You.

At ESB, we're investing over 1 billion euro a year to drive Ireland towards a net zero future. We're accelerating our investment in the ev charging network by rolling out over 50 high power charging hubs across the country, supporting the adoption of evs and communities across Ireland, and giving drivers the freedom to go further because we are, and always have been invested in Ireland. Find out more at ESB. Ie hey, it's Alec Baldwin. This past season on my podcast, here's the thing. I spoke with more actors, musicians, policymakers, and so many other fascinating people like jazz bassist Christian McBride.

Jazz is based on improvisation, but there's very much a form to it. You have a conversation based on that melody and those chord changes. So it's kind of like giving someone a topic and say, okay, talk about this.

Listen to the new season of here's the thing on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Buena Buenas Misamores. This is Vico Ortiz, host of Dave My Awalita. First each week, myself alongside our resident awalita, Liliana Montenegro.

Esa.

So play matchmaker for a group of hopeful romantics in this fun, flirty, and hilarious game show. Let's see if Cheesebus will fly or if these singles will be sent back to the dating apps. Listen to Dave Maawalita first on the iHeartRadio app. Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to stuff you should know.

A production of iHeartradio.

Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh. There's Chuck. And we're doing this on our own. Flying high like an eagle to the sea. No. And this is stuff you should know. No.

I'm so annoyed at this.

The episode from 2011 that we somehow recorded in 2024.

It feels that way a little bit, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. It really does.

I think I was annoyed because. And I put this one together, so it's my fault. But I feel like it was just like, well, this study says this about multitasking, and this study says this and this study says this.

I think you feel that way because that's exactly what it does.

There's just no good story here. I think that's my problem.

There is. I think the story is that we're going to flip everybody's wig because it turns out that multitasking is a myth, a fraud. You shouldn't even try to do it because not only is multitasking impossible for you to do, puny human, it actually makes you worse at what you are doing.

Yeah, I think there are plenty of people who think they're great multitaskers. They may be among the very small percentage of people who are super taskers, which we'll talk about, but more than likely, they probably just think they're getting a lot more done by switching back and forth between a bunch of different things when they're really not. And that's really what we're talking about. Multitasking isn't even really multitasking. It's task switching very fast.

That's a much better description of it, task switching, because when you're trying to do multiple things at once, even something as simple as, say, like baking a cake, like stirring like the batter while you're talking on the phone, you're not actually doing those two things at the same time as far as your brain is concerned. It's basically flipping back and forth to make sure you're doing them both adequately. And we actually can do something as simple as that fairly well. But the more complex the tasks get and the more numerous the tasks get, everything just starts to short circuit. And you sit there and wake up every morning and wonder why you're still so tired and stressed out all the time. It's multitasking.

Yeah. Since you said short circuit, we should mention the origin of the term is from a computer ad, a 1965 IBM report basically talking about their new IBM system 360 and talking about a computer's ability to multitask or process tasks at the same time. And since then, since the 1960s, that really took hold as far as a catchphrase. And psychologists have gone wild with doing studies and experiments to see what are the limits of the human brain as far as taking on multiple things at once, which, again, isn't exactly at once. Like, you can do things like, at the same time, like bake or stirring batter and talking on the phone. But I think generally when people are talking about multitasking today, they think more about, I'm sitting at my computer and I've got like five different tabs that are sort of doing different things. And I'm also emailing and I'm researching this and I'm doing that at the.

Same time, and somebody's texting me and I'm getting push notifications. Yeah, it's a thing for sure. That's one reason why it's worth talking about, because if it's not actually effective and productive, people should know that, because it's becoming such a huge part of our modern world.

Yeah, for sure. So let's talk about it eh.

Okay, so, sadly, you already hit on the fact of the podcast that multitasking comes from an IBM ad. But you said that psychologists had gone. I thought that joke would have gone over better. You said that psychologists had gone wild, like trying to figure out the computational processing power of humans. And I think that's actually one of the first problems. That IBM ad kind of set it up for us to view the human brain as a computer. And that's not an exact analogy, which is why I think we thought we could multitask for a while, because we even thought computers could. But it wasn't until the advent of multicore processors that computers themselves could actually process more than one thing at the same time. At the outset, including for the IBM system 360, the computer with a single cpu was not actually multitasking. It was doing the same thing that our brains do. It was jumping back and forth between tasks really fast to make sure it was doing them both adequately. So when we kind of figured out that there was a problem with processing, that there were limits to it, we established very quickly something called a processing bottleneck that it's documented humans do not multitask to begin with.

And when we try to multitask, the results are terrible. And it seems to be because there's, like, too much stuff is trying to get through too narrow a passageway.

Yeah, and some people think that this bottleneck happens most severely when you're trying to plan an action that you're going to do at the same time as you're trying to retrieve something from your memory bank. Memory plays a big part in all of this. And what we're doing, like we said, we're task switching. We're performing things in sequence. So you're switching back and forth very quickly, you think? But there is something called a switching cost. So every time that you're like, you and I are researching or something, and we're like, oh, wait, I forgot we needed to email Jerry about something. And so I'll stop real quick and email Jerry, and it seems very seamless, and then I go back to my work. But there is a cost to that switch there where it takes a second or two for your brain to kind of ramp back up into what you were on previously. May not seem like a lot, but when you add that up over a lifetime of work, there's a lot of inefficiencies going on.

Yeah, for sure. So that switching cost is just a time lag, a loss of productivity when you go from one task to another. Right. And especially if we're trying to do two tasks at the same time, which we can't, but we're switching back and forth over and over again that switching cost becomes more and more dramatic. And so those two tasks, neither one of them gets done very well. And there's some theories about what's going on here. There's some rival ones. The first one that was established, I think, as far back as the 60s, it's called the psychological refractory period effect. And the psychological refractory period paradigm basically says that when we're presented with two tasks that are presented in quick secession, the response to task two is delayed. Right. That's documented. We know that. But here's why they're saying that. It's because the brain is still processing the response to the first stimulus, task one. So response two, the response to task two, has to wait. And so the difference in time between task two when we're presented with that task, and response one when we complete the first task, that period is called that refractory period, and then it's followed by response two.

So there's a gap, there's a chunk of time where we just can't do anything for task two because our brains are still working on task one. And then finally, when we complete task one, we can start on task two, and that time in between, that's the refractory period. And that's what accounts for that delay in response time, because our response to task one is typically shorter than our response to task two. So task two is completed in a longer amount of time than task one was because it was given to us while we were still trying to complete task one.

Right. That's a good way to put it. Like there's no progress being made in that downtime, right?

No, not at least on task two, from what I can tell.

Yeah. And I don't even think you're, I mean, I guess you're putting to bed task one. I don't think there's real progress being made at all.

Yeah, that's why some people. So that's a new version. That's part of the rival interpretation. They're like, no, this actually seems like you're not still completing task one during that refractory period while you're waiting on task two. There seems to be a blank spot where you're not able to do anything when you're switching from one to the other.

Okay, I got you.

Yeah. So that's the new interpretation.

Well, what they're talking about, though, is the brain. And when you look at the parts of the brain, the prefrontal cortex is the one that is, if you're doing something, you're paying attention to something. It's your prefrontal cortex that is at work, and it spans, as we know, the left and right sides of the brain, and it's coordinating with each other when you're doing one thing at a time. If all of a sudden you have two things, then the left side of your brain is doing something, the right side of the brain is doing something, and it's split up. And that's where that Inefficiency really kicks in. Right?

Yeah. That's based on a French fMRI study from 2010, back in the era where we used to call the MRI the wonder machine.

You remember that, right?

So this is, like, prime vintage wonder machine type study where they found that you can still do a couple of tasks. It does seem like there's a certain amount of parallel processing the brain can do when it splits the two lobes, the two frontal lobes up, and says, here, you do this and you do this. We can still kind of do it, but neither one is as good or as fast as if we just did one after the other. That's the big joke for multitasking. But if you add a third one, the brain just goes haywire. It just completely goes caputs.

Yeah. One is ideal, two is possible, and again, we're not talking about supertaskers, which we'll get to, and three is just don't even try. What are you doing? What are you even trying to do that for?

Or as the french researcher said, forget about it. Right.

Oh, man, that got me. I thought you were about to hit me with a good french phrase. No, I love it. There was another study conducted at Vanderbilt University. Go, Commodores. Right?

Yeah, they're easy. Like Sunday morning.

They are. Oh, boy, you're on a roll. Where they talk about the brain exhibiting what's called a response selection. Bottleneck. Another bottleneck. But this one's a little different. If you're tasked with doing several things at one time, the brain says what's more important, and so it sort of chooses for you. But I also saw some other studies that said that what also might be going on is you are maybe subconsciously, if you're trying to juggle two things, the one that you're really paying the most attention to is either the one that gives you the most pleasure or the one that maybe can be completed as, like, a sub goal. Yes.

So that's kind of a different interpretation, too. So these are kind of rivals to the refractory period paradigm. And they're basically saying, like, our brains actually require a moment to switch. And like, we've kind of established in that moment we're not actually doing anything. But these two different ones that, these two kind of interpretations that you just mentioned, they strike me as kind of tomato, tomato, because they're essentially saying the same thing. One is that the brain has to decide which activity is important and that it takes more time. The other one, from David Meyer of University of Michigan is saying, well, the brain has this thing called adaptive executive control that says this priority is more important than this priority. So I need to work on this one first. It's the same thing. Like, I genuinely could not find what the distinction is. And there's even some bad reporting on some of this stuff. Where I saw David Meyer in his study from University of Michigan was essentially described to suggest that it's showing like, oh, yeah, we can do multitasking, we can process in parallel. And that's not at all like he's saying, you can't do that at all.

I don't know how it got all kind of messed up like that, but there doesn't seem to be anybody who says, no, we actually can. Every single study, it shows that we can't. The difference between the studies is trying to interpret the results in different ways to explain why we can't or what happens when we try.

All right, so we're going to multitask now. Take a break, go read a couple of ads, and we'll be right back.

From Galway to Glasgow, New Ross to New York or Portobello to Perth, wherever you are and whenever you're jetting off, use the unpussed money currency card powered by Mastercard. Make your money matter more with 0% commission on transactions in 14 foreign currencies. Apply now with the onpost money app or visit your local post office today. T's and C's apply onpust money currency card is issued by PPS EUSA pursuant to license by Mastercard International. PPS EUSA is authorized by the National bank of Belgium and is regulated by the Central bank of Ireland for conduct of Business rules.

Do you think Abuelita knows best? We know about the Rama here, executive producer of the podcast de Maya Abuelita first. And we definitely do join us while our host Pico Ortiz and our Abuelita Liliana Montenegro play matchmaker for you loving hopefuls. Out bico.

Yes. Yes, Wilmer. We are ready for another wild ride. Listen. Every Thursday as Awelita Liliana and I meet three single cuties who will vibe for a date with one lucky dater. Except to get their heart, they have to win over Awelita first.

How PG is this?

Not at all. Totally are Awelita's here, so bring it through. Speed dating rounds, hilarious games and AI Awelita's intuition. One contestant might be lucky enough to become the perfect match. Let's see if Cheesebas will fly or if these singles will be sent back to the dating apps.

Listen today my Abolita first as part of the Michael Tuda podcast Network, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you are down to explore the magic of real life, join me on my podcast, Edge Martinez Irl, where I candidly speak to icons like Alicia Keys, Killer Mike, Janelle Monet, Kelly Clarkson and Kim Kardashian about the lessons in their real lives. Check out my interview with Super bowl halftime show performer, songwriter, dancer and the newly married usher about relationships, having a.

Partner who will be honest with you, brutally honest with you. And you can take that constructive criticism because you know it comes from a good place and you've spent enough time, your friends enough, and you've established trust. Trust is the main component to happiness and success in a relationship. Being able to actually hear each other and speak up, it's hard right, to even know what you really want and what really matters. I think most of the time we all just want to be heard.

Listen to edge Martinez Irl on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts.

All right, so we're back with multitasking. I mentioned early on that memory, like memory recall, when you're trying to do something else, can really suffer. And so we should talk about memory a little bit. There's a guy named George Miller who was a psychologist at Harvard who basically says the human brain, as far as recall goes, is centered around the number seven with a little variation up and down by two. So he's done studies where they basically just say, hey, repeat these numbers after me. And what they found is the average number of numbers that someone can repeat back to somebody is seven. And again, it goes up and down a little bit. Some people are inherently just going to be much better at that and maybe can rattle off 15, right? But the average came down to seven. So what people do when they're trying to learn things or make something memorable is parse things out and separate them into smaller bits for storage. Yeah.

And so we do that with telephone numbers. Social Security numbers. Any string of ten numbers. We almost always put hyphens or dots or something together. Dates. It's just almost like an inherent thing that we do, an intuitive thing, but we do that to make it easier on our working memory. Remembering three sets of three numbers is easier for our brains to keep in our working memory than one long set of nine numbers.

Yeah, I mean, I guess there's no reason a Social Security number should have those dashes, right?

I think that's exactly why it has dashes. Yeah.

So you can remember. So I can just rattle out. 287-969-4730 man, I hope that's not legit. What could someone do with that?

Are you the lifelock guy now?

Of course that's not. I'm surprised I was able to even do that successfully without saying my real Social Security number.

It was really impressive, actually.

I just had a bunch of numbers.

So just kind of. As a side note, we've been talking a lot about working memory, and that's a huge part of multitasking, because when you multitask, you're by definition not completing one thing before moving on to the other. You're stopping mid task to move on to something else, which you probably stop mid task to go back to the first one or go to a third thing. That's what multitasking is. If you do it sequentially rather than at the same time, concurrently, then you're not multitasking. So it requires working memory, it requires attention, it requires self regulation. It requires an ability to keep goals directed in the back of your head and also to be able to place those goals on pause while you move on to another goal. And if you have ADHD, you have a challenge with every single one of those things. Memory, attention, self regulation, goal direction. So multitasking is really, really hard for people with ADHD because it requires a lot of functions that a lot of people with ADHD struggle with. The big difference is, I think I read at least one study. It's like, well, if you have ADHD, you're just completely distracted all the time.

You should be really good at multitasking, because isn't that what multitasking is? And it's like, absolutely not. That's just not at all. So, I mean, yes, you're more distracted, but people with ADHD, they're slightly deficient in a really important ability in multitasking, which is quickly diminishing the size of that switching cost where you go from one task to the other. If you don't have ADHD, you're a lot better at picking up that second task. That gap between switching is shorter. With ADHD, it's longer. And then the other problem with multitasking in ADHD is that you become hyper aroused when you multitask and hyper arousal leads to much more elevated levels of stress in people with ADHD, which makes them even more prone to error and to frustration and all sorts of stuff that makes multitasking that much harder.

Yeah. And good set up for our eventual, hopefully coming soonish ADHD episode. We've already got the stuff kind of culled, but it's a lot. It's a big episode. Yeah. So I know people have been asking for it for a long time, so anyway, that's coming down the pike. But one thing that we have roundly seen in study after study is when you try to multitask or task switch back and forth is that your work suffers. Not only are you taking longer to get things done than you would if you did it sequentially, and by sequentially we mean completing a task and then moving on to the next.

Right.

That not only are you taking more time when you think you're not, you think you're actually being more efficient. Maybe if you're living a lie like most of us are, but you're actually doing less, the work is less good, and you're making more mistakes along the way as well.

Yeah. Did you say that it can take up to double the time or more?

No.

Yeah. When you try to multitask, let's say you're doing your tasked with making a paper airplane and then shaving a bunny. If you try to do those two things at the same time, it will actually take sometimes twice as long when you try to do them at the same time than it will if you make the paper airplane and then shave the bunny. Try to do them at the same time twice as long, and then you're probably going to give the bunny a bad haircut and your paper airplane is going to have a wonky wing and it's not going to fly.

Sorry. Shaving the bunny sounds like a very dirty euphemism.

That didn't even occur to me. You're a dirty old man these days, you know that?

Hey, I'm just a regular guy who likes to shave the bunny, you know what I mean?

Oh, my God. Oh, God.

See, it's dirty, right?

Yeah. I feel like I'm blushing right now.

When I put it that way.

Yeah. So in addition to it taking longer, didn't you also say that the work suffers as well.

Yeah. They've shown in work studies and stuff like that that you can have up to a 40% loss in productivity if you're at your computer at work and you're checking social media and you're doing quick email checks and a quick browse to look up where Tom Petty was, what high school he went to. All that stuff takes a couple of seconds, but it compounds throughout the day and you end up 40% less efficient. And those are just things that can happen at work. Like, there are actual real dangers when you start putting people in automobiles, let's say.

Right, and Tom Petty went to Gainesville High School in Gainesville, Florida.

Was it Gainesville High?

Yeah.

Okay. I knew he grew up there, I just didn't know if it. Know the actual Gainesville high school?

Yeah. The one or a rival school? No. So driving a car is dangerous enough, just even if you're doing it right. But since the advent of smartphones, the ubiquity of smartphones, people have gotten really.

Careless.

Yeah.

Dangerous.

Yeah. I mean, there's nothing more shocking and angering to me than driving past somebody who's just staring at their phone. They're not even looking up. Every once in a while, they're just staring, they're watching a video on their phone. It drives me crazy. And so I'm like, of course, crashes have gone up a million percent. There's no actual good studies or data on how many crashes are caused by people distracted by their phones. The best I could find was a study from 2022, and it estimated that there's only been a 2.7% increase since the advent of smartphones in crashes. An extra 3500 crashes each year. None of those 3500 is justified or something to sneeze at, but I would have guessed it was way more than that. And apparently there are more dangerous things you could do than be distracted by your phone. Some of which we've been doing ever since we started driving. Like eating while driving.

Yeah. Or writing a letter longhand, or reading.

The newspaper, shaving a bunny.

Yeah. Of course, eating while driving is very dangerous. There was a study in 2021 where 50% of drivers say they eat while they drive. And I think a lot of people eat and drink while they drive. And they think, well, that's not really that big of a deal. But the NHTSA says that 65% of near miss accidents are due to eating and drinking behind the wheel. And if you're doing that, if you're eating or drinking behind the wheel, it increases your chances of being in an accident by 80%.

That's shocking.

That is shocking. Coffee, they said, is the most dangerous thing to consume while driving, and this is one of the favorite things I've read in a long time. Other dangerous foods that they listed are soups, tacos, chili, hamburgers, barbecue, fried chicken, and donuts. Especially jelly filled donuts.

Yeah.

Soft drink and chocolate. But who's eating soup while they drive?

I've not tried to eat soup, but I am guilty of trying to eat chili while I was driving before. Yumu's like, this is ridiculous. You can't get chili on road trips any longer.

Would you stop by Wendy's?

What was it? Yeah, it was.

Was it?

Yeah.

Oh, man. I haven't had Wendy's chili in so long.

Yeah. This wasn't anytime recent, but it was a big moment in our relationship.

Yeah. I mean, I've had moments where I've been on a road trip and eating while I'm driving and been like, oh, crap, I've swerved into the wrong lane or something. I'm like, wait, what am I doing? This is completely. Especially if you're like, if you're trying to mayonnaise up a hamburger or something, none of that stuff is good to do while you're driving.

No. Or like, dunk some nuggets and sauce or something like that. That's a small target when you're going 80 miles an hour.

Yeah. If you got a churro and some chocolate sauce, you're in big trouble.

Some of these foods, they actually qualified, like, why they were on the report, like fried chicken. They said a lot of people lick their fingers afterward. Depending on what you've done with your fingers recently, you do not want to lick them, especially while driving. But that's why fried chicken is on there. Jelly filled donuts or powdered, because you can very easily drip on yourself. And now all of a sudden, you're looking down, like, trying to clean powdered sugar off of you. I think coffee was on there. Just because so many people drink coffee while they're driving, that, of course, just proportionately speaking, it's going to be one of the highest food related or crash related foods.

You're probably right. And fried chicken, I'm an expert. Unless it's like a nugget or a finger, it's a two handed affair generally, unless you have, like, a chicken leg. But when you're eating something with fried chicken, with bones, it's a two handed affair. And it's not something you just bite into, like a cheeseburger, because there are bones.

Right.

It bears more concentration.

Yeah. You got a big old breast or a thigh. You have to basically palm it if you're eating it one handed. And that's not how you're supposed to eat fried chicken.

Oh, man. We should talk about schooling a little bit, because there's obviously been a lot of studies about multitasking and its effect on learning and stuff like that. And there are studies that have found that it will really affect your academic success. And if you have high levels of multitasking in class or, like, while you're trying to do know, just, like, your job, it's gonna have serious deleterious effects on your grades.

It's true, but depending on what you do. I thought this was interesting, but also kind of intuitive as well. It depends on what you're doing while you're multitasking. This study found that Facebook and text messaging were related to lower or poorer academic performances while searching online and emailing were less related to poor academic performance. And that makes sense. Like, if you're on Facebook or you're texting, you're probably not getting to the bottom of the research paper you're writing.

Right.

Yet if you're searching online or you're emailing, there's a much higher chance that you are trying to find an answer. You are engaged in research, so that makes sense. And this is a problem. When you're talking about multitasking studies, they very easily conflate distractions and multitasking interruptions. Yes, we do multitask on a lot of occasions because we are being distracted. Right. And so we have to kind of do something while we're still doing the thing we were meant to be doing. But they're not exactly the same thing, although they do seem to kind of be related. We'll just call them cousins. Kissing cousins, even.

I saw a stepsibling, but I like cousin better.

Okay. Yeah, either one works.

Frankly, I fall into this trap a lot because not generally. When I'm researching for our show, I tend to focus pretty well, except for maybe email, because that stupid ding comes through on my computer, which I need to shut down, and we'll get to. Actually, we can talk about it now. One of the things that you very much should do if you have a problem with this kind of distraction is getting those notifications turned off on your phone. They annoy me, so I've always had my phone ringer off, and I get zero notifications just because it bugs me. But especially if you have issues trying to focus, don't get notified when someone comments on your Instagram post or whatever, there's notifications for everything, it seems like.

Yeah, no, for sure. That's one of the first best steps you can do is start turning off notifications, turning your ringer off when you're trying to concentrate. Like just really basic stuff that people are like, no, thank you. I'd rather suffer in every way, shape and form.

Yeah, but where I was going with that is I'm pretty good when I'm doing this job, but when we have one of our non research or recording days, and it's sort of, I call them admin days, when we're just doing all the other stuff that goes along with the job, I really bounce around on those days between tasks.

For me, I can pay attention. Generally while I'm researching, the difficulty or the challenge is I run into remember that article from maybe the Atlantic in 2009 by Nicholas Carr? Is Google making us stupid?

Oh yeah.

Where he talks about we don't read deeply any longer, we're just superficial readers. I can fall into that a lot. Like, I have to force myself to not just get the information I'm looking for from an article, but to ingest it because there's always more stuff that ties into other parts of whatever topic we're researching in that article. So rather than just going in harvesting what I'm looking for and then moving on or going in reading until I find something I need to go look up because I don't know what they're talking about. So I open another tab and then I just move on down the line like that. If I can just take the time to ingest each article, I get so much more out of it than I do when I'm just kind of reading superficially from tab to tab, how do.

You read for pleasure? Is that easier for you?

I forced myself to relearn how to read for pleasure because I realized, like, I was reading nothing but nonfiction and it was always for work all the time. And so I started reading short horror fiction again, like buying anthologies of horror fiction. And it's been a great, huge, wonderful change in my life because I forgot how much I like reading fiction again.

Same here, man. I'm reading a novel for the first time in a long time.

Wow.

And I used to be nothing but. I used to be NBN.

Oh yeah.

Nothing but novels. And then went through a twelve year period where it was NBM, almost nothing but memoirs.

Oh, wow.

And autobiographies and biographies. But now I'm reading a novel again, and I'm just having so much fun. I was like, oh man, I used to love this and I'm glad I'm getting back into it and I can focus. We have family reading time because we're encouraging Ruby just to read more for pleasure on her own. So it's hard to say like, hey, go read. And I'm just going to sit here and scroll on instagram. So we have our family reading times where like 30 minutes every night. We all sit in the same room and read our book together, which is really good.

That's awesome.

Yeah, it's fun.

Very nice. I think that's a great place for a break. We can let everybody just sit there and think about the wholesomeness of the scene you just described.

That's right.

Okay, we'll be right back.

White's important irish art auction is on view this week. See exceptional works by William Scott, Paul Henry, Jack Yates, Nora McGinnis, Dan O'Neill, Louis LeBrocki and many others. On view this week at 38 Mulswit street and online at whites, ie whites, where irish art is truly valued.

Do you think Abuelita knows best? Will Neval Derama here, executive producer of the podcast Dama Abuelita first. And we definitely do join us while our host Vico Ortiz and our abuelita, Liliana Montenegro play matchmaker for you loving hopefuls. Out, bico.

Yes. Yes, Wilmer. We are ready for another wild ride. Listen, every Thursday as Awelita, Liliana and I meet three single cuties who will vibe for a date with one lucky dater. Except to get their heart, they have to win over Awelita first.

How pg is this?

Not at all. Totally are Awelita's here, so bring it through. Speed dating rounds, hilarious games, and AI Awelita's intuition, one contestant might be lucky enough to become the perfect match. Let's see if cheesebas will fly or if these singles will be sent back to the dating apps.

Listen today my Abolita first as part of the Michael Tuda podcast Network, available on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

My name is Rachel and this is my new podcast, Rachel goes Rogue. You think you know me because you've seen and heard the stories. I was most recently involved in one of the biggest reality tv scandals, coined Scandalval. I'm ready to divulge the details and you may be shocked by what you hear. I'm here to tell my story, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I've made some terrible decisions, but I continue to learn and grow. I've chosen to protect others by keeping secrets for far too long, and I'm ready to come clean. I've taken some time away to reflect on my actions, and I'm finally in a place where I can share what I've discovered about myself and some of the tools that I've learned as I tell my story, I will bring on guests who have knowledge and expertise on a variety of topics. Listen to Rachel goes rogue on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

So I don't know if you picked up on it yet, everybody. But there's some low quality studies and even lower quality reporting. When it comes to something like multitasking, it's a bit of a wild west. Still, as far as our understanding of what the brain is doing and why we can't do it very well, we've got a general idea. I think we've kind of gotten that across. But there's enough leeway that people can come along with stupid, stupid studies, and the media will report on it breathlessly, and it'll turn out to just be not really right at all when you dive into the study.

Yeah. And I think a lot of those, at least in terms of this research, I thought came down to, well, who's better at this, men or women?

Right?

Is that what you were thinking?

Yeah, that's a huge part of it, for sure.

Yeah. Because they've done all kinds of studies, of course, because what better time to pour money into research than to pit men and women versus one another in a challenge, in a competition of multitasking and task switching? And there have been a lot of studies that do show some differences. A lot of them have been very inconsistent. A lot of the studies haven't been great. There have been studies that say that men are better at this. There have been. Studies say that women are better at this. So I don't even know what to think.

I think the answer is we don't really know yet, probably. So, yeah, there hasn't been, like, a really good study or series of studies on it. I also don't think it matters. But who knows? If we're on a quest to understand everything, including ourselves, and maybe it is worth investigating. The problem with the studies that have been done so far is they jump to massive conclusions based on really poor data sometimes. There was this one that the media was like, this guy did it. Proved it. Women are better at multitasking than men. And when you read into it, you find that the response time of women was about 69%, compared to 77% of men. So men had an 8% slower response time at multitasking task. And then to put the icing on the cake, they were worse at a lost key task. And get this, this is the lost key task. You take a blank piece of paper, and you show the researcher how you would go find a key, imagining the blank piece of paper as a field, and the key is in there somewhere. It's one of the most objectively interpreted tests I've ever heard of in my life.

And men were apparently not as good at it or drew fewer lines than women did. Hence further supporting the idea that women were better at multitasking than men because they could find a key in a field better, imaginarily speaking.

Is it like a maze?

No, it's a blank piece of paper. And you show how you would cross this field to look everywhere for the key. I saw an example.

Oh, okay.

An example from a woman was just a series of lines back and forth crossing the entire paper. Okay.

That's what I would do.

For some reason, a man who had completely taken leave of his senses made a circle design, like a swirl, starting from the inside out, and then missed some corners of the paper. So, clearly, women are better at multitasking than men.

Yeah, that is very interesting and so subjective. You're right, because, I don't know, I feel like if you got 100 people, there would be 100 different scribbles.

Yeah, exactly. And then who are you, the researcher, to be like, that's a pretty good strategy for finding a key you pass.

I have seen studies. There was one from Penn medicine that found that men, on average or are better at performing and learning a single task, whereas women are better with their memory, they have a better memory and better social cognition skills that suggest that they may be more apt to be better at multitasking.

So that's another study that you can poke a bunch of holes in. The study didn't do anything with multitasking. It was a brain imaging study that looked at the connectome, how the brains of men and women are connected and found some differences in the directions of the connections. Men had more connections from front to rear and rear to front. Women had more connections from left to right hemisphere. And that's it. That's what it found. And for some reason in the press releases and what the media picked up, that was immediately translated and extrapolated into women being better at memory and social cognition, and men are better at navigating directions. That's what I'm talking about. I feel like this has devolved into be careful what you read kind of lesson, but that's always a good lesson to include.

Yeah. As far as media goes, we've talked a lot about smartphones and stuff like that. It's sort of a different deal these days, because in the old days, there would usually be a media. It's called an exchange of media. So tv comes along and replaces radio. Something might replace print. New equipment replaces the old equipment. But now technology has moved such that things are being stacked since the advent of the Internet and smartphones and tv and gaming and texting and emailing, like, things have stacked upon one another such that they've done studies where they found in the late 90s, about 16% of time, media time was concurrent or combined, basically. And I tried to get something a little more up to date than this, but just six years later, in 2005, that went up to 26% of media being used together. And I guarantee you that number is way, way bigger now.

So the most recent I could find was in 2011, and it was up to 30%. I mean, think about the difference between what technology you have in your house in 2024 and what you had in 2011.

Yeah, I remember our old buddy Luke Ryan. Remember Luke?

Yeah.

He's like an executive in tv and film and stuff. And I remember this is very early on where he talked about the multi screen experience and that they were all searching how to crack that. And I was like, what do you mean? He's like, if you're looking at your iPad while you watch tv. And it was so early in that technology that I was like, what?

That's so weird. Right?

And now I just feel like even I fall into the trap, even when I'm watching things I like of being distracted by my phone, which I hate doing. I really try to make an effort if it's not just some throwaway, dumb thing I'm watching, to really like, all right, pretend like I'm in a movie theater and put that thing away.

Yeah, but it does take effort, doesn't it? Takes conscious effort.

It does.

So one of the weird things about media multitasking was what that's called when you have multiple screens that you're looking at at the same time. Getting multiple inputs makes you dumber. Well, there's no study that shows that necessarily. There has been a study that it's related to a lower density of gray matter in the back of your brain, but that hasn't necessarily been shown to be a bad thing. And is that the result of it, we don't know. I think the thing that interested me about it is that there's a group of people who were accidentally discovered just a few years back from some University of Utah researchers that they're considered supertaskers to where they were part of a study of just finding out differences in multitasking and cost switching. Just a general study on multitasking. And they accidentally discovered this small, small group of people who there was no effect on performance when they were doing performing multitasking. They were just as good doing it at the same time as they would have been doing it sequentially. And with this one article I read about it, they were kind of positing like, why is this such a small population?

I think they found like two and a half percent out of 400 people. Just a handful. Do the math yourself, because I'm done. Were super taskers. And they were wondering if there's such a small population because it's a newly developing trait amongst humans.

Like a new benefit.

Yeah, because we're doing things like exposing ourselves to so many different inputs of information at once. Some of us are getting better at it sooner than others and that maybe we'll all be super taskers in 100 or 200 years or something like that.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, I think.

I thought so too.

So to finish up earlier, we said obviously to turn off those notifications and things like that. As far as how to focus more, how to get a little bit better at this, try and turn off the email, certainly turn off social media and things like that. If you have to sit down and accomplish like a. Well, not even at the computer. If you want to sit down and read a book or do anything and you're getting notifications, it can redirect you. There is a method that you found called the Pomodoro technique, created by Francisco Cerillo. And basically there are these pomodoro's timer, but you can find them online if you want. They're very kind of clean and simple. But you decide at a task, you set your little timer for 25 minutes and you work on that task until the little timer goes off. You record a little x there and take a break for 5 minutes and then go back to your work. And then every time you have four of those. So 25 times four, however many minutes, that is.

Well, plus the breaks too.

Well, yeah, plus the breaks. Then you take a longer break. You take a ten minute break before you go back. And apparently it's a pretty good technique.

Yeah. So during that time, like all your emails off, all your notifications are off. Your ringers are off. During that 25 minutes period, you are heads down focusing on that task. Yeah, if you're into time management stuff, that's a good way to go.

Totally. But some people are like, no, who cares? I love being distracted with all that stuff.

Yeah, those are women because they're better super taskers than men, apparently.

That sounds like it.

If you want to know more about multitasking, then you can go read all about it on the Internet and see what you think of the quality of studies that have been produced on it so far. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you won't. That's okay, because we're all people. And since I said that baffling thing, it's time for listener mail.

That's right, this pretty delightful email. Sometimes when we talk about stuff, we hear from actual people that were involved in that stuff. It's great. And this one was an actual student of the Spruce elementary school in San Francisco that was a part of that pioneering program in the 1960s that we talked about in the Pygmalion show. So hey guys, I'm a 66 year old man, retired elementary music teacher from California, city councilman in Siriana, Italy and an alum of Spruce elementary school in south San Francisco. My husband and I usually fall asleep to your show and replay the show in the morning. Catch what we missed. When the Sandman arrived last night, I was on the brink of slumber and I heard Spruce school. I woke my snoring partner and made him replay the podcast from the beginning. And needless to say, I was wide awake the entire show and stayed up late into the night. In the morning hours, scouring the Internet for Pygmalion in the classroom. I was flabbergasted to say the least, to learn that I was part of that experiment. Also surprised to learn Dr. Lenore Jacobson is still with us.

At 101 years old, I entered the Spruce school as a kindergartner in the fall of 1962, the same year, actually mid year when Dr. Lenore Jacobson became principal. Dr. Jacobson left after my fifth grade year in 68. My head is reeling at this point, guys. I've ordered the book, the first edition coming from the UK. I made a mental list of my classmates who I'm going to send to your podcast. I remember the testing. We thought they were fun. Actually. I was a bit of a class clown and always one of my teachers'pets. My memory has always been sharp and can remember several personal interactions with Dr. Jacobson in her office. You boys have given me a wonderful assignment as I trip down memory lane. And that is from the city councilman of Siriana, Italy, none other than Bob Guillorsi.

Very nice, Bob. I love that email. He didn't realize what he'd been through until he heard the podcast. It's just nuts to me. I love it.

Amazing. Great to hear from you, Bob.

Yeah, for sure, Bob. And if you want to be like Bob and just knock our socks off, give it a shot. Do it via email, though. Wrap it up, spank it on the bottom, and send it off to stuffpodcast@iheartradio.com.

Stuff you should know is a production of iHeartradio. For more podcasts my heart radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

White's important irish art auction is on view this week. See exceptional works by William Scott, Paul Henry, Jack Yates, Nora McGinnis, Dan O'Neill, Louis LeBrocki, and many others. On view this week at 38 Mulswit street and online at Whites, ie Whites, where irish art is truly valued.

Hey, it's Alec Baldwin. This past season on my podcast, here's the thing. I spoke with more actors, musicians, policymakers, and so many other fascinating people like jazz bassist Christian McBride.

Jazz is based on improvisation, but there's very much a form to it. You have a conversation based on that melody and those chord changes. So it's kind of like giving someone a topic and say, okay, talk about this.

Listen to the new season of here's the thing on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm John Cipher. And I'm Jerry O'Shea. We spent over 30 years in the CIA uncovering global conspiracies. Conspiracies aren't just a theory to us, which is why we started our podcast, guest mission implausible. Everyone has questions about conspiracy theories, but with our background, we can actually answer those questions. Anyone can just start screaming about microchips and jewish space lasers.

But it's our mission to remove the.

Bull and get down to what's real. Listen to mission implausible on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.