ILNews

Start Page: Interruption addiction takes focus to break

Kim Brand
March 27, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

StartPageBrand.jpgTime management systems used to be popular. They are irrelevant now because you don’t have any time to manage. “Time Management” is an anachronism like “How to Win Friends” or “The Palmer Method.” The critical asset you must now learn to manage is your attention.

Ever since the invention of the telephone in 1876 some “gadget” has without warning or apology demanded your personal attention on a schedule it controlled. The purpose of the communication was almost always to put another item on your to-do list. People who cared about getting things done soon learned to insulate themselves from the interruptions; they employed secretaries, then automated call attendants and voice mail.

However, with the invention of the mobile phone we started “mainlining” the interruptions. Taking or making a call on the go signaled the status of being important and created the illusion of greater productivity. We began to multitask.

Email arrived in the 1980s. Interruptions could be automated, and the cost to create an interruption fell dramatically. Only 10 years ago, Blackberry devices began delivering email to your phone so your office could be anywhere you were . . . now, interruptions could be delivered everywhere!

Research has shown that a mind in a constant state of interruption loses its ability to focus and plan. A CNN report concludes that the constant interruption of email actually lowers your IQ. But the assault on our attention has become more severe than phone calls and email. We have allowed many more sources of interruptions to invade our thinking time: Twitter feeds, Facebook updates, chat requests and text messages among them.
startpage-factbox.gifMy belief is that we have become addicted to these interruptions. When something in our world isn’t interrupting us we now crave the stimulation to a degree that we generate thoughts to interrupt ourselves. (Ever check your email in the bathroom?) Worse, we have become accustomed to shallow thinking and diluted focus.

According to Maggie Jackson, author of the book “Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age,” technology is responsible for “… eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention – the building block of intimacy, wisdom, and cultural progress. … The erosion of attention is the key to understanding why we are on the cusp of a time of widespread cultural and social losses.”

My ambition is to take back the attention I lost when I turned my life over to the gadgets that were supposed to make me more productive.

Rule 1: Establish boundaries and expectations

Anyone who depends on you has likely become dependent on being able to interrupt you at any time and expect an immediate response. Fix that. I include a link to my email policies in my signature block. One of my rules is to set the expectation that a reply might take a day. For faster service, call the office.

Rule 2: Turn it off

This applies to your phone and your email. Don’t tempt yourself. If you can’t stand knowing that your phone won’t be answered, hand it to your secretary. Your callers will be impressed; they may be better served and you’ll be able to enjoy some quiet time. Don’t cheat: turn off the email – don’t just minimize it or disable the pop-ups.

A byproduct of turning off your email and phone means you won’t be interrupting others as often. Bundle your communication activities into a few time periods a day.

Rule 3: Prioritize

Today, the most critical resource you manage is your attention. The expression “pay attention” is literally true. When you pay attention you are trading something precious for what in many cases may be worthless – and you can’t know until you pay it. In the bargain you lose the capacity to focus and sacrifice your state of “flow” where studies have shown many of the greatest ideas and progress you desire originate. Some researchers estimate that it may take 15 to 20 minutes to get back to where you were working after a single interruption.

Prioritizing may be the hardest part because it means admitting that you can’t multitask. Multitasking is a powerful illusion we fool ourselves into believing is possible. Actually, your brain can’t do more than one thing at a time and fMRI scans prove it.

This article is part one of two. In my next article I will show you how to use Outlook rules to create “attention zones” that can help prioritize your limited attention to the most important emails. If you can’t wait, send me an email, and I’ll send you the second installment of this two-part column in advance.•

__________

Kim Brand is a technology expert and President of Computer Experts Inc. He is the inventor of FileSafe. He speaks and writes frequently on technology subjects – making them interesting and understandable. Brand can be contacted by email, info@ComputerExpertsIndy.com or call 317-833-3000. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT