每個人都在一心多用，我們開車的時候聊天，上網(wǎng)的時候回郵件?，F(xiàn)在很難想象以另外一種方式生活。我們要怎樣才能能擁有另一種方式，將座椅從汽車中一走確保駕車是只有你一個人？還是封鎖所有不叫GMAIL的網(wǎng)站？一個永遠只做一件事情的世界已經(jīng)奇怪得無法理解了。
But science suggests that multitasking as we know it is a myth. "Humans don't really multitask," said Eyal Ophir, the primary researcher with the Stanford Multitasking study. "We task-switch. We just switch very quickly between tasks, and it feels like we're multitasking."
但科學(xué)顯示我們所知的一心多用只是個神話?！叭祟惒粫嬲匾恍亩嘤谩?，斯坦福多任務(wù)研究中心的首席研究員Eyal Ophir稱?！拔覀冎皇遣粩嗟那袚Q任務(wù)。我們在工作之間迅速切換，然后就像是我們在一心多用一樣?！?b style="BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%" class="label bg2" jquery1321606190796="31">
In other words, you feel like you're multitasking when you're on the Web. But if you slow down and think about your attention, you'll agree that answering email while browsing the Web is impossible. You answer email. Then you browse. Then back to email. Then again with the browsing. Like the pictures in a flip book, our focus is discrete. It is only with time and motion that our fluttering attention gains the illusion of multitasking.
換句話說，當你上網(wǎng)時，你只是感覺自己在一心多用。但是如果你驚險信賴想想你的注意力，你就會同意，在上網(wǎng)時回郵件根本是不可能的。你是回完郵件，然后上網(wǎng)，然后再回郵件，然后再上網(wǎng)。就像翻頁書的每一頁一樣，我們的注意力是分開的。只是我們對時間和動機的感知給了我們一心多用的錯覺。
In 1946, the world was introduced to history's first general-purpose electronic computer: ENIAC, nicknamed the "Giant Brain." At the time, the word multi-tasking did not exist. It first appeared in a magazine called Datamation in 1966, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, in the following sentence: "Multi-tasking is defined as the use of a single CPU for the simultaneous processing of two or more jobs."
1946年，世界上出現(xiàn)了有史以來第一部多用途的電子計算器ENIAC，它有個昵稱“巨腦”。當時，多任務(wù)這個詞還不存在。根據(jù)牛津英語詞典的說法，多任務(wù)這個詞于1966年第一次出現(xiàn)在一本名為《Datamation》的雜志里，它出現(xiàn)在如下的句子中：“多任務(wù)被定義成用一枚cpu同時處理兩項或多項工作?！?b style="BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%" class="label bg2" jquery1321606190796="33">
Over the next 65 years, computers have become multitasking wizards, with the ability to download movies while playing music while running complex programs and executing a million other functions we take for granted, yet in 1946 would have seemed like magic. Meanwhile, the people operating these wondrous machines have not gotten any better at multitasking over the last 60 years. If anything, we have gotten worse.
此后的65年里，計算機已經(jīng)成為了多線程的巫師。我們已經(jīng)理所當然的認為，它能夠一邊播放音樂，一邊運行著復(fù)雜的程序，一邊還執(zhí)行者一百萬其他功能時還能下載電影，盡管在1946年，這看起來只會是個魔法。同時，在過去的六十年里，操作這些神奇機器的熱門也沒有變得更擅長一心多用。如果有改變的話，我們變得更不擅長了。
In The Shallows, a book about memory and the Internet, Nicholas Carr said the Web was changing the way we think, read and remember. Humans are hunters and hoarders of information. We seek, we find, we remember. If the Internet is helping us seek and find data, it is hurting our ability to absorb and retain it. Before the Internet, the theory goes, our attentions expanded vertically. With the Internet, our focus extends horizontally, and shallowly.
在一本關(guān)于記憶與因特網(wǎng)的書《The shallows》中，Nicholas Carr表示網(wǎng)絡(luò)已經(jīng)改變了我們思考，閱讀以及記憶的方式。如果因特網(wǎng)正在幫助我們尋找和發(fā)現(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)，那么他也正在傷害我們吸收和維持數(shù)據(jù)的能力。有人推測，在因特網(wǎng)時代之前，我們的注意力是垂直擴展的。有了因特網(wǎng)，我們的注意力只會水平式的延伸，同時也是淺薄地延伸。
Why do we think we're so good at something that doesn't exist? We compensate for our inability to multitask with a remarkable ability to single-task in rapid succession. Our brains aren't a volley of a thousand arrows descending on an opposing army. Our brains are Robin Hood. One man with one bow firing on all comers, one at a time.
為什么我們會認為我們很擅長一項根本不存在的事情呢？我們?yōu)榱藦浹a不能一心多用，而有了極快的連續(xù)處理單項任務(wù)的能力。我們的大腦不是瞄準敵軍的千軍萬馬。我們的大腦是羅賓漢。他只能不段地對來著射箭，每次一只。
If multitasking is a myth, it might come as a surprise that some people are good at it. It turns out that people who multitask -- or rapid-fire-single-task -- less are better at firing the next arrow of attention at a new task. A famous media multitasking study found that "heavy" multitaskers are more susceptible to distractions and therefore worse at task-switching effectively. This makes sense if you consider multitasking to be "the art of paying attention." Heavy multitaskers roll out the welcome mat for every new distraction. Of course they can't pay attention to things. Attention isn't their intent.
如果一心多用是不存的話，那么有人擅長一心多用這種事就很讓人吃驚。結(jié)果就是，那么不那么一心多用——或者是快速的進行單項任務(wù)——的人，在面對新工作時，注意力方面會做得更好。一項著名的媒體多線程研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，那些“重度”的一心多用者更易分心，因此也就在有效切換任務(wù)方面做得更差。如果你認為一心多用就是“注意力的藝術(shù)”時，這就說得過去。重度的一心多用者熱烈歡迎每一次注意力分散，當然他們就不會注意到什么東西上去。注意力不是他們所想要的東西。
Attention is important. And light multitaskers might be better at preserving their attention. But some people value distraction. They knowingly seek the thrill of the new. In an interview with Boing Boing, Ophir made the essential point that it's hard to determine what kind of workers are most "effective" at multitasking until you determine what they want from their work.
注意力很重要。并且輕度的一心多用者可能更擅長保持注意力。但是也有人更看重發(fā)散性思維。他們刻意地尋找新鮮事物的快感。在《BOING BOING》的采訪中，Ophir指出了關(guān)鍵點就是，在一心多用中，很難決定那種員工是最“高效”的，直到你能確定員工想從工作中得到什么。
"I think heavy multitaskers are not less effective -- they simply have a different goal," he said. "Where you might say traditionally we value the ability to focus through distractions, they are willing to sacrifice focus in order to make sure they don't miss an unexpected, but rewarding, surprise. As a result, they might do worse in the office scenario I described, but they might also be the first to slam on the brakes in the car/mobile phone scenario."
“我認為重度的一心多用者的效率也不會更低——他們只是有不同的目的”，他說道，“你可能會說，傳統(tǒng)上我們更重視注意力的能力而不是分心，但是這些重度的一心多用者為了確保不會錯失意外的，但是值得的驚喜，他們愿意犧牲自己的注意力。因此在我所描述的辦公室流程事務(wù)方面，他們可能會表現(xiàn)得差一些，但是在邊開車邊打電話的情景里，他們更容易注意到危險而去踩剎車。”
The Web is perfect for indulging our multitasking, which is really nothing more than the rapid switching of tasks, because it promises something new and fast. Science suggests that the secret to thriving in an age of universal distraction isn't to avoid distractions, but to distract ourselves smartly. The National University of Singapore found that workers who spend 20 percent or less of their time browsing the Web are 9 percent more productive than those who never go online at all. Most of what we know about attention suggests that our focus comes with strict limits. Sure, we can binge on a project, but working too hard for too long results in a hangover of productivity. Short bursts of attention punctuated with equally deliberate breaks are the surest way to harness our full capacity to be productive.
因為提供了快速又新鮮的事情，網(wǎng)絡(luò)容易讓人一心多用（實際上無非是快速的切換任務(wù)而已。）科學(xué)家們認為，在普遍注意力分散的年代里，繁榮的秘密不是避免分心，而是聰明地分心。新加坡國立大學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)，會花大約20%時間上網(wǎng)的員工比起那些工作時從不上網(wǎng)的員工的效率要高出9%。我們對注意力的了解顯示，注意力伴隨著嚴格的局限。當然，我們可以在工作中狂歡作樂（譯者注：或者此處為作者筆誤，應(yīng)該是我們不能再在工作中狂歡作樂），但是長時間的刻刻苦工作也會導(dǎo)致效率的降低。我們要保持高效的話，就必須勞逸結(jié)合。
The upshot is that it's pointless to say that one type of worker is good at multitasking, and another is bad. Instead, there is a limited supply of this thing called attention, and a million ways to divide, manage, and preserve it. For some people, a state of deep focus is office nirvana. For others, perpetual distraction is an office necessity. You fire your arrows the way you want.
要點是，說某種員工更擅長一心多用，而另外一些員工不擅長一心多用，這根本毫無意義。相反，對于我們稱之為注意力的東西，來源是有限的，但是我們有一百萬種方法來劃分，管理和保存我們的注意力。對一些人來說，注意力高度集中是辦公室必須的，而對另一些人來說，不斷地發(fā)散是辦公室的必須品。找到自己想要的方式就可以了。
Now get back to email.
現(xiàn)在，回去回郵件吧。
