I have a strong feeling that whether continuous partial attention is a boon for us (like for boyd), or a lodestone (like for Singer), will depend to a fair degree on our neurology.

I was not surprised to read in her follow up comments that boyd is ADHD. 

"Just because I might appear to look like I'm paying attention to one thread does not mean that I actually am. I learned to perform attention in high school. But, as an adult, I'm more interested in learning than in performing… [As a lecturer] I find it really disconcerting when people are actually looking at me."

As someone with attention issues in my family, I immediately recognized her experience.  And as a parent, I echo her question to teachers:

"How can we embrace those who learn best when they have an outlet for their questions and thoughts?"

Social norms of whether public digital multi-tasking is appropriate will be shaped by culture, and these norms will be in flux over the next 10 years. 

But as they shift, we should keep in mind that what works for one person does not work for everyone else.  Some of us will work very well with a split screen in our mind, but others will thrive best when they unplug for solitude.

-David

Xbox Offers a New Niche for Advertisers

I recently spoke with Sally Herships, for an article on the radio program Marketplace heard yesterday on public radio stations, about a new advertising platform for the Xbox.

Like me, it turned out that Sally has never purchased a television. As I've blogged previously, the age of viewers who watch a traditional TV broadcast has now passed 50 years old.

Instead, networked customers are consuming content over the Internet and other digital platforms like iPods or gaming consoles, and avoiding ads in the process. What's an advertiser, used to reaching customers on television, supposed to do?

Enter Microsoft with its Xbox console. In the new live multi-player game "1 vs. 100," advertisements can be inserted that users can't skip. They can also reach extremely targeted audiences, thanks to information that the Xbox collects on them, including gender, location and age. Advertising on games like "1 vs. 100" may not replace the huge reach of television ads, but it could offer a new model for reaching niche audiences in our changing media landscape.

Listen to the Marketplace article.
Or read the text.