Now, a growing chorus of experts and evidence is refuting that notion. At least one recent study has compared the effects of multitasking to marijuana — and pot ain’t squat when it comes to brain drain. A 2005 report from the BBC noted that a study by the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London found that, “Workers distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers.” The reduction in our brain’s processing power is about 10 percent; another study reports productivity drops by 40 percent.

Although psychologists have always been dubious about the brain’s ability to do more than one thing at a time,  and a spate of new books with pretty obvious titles (like Dave Crenshaw’s The Myth of Multitasking) are debunking the practice, the cultural power of marketing has often drowned out the voice of science. We have been taught that the ability to do many things at once is essential for our ‘busy lives.’ Even the appearance of multitasking has cultural cache: if someone appears to be doing many things at once, they must be more productive, and more important. Ironically, though perhaps inevitably, the idea of multitasking has become code for coolness, such as in this iPhone demo which actually describes sequential tasks.

Cliff Nass, the Stanford experimental psychologist and director of the Communication between Humans and Interactive Media (CHIMe) Lab, has offered a strong disputation of multitasking, one that is gaining traction among geeks and hackers, if not tech marketers. In his latest book, The Man Who Lied to His Laptop, and in this excellent short video hosted on GigaOm, Nass convincingly debunks multitasking and calls on CEOs to demonstrate ‘single tasking’ for greater productivity. Among his suggestions, wait to check email until you have at least 15 minutes worth of messages.

Dave Crenshaw rightly points out that multitasking (or what he sometimes calls ‘switchtasking’) has become a cultural norm in offices where constant interruption conveys an aura of busyness, and busyness signals importance. But in my experience, even those without an office — like my students — embrace busyness, constantly shifting between texting, Facebook, email and phone calls like sharks that must move to breathe, as if constant movement guaranteed their place in the culture.

The connection between multitasking and productivity may be demonstrably false, but the cultural cache of busyness is not going away any time soon.

Photo from: socialtimes.com

But for those of us interested in networks as social change agents, a new study out of Harvard suggests that the most connected generation rarely considers the ethical consequences of their actions. As reported by Carrie James at the recent Mashable Social Good Summit, teens rarely think in abstract ways beyond their own selves. I’m not sure this would be news to most parents in the offline world, Nor do I see particularly unselfish thinking among most adults these days. In fact, as James reports, for young people ages 15-25 adults are mostly absent, and for younger teens, they serve mainly to put safety limitations on surfing.

But reaching out to teens presents an opportunity to shape our online future. Research reported at Social Times suggests that teens using social networks can actually be more psychologically healthy and that online social networks mimic offline socializing, helping teens adjust to ‘real world’ problems as they arise. But, as  James reports, most teens see social network interactions mainly as opportunities for self-centered expression. Social networks are for fun, and if they do get concerned about online (or on-offline hybrid) issues, they feel powerless to change things. That’s not just too bad — it’s a wake up call.

Image from: http://lawnstogardens.wordpress.com/

There was a time when internet connections were considered secondary social services, and many people still have trouble wrapping their heads around the concept that Twitter and Facebook can be as crucial to one’s identity and economic security and  as food stamps and shelters. But that is the theory behind We Are Visible, a website designed to help homeless people get connected.

The site was started by a man who was homeless, and fears he will be again. Mark Horvath’s site is beautiful, clear and compelling. If you are skeptical about how social media can help people without a roof over their heads, this site may convince you. The stories told are of identities regained through blogging; of the comfort of tweeting your struggles, and having someone, perhaps from the other side of the planet, empathize and commiserate. NChristiana says:

Strangely enough, initially I used Twitter to follow my favorite musician Kyle Cook, I didn’t care if anyone was listening or ‘following’ me. Then a girl in Texas who also follows Kyle started following me…. she was shocked that I was homeless, people aren’t used to the 21st Century Homeless People, who have laptops and mobiles and even money in the bank sometimes!! We’ve become friends across the pond and her acceptance of me gave me the confidence to put myself out there, and people started following me.

To be ‘followed’ may be the new standard of mainstream social acceptance, at least on the web. But people on the fringes of society sometimes want to remain on the fringe. Social networking tools create a way of managing not just individual relationships, but  relationships to society at large. Sites like We Are Visible address a new division in our society: those without shelter who are also ‘digitally homeless.’ Right now, these sites help connect some people to traditional social services. Perhaps more importantly, they help connect people to their own narratives of self, and through those stories to the rest of us and to our common humanity.

Here, on vacation with 20 great friends, it’s often easy to put technology aside. But on a normal day, in my normal life, finding time without compulsively checking phones, email, Facebook, etc. seems to require the kind of mental discipline I usually associate with religious ascetics — superhuman spiritual strength, the power of self-denial. Yet somehow, it does seem important to unplug. We’ve been using that term — unplug — at least since the television era. But all our research seems to indicate that it’s even more important today.

Teens now send an average of 50 text messages every day. That’s about 3 or 4 for every waking hour. Of course, to get an average of 50, some are sending many, many more than that. Adults are not far behind, according to a new Pew study.

And now more evidence that all this ‘multitasking’ may be crowding our brains, sapping our ability to think creatively and interact compassionately with others.

Writing in the New York Times, Matt Richtel asserts:

“The technology makes the tiniest windows of time entertaining, and potentially productive. But scientists point to an unanticipated side effect: when people keep their brains busy with digital input, they are forfeiting downtime that could allow them to better learn and remember information, or come up with new ideas.”

And as a friend of mine says, ‘its only multitasking if you get something done.’ As we grow ever more connected (consulting online publications then blogging about them then sharing those blogs with friends, clients, students…) we must be even more vigilant about protecting our unplugged time. We’ve been worrying about unplugging in the contemporary context at least since the rise of cable television. But these studies should make us question how successful we are at it. In fact, I’ve been ignoring my friends for too long now, trying to get this blog out. So…I’m out…for now.

Illustration located at: http://faculty.washington.edu/bnaidus/current/newdeities%28currentwork%29/multitasking-queen.jpg

A dozen ‘digital humanities’ scholars came together at George Mason’s One Week One Tool workshop. The tool they created helps transform blogs into ebooks, collecting the best and putting them into a form that can be downloaded to your Kindle or iPad. According to ReadWriteWeb:

Blogging has become an increasingly important tool for scholars and educators to share their ideas, but once blogged, that’s often the end-of-the-line for that writing. Anthologize organizes this content and enables users to publish and distribute their work in additional ways – via print or e-readers.

As more us continue to blog — hoping to stir up conversation and discussion around topics we think are crucial — producing small books or collections of topical blogs is a natural next step. And as attacks against scholarship and traditional teaching escalate, it’s not a bad idea for scholars to find new ways to market our expertise as well as our devotion to understanding. Ebooks will continue to work their way into mainstream classrooms, too. Scholars who aren’t already thinking about how they can contribute to this new form of publishing, should be. The ability to create focused, responsive texts for our students is an opportunity that must be seized. And who knows. Perhaps in the brave new world to come, ebooks and blogs will count toward, um, whatever replaces tenure.

Now…I’ve got to get a copy of the tool to evaluate.

As this story from cnet states, the mobile security firm Lookout has detected flaws in mobile app codes that store personal information and location info and, in some cases, make your data available for others to see.

“Lookout also discovered that an Android wallpaper app, called “Wallpaper, All Categories,” was accessing personal identity and other sensitive information from phones and transmitting it to a server controlled by a Chinese developer…”

Apparently developers don’t have to be malicious to create these problems, simple laziness or lack of understanding will do. This may be a boon to Apple, which has a more robust (and controlling) app development process. One of the most common ways this security breach occurs is when developers cut-and-paste parts of applications into new apps, according to cnet. This occurs in about half of all Android apps; about a quarter of all iPhone apps.

This image located at: http://www.technovelgy.com/

Mark Cuban has made a career out of convincing companies (or basketball fans) to invest in inchoate products, many of which go nowhere. I’m thinking of the billions he got from Yahoo! for Broadcast.com, and his HDNet venture. I’m trying not to think of “Bubble,” the film he made with Stephen Soderberg. All of these are interesting ideas, mind you, but not the kind of transformative innovations that might be worthy of the attendant hype. I’ll let Dallas Maverick fans draw their own conclusions.

But his latest investment will be at least as controversial as his courtside antics. According to his Blog Maverick, the new technology recognizes faces — or at least the number of distinct faces — in a crowd and automatically registers them with a database.

We are posting cameras in certain environments where anonymity is required, and we don’t and won’t capture faces or anything that could identify an individual.  We will simply provide incredibly accurate traffic information and patterns. A great application with great opportunity.

The next extension is to install it in places where we can add facial recognition software. So rather than someone checking in to a specific application, we would already know you are there.

Cuban bills this as ‘the end of location-based applications,’ a category that most users were only beginning to become aware of. Applications like Yelp and Foursquare have been catching on with a certain, always-connected demographic, and we are looking forward to more apps that combine location awareness with augmented reality software. It’s not exactly clear how Cuban’s new camera-based tech would replace location awareness, unless he’s proposing to integrate it with the hundreds of thousands of surveillance and traffic cameras already installed across the US and other countries. Perhaps with facial recognition integration we could be confident that no matter where (in an urban environment) we are, some benevolent data cloud would recognize us.

Just imagine: You no longer need an airline boarding pass or a ticket to one of Cuban’s Landmark Theatres. Just a receipt in the cloud attached to your Facebook photo. Rather than issuing you a summons, police could simply snap your photo. Your ‘presence’ in a doctor’s waiting room would be enough to bring up your medical records — no signature needed!

We are all, slowly, getting used to a world with restricted privacy. Some of these innovations seem necessary for our security and convenience. But it’s alarming how quickly these systems — social networking, GIS, AR, etc are becoming integrated. Too bad our discussions of innovation and privacy are so fragmented. Privacy — and how to protect it — is going to have to become a fundamental part of media literacy. For that to happen, we are going to need a concentrated effort on the part of media theorists, practitioners and educators to find out where the threats are, what personal and social trade-offs are involved, and which programs and gadgets best protect our privacy.

Meanwhile, I’ll be investing in a Mark Cuban mask and wearing it everywhere I go. If you see me, ask me for money!

Ideally technologies purchased at the beginning of a college career should last until graduation. But on the other hand, not everything needs to be bought up front. Having a semester or two under your belt can help you evaluate your tech needs and customize your purchases.

One big omission from the Lifehacker guides is the role of mobiles on campus. According to the 2009 Horizon Report, (a project of the New Media Consortium) mobiles should be coming into their own this year, both as campus information devices and as instructional aides. Frankly, mobiles in the classroom are more curse than blessing at this point. It seems no matter what kind of draconian policies I devise, it is virtually impossible to keep students from checking their phones in the classroom. Yet, as the Horizon Report notes:

The rapid pace of innovation in this arena continues to increase the potential of these little devices, challenging our ideas of how they should be used and presenting additional options with each new generation of mobiles.

Well, yeah. Let’s by all means turn this problem into an opportunity. I’ll be building a guide to that challenge and key mobile purchasing decisions for students (and professors) and adding resources in future posts.

The RIAA paid Holmes Roberts & Owen $9,364,901 in 2008, Jenner & Block more than $7,000,000, and Cravath Swain & Moore $1.25 million, to pursue its “copyright infringement” claims, in order to recover a mere $391,000. [ps there were many other law firms feeding at the trough too; these were just the ones listed among the top 5 independent contractors.]

If the average settlement were $3,900, that would mean 100 settlements for the entire year.

The numbers were even worse for previous years. How can they continue to plow cash into this loser? I’ve always been ambivalent about the strategy of aiming directly at consumers to recover revenues. Attacking your fan base is never a good idea. And discussions in my classes always turn against the music companies when the topic of suing consumers comes up. Fans are now sophisticated enough to distinguish recording companies from artists. New artists are streaming out to start their own labels and the publishing industry is supporting efforts will all kinds of how-to advice. Even Ellen has her own label (who knew she could sing?).

pigeons and planes 'anti' label sampler

Unfortunately, the RIAA and its corporate clients have yet to find their way there. It’s not a new problem, and as the lawsuit inefficiencies point out, the industry is still seeking new answers. Perhaps it’s time to dis-integrate the labels and let the marketplace determine the way forward.

Despite the inevitable and incredible hype, though, this is bound to empower those of us with long-tail ideas and a shortage of programming smarts. I prefer this more optimistic paragraph from the TechCrunch coverage:

Because this new tool makes it easy for anyone to make their own apps, it makes the idea of trying to create your own app a much less daunting one. And that’s the powerful thing here. If this tool can get some kid to start messing around with app creation, maybe they’ll get more interested and start learning actual Java. And then maybe one day they’ll create the next killer app.

That’s the kind of ‘gateway drug’ we can live with.