(#186-1) April 7 2015. Thinking can be hazardous—but how can one write without thinking! Perhaps that is why we writers kill ourselves more often.

THOUGHTS ON ORGANIZING MY THOUGHTS—AND EXECUTING

I STILL HAVEN’T FOUND AN APPROACH I’M ENTIRELY HAPPY WITH

DO YOU KNOW THAT WRITERS ARE TWICE AS LIKELY TO COMMIT SUICIDE AS THE GENERAL POPULATION!

This gem about suicide is—reportedly—true, and stems from work done by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. Researchers there looked at 1.2 million patients with various mental disorders and came to this somewhat disturbing conclusion (especially if you are a writer). The control was an accountant—who, one supposes, represented sanity and normality.

God preserve us!

Suicide has featured in my life more than I like to think about. Indeed, my first book, GAMES OF THE HANGMAN, was sparked off by an actual suicide—or what was presumed to be a suicide because there was no serious investigation (something that has always haunted me and which led to the book).

Hangings are normally assumed to be suicides (unless judicial). So, if you want to murder someone, hang them—but make sure there are no signs of a struggle.

The only suicide I have actually witnessed—which was legal suicide under Washington State’s Death with Dignity Act—is something I have written about before so I won’t go into it again—but suffice to say I have had some connection with suicides, to a greater or lesser extent, surprisingly often. Sadly, suicide has impacted my immediate family as well—multiple times at that.

Well, I have been surprised. On the other hand, perhaps suicides are more common than we generally care to admit.

I find any and all suicides singularly distressing. It is a terrible thing to despair—to absolutely give up hope—and suicide is a fairly clear indicator of that—though I rather like the reason normally given in my part of the world: “due to the balance of the mind being disturbed.”

I was brought up Catholic—though I no longer practice—but I recall being taught that the ultimate sin was to despair because it meant you were denying the existent of God. According to dogma, with God in the game, there is always hope.

I find it hard to accept the logic implicit in such dogma, but I proffer it for historical interest. Given the terrible things that God seems to allow in this world, I’m not sure that God’s idea of hope quite matches what we humans have in mind. I find much of theology a stretch—and incredibly convoluted.

I debate whether a failure to organize my thoughts is quite an adequate motivation for taking one’s own life—though I suppose it would depend upon the thoughts.

In fact, I organize my thoughts quite well when it comes to writing. The process of writing develops and enforces such a discipline—and, generally speaking, my mind performs well under such circumstances (unless I’m dog tired—like now). Practice does not make perfect, but it certainly enhances a facility.

One of the many attractive things about writing is that, if you stay with it, you do become better over time. Aging, if you are a writer, really does have its compensations—unless and until you lose your faculties. I have thought about that a great deal and have come up with these thoughts.

• If I can’t write in any other way, I shall continue to write in my mind.
• I shall console myself with the thought that I have had a good run—with memories to match.
• If I lose my mind, it won’t matter anyway.

I’m really talking about the collecting, indexing, storage, retrieval, and effective utilization of such information—and primarily the latter. The aspects that are now challenging me most are those involved with execution.

How do you filter out only what you need and present it in such an optimum way that you are reminded in a timely manner—because there is almost always more to remember than my mind seems able to cope with. Yes, I’m talking serious projects here. Projects start off with a vision but their effective execution requires coping with endless detail in some time-relevant sequence.

The obvious solution is some kind of project planner. Here, the problem is not availability but an excess of choice compounded by a learning curve. The kicker is that to evaluate any single package properly you really have to learn it first. On that basis, it sometimes seems to me that I will be evaluating software for the rest of my natural life.

But, fun though it is, I tend to believe that my mission is life is to write—and books at that.

I’m looking for something simple, flexible, visual, color coded and near creative writer proof (A tall order?). Currently, I’m looking at the Kanban area and am discovering that simple though Kanban is superficially, the devil, as always, lies in the details.

I can’t seem to get away from the damn things.

Currently, I’m evaluating Trello. That is not nearly as colorful as KanbanFollow but allows hot links to be included and is slightly more flexible. None of these apps operate exactly as I would like, but, where software is concerned, I have learned to compromise..

Let me close by commenting on my approach to research. A valid alternative to my current routine could just to research when faced with a specific question (much less work). Instead, I endeavor to keep up to date with my areas of interest in the belief that the ongoing research will sponsor creativity in itself (and keep my brain exercised).

Does it? Yes, I really think it does because my  assumptions are constantly being challenged by new information. For instance, where economics is concerned, I can’t rest on what I learned at university because so much of what I learned then has been proven to be demonstrably wrong.

But, time is finite—and research isn’t writing.

Hard choices hover. Frankly, I don’t recall a time when they were easy.

Let ‘em!

VOR words 970.

---

 

 

 

 

 

(#185-1) April 6 2015. I know why I blog. Why do other people?

THE THOUGHTS OF A FELLOW BOOK LOVER

ON WHY HE BLOGS. WELL, I GUESS HE SHOULD KNOW AFTER 1,500! HIS NAME IS BRIAN FEINBLUM AND HE IS A BOOK PUBLICIST

Posted: 04 Apr 2015 06:30 AM PDT

This is my 1,500^th blog post.  Actually, it's a few past that. I write and post at such a prolific pace that I can't keep up with myself. 

If I were to guess, I believe I have published three-quarter million words.  If each blog post averaged 500 words over these past four years, I would have produced the equivalent of at least a dozen books.  I haven’t been paid one cent to blog and chose not to get advertising.  To date, BookMarketingBuzzBlog has been viewed over 566,000 times.  So why do I do it?  Why should you blog?  The answers to these questions will likely overlap.

I blog because it helps me brand myself.  Anyone can see what I’ve written and hopefully come to value the perspective I bring to the discussion of book publishing, book marketing, writing, free speech, literacy, cultural trends, and book publicity. The blog helps form a positive image of someone with experience, ideas, and passion.

I blog because I hope it attracts new business to the public relations firm that I work for.

I blog because I like to give back and help others.  I am a teacher and therapist at heart and I understand the challenges, fears, and needs of aspiring writers, struggling authors, publishers, and all those who make up the realm of mass media.

I blog as a therapeutic tool, to release my emotions and give voice to my life.

I blog in hopes of lobbying and influencing others, even changing policies, procedures, and patterns that individuals and institutions blindly follow or enforce.

I blog to highlight things that need a spotlight – both the very bad and very good.  I’m not a journalist or a member of the media but I do like to serve as a watchdog over the public domain of news.

I blog about books because I love the written word and cherish it with all my heart.

I find writing my blog keeps me grounded and focused.  I never feel a slave to it when it comes to the writing part.  But I do wish I could stop myself from spending an hour each day marketing it.  That time could be better used to serve a for-profit venture.  But what’s the point in writing a blog that no one reads?  If you value the words you pen you need to put in the time, effort, and resources to get them exposure.

I would think my readership understands what’s involved in publishing a daily blog, and I assume they are appreciative of it, but I don’t hear from the vast majority of readers.  I don’t get more than five responses a day – and some are just spam posts placed in the comments section.  But I do this for my own reward and it’s something I choose to do and don’t feel obligated to do.

Who knows where the next 1,500 posts take me, but I’m glad you’re along for the ride. Please live the blog – then share it with others.

Brian Feinblum's blog URL

---

(#184-1) April 5 2015. Don’t buck the system. It will crush you. On the other hand, it will crush you anyway. But maybe not if you are a first principle thinker.

AMERICAN ENTRPRENEURSHIP IS IN DECLINE

ONE REASON GIVEN IS OUR SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND “THE RELENTLESS PRESSURE TO CONFORM.”

BUT WHO CREATES OUR SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT?

NOW THERE IS A THOUGHT WORTH CONTEMPLATING. COULD IT BE THAT ‘THEY’WANT US TO CONFORM?

Despite our self-image as being a nation of rugged individualists, we are, in fact, a remarkably conformist society—largely because we are subject to a truly relentless stream of propaganda which instills in us the notion that the American Way of Life is the best in the world—and that America, itself, is exceptional. As a consequence, we really don’t have much to learn from other nations—so why bother to?

Mostly, we don’t.

In fact, our media have largely closed down their foreign bureau. Why not? Americans don’t care about what happens abroad—and, anyway, everything worthwhile is happening here.

And it’s bigger, better and more profitable!

Actually, it is not (please check for yourself) but propaganda says that it is—and most of us tend to go with the flow. Independent thinkers are not that common.

One side effect of this never-ending, brain-numbing flood of lies, distortions, exaggerations, and inaccuracies, is that is that our willingness to question the status quo is either suppressed or eliminated—which suits the movers and shakers just fine. They like things the way they are.

However, a disconcerting side effect is that the kind of people who used to break away, pioneer, and set up new businesses, are conforming as well.

It is easier to conform—and vastly less risky. And over the last half century or so, economic life in the U.S. has become decidedly more risky as corporations have withdrawn from any sense of social responsibility to focus on maximizing shareholder value—a disastrous philosophy if ever there was one (which crosses the line into thoughtless and then inhuman all too often).

It should quite unnecessary to say this, but though a corporation is normally set up to achieve the maximum rate of return for its shareholders, it cannot function in any way without:

• The legal structure granted by the state. This is incredibly important and valuable because without out it, a corporation doesn’t exist. Accordingly, you might think that a corporation might feel a certain obligation to the state that grants it. Sadly, all too often, you would be wrong.
• The infrastructure—federal, state, and community—which it utilizes so that it can function. Infrastructure, in this context cover everything from attack by a foreign enemy to the broad range of facilities—from education to standards to ports, airports, roads and sewers which we avail of every day.  A corporation cannot exist in a bubble. It is dependent upon a highly sophisticated support system.
• Its employees (directors, managers, and workers). Without its employees, a corporation is just a piece of paper.
• Its suppliers of goods and services.
• Its professional advisers
• Its customers.

It is self evident that it has an obligation to all the above—yet the current dogma followed by all too many U.S. corporations is that the only corporate obligation is to shareholders.

Nuts!

The belief that a corporation’s only obligation is to maximize shareholder value is now deeply embedded in the culture of the American Business Model—and is taught in many business schools—despite its moral corruption and the lamentable performance of U.S. business since it was introduced. But, to be fair, it has made a small number of CEOs and ultra-rich shareholders even richer.

Most Americans have suffered from it. The damage it has inflicted on the economy is incalculable.

The following is an interesting perspective by Matt McFarland from the Washington Post of April 3 2015.

The individuals who have founded some of the most success tech companies are decidedly weird. Examine the founder of a truly innovative company and you’ll find a rebel without the usual regard for social customs.

This begs the question, why? Why aren’t more “normal” people with refined social graces building tech companies that change the world? Why are only those on the periphery reaching great heights?

If you ask tech investor Peter Thiel, the problem is a social environment that’s both powerful and destructive. Only individuals with traits reminiscent of Asperger’s Syndrome, which frees them from an attachment to social conventions, have the strength to create innovative businesses amid a culture that discourages daring entrepreneurship.

“Many of the more successful entrepreneurs seem to be suffering from a mild form of Asperger’s where it’s like you’re missing the imitation, socialization gene,” Thiel said Tuesday at George Mason University. “We need to ask what is it about our society where those of us who do not suffer from Asperger’s are at some massive disadvantage because we will be talked out of our interesting, original, creative ideas before they’re even fully formed. Oh that’s a little bit too weird, that’s a little bit too strange and maybe I’ll just go ahead and open the restaurant that I’ve been talking about that everyone else can understand and agree with, or do something extremely safe and conventional.”

An individual with Asperger’s Syndrome — a form of autism — has limited social skills, a willingness to obsess and an interest in systems. Those diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome tend to be unemployed or underemployed at rates that far exceed the general population. Fitting into the world is difficult.

While full-blown Asperger’s Syndrome or autism hold back careers, a smaller dose of associated traits appears critical to hatching innovations that change the world.

“A typical child might just accept, ‘Okay this is just the way it’s done, this is how we do things in our culture or family,” said Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Center in Cambridge. “Someone with autism or Asperger’s, they kind of ask those why questions. They want more logical answers. Just saying ‘Well we do this just because everybody else does,’ that doesn’t meet their test of logic.”

Baron-Cohen says the autistic are interested in what’s called first principles, fundamental rules used to inform their decisions. First principle-thinking happens to be a tactic Elon Musk, the innovative leader of Tesla and SpaceX, says has contributed to his success.

“Rather than reasoning by analogy, you boil things down to the most fundamental truths you can imagine and you reason up from there,” Musk has said. “This is a good way to figure out if something really makes sense or if it’s just what everybody else is doing.”

To be great, you can’t think like everybody else, and you probably won’t fit in to the herd. As a child Musk was bullied and beaten so badly that as an adult he struggled to breathe through his nose and needed corrective surgery.

John Doerr, a venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins, who was an early investor in Google, Amazon and Netscape, has said that great entrepreneurs tend to have “absolutely no social life.” Great innovators, like those with Asperger’s, just don’t fit in.

VOR words 561.

---

(#183-1) April 4 2015. Are we deaf, dumb, blind—or so scared we can’t see straight? Or are we all drugged?

WHEN AN ECONOMY IS STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND—WHICH IS THE CASE IN THE U.S. RIGHT NOW—YOU NEED TO TAKE FAIRLY DRASTIC ACTION

SO FAR, WE HAVEN’T EVEN ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS ANYTHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH THE STRUCTURE

This is a genuinely great country—which I regard with great affection, and which has been a major influence in my life. The majority of my friends are here, and I am extremely fond of them. The only downside of  the U.S., from a social point of view, is that the country is so large, getting to see them requires a virtual Lewis and Clark expedition.

But, I digress. My point is that I have very mixed reactions to what I’m observing. My brain is in conflict with my heart.

From a researcher, thinker, and writer’s point of view, I’m feeling considerable intellectual satisfaction. I have carried out a huge amount of research into the U.S. economy and the American Way of life in general—and, broadly speaking, matters are developing pretty much as I have expected (and I started my detailed research back in 2004) providing nothing was done.

Please note that qualification. The great weakness of forecasting by extrapolation is that normally some action is taken so that events do not unfold as expected.

However, let me point out where my analysis has been flawed.

It never crossed my mind that nothing would be done. This, after, all, is (was?) the can-do nation.

Never in my wildest nightmares did I expect that virtually no action would be taken to remedy what I considered to be screamingly obvious flaws—particularly after the Great Recession. And yet, we all seem to be acting—even now—as if our economic structure is sound and all we really need to do is get back to business as usual.

Get growth up a little bit and unemployment down a smidgeon—and we’ll be back to the America we know and love. Wall Street is already there. Corporate profits are at record highs (or were until recently). The good old U.S.A. is delivering again!

Have our powers of observation and analysis gone dead or what?

We writers are supposed to illuminate the human condition and remain somewhat detached—lest our emotions cloud the clarity of our thoughts—but since we are human ourselves (though I know a few who would debate that point) I have to say that from that perspective I am extremely distressed to see this particular tragedy play out.

Intellectual satisfaction is a fine thing, and a great motivator, but there are times in life when I would infinitely prefer to be wrong.

Sadly, I’m not.

Meanwhile, the rich are getting richer and most Americans are seeing their economic security, and way of life, eroded.

And it is all preventable.

VOR words 460.

---

 

(#182-1) April 3 2015. Snakes & Ladders. Which are you on?

DAY AFTER DAY THE FIGURES ROLL IN. THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR.

THE CURRENT AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL ISN’T DELIVERING AS FAR AS MOST AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED. MEANWHILE THE RICH GET EVER RICHER.

The following is from that excellent magazine www.businessweek.com

Americans Watched Their Incomes Shrink, Except For the Highest-Earners

It's the latest sign of income inequality in the country

Americans are earning less than they did in 2013, with one notable exception: the rich.

Average incomes before taxes fell for a second year in the year ended July 2014, down 0.9 percent, while expenditures were up 1 percent on average, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics mid-year consumer expenditures update, released Thursday.

Only the top 20 percent of American earners experienced income growth in that time period, swelling 0.9 percent. Their annual pre-tax income increased to $166,048. Meanwhile, every other income group shed 2 percent or more. The lowest quintile, which earned $9,818 on average, lost the most ground.

The lowest-earners also increased their spending by the most, boosting their expenditures by 2.9 percent, to $22,981 on average. The bulk of those outlays (41 percent) went to housing.

The data offer the latest signs of the growing chasm between America's rich and poor. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has used her first year as Fed chief to advocate for those hurt most by the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

As central bank policy makers prepare to possibly raise interest rates for the first time since June 2006, Yellen told a Boston Fed conference on inequality in October that she’s “greatly” concerned by a sustained rise in U.S. income and wealth inequality.

---

(#181-1) April 2015. To hell with being scared. It is time to act. But are we too scared to act—or too ignorant?

THE CURRENT AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL IS NOT SERVING THIS NATION WELL—AND IT SHOWS

JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW DISASTROUS IT IS:

MORE CLOSINGS THAN STARTUPS

GREY = NEW BUSINESSES

RED = BUSINESS CLOSINGS

1980s TO CURRENT

From NYT April 1 2015 by Thomas B. Edsall

Over the past three decades, the American economy has become less vigorous. An extensive body of evidence shows that the public focus on the success of high-tech companies like Apple and Google masks an overall downward trend in key measures of business vitality.

“Business deaths now exceed business births for the first time in the thirty-plus year history of our data,” note Ian Hathaway and Robert E. Litan, economists at the Brookings Institution, in a May 2014 essay, “Declining Business Dynamism in the United States.”

There is widespread support for their assertion. Jim Clifton, chairman and C.E.O. of Gallup, wrote in a January 2015 essay, “American Entrepreneurship: Dead or Alive?”:

Until 2008, start-ups outpaced business failures by about 100,000 a year. But in the past six years, that number has suddenly turned upside down. There has been an underground earthquake.

I seem to be running into more and more frightened people these days—and frightened people do not behave well. The solutions are straightforward, but are blocked by the Right Wing (Republicans)  who simply do not want to govern (and aren’t very good at it when they try).  

They are also blocked by the Left Wing (Democrats) who have become so addicted to being funded by Big Business (particularly the financial sector) that they are are very reluctant to do anything which might threaten that cozy situation. In fact, they refuse to discuss the failings of the American Business Model with the clarity required. They more nibble around the edges.

What do the Democrats stand for? I’m damned if I know.

The people who are closest to getting to grips with the issues are the Progressives—who are more or less (open to debate) a subset of the Democrats. By and large, they have good policies—somewhat akin to those of European Social Democrats—but, so far, have not succeeded in resonating adequately with the American public.

One exception is Senator Elizabeth Warren—an extremely effective and articulate woman—whose main problem is that she suffers from that most serious of American maladies, lack of name recognition.

It is my belief that Americans, despite being seriously uninformed about the economic forces at work—not entirely surprising given who owns and controls the media—are far more frightened than either the media, or people in general, are prepared to admit.

Of course we don’t admit to being scared out of our minds. Our self image is of relentlessly optimistic rugged individuals—entirely indifferent to facts—but guided by ‘gut feel.’

Most Americans have good reason to be afraid. Many of the assumptions that have underpinned the American Way of Life have proved to be no more than myths, the current American Business Model is corrupt, predatory, and clearly not delivering, and the trend lines are ominous.

A good friend of mine argues that the U.S., right now, is in a state of ‘moral panic.’

Wikipedia defines ‘moral panic’ as:

an intense feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order.^[1]Moral panics are in essence controversies that involve arguments and social tension, and in which agreement is difficult because the matter at its centre is taboo.^[2] The media are key players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety or panic.^[3]

I like the phrase, though I’m not entirely happy with the definition. But, one characteristic is that people’s behavior deteriorates when in such a state—as it does when the word ‘panic’ alone is considered adequate to describe the situation.

Is our behavior deteriorating—particularly within economic parameters?

It seems self-evident that it is—and the increasing lack of trust in almost everything except the military (about which most Americans know impressively little) suggests that most Americans know it.

The next stage, if we were a Latin American Banana Republic (one of those countries exploited by a few ultra-rich people, without a middle class, and with most people poor—which the U.S. regards with some contempt) would suggest a coup might be in order.

That is unlikely to happen—because it already has. The ultra-rich have the controls—the rest of us are locked out—and they are flying us straight into a mountain.

The good news? It is an American mountain. This is an exercise in self-destruction.

Who knew that ending up owning all the marbles would be so depressing?

VOR words c.400.

---

 

(#180-1) April 1 2015. Battle of the brain—and it’s my brain I’m battling with.

I MAY BE THE WORLD’S WORST MULTI-TASKER

I’M A WRITER—AND WRITING, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, IS ABOUT FOCUS.

IT HAS TAKEN ME A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS STAGE, (where I can get into the focus-on-writing zone on demand)

BUT NOW I DO THAT WELL.

I have got great faith in brainpower (though rather less in human nature).  But, it is my experience, that if you apply your brain and focus, you can normally find a solution to most of the issues that one encounters in life.

I’m not so naïve as to say that you can implement them—because all sorts of alternative agendas, not to mention fear, greed, suspicion, and ignorance—tend to block even the most rational and well thought-out solutions. Nonetheless, I am much comforted by the thought that solutions are not only possible, but much more widely available than many of my more fatalistic brethren seem to think.

To use a phrase I return to so often it seems to be damn nearly my mantra: The answers are out there if only you are prepared to look.

But, here is the kicker. Looking requires focus (almost a social sin these days). We seem to prefer juggling many problems rather than resolving one (at a time).

Yes, there are such things as ‘wicked problems’—to use a technical term which I rather enjoy (check it out in Wikipedia) but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Inability or unwillingness to focus strikes me  as a prevailing weakness of our society. Perhaps because focusing requires considerable effort, and our potential distractions are so many, we seem to be evolving a society where it is almost becoming culturally unacceptable not to multitask—and where refusing to really take the time to understand an issue is regarded as reasonable. After all, thinking takes time and effort and we are busy, busy, busy. Besides, we have gut instinct to rely upon.

Instead, we skate, we skim, we hop, we trivialize —and we feel proud of ourselves because we are multitasking.

I have to wonder whether multitasking isn’t another name for intellectual laziness. But, I will freely confess that I am biased—and not just because, as a writer, I need to focus. It is also because I suffer from a form of dyslexia which means that, innately, I don’t handle multi-tasking well. You could argue that, in some ways, my mind is downright slow (which, however true, doesn’t make my ego happy) though, paradoxically, I’m quite quick witted.

But, whatever about my limitations, I am greatly concerned at the way multitasking has become so much part of our way of life. It seems to me it is making us dumber.

An excellent piece by Travis Bradberry in Entrepreneur of March 27 2015 suggests that I may have a point.

Multitasking Can Damage Your Brain and Career, Studies Say

You’ve likely heard that multitasking is problematic, but new studies show that it kills your performance and may even damage your brain. Research conducted at Stanford University found that multitasking is less productive than doing a single thing at a time. The researchers found that people who are regularly bombarded with several streams of electronic information cannot pay attention, recall information, or switch from one job to another as well as those who complete one task at a time.

 

A Special Skill?

But what if some people have a special gift for multitasking? The Stanford researchers compared groups of people based on their tendency to multitask and their belief that it helps their performance. They found that heavy multitaskers—those who multitask a lot and feel that it boosts their performance—were actually worse at multitasking than those who like to do a single thing at a time. The frequent multitaskers performed worse because they had more trouble organizing their thoughts and filtering out irrelevant information, and they were slower at switching from one task to another. Ouch. Multitasking reduces your efficiency and performance because your brain can only focus on one thing at a time. When you try to do two things at once, your brain lacks the capacity to perform both tasks successfully.

Multitasking Lowers IQ

Research also shows that, in addition to slowing you down, multitasking lowers your IQ. A study at the University of London found that participants who multitasked during cognitive tasks experienced IQ score declines that were similar to what they’d expect if they had smoked marijuana or stayed up all night. IQ drops of 15 points for multitasking men lowered their scores to the average range of an 8-year-old child. So the next time you’re writing your boss an email during a meeting, remember that your cognitive capacity is being diminished to the point that you might as well let an 8-year-old write it for you.

Brain Damage From Multitasking

It was long believed that cognitive impairment from multitasking was temporary, but new research suggests otherwise. Researchers at the University of Sussex in the UK compared the amount of time people spend on multiple devices (such as texting while watching TV) to MRI scans of their brains. They found that high multitaskers had less brain density in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region responsible for empathy as well as cognitive and emotional control.

While more research is needed to determine if multitasking is physically damaging the brain (versus existing brain damage that predisposes people to multitask), it’s clear that multitasking has negative effects. Neuroscientist Kep Kee Loh, the study’s lead author, explained the implications: “I feel that it is important to create an awareness that the way we are interacting with the devices might be changing the way we think and these changes might be occurring at the level of brain structure.”

VOR words 423.

---