http://blog.jparkhill.com/2008/10/24/the-nytimes-backs-me-up-on-multitasking/ Business and Legal Notes, mostly Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:12:39 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://blog.jparkhill.com/2008/10/24/the-nytimes-backs-me-up-on-multitasking/comment-page-1/#comment-5556 Maryland Real Estate Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:37:57 +0000 http://blog.jparkhill.com/2008/10/24/the-nytimes-backs-me-up-on-multitasking/#comment-5556 I couldn't agree more with the concept of multitasking as, essentially, a time waster. Basically, on the rare occasions when I *try* to multitask (i.e. - when I'm forced into it), I will focus about 40% of my attention on two individual tasks each (for example), for a total attention level of 80%. When I focus on ONE item at a time, I give it my 100% attention. The extra 20% of attention that's lost in the multitasking scenario floats into the ether somewhere, where I hope to find it one day and apply it to my laser-focused "singletasking." Anyone who thinks they can effectively multitask is probably just fooling themselves. I couldn't agree more with the concept of multitasking as, essentially, a time waster. Basically, on the rare occasions when I *try* to multitask (i.e. – when I'm forced into it), I will focus about 40% of my attention on two individual tasks each (for example), for a total attention level of 80%. When I focus on ONE item at a time, I give it my 100% attention. The extra 20% of attention that's lost in the multitasking scenario floats into the ether somewhere, where I hope to find it one day and apply it to my laser-focused “singletasking.” Anyone who thinks they can effectively multitask is probably just fooling themselves.

]]>