6 ms·

I used to have a double monitor setup and would program / play games / browse around on primary while watching a series on my secondary. But since some years ag

I used to have a double monitor setup and would program / play games / browse around on primary while watching a series on my secondary. But since some years ago I noticed that I can't do both at the same time anymore. Definitely programming while a series is on the background is a no-go, but if I play games I also just entirely miss the series (or vice versa). Not sure if it has to do with getting older, or my primary monitor getting larger and taking up too much FOV. _Occasionally_ I'll run music videos in the "picture in picture mode" while working, but that's about it.

wollsmoth 5y ago
I started realizing that I wasn't picking up that much of the tv/movies that I'd have on in the background. I tend to do one thing at a time for the most part. Sometimes with background music but mostly not.
orev 5y ago
It’s physically impossible for the human brain to multitask like this (multiple streams that both require cognitive attention), and studies have shown that people who try to do this actually end up with long term damage to their ability to focus. It’s very likely that you never were able to do this, and at some point just hit a threshold of damage to your focus that you finally realized it. Also, the same study showed that the people who multitask think they’re successful at it, however external observers can see that they’re not. This is why you have so many people who claim that they can do it. [1] https://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-research-study-082409.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-resea...
- drewcoo 5y ago
  I often tell people that, too. Because they usually claim to be multitasking to be more efficient. But is this actually multitasking? When I did data entry, I could "read" forms and type them in while I listened to books on tape because I wasn't actually thinking about the data in the forms. How much cognitive load do the games take? Or the movies? Further, if this is a pleasant experience, who gives a damn whether or not it's multitasking or real multitasking or optimal behavior? It's supposed to be enjoyable, so if we're going to measure anything, measure that.
  - orev 5y ago
    > because I wasn't actually thinking about the data in the forms Then that’s not a cognitive task, or at least one that requires the full brain. I would venture a guess that you might have been able to complete that task faster if you weren’t also listening to the books, or your error rate might have gone down. Or maybe you didn’t fully comprehend the books. Or maybe the material wasn’t too involved and missing some passages here and there didn’t make a difference. > who gives a damn whether or not it's multitasking or real multitasking or optimal behavior? Because attempting to multitask causes long term damage. One could say the same thing about drinking or drugs, and it’s clear that short term enjoyment can have negative long term effects.
opan 5y ago
I'm glad you came to your senses on this one. You were probably never properly experiencing both things. Giving each your full attention should result in a higher quality and more meaningful experience. I think it's more respectful to the media you're watching to give it your proper attention as well. In the past I watched shows with a friend occasionally, and he had a nasty habit of whipping out an iPad mid-episode to look something up. He didn't even pause. Sometimes he'd fall asleep as well. Then he had the nerve to say things about how the show didn't make sense or he thought there were plot holes. I didn't agree, and I assume he just missed major bits by splitting his attention. It's always bothered me when people put on shows (not broadcast TV, but things watched intentionally) in the background or on a second monitor and then claim later that they've "watched" it. The way I see it, if you don't want to really watch it, then don't. Go do that other thing that's on your mind. Come back to the show later. Or if it really can't hold your attention, don't make yourself watch it at all.
- esperent 5y ago
  > You were probably never properly experiencing both things. How can you make statements with such certainty about another person's experience?
  - ASalazarMX 5y ago
    I read "probably" as implying uncertainty, but I concur with his assessment. When I was around 20-25 I used to program or game while watching TV while listening to music, and it felt good because my brain craved overstimulation during that period. In retrospective, my main focus was the computer, the distant second focus was the TV, and the background noise was the music. I wasn't gaining a lot by doing the three at once.
    - Insanity 5y ago
      Interestingly, it was the same age range for me. I think the overstimulation with background noise is spot on.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I used to watch mostly the law and order / CSI series while doing things. Which were almost all reruns to me, so I guess it doesn't require as intense processing, mostly reliving the plot points. Sports, sports blather, and other things are also basically designed for intermittent attention in the modern American viewer, so those can also be background entertainment as well.
DocG 5y ago
I still prefer strongly two monitors over one big for work and programming but! The content must be one. It's either result in one screen and code in other or reference email in one and code in other etc. Two monitors is a way to go, if the content is the same. No messengers/YouTubes or anything unrelated open in any screens constantly. Phone behind monitor or somewhere away where I can't see it.

wollsmoth 5y ago

I started realizing that I wasn't picking up that much of the tv/movies that I'd have on in the background. I tend to do one thing at a time for the most part. Sometimes with background music but mostly not.

orev 5y ago

It’s physically impossible for the human brain to multitask like this (multiple streams that both require cognitive attention), and studies have shown that people who try to do this actually end up with long term damage to their ability to focus. It’s very likely that you never were able to do this, and at some point just hit a threshold of damage to your focus that you finally realized it. Also, the same study showed that the people who multitask think they’re successful at it, however external observers can see that they’re not. This is why you have so many people who claim that they can do it. [1] https://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-research-study-082409.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-resea...

drewcoo 5y ago
I often tell people that, too. Because they usually claim to be multitasking to be more efficient. But is this actually multitasking? When I did data entry, I could "read" forms and type them in while I listened to books on tape because I wasn't actually thinking about the data in the forms. How much cognitive load do the games take? Or the movies? Further, if this is a pleasant experience, who gives a damn whether or not it's multitasking or real multitasking or optimal behavior? It's supposed to be enjoyable, so if we're going to measure anything, measure that.
- orev 5y ago
  > because I wasn't actually thinking about the data in the forms Then that’s not a cognitive task, or at least one that requires the full brain. I would venture a guess that you might have been able to complete that task faster if you weren’t also listening to the books, or your error rate might have gone down. Or maybe you didn’t fully comprehend the books. Or maybe the material wasn’t too involved and missing some passages here and there didn’t make a difference. > who gives a damn whether or not it's multitasking or real multitasking or optimal behavior? Because attempting to multitask causes long term damage. One could say the same thing about drinking or drugs, and it’s clear that short term enjoyment can have negative long term effects.

opan 5y ago

I'm glad you came to your senses on this one. You were probably never properly experiencing both things. Giving each your full attention should result in a higher quality and more meaningful experience. I think it's more respectful to the media you're watching to give it your proper attention as well. In the past I watched shows with a friend occasionally, and he had a nasty habit of whipping out an iPad mid-episode to look something up. He didn't even pause. Sometimes he'd fall asleep as well. Then he had the nerve to say things about how the show didn't make sense or he thought there were plot holes. I didn't agree, and I assume he just missed major bits by splitting his attention. It's always bothered me when people put on shows (not broadcast TV, but things watched intentionally) in the background or on a second monitor and then claim later that they've "watched" it. The way I see it, if you don't want to really watch it, then don't. Go do that other thing that's on your mind. Come back to the show later. Or if it really can't hold your attention, don't make yourself watch it at all.

esperent 5y ago
> You were probably never properly experiencing both things. How can you make statements with such certainty about another person's experience?
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  I read "probably" as implying uncertainty, but I concur with his assessment. When I was around 20-25 I used to program or game while watching TV while listening to music, and it felt good because my brain craved overstimulation during that period. In retrospective, my main focus was the computer, the distant second focus was the TV, and the background noise was the music. I wasn't gaining a lot by doing the three at once.
  - Insanity 5y ago
    Interestingly, it was the same age range for me. I think the overstimulation with background noise is spot on.
ASalazarMX 5y ago

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

I used to watch mostly the law and order / CSI series while doing things. Which were almost all reruns to me, so I guess it doesn't require as intense processing, mostly reliving the plot points. Sports, sports blather, and other things are also basically designed for intermittent attention in the modern American viewer, so those can also be background entertainment as well.

DocG 5y ago

I still prefer strongly two monitors over one big for work and programming but! The content must be one. It's either result in one screen and code in other or reference email in one and code in other etc. Two monitors is a way to go, if the content is the same. No messengers/YouTubes or anything unrelated open in any screens constantly. Phone behind monitor or somewhere away where I can't see it.