|
Softpanorama
(slightly skeptical)
Open Source Software Educational Society |
May the
source be with you,
but remember the KISS principle ;-)
|
Information Overload

In Greek mythology, Sisyphus, an evil king,
was condemned to Hades to forever roll a big rock to the top of a mountain,
and then the rock always rolled back down again.
Similar version of Hell is suffered every day by people
managed by micromanagers and control freaks.
There can be several possible reasons if information overload:
- Too much information
- Can't understand information
- Don't know if the information exists
- Don't know where to find information
- Can't access information
- Don't know if the information is accurate
It can occur in large variety of situations:
- Sipping information from a fire hose. this situation is typical for colledge
students, see Mental overload
- Self inflicted overload, suffering from Obsessive-compulsive
disorder: a broad category of "voluntary workaholics" belongs here.
Computer gamers are typical victims of this type of chronic overload.
This is a kind of addition to computers.
- Red Tape induced or bureaucratic overload. Often is connected
with the situation that workload is normal but to accomplish anything requires
tremendous additional and counterproductive efforts. this is a situation typical
for large corporations, especially when working for a clueless
Control
Freaks: micromanager who makes accomplishing anything extremely difficult
and drown you in useless paperwork supposly needed to him/her to make a decision
that often should be made on the spot.
- Working in the environment where one person has just too many responsibilities
and just cannot cope with then (typical situation in startups', where often
the whole IT department is two or three people).
- Prolonged exposure to stress (Working for
a corporate psychopath
is the most typical example of work situation of this type)
- Drowning in an ocean of mostly information ( spam and associated
email overload is one example of
this trend)
Prolonged exposure to information overload produces so called information fatigue
syndrome. Symptoms include paralysis of analytical capacity, increased anxiety,
greater self-doubt, and a tendency to blame others. Long exposure produces
symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress syndrome and in milder form is intrinsically
connected with demoralization and burnout. Here the most helpful page is probably
Softpanorama Humor Archive. Unique Collection
of Open Source Related Humor. Humor is one of the most affecting methods of
fighting stress and overload. It helps a person to remain positive in difficult
situations more effectively that most drugs.
When people are faced with more information than they can process, they become
unable to make decisions or take action. There are two important aspects of this
problem:
-
Overwhelming complexity of the situation and/or the fact
that useful signal is lost in noise. Typical examples include intelligence
gathering, pilots in complex meteorological conditions and during "blind"
landing, network troubleshooting. We can also add to this category troubleshooting
of complex programming and/or networking problem when complexity of the
stuff is over human capacity to comprehend and people spend days trying
to figure out what is wrong and why. Network administrators and security
analysts know this type of situations pretty well.
-
Information overload with "junk" information when
civilization produces more information than necessary for normal functioning,
with most information of low quality. This is kind of new type of pollution,
information smog. Information smog replaced information scarcity
as an important personal and social problem.
-
Printing press smog. What started out
as a liberating stream during the Renaissance has turned into a deluge
of chaos. In the USA, for example, there are ten thousand of newspapers
and magazines. There are also more than 100,000 new book titles published
every year (and it's probably more than a million world-wide) and just
for the record, over 60 billion pieces of advertising junk mail come
into our mail boxes every year. Everything from telegraphy and photography
in the 19th century to the silicon chip in the twentieth has amplified
the instream of information, until matters have reached such proportions
today that for the average person, information no longer has any relation
to the solution of problems. In mild forms printing press smog is usually
pretty benign. You just need to eradiate the view that 'Knowledge
is Power' and start regularly throwing out Computer magazines
that were never opened ;-).
-
Internet smog: Situation deteriorated
due to Internet. Typical Google search is an example of junk dominance.
It also vividly demonstrates that most information is of low quality,
repetitive or outright deceptive (financial information belongs to the
latter category). Internet smog is larger and more dangerous problem
then printing press smog as it masks useful information making it essentially
unavailable. Some forms of Internet smog such as email overload and
its ultimate manifestation -- email spam -- can now be effectively
controlled by technical means.
Often information overload is typical for high-tech startups. "Technology
has changed, but human nature hasn't. Whether it's the Gold Rush of 1849 or the
Web Rush of l999, people are people. More often than not, they're miserable, nasty,
selfish creatures, driven by vanity and greed, doing whatever they can to get ahead,
even if it means stepping on the person next to them, crushing the weak, and destroying
themselves in the process." Actually this is not true. The IT industry is
a unique environment; we are truly given a more choice as to where our priorities
lie than in many other jobs. But there is no free lunch. You want a cool job? Don't
expect to work for a huge company and get paid the big bucks. You want to make good
money? Don't expect to be able to leave the office in the middle of the day just
to sit in the park and drink coffee. You want to make great money? Don't expect
to work 40 or even 50 hours a week...
Actually startups aren't about the paradise, nor are they viable
for those who crave security. They are about risk, not just financial but
also emotional and intellectual. Some think that the rewards for success are worth
it, some not... It's true that some startups hire, than harass and inflict burnout
on programmers and sys-admins. Life in the fast lane can be brutal - long hours,
almost no employer-employee loyalty, greed and moral cowardice, back-stabbing, pressure,
etc. If you don't want to do what your boss want, a startup can probably find immigrant
that will do it for less money. That is the Silicon Valley Way (TM).
Many visitors to this page are probably system administrators. And
it's sad to say but sysadmins are often the janitors of e-business. To clean up
the messes from the ugly packages superfast growth and unrealistic schedules they
often work long, late hours. It's a thankless job (although not the only one and
not the most miserable one...) Anyway the reality is that sysadmins/programmers
in startups and small companies that are struggling to survive. Sometimes are also
put under substantial stress... I'm surprised most of them aren't more neurotic
from sleep deprivation.
At the same time many sysadmins in established companies working
with "Gold" coverage from Sun or HP can surf the WEB for 80% of the day... And if
you can rarely showed up before 11 a.m., sometimes it is just a survival skill to
stay past midnight once in a while... In large companies most sysadmin roles aren't
always firefighting, and not so much stress, but they tends to wear on a capable
person pretty quickly. Sometimes it is really look like cleaning. You clean it today,
but in a month everything return to the same state. Sometimes it make sense
to play an idiot in large company in best traditions of
Peter Principle. Officially recognized
low-performers often can spend 90% of their time addressing only 10% of problems
that high-performer needs to address. The most valued employees in large companies
are often on the verge of burn-out because they are too overloaded and have way
too many pressures, conflicts and demands combined with too few rewards, acknowledgments
and successes.
For IS top guns it might make sense to stop for a moment to dig
infodirt and ask themselves a simple question "Does working with the fancy hardware
and software (let's assume for a moment that Unix can be fancy first five years
or so ;-) worth 60 hours a week or even 40 hours of cleaning infodirt?". Independent
of your answer thinking about this may help to adjust your priorities :-).
Pseudo-Attention Deficit Disorder: Some programmers
are perversely wired. It is not uncommon for them to be sitting in
a meeting and using a hand-held device to exchange instant messages surreptitiously
— with someone in the same meeting. You have Pseudo-attention deficit disorder if:
- I find my mind wandering from tasks that are uninteresting or difficult
- I say things without thinking and later regret having said them.
- I make quick decisions without thinking enough about their possible
bad results
- I have a quick temper, a short fuse
- I have trouble planning in what order to do a series of tasks or activities
- In group activities it is hard for me to wait my turn.
- I usually work on more than one project at a time, and fail to finish
many of them.
Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov
|
|
Notes:
- This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help
You For Free) site written by people for whom English
is not a native language.
Some amount of grammar and spelling errors should be
expected.
- The site contain some broken links
as it develops like a living tree...
Please try to use Google, Open directory,
etc. to find a replacement link (see
HOWTO search the WEB for details). We would appreciate
if you can
mail us a correct link.
|
|
|
My Schedule Should Be Terrible…
I should have an overwhelming, Malox-guzzling, stress-saturated
schedule. Here’s why: I’m a graduate student in a demanding program.
I’m working on several research papers while also attempting to nail
down some key ideas for my dissertation. I’m TA’ing and
taking courses. I maintain this blog. I’m a staff writer for
Flak Magazine. And to keep things interesting, I’m working on
background research for a potential new book project.
You would be reasonable to assume that I must get, on average, 7
- 8 minutes of sleep a night. But you would also be wrong.
Let me explain…
For Some Reason It’s Not…
Here is my actual schedule. I work:
- From 9 to 5 on weekdays.
- In the morning on Sunday.
That’s it. Unless I’m bored, I have no need to even turn on a
computer after 5 during the week or any time on Saturday. I fill
these times, instead, doing, well, whatever I want.
How do I balance an ambitious work load with an ambitiously
sparse schedule? It’s a simple idea I call fixed-schedule
productivity.
Fixed-Schedule Productivity
The system work as follows:
- Choose a schedule of work hours that you think provides the
ideal balance of effort and relaxation.
- Do whatever it takes to avoid violating this schedule.
This sounds simple. But think about it for a moment. Satisfying
rule 2 is not easy. If you took your current projects, obligations,
and work habits, you’d probably fall well short of satisfying your
ideal work schedule. Here’s a simple truth: to stick to your
ideal schedule will require some drastic actions. For
example, you may have to:
- Dramatically cut back on the number of projects you are
working on.
- Ruthlessly cull inefficient habits from your daily schedule.
- Risk
mildly annoying or upsetting some people in exchange for
large gains in time freedom.
- Stop procrastinating.
In the abstract, these all seem like hard things to do. But when
you have the focus of a specific goal — “I do not want to work
past 5 on week days!” — you’d be surprised by how much easier
it becomes deploy these strategies in your daily life.
Let’s look at an example…
Case Study: My Schedule
My schedule provides a good case study. To reach my relatively
small work hour limit, I have to be careful with how I go about my
day. I see enough bleary-eyed insomniacs around here to know how
easy it is to slip into a noon to 3 am routine (the infamous “MIT
cycle.”) Here are some of the techniques I regularly use to remain
within the confines of my fixed schedule:
- I serialize my projects. I keep two project
queues — one from my student projects and one for my writing
projects. At any one moment I’m only working on the top project
from each queue. When I finish, I move on to the next. This
focus lets me churn out quality results without the wasted time
of constantly dancing back and forth between multiple efforts.
(As also discussed
here and
here.)
- I’m ultra-clear about when to expect results from
me. And it’s not always soon. If someone slips
something onto my queue, I make an honest evaluation of when it
will percolate to the top. I communicate this date. Then I make
it happen when the time comes. You can get away with telling
people to expect a result a long time in the future, if — and
this is a big if — you actually deliver when promised.
- I refuse. If my queue is too crowded for a
potential project to get done in time, I turn it down.
- I drop projects and quit. If a project gets
out of control, and starts to sap too much time from my
schedule: I drop it. If something demonstrably more important
comes along, and it conflicts with something else in my queue, I
drop the less important project. If an obligation is taking up
too much time: I quit. Here’s a secret: no one really
cares what you do on the small scale. In the end you’re
judged on your large-scale list of important completions.
- I’m not available. I often work in hidden
nooks of the various libraries on campus. I check and respond to
work e-mail only a few times a day. People have to wait for
responses from me. It’s often hard to find me. Sometimes they
get upset at first. But they don’t really need immediate access.
And I will always respond within a reasonable timeframe and get
them what they need. So they adjust. And I get things done.
- I batch and habitatize. Any regularly
occurring work gets turned into a habit — something I do at a
fixed time on a fixed date. For example, I write blog posts on
Sunday morning. I do reading for my seminar on Friday and Monday
mornings. Etc. Habit-based schedules for the regular work makes
it easier to tackle the non-regular projects. It also prevents
schedule-busting pile-ups.
- I start early. Sometimes real early. On
certain projects that I know are important, I don’t tolerate
procrastination. It doesn’t interest me. If I need to start
something 2 or 3 weeks in advance so that my queue proceeds as
needed, I do so.
Why This Works
You could fill any arbitrary number of hours with what feels to
be productive work. Between e-mail, and “crucial” web surfing, and
to-do lists that, in the age of David Allen, grow to lengths that
rival the bible, there is always something you could be doing. At
some point, however, you have to put a stake in the ground and say:
I know I have a never-ending stream of work, but this is
when I’m going to face it. If you don’t do this, you
let the never-ending stream of work push you around like a bully. It
will force you into tiring, inefficient schedules. And you’ll end up
more stressed and no more accomplished.
Fix the schedule you want. Then make everything else fit around
your needs. Be flexible. Be efficient. If you can’t make it
fit: change your work. But in the end, don’t compromise. No
one really cares about your schedule except for yourself. So make it
right.
On the BBC News site, Bill Thompson
takes the discussion in an interesting new direction:
The Swiss developmental psychologist Jean Piaget
described two processes that he believed lay behind
the development of knowledge in children. The first
is assimilation, where new knowledge fits into existing
conceptual frameworks. More challenging is accommodation,
where the framework itself is modified to include the
new information.
The current generation of 'search engines' seem to
encourage a model of exploration that is disposed towards
assimilative learning, finding sources, references and
documents which can be slotted into existing frameworks,
rather than providing material for deeper contemplation
of the sort that could provoke accommodation and the
extension, revision or even abandonment of views, opinions
or even whole belief systems.
Perhaps the real danger posed by screen-based technologies
is not that they are rewiring our brains but that the
collection of search engines, news feeds and social
tools encourages us to link to, follow and read only
that which we can easily assimilate.
Globe and Mail, columnist Margaret Wente becomes the latest
writer to
fess up to an evaporating ability to read long works of prose:
Google has done wondrous things for my stock of general knowledge.
It also seems to have destroyed my attention span. Like a flea with
ADD, I jump back and forth from the Drudge Report to gardening sites
that list the growing time of Green Zebras …
Thanks to Google, we're all turning into mental fast-food junkies.
Google has taught us to be skimmers, grabbing for news and insights
on the fly. I skim books now too, even good ones. Once I think I've
got the gist, I'll skip to the next chapter or the next book. Forget
the background, the history, the logical progression of an argument.
Just give me the takeaway.
Make information free, and we'll become gluttons of information, as Rob Horning
notes in an interesting post today:
As behavioral economists (most vociferously, Dan Ariely) have pointed
out, we find the promise of free things hard
to resist (even when a little thinking reveals that the free-ness
is illusory). So when with very little effort we can accumulate massive
amounts of “free” stuff from various places on the internet, we can easily
end up with 46 days (and counting) worth of unplayed music on a hard drive.
We end up with a permanent 1,000+ unread posts in our RSS reader, and a
lingering, unshakable feeling that we’ll never catch up, never be truly
informed, never feel comfortable with what we’ve managed to take in, which
is always in the process of being undermined by the free information feeds
we’ve set up for ourselves. We end up haunted by the potential of the free
stuff we accumulate, and our enjoyment of any of it becomes severely impinged.
The leisure and unparalleled bounty of a virtually unlimited access to culture
ends up being an endless source of further stress, as we feel compelled
to take it all in. Nothing sinks in as we try to rush through it all, and
our rushing does nothing to keep us from falling further behind—often when
I attempt to tackle the unread posts in my RSS reader, I end up finding
new feeds to add, and so on, and I end up further behind than when I started.
Information may be free, but, as Horning explains, it exacts a price in the
time required to collect, organize, and consume it. As we binge on the Net,
the time available for other intellectual activities - like, say, thinking -
shrinks. Eventually, we get bloated, mentally, and a kind of intellectual nausea
sets in. But we can't stop because - hey - it's free.
Posted by kdawson on Monday June 23, @02:20AM
from the but-we-knew-this dept.
djvaselaar
sends along an article from The New Atlantis that summarizes recent research
indicating that
multitasking may be detrimental to work and learning.. It begins, "In
one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield
offered the following advice: '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.' To Chesterfield, singular focus
was not merely a practical way to structure one's time; it was a mark of intelligence...
E-mails pouring in, cell phones ringing, televisions blaring, podcasts streaming--all
this may become background noise, like the 'din of a foundry or factory' that
[William] James observed workers could scarcely avoid at first, but which eventually
became just another part of their daily routine. For the younger generation
of multitaskers, the great electronic din is an expected part of everyday life.
And given what neuroscience and anecdotal evidence have shown us, this state
of constant intentional self-distraction could well be of profound detriment
to individual and cultural well-being."
In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s,
Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice:
“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.” To Chesterfield, singular focus was
not merely a practical way to structure one’s time; it was a
mark of intelligence.
“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.”
In modern times, hurry, bustle, and agitation have become a
regular way of life for many people—so much so that we have
embraced a word to describe our efforts to respond to the many
pressing demands on our time: multitasking. Used for
decades to describe the parallel processing abilities of computers,
multitasking is now shorthand for the human attempt to do simultaneously
as many things as possible, as quickly as possible, preferably
marshalling the power of as many technologies as possible.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, one sensed a kind of exuberance
about the possibilities of multitasking. Advertisements for
new electronic gadgets—particularly the first generation of
handheld digital devices—celebrated the notion of using technology
to accomplish several things at once. The word multitasking
began appearing in the “skills” sections of résumés, as office
workers restyled themselves as high-tech, high-performing team
players. “We have always multitasked—inability to walk and chew
gum is a time-honored cause for derision—but never so intensely
or self-consciously as now,” James Gleick wrote in his 1999
book
Faster. “We are multitasking connoisseurs—experts
in crowding, pressing, packing, and overlapping distinct activities
in our all-too-finite moments.” An article in the New York
Times Magazine in 2001 asked, “Who can remember life before
multitasking? These days we all do it.” The article offered
advice on “How to Multitask” with suggestions about giving your
brain’s “multitasking hot spot” an appropriate workout.
But more recently, challenges to the ethos of multitasking
have begun to emerge. Numerous studies have shown the sometimes-fatal
danger of using cell phones and other electronic devices while
driving, for example, and several states have now made that
particular form of multitasking illegal. In the business world,
where concerns about time-management are perennial, warnings
about workplace distractions spawned by a multitasking culture
are on the rise. In 2005, the BBC reported on a research study,
funded by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by the Institute of
Psychiatry at the University of London, that found, “Workers
distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more
than twice that found in marijuana smokers.” The psychologist
who led the study called this new “infomania” a serious threat
to workplace productivity. One of the Harvard Business Review’s
“Breakthrough Ideas” for 2007 was Linda Stone’s notion
of “continuous partial attention,” which might be understood
as a subspecies of multitasking: using mobile computing power
and the Internet, we are “constantly scanning for opportunities
and staying on top of contacts, events, and activities in an
effort to miss nothing.”
Dr. Edward Hallowell, a Massachusetts-based psychiatrist
who specializes in the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder and has written a book with the self-explanatory title
CrazyBusy, has been offering therapies
to combat extreme multitasking for years; in his book he calls
multitasking a “mythical activity in which people believe they
can perform two or more tasks simultaneously.” In a 2005 article,
he described a new condition, “Attention Deficit Trait,” which
he claims is rampant in the business world. ADT is “purely a
response to the hyperkinetic environment in which we live,”
writes Hallowell, and its hallmark symptoms mimic those of ADD.
“Never in history has the human brain been asked to track so
many data points,” Hallowell argues, and this challenge “can
be controlled only by creatively engineering one’s environment
and one’s emotional and physical health.” Limiting multitasking
is essential. Best-selling business advice author Timothy Ferriss
also extols the virtues of “single-tasking” in his book,
The 4-Hour Workweek.
Multitasking might also be taking a toll on the economy.
One study by researchers at the University of California at
Irvine monitored interruptions among office workers; they found
that workers took an average of twenty-five minutes to recover
from interruptions such as phone calls or answering e-mail and
return to their original task. Discussing multitasking with
the New York Times in 2007, Jonathan B. Spira, an analyst
at the business research firm Basex, estimated that extreme
multitasking—information overload—costs the U.S. economy $650
billion a year in lost productivity.
Changing Our Brains
To better understand the multitasking
phenomenon, neurologists and psychologists have studied the
workings of the brain. In 1999, Jordan Grafman, chief of cognitive
neuroscience at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke (part of the National Institutes of Health), used
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans to determine
that when people engage in “task-switching”—that is, multitasking
behavior—the flow of blood increases to a region of the frontal
cortex called Brodmann area 10. (The flow of blood to particular
regions of the brain is taken as a proxy indication of activity
in those regions.) “This is presumably the last part of the
brain to evolve, the most mysterious and exciting part,” Grafman
told the New York Times in 2001—adding, with a touch
of hyperbole, “It’s what makes us most human.”
It is also what makes multitasking a poor long-term strategy
for learning. Other studies, such as those performed by psychologist
René Marois of Vanderbilt University, have used fMRI to demonstrate
the brain’s response to handling multiple tasks. Marois found
evidence of a “response selection bottleneck” that occurs when
the brain is forced to respond to several stimuli at once. As
a result, task-switching leads to time lost as the brain determines
which task to perform. Psychologist David Meyer at the University
of Michigan believes that rather than a bottleneck in the brain,
a process of “adaptive executive control” takes place, which
“schedules task processes appropriately to obey instructions
about their relative priorities and serial order,” as he described
to the New Scientist. Unlike many other researchers
who study multitasking, Meyer is optimistic that, with training,
the brain can learn to task-switch more effectively, and there
is some evidence that certain simple tasks are amenable to such
practice. But his research has also found that multitasking
contributes to the release of stress hormones and adrenaline,
which can cause long-term health problems if not controlled,
and contributes to the loss of short-term memory.
In one recent study, Russell Poldrack, a psychology professor
at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that “multitasking
adversely affects how you learn. Even if you learn while multitasking,
that learning is less flexible and more specialized, so you
cannot retrieve the information as easily.” His research demonstrates
that people use different areas of the brain for learning and
storing new information when they are distracted: brain scans
of people who are distracted or multitasking show activity in
the striatum, a region of the brain involved in learning new
skills; brain scans of people who are not distracted show activity
in the hippocampus, a region involved in storing and recalling
information. Discussing his research on National Public Radio
recently, Poldrack warned, “We have to be aware that there is
a cost to the way that our society is changing, that humans
are not built to work this way. We’re really built to focus.
And when we sort of force ourselves to multitask, we’re driving
ourselves to perhaps be less efficient in the long run even
though it sometimes feels like we’re being more efficient.”
If, as Poldrack concluded, “multitasking changes the way
people learn,” what might this mean for today’s children and
teens, raised with an excess of new entertainment and educational
technology, and avidly multitasking at a young age? Poldrack
calls this the “million-dollar question.” Media multitasking—that
is, the simultaneous use of several different media, such as
television, the Internet, video games, text messages, telephones,
and e-mail—is clearly on the rise, as a 2006 report from the
Kaiser Family Foundation showed: in 1999, only 16 percent of
the time people spent using any of those media was spent on
multiple media at once; by 2005, 26 percent of media time was
spent multitasking. “I multitask every single second I am online,”
confessed one study participant. “At this very moment I am watching
TV, checking my e-mail every two minutes, reading a newsgroup
about who shot JFK, burning some music to a CD, and writing
this message.”
The Kaiser report noted several factors that increase the
likelihood of media multitasking, including “having a computer
and being able to see a television from it.” Also, “sensation-seeking”
personality types are more likely to multitask, as are those
living in “a highly TV-oriented household.” The picture that
emerges of these pubescent multitasking mavens is of a generation
of great technical facility and intelligence but of extreme
impatience, unsatisfied with slowness and uncomfortable with
silence: “I get bored if it’s not all going at once, because
everything has gaps—waiting for a website to come up, commercials
on TV, etc.” one participant said. The report concludes on a
very peculiar note, perhaps intended to be optimistic: “In this
media-heavy world, it is likely that brains that are more adept
at media multitasking will be passed along and these changes
will be naturally selected,” the report states. “After all,
information is power, and if one can process more information
all at once, perhaps one can be more powerful.” This is techno-social
Darwinism, nature red in pixel and claw.
Other experts aren’t so sure. As neurologist Jordan Grafman
told Time magazine: “Kids that are instant messaging
while doing homework, playing games online and watching TV,
I predict, aren’t going to do well in the long run.” “I think
this generation of kids is guinea pigs,” educational psychologist
Jane Healy told the San Francisco Chronicle; she worries
that they might become adults who engage in “very quick but
very shallow thinking.” Or, as the novelist Walter Kirn suggests
in a deft essay in The Atlantic, we might be headed
for an “Attention-Deficit Recession.”
Paying Attention
When we talk about multitasking,
we are really talking about attention: the art of paying attention,
the ability to shift our attention, and, more broadly, to exercise
judgment about what objects are worthy of our attention. People
who have achieved great things often credit for their success
a finely honed skill for paying attention. When asked about
his particular genius, Isaac Newton responded that if he had
made any discoveries, it was “owing more to patient attention
than to any other talent.”
William James, the great psychologist, wrote at length about
the varieties of human attention. In
The Principles of Psychology (1890),
he outlined the differences among “sensorial attention,” “intellectual
attention,” “passive attention,” and the like, and noted the
“gray chaotic indiscriminateness” of the minds of people who
were incapable of paying attention. James compared our stream
of thought to a river, and his observations presaged the cognitive
“bottlenecks” described later by neurologists: “On the whole
easy simple flowing predominates in it, the drift of things
is with the pull of gravity, and effortless attention is the
rule,” he wrote. “But at intervals an obstruction, a set-back,
a log-jam occurs, stops the current, creates an eddy, and makes
things temporarily move the other way.”
To James, steady attention was thus the default condition
of a mature mind, an ordinary state undone only by perturbation.
To readers a century later, that placid portrayal may seem alien—as
though depicting a bygone world. Instead, today’s multitasking
adult may find something more familiar in James’s description
of the youthful mind: an “extreme mobility of the attention”
that “makes the child seem to belong less to himself than to
every object which happens to catch his notice.” For some people,
James noted, this challenge is never overcome; such people only
get their work done “in the interstices of their mind-wandering.”
Like Chesterfield, James believed that the transition from youthful
distraction to mature attention was in large part the result
of personal mastery and discipline—and so was illustrative of
character. “The faculty of voluntarily bringing back a wandering
attention, over and over again,” he wrote, “is the very root
of judgment, character, and will.”
Today, our collective will to pay attention seems fairly
weak. We require advice books to teach us how to avoid distraction.
In the not-too-distant future we may even employ new devices
to help us overcome the unintended attention deficits created
by today’s gadgets. As one New York Times article recently
suggested, “Further research could help create clever technology,
like sensors or smart software that workers could instruct with
their preferences and priorities to serve as a high tech ‘time
nanny’ to ease the modern multitasker’s plight.” Perhaps we
will all accept as a matter of course a computer governor—like
the devices placed on engines so that people can’t drive cars
beyond a certain speed. Our technological governors might prompt
us with reminders to set mental limits when we try to do too
much, too quickly, all at once.
Then again, perhaps we will simply adjust and come to accept
what James called “acquired inattention.” E-mails pouring in,
cell phones ringing, televisions blaring, podcasts streaming—all
this may become background noise, like the “din of a foundry
or factory” that James observed workers could scarcely avoid
at first, but which eventually became just another part of their
daily routine. For the younger generation of multitaskers, the
great electronic din is an expected part of everyday life. And
given what neuroscience and anecdotal evidence have shown us,
this state of constant intentional self-distraction could well
be of profound detriment to individual and cultural well-being.
When people do their work only in the “interstices of their
mind-wandering,” with crumbs of attention rationed out among
many competing tasks, their culture may gain in information,
but it will surely weaken in wisdom.
1/1/99 |
Library Trends,
This project combines ideas from mythology, folklore, and library and information
science in an effort to make sense of an aspect of modern culture that is frequently
perceived as troublesome. Discussions of information overload, "data glut,"
or "information anxiety" are abundant in popular culture but do little to shed
light on the origin of this problem. Library and information science work sidesteps
the need to verify the existence of information overload, seeking instead to
mitigate its effects. The discipline has produced a vast literature that addresses
user perceptions, information needs, and information-seeking behavior. Information
management, information retrieval, and attendant notions such as relevance have
also received much attention. Within both popular culture and library and information
science research, information overload is usually described or defined by means
of anecdote or by associated symptoms.
However constituted, popular and scholarly attention confirms information
overload as a recognized and resonant cultural concept that persists even without
solid corroboration. Mythology and folkloristics are used here as analytic tools
to suggest that information overload can be viewed as a myth of modern culture.
Here myth does not mean something that is not true
but an overarching prescriptive belief.
Motivation.
If you have arrived at this page, you may well be asking "why?". In fact,
"Why does someone want to write about the disadvantages of hard work, when we
are all told incessantly how beneficial it is?"
I conducted an experiment. I entered the terms
"hard work" disadvantages
into http://www.google.com/ (try it for
yourself) and found over 21,000 hits.
I then rephrased my question and entered
"disadvantages of hard work"
into Google and got precisely zero hits. No-one on the entire web, it would
seem, has written this phrase. Why not? Clearly it is "culturally verboten".
I was motivated to ask this question of the search engine, as, after many
years of teaching in the University sector, I have met a significant number
of people who I consider have been significantly damaged as individuals by subscribing
to the "hard work is necessary" hypothesis.
So let us put the record straight here, and spell out some of the advantages
of working just sufficiently to satisfy the various criteria of emotional and
spiritual need, the demands of the job, the necessity of keeping body supplied
with food clothing and shelter, and the social requirements of interacting with
others.
Case histories
Among the people I have observed who subscribe to the "hard work is good"
hypothesis are several University academics whose ability to think clearly,
and administer effectively, are adversely affected by their permanent state
of tiredness. Often, these folk feel the need to intervene when it is inappropriate.
People like this generally are unhappy with the status quo, and feel that any
change or intervention is bound to be for the better.
Among the students I have met, there are significant numbers whose ability
to learn and retain information, let alone process it effectively, have been
compromised by years of being forced to acquire unnecessary skills and learn
unnecessary facts; I maintain this has actually physically damaged their brains,
and that an enlightened court of law would award them damages against their
educational institutions. Often, this kind of mental overload seems to be a
prerequisite for admission to the course being taken.
At Berkeley (Uni Calif) in the 1960s I noticed that the ability of overworked
students to express themselves clearly in spoken English was severely impaired.
This was confirmed in the early 1980s when a telephone conversation with a Physics
grad student in a Californian University had to be abandoned as the person in
question could not communicate fluently. It is also noticeable that overworked
students cannot sequence or recall simple facts like names, addresses, and telephone
numbers with accuracy. Neither can they spell accurately or proof read what
they have written. They also try to "rote learn" ineffectually, as they cannot
repeat accurately what they have just seen, read, or heard.
Among the medics I have met, there are a significant number, likewise, who
"do what they do, regardless" - thus if you go to a physician you get dosed
up with drugs; to a surgeon, you get cut open; in fact, each specialist tries
to fit your ailment into his own field of competence. This activity is unrelated
to the needs of the case.
Among the politicians I have known, the greatest damage to society is caused
by those people who regard themselves as the greatest "movers and shakers".
Moreover, there is a class of commentator that regards the activity of "moving
and shaking" to be intrinsically beneficial, without regard to the end effects.
Choice in the marketplace
Much of the excessive pressure to work harder, to produce more for less,
and to drive staff harder is justified by the mantra "choice for the consumer".
It is a psychological observation that given excessive choice, the majority
of people have extreme difficulty in exercising it and arriving at a rational
purchasing decision. Supermarkets should note this. It is far easier to choose
from a limited range of goods than from acres of produce spread out among miles
of shelving.
The same observation applies to the motivation of students on modular degree
courses. Excessive choice leads to a shallow educational experience. It is also
somewhat demotivating for the student. I am often asked to delimit my course
materials so that the student knows what is not to be covered in the exam tests.
Feedback regulation
There is a report at
www.discover.com
that the brain (specifically, the left pre-frontal cortex) undergoes structural
changes on long exposure (many years) to stress such as overwork. This makes
the brain's owner more disposed to see the negative side of events, rather than
the positive. One can see a certain amount of self-regulation here, for positive
disposition in a person predisposes him/her to work harder. We can also identify
the scientific reasons for negative reactions to excessive perceived stress
and the onset of depressive illness caused directly by being subjected to a
heavy workload.
Optimum range of workload
It is apparent that most people have a range of demand that they can tolerate,
or even feel comfortably happy with. Below the lower limit they feel discontented
and underutilised, and above the upper limit they seek to shed work and may
even become bad-tempered. An attribute of people who rise to high positions
within their organisations is that they are very tolerant of a wide range of
work demands; they find occupations for themselves if lightly loaded, and they
are benign under pressure, even if it is unreasonable. For this reason, they
are candidates for promotion.
Shared views
The tenor of this argument is shared by
Prince Charles
in a report in the Guardian newspaper on Tuesday 13th Sept 2005.
Trying to sip information from the fire hose is a difficult and challenging
task :-). This memo might help.
In today’s world, mental overload is a fact of life. Fortunately, by applying
some simple techniques from the computer world, you can avoid some of the costly
consequences of a too full brain!
SIGNS OF AN OVERLOAD
A too-full computer can:
· give you error messages
· run slower
· take longer to process information
· crash
A too-full brain can cause you to:
· make mistakes
· forget to do something
· let things slip through the cracks
· become sluggish
· loose creativity
· become unproductive
· procrastinate
· become indecisive
· get stressed out
· experience a total mental break down
[ Mar 09, 2007]
Mental overload by Katherine Lewis
Does excessive multi-tasking like happens to college students make us stupid?
The answer is tentative yes:
-
"You are trying to feed information through various kinds of processing
channels in the brain which have limited capacity and are really only available
for one thing at a time."
-
"A lot of tasks we have to do, there are little moments of gaps which
you can steal for another task," said Hal Pashler, psychology professor at the
University of California in San Diego. "The interesting
hidden cost ... is that (we) may be strikingly unable to recollect what happened."
-
"To the degree that tasks rely on similar processes,
they are more likely to interfere with each other. For instance, talking
on the phone and writing an e-mail is hard, because both involve language, Poldrack
said."
-
"The answer is to choose carefully when you take on more than one job at
once. For high-priority or complex tasks, you might want to shut down your e-mail,
turn off the phone and close your office door.
Multi-tasking may be too much for the brain to handle
Friday, March 09, 2007
BY KATHERINE REYNOLDS LEWIS
NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
We feel so efficient, listening to a teleconference while sorting e-mail
and eating lunch at the same time. But experts warn that instead of completing
three tasks in the space of one, we're really spending more time to achieve
mediocre results.
"Research that's looked at multi-tasking shows that you can't do it well
-- no one can," said Kristin Byron, assistant professor of management at Syracuse
University. "You're fighting the way your brain works."
The brain acts on just one task at a time. What we perceive as simultaneous
multi-tasking is really rapid switching back and forth to keep different tasks
going -- even if one is as simple as deciding to lift the sandwich for another
bite.
It's like the classic vaudeville act of spinning plates. Your brain can set
a task in motion, then another, and then another, before returning to pick up
the first task, explained David Strayer, a psychology professor at the University
of Utah in Salt Lake City.
"If the demands of any given task aren't too taxing, you can get two, three,
four plates going up, but at some point you're going to reach a threshold when
they're going to crash."
You may avoid driving while talking on a cell phone because of the physical
challenge of holding both phone and steering wheel. But Strayer's research shows
hands-free cell phone use is just as dangerous while driving. The risk comes
in toggling between the two mental demands.
Moreover, subjects in a recent study scored significantly lower on IQ tests
they took while driving. "When your attention is taken away from a task, you
are not going to perform it as smartly," Strayer said.
So does multi-tasking make us stupid?
It's not an outlandish conclusion. A 2005 study sponsored by Hewlett-Packard
found the average worker lost 10 IQ points when interrupted by ringing telephones
and incoming e-mails -- about equal to the cost of missing an entire night of
sleep.
"Interruptions are time-consuming, and they are dangerous in the sense that
they can lead to errors," said David E. Meyer, a psychology professor at the
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "You are trying to feed information through
various kinds of processing channels in the brain which have limited capacity
and are really only available for one thing at a time."
Whenever we drop one task to perform another, we face "resumption costs"
-- the time and energy it takes to orient ourselves when we return to the original
task. It's true that interweaving two lengthy tasks can take less total time
than performing the tasks separately. But there's a price.
"A lot of tasks we have to do, there are little moments of gaps which you
can steal for another task," said Hal Pashler, psychology professor at the University
of California in San Diego. "The interesting hidden cost ... is that (we) may
be strikingly unable to recollect what happened."
That's because the free moments in each task -- such as waiting for a partner
to respond in a conversation -- appear to be used to store or consolidate memories.
If we talk on the phone while checking e-mail, it's at the expense of downtime
our brains need.
"The conversation plus the e-mail may take less of your life, but the cost
is that tomorrow you may not know exactly what you said," Pashler said.
Thus, if you try to take in new material or facts while multi-tasking, you'll
have a tougher time learning, said Russell A. Poldrack, psychology professor
at the University of California in Los Angeles.
Does all this mean we should never check our Blackberries while waiting in
line at the grocery store? Or even sip a cup of coffee while listening to a
conference speaker? After all, multi-tasking is woven into the fabric of modern
life. More than 85 percent of people multi-task, and 67 percent believe they
do it well, according to a survey by Apex Performance, a Charlotte, N.C., training
firm.
Fortunately, the experts give us some slack. "You can't say in every situation
it would be better to always focus on one task," Poldrack said.
If you're a stock trader who has to respond quickly to a lot of information,
it makes sense to monitor multiple televisions and computer screens at once,
he said. It may not matter that the next day you're hazy about which news anchor
said what.
Certain physical actions, like walking or eating, are so hard-wired that
they don't tax our brains much. There's certainly no harm in combining simple,
low-stakes tasks, like folding laundry and watching television. And if background
music energizes you to finish your work, that may outweigh the cost of your
mind shifting between listening and crafting a report, Poldrack said.
Similarly, talking to an adult passenger doesn't hurt your driving the way
talking on a cell phone does, Strayer has found. That's because the person in
your car is attuned to the driving environment, and will pause the conversation
when a tricky maneuver approaches.
To the degree that tasks rely on similar processes, they are more likely
to interfere with each other. For instance, talking on the phone and writing
an e-mail is hard, because both involve language, Poldrack said.
The answer is to choose carefully when you take on more than one job at once.
For high-priority or complex tasks, you might want to shut down your e-mail,
turn off the phone and close your office door. Apex Performance founder Louis
Czoka even recommends that clients shut their eyes to focus on a teleconference.
Just how bad have things gotten? That's the subject of Extreme Jobs: The
Dangerous Allure of the 70-Hour Workweek, a recent study from the Center for
Work-Life Policy. The study found that 1.7 million people consider their jobs
and their work hours extreme, thanks to globalization, BlackBerries, corporate
expectations and their own Type A personalities.
... .... ....
What Hewlett and Buck Luce found in their survey was that workers were
themselves to blame. Many of the people interviewed for the study say they love
their jobs and are reluctant to lessen their work load. In Agoglia's case, working
for the small business consulting group was exactly what she wished for. Now
she only comes into the office on a need basis. "It offers an opportunity for
someone like me who needs more breathing room," she says, "but it also fulfills
my desire to be challenged in my job."
That kind of fulfillment has
its hazards. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said their work pressures
are self-inflicted but say it is taking a real toll on them individually. Nationally,
70 percent, and globally, 81 percent, say their jobs undermine their health
in terms of exercise, diet and the impact of stress. Nationally, 46 percent,
and globally, 59 percent, say it gets in the way of their relationships and
nationally, 50 percent, say it affects their sex life.
Not surprisingly, men and
women have a different take on the extreme nature of their jobs. In the global
survey, 58 percent of men and 80 percent of women say they didn't want to work
these hours for more than one more year. Says Buck Luce: "For women there's
a flight risk. But men get burned out and are able to stick with it. There's
a tremendous stigma for men who say, 'I can't do this.' That means there aren't
going to be women at the top ranks of companies."
I wasn't surprised to read that 40% of Americans work 50 hours or more per week
and rarely disconnect from their work, even on vacation. I hear about it all the
time in my seminars where people feel like an 8 hour day is slacking off and working
at night after the kids go to bed and in the morning before the office really opens
is the only way they can stay on top of things.
Is it that people have too much to do or is it that they just don't have trusted
systems (ala GTD) to feel like they can disconnect?
I've heard David Allen mention that we've always had too much to do. I don't
think BlackBerry's necessarily create more work, it's just now people have higher
expectations about how fast the work needs to get done.
Someone in one of my seminars recently told me she takes her laptop on vacation
just to stay on top of her email (people actually hissed when she said this, perhaps
from the fear that this will become expected.) The "vacation tax" of coming back
to hundreds, if not thousands, of emails is just not worth it to her.
August 13, 2006 (
Los Angeles Times) It's vacation prime time. Millions of wage-earners are
on the road, in the air or on the water in search of overdue recreation, relaxation
and adventure. But for too many, it will be a futile quest, thanks to a big,
fat killjoy stowed away on the trip: OCP, or obsessive-compulsive productivity,
a frantic fixation to wring results from every minute of the day, even our play.
Americans have always had an insistent work ethic. But thanks to technology
that allows us to get things done 24/7, growing job demands and the elevation
of efficiency to an unofficial national religion, many vacationers simply can't
turn off their productive machinery. Every minute of the day, even of play,
must be productive.
It's a habit that's increasingly counterproductive, evident in soaring job-stress
bills (a $300-billion-a-year tab for U.S. business, according to the American
Institute of Stress, a nonprofit organization) and longer workweeks. Nearly
40% of Americans work more than 50 hours a week. The all-output, all-the-time
mandate of OCP wires us to do holidays like jobs. We cram downtime with to-do
lists and a performance-review mentality that dooms trips to disappointment
because we couldn't see or do everything we wanted. The trip's experience is
an afterthought in a crazed race to polish off sights to the finish line of
the holiday.
But trying to make a vacation productive is like trying to get a cat to bark.
It's the wrong animal for the outcome, because vacations aren't about output.
Instead, they're about the realm of an increasingly rare species — input — that
can't be measured by a performance yardstick. The most packed itinerary can't
quantify play, fun, wonder, discovery, adventure. How do you tally the spray
of an exploding waterfall? The pattern of ripples on a sand dune? How do you
produce quiet?
The productivity of U.S. workers has doubled since 1969, according to Boston
College economist Juliet Schor. But none of the dividends have come back in
additional free time. The added time that greater productivity creates is simply
fodder for more productivity increases — and OCP jitters that we must get more
done. How much production is enough?
Even on the job, too much time on task can lead to burnout, heart disease, carpal
tunnel syndrome, mistakes, costly do-overs and rote performance. A study last
year by the University of Massachusetts Medical School found that chronic 12-hour
workdays increase your risk of illness or injury by 37%.
Work without time to think, analyze or recharge feeds knee-jerk performance
and the hurry-worry of stress. Everything appears urgent when there isn't time
to judge what is truly urgent and what isn't.
More than anybody else's, Americans' identity comes through labor. But the reflex
to define self-worth by what we get done makes it hard to relax without a heap
of guilt because there's always something next on the horizon to handle. Our
focus on future results shrinks our experience of living and, ironically, the
very thing we need for optimum performance — input.
The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. asked managers where they got their best
ideas. It wasn't at the office. Rather, inspiration came when people were at
play — on the golf course, running. Research on fatigue in the workplace since
the 1920s shows that performance rises after a break in the action, whether
a break of a few seconds or 15 minutes.
Studies have also found that job performance improves after a vacation. Income
doubled at the H Group, an investment services company in Salem, Ore., after
owner Ron Kelemen increased employee time off to 3 1/2 weeks. When Jancoa, a
Cincinnati cleaning company, switched to a three-week vacation policy, worker
productivity soared enough to cut overtime. Profits jumped 15%.
The true source of productivity isn't nonstop output. It's a refreshed and energized
mind, something vacations specialize in.
But for that to happen, we must leave the OCP drill sergeant at home. Vacations
require a different skill set — leisure skills. Without them, we lapse into
default mode — produce, produce, produce. My retired father was stunned when
he visited his former company and found a couple of his fellow retirees back
at their desks. They didn't know what else to do.
As kids, we knew how to entertain ourselves. But many of us lost the knack when
we learned that play for its own sake didn't produce rewards — status, pats
on the back, money, goodies. Once we're in OCP territory, we've forgotten how
to do things simply because we enjoy doing them.
Researchers say we had it right as kids. "Quality of life does not depend on
what others think of us or what we own," contends psychology professor Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi in "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience." "The bottom
line is, rather, how we feel about ourselves, and about what happens to us.
To improve life one must improve the quality of experience."
Famed for his studies on when people are at their happiest, Csikszentmihalyi
adds that "when experience is intrinsically rewarding, life is justified in
the present."
Things we do for our amusement are particularly good at improving that experience,
delivering what's supposed to come out of all that production — self-worth,
a sense of competence and, best of all, life satisfaction. Upping levels of
performance can't generate happiness, psychologists contend, because production
is tied to external approval, which is gone by the next morning's to-do list.
But research shows that the more active your leisure lifestyle is, the higher
your life satisfaction. Leisure also increases initiative, confidence and a
positive mood.
So, if you haven't taken your vacation yet, maybe it's time to dust off the
leisure portfolio and resuscitate the childhood practice of play. The packing
list should include participation, engagement, spontaneity, a nonjudgmental
attitude, the ability to ferret out amusements, take detours, wander without
aim, plunge into things you haven't done before, and get out of your head and
into direct experience. Along the way you may discover something long forgotten.
Recess rules.
In case of broken links
please try to use Google search. If you find the page please notify
us about new location
Computer addicts tend to lose all sense of time
when they are on-line. They are drawn so deeply into the world of bytes and
bits that they do not notice entire days passing by. They forget to eat, sleep,
go to school, and even care for their children. They shirk responsibilities,
slack off at work, and miss appointments because they are unable to pull themselves
away. The virtual world and the real world are competing for their attention,
and the virtual world often wins.
The Anxiety Disorders Education Program is a
national education campaign developed by the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) to increase awareness among the public and health care professionals
that anxiety disorders are real medical illnesses that can be effectively diagnosed
and treated. More than 19 million Americans suffer from anxiety disorders, which
include panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress
disorder, phobias and generalized anxiety disorder. They suffer from symptoms
that are chronic, unremitting and usually grow progressively worse if left untreated.
Tormented by panic attacks, irrational thoughts and fears, compulsive behaviors
or rituals, flashbacks, nightmares, or countless frightening physical symptoms,
people with anxiety disorders are heavy utilizers of emergency rooms and other
medical services. Their work, family and social lives are disrupted, and some
even become housebound. Many of them have co-occuring disorders such as depression,
alcohol or drug abuse, or other mental disorders. Because of widespread lack
of understanding and the stigma associated with these disorders, many people
with anxiety disorders are not diagnosed and are not receiving treatments that
have been proven effective through research.
A reader from America , July 2, 1999
Excellent! A DYI approach to OCD and related disorders. A friend gave
me this book and it is excellent. If you have OCD or even a related disorder
it gives you a practical approach to learning to deal with and outsmart your
disorder.
Take me, frinstance, while I do not have any checking compulsions,
I have suffered from anxiety disorder and occasionally intrusive, disturbing
thoughts for a number of years. (Other than that I am your regular guy, you
wouldn't know I had a disorder if you saw me). This book gives you a 4-step
method of "reframing" OCD in a way that makes it manageable. Ultimately, the
authors say, by using their method you can "retrain your brain" and actually
alter your brain chemistry in a positive direction and thus reduce the original
symptoms to something liveable.
Buy it (or have a friend give it to you...) :-)
A reader from Santa Fe, NM , July 16, 1998
A good description of the problem and some solutions This book contains
well-written descriptions of obsessive-compulsive disorder -- it's informative,
clear, and a pleasure to read. And for those of us who either suffer from these
disorders or are close to someone who does, it's an eye-opener: you are NOT
the only person who's ever had to deal with this problem, and there IS hope
for curing it! For all these reasons, I highly recommend the book. Two cautions,
however: (1) The book gave a good description of the ways of treating OCD as
of the date it was written. Since then, however, there have been many new developments,
so, if you're specifically interested in treatments, you'll need to look up
some more recent books and articles. (2) "Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder"
(OCPD) is a related but different condition, and it's possible that someone
who exhibits similar symptoms but doesn't have full-blown OCD suffers from this
instead. (My mother has never gone in for compulsive hand-washing, but she's
rigid, intolerant, controlling, and a pack rat on a truly monumental scale.
That's OCPD.) The treatments for the two conditions differ -- drugs are more
helpful for OCD than OCPD, for example. As with any mental condition, it's absolutely
necessary to have a thorough professional diagnosis; don't just march into your
doctor's office demanding Prozac, or stock up on St. John's Wort at your local
herbalist's.
KIEV (Reuters) - A Ukraine businessman who bought
a pager for each member of his staff as a New Year gift was so alarmed when
all 50 of them went off at the same time that he drove his car into a lamp post,
a newspaper said Thursday.
The unnamed businessman was returning from the
pager shop when the accident happened, the Fakty daily reported. ''With no more
than 100 meters to go to the office, the 50 pagers on the back seat suddenly
burst out screeching. The businessman's fright was such that he simply let go
of the steering wheel and the car ploughed into a lamp post.''
After he had assessed the damage to the car,
the businessman turned his attention to the message on the 50 pagers. It read:
''Congratulations on a successful purchase!''
The tremendous growth in the price-performance of networking
and storage has fueled the explosive growth of the web. The amount of information
easily accessible from the desktop has dramatically increased by several orders
of magnitude in the last few years, and shows no signs of abating. Users of
the web are being confronted with the consequent information overload problem.
It can be exceedingly difficult to locate resources that are both high-quality
and relevant to their information needs. Traditional automated methods for locating
information are easily overwhelmed by low-quality and unrelated content. Thus,
the second generation of search engines will have to have effective methods
for focusing on the most authoritative among these documents. The rich structure
implicit in the hyperlinks among Web documents offers a simple, and effective,
means to deal with many of these problems. The CLEVER search engine incorporates
several algorithms that make use of hyperlink structure for discovering high-quality
information on the Web.
Copyright © 1996-2009 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov.
www.softpanorama.org was
created as a service to the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
in the author free time.
Submit
comments This document is an industrial compilation designed and created
exclusively for educational use and is placed under the copyright of the
Open Content License(OPL).
Site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made
for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
Disclaimer:
- The statements, views and opinions presented on
this web page are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily
reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other
organization the author may be associated with.
- We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its
fitness for any purpose
- In no way this site is associated with or endorse cybersquatters
using
the term "softpanorama" with other main or country domains (e.g. softpanorama.com) with
bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill belonging to
someone else.
Last modified:
November 25, 2009