David Zach, futurist

The New Atlantis: The Myth of Multitasking

The Myth of Multitasking

Related to my last post, the linked article begins with a quotation from Lord Chesterfield: There is time enough for everything in the course of the day, if you do but one thing at once, but there is not time enough in the year, if you will do two things at a time.” followed by another This steady and undissipated attention to one object, is a sure mark of a superior genius; as hurry, bustle, and agitation, are the never-failing symptoms of a weak and frivolous mind.

Multitasking vs. Singletasking

I just spoke at the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and at one point quoted a woman at another conference who warned audience members to stop doing email during her talk — with the rather assertive expression, "Multitasking makes you stupid!" I then suggested that perhaps young people can multitask, but adults are not so good at it. I've read a few articles suggesting that the "software" of youngsters is actually different from those who grew up in a linear world. Young people can be doing ten things at once and still be bored because there's still available bandwidth, needing to be filled and/or distracted. 

Later at one of the receptions at NCARB I overheard someone explaining, "Young people might be better at multitasking, but they are not so good at singletasking." 

Does anyone who is regularly on email and online have the ability to concentrate and focus for long periods of time? Our attention span is no better than that of houseflies today. Can you possibly do the sort of work you're capable of when you can't pay attention. I would guess not. 

In this sort of game, there are winners and losers. Who wins in an age of distraction? 

The Age of Forgetting

How can we have an Age of Information when we can't even remember where we put the car keys?

Fascinating article in the New York Times - The Great Forgetting by David Brooks. It's about what's going to happen with the aging of the boomers - and a bit on how we're not going to quite go gentle into that good night, if only we'll be able to remember upon whom to dump all that rage that will come with the losses of age.

Time will force the boomer fantasies of eternal youth and eternal relevance into perhaps even an early retirement. Be gentle with us, even if we are not gentle with the failings of our age. One gets a certain sense that with the current presidential race is once again pitting the various boomer philosophies against each other. I had said at the Conversations among Masters conference that I thought there was an exceptional amount of naivete in this race - and one person took boomer umbrage that I was attacking Obama. Nope. I was, um, attacking all three candidates, representing the diversity of naivete found in the electorate nicely spread evenly amongst the generations. And the truest words I've ever heard about American politics is that we always get the government we deserve. Once again, we're going to get it.

Then again, Dilbert last week had a great rejoinder to the Millennials. The geeky kid was explaining to Dilbert and Catbert about how with their superior techno-savvy, and Facebook, etc. they would take over the world. The last frame shows the kid stuck in the trash can - Dilbert having discovered that still life with keyboard does not do much for the sort of upper body strength needed to defend oneself.

Age and avarice just might yet win over youth and enthusiasm. And, finally Tom Rush on YouTube sings homage to us - just to show that maybe we can still enjoy what will remain.

Measuring Intangible Wealth

For a fascinating explanation of why so many Mexicans and others have come here illegally to work and live, see Where is the Wealth of Nations? from the World Bank. (Note: it's a several meg pdf that will download.)

A Mexican migrant to the US is five times more productive than one who stays home. The report is worth reading, especially the executive summary (is there a logical reason why executives don't have to read as much as the rest of us?) where they explain that it's the Intangible Wealth that explains why some countries get rich and others, despite great resource wealth, stay poor.

For the US, the average American (or illegal immigrant for that matter) has access to over $418,000 in intangible wealth, whereas the average stay-in-Mexico Mexican only has access to $34,000 in intangible wealth. Why wouldn't someone want access to our sort of wealth system?

What makes up Intangible Wealth? Well, it's things like the rule of law, educational systems, infrastructure and I would even include our cafes where so many idea people gather to talk. It's very much our system of freedoms, especially the freedom to trust. Trust is the foundation of freedom, because when you can trust others, you're free to do most anything If you always have to be watching those around you, it's rather difficult to focus on the task. Without the ability to trust, there is no freedom. Without freedom, there is no wealth.

So, has anyone noticed how we're not trusting each other as much as we used to? The terrrorists didn't just attack the buildings, they attacked our freedom to trust.

WWOvBD? What would Otto von Bismarck do?

Apparently Otto von Bismarck did not set retirement age at 65 as the legends tell us. He set it at 70 (he was 74 at the time). In 1889, Germany set up old age security pensions. And this may have seemed an easy thing because only about 2% of Germany's population reached that age and average life expectancy was 72. Was this the grand birth of entitlements - or at least maybe that's when it got it's smelly foothold. Compare in your imagination their simple program in 1889 to programs in 2019 when so many of the apparently poorly prepared boomers are fully into those so-called retirement years. Government-addicts are going to love such an opportunity.

In 1916 the age was lowered to 65. Most people today will reach well beyond age 65, so what are they going to do? More of the same apparently. An AFP story says that Americans love to work, especially after retirement age. Three-quarters of those working after age 65 expressed high satisfaction with their jobs.

I'm not sure if "jobs" is the right word. Maybe careers - or if they've changed careers in their later years, re-careers. It seems that retirement is for people who had jobs, not careers. Quite often something they fell into, or stayed in it with reluctance but still had responsibilities to keep getting checks. The study notes that unskilled workers were the least satisfied with their jobs. I would imagine their list of dissatisfactions would go far beyond just work.

Brings to mind the Latin words, vocarè and educatè. Vocarè means "a calling" and educatè means "to draw out what is already there." The better allignment of those two characteristics would almost certainly reduce the need for retirement. This also means that as far as I'm concerned career counselors have a much bigger role to play in the future - I would even say they are essential for a well designed economy (Full disclosure - my brother is a career counselor). I worry about the ones who lack imagination, but these people really are futurists - practical ones who help others decide and design their own futures.

Here's some speculation on some options. They think OvB would have had to raise the retirement age to at least 78. Today retirement in Germany is at 60 and average life expectancy is 80. Why should the state or anybody else for that matter pay for those "sunset years" as they were called in OvB's days?

Strength through diversity?

From the author of Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community comes a new study reported in the Boston Globe, The Downside of Diversity that gives a sort of sucker punch to the notion that diversity is all good. Which is not entirely surprising because if you listen to some diversity advocates, the growing diversity in the US is the bestest thing ever. Like anything that's overhyped and oversensitized, there's few chances to really explore the ups and downs of it - except perhaps to talk with those who are not diverse from yourself. Closed loop conversations are all the rage in these modern times, no matter what your hue.

Articles like Putnam's may open the conversation back up as to how does a national culture really change over time with all the various inputs now presented as having equal value and demanding an equal presence in the future? Cultural advocates have long pushed what's called the fruit salad approach, where all of the components retain their original features, but are still mixed all together. Yeah, right. Cultures do not stay separate except by some sort of political, religious or military force and there are other huge natural forces that keep blending at the boundaries.

As confused as they might sometimes be, I think it's those with mixed racial background that may have the most to offer in this conversation because they're not theorizing, they're living it. Unless they're in denial, they have to bridge the apparent divides.

I am always skeptical of forecasts, and that particularly applies to cultural forecasts. It's an occupational hazard - or at least it should be. Too often forecasts are pre-drawn conclusions with the data filled in after the fact to support the conclusion. (Putnam notes the struggle with the current study because it so conflicts with his advocacy.) I'm more in favor of advocating a particular future and stated as such, engage in a debate on why that future is better than others. It's more contentious, but in the end, I hope that it is more honest.

A man of courage flees forward, in the midst of new things.
Jacques Maritain

In part I blame cell phones and iPods and the like. They make us islands unto ourselves. Cell phones were sold to us with the promise that they would connect us to the world - but the world turns out to be rather small because it's mostly "friends and family" as the term is called. They're people we already know. It reinforces the closed loop. Hang up and start talking with strangers, they're not as strange as you've been lead to believe.

Putnam does note that the general discomfort with diversity may actually help with some work teams, that is, by having a variety of perspectives committed to the same goal, allows more ideas to come to the table and helps avoid the often inevitable group think that shows up in those settings. I think it's the commitment to the same goals that becomes the catalyst here - and common goals are seemingly antithetical to discussions of diversity. E pluribus unum.

Check here for a pdf of source data from the US Census on distribution of the US population by race. Recent headlines have told that 1 out of 10 counties in the US have a other than white majorities. If you check the map on page 6, it shows an interesting pattern, it's the South across the entire US that shows higher minority populations, the North not so much.

The New York Times Magazine has this article on All Immigration Politics is Local.

Daniel Henninger from the Wall Street Journal weighs in on the study.

Reuben Navarette has his take on it here.