So, cynical about science reporting, I was expecting the results of a study either misinterpreted or extended far beyond their reach. This article doesn't even

So, cynical about science reporting, I was expecting the results of a study either misinterpreted or extended far beyond their reach. This article doesn't even have that! It's basically the preferences of the author coupled with some tenuous connection to research about focus. It's especially in applicable to programmers: I want two monitors so that I can simultaneously display a full screen of code as well as shells, tooling, documentation and whatever I'm working on. Especially for web development, I need two screens just to fit everything I'm actively using. Web tools and documentation aren't distractions. Sure, if you have enough left-over screen space to put up a bunch of distractions, perhaps you don't need two monitors. Or perhaps you're not using them properly! One of the main reasons I have a clear separation between work and distractions is that I use a tiling window manager: I can't have something distracting in the background. Sticking to that might be a good start. (Although it's difficult on Windows with its slightly ironic paucity of window managements tools like multiple desktops.) So yeah: two screens are better than one. Especially for programmers. But really, for everyone—everyone who uses them in a reasonable way. If only tiling window managers were more popular!