I used to have a double monitor setup and would program / play games / browse around on primary while watching a series on my secondary. But since some years ago I noticed that I can't do both at the same time anymore. Definitely programming while a series is on the background is a no-go, but if I play games I also just entirely miss the series (or vice versa).
Not sure if it has to do with getting older, or my primary monitor getting larger and taking up too much FOV. _Occasionally_ I'll run music videos in the "picture in picture mode" while working, but that's about it.
It’s physically impossible for the human brain to multitask like this (multiple streams that both require cognitive attention), and studies have shown that people who try to do this actually end up with long term damage to their ability to focus. It’s very likely that you never were able to do this, and at some point just hit a threshold of damage to your focus that you finally realized it.
Also, the same study showed that the people who multitask think they’re successful at it, however external observers can see that they’re not. This is why you have so many people who claim that they can do it.
I often tell people that, too. Because they usually claim to be multitasking to be more efficient.
But is this actually multitasking? When I did data entry, I could "read" forms and type them in while I listened to books on tape because I wasn't actually thinking about the data in the forms. How much cognitive load do the games take? Or the movies?
Further, if this is a pleasant experience, who gives a damn whether or not it's multitasking or real multitasking or optimal behavior? It's supposed to be enjoyable, so if we're going to measure anything, measure that.
> because I wasn't actually thinking about the data in the forms
Then that’s not a cognitive task, or at least one that requires the full brain. I would venture a guess that you might have been able to complete that task faster if you weren’t also listening to the books, or your error rate might have gone down. Or maybe you didn’t fully comprehend the books. Or maybe the material wasn’t too involved and missing some passages here and there didn’t make a difference.
> who gives a damn whether or not it's multitasking or real multitasking or optimal behavior?
Because attempting to multitask causes long term damage. One could say the same thing about drinking or drugs, and it’s clear that short term enjoyment can have negative long term effects.
I'm glad you came to your senses on this one. You were probably never properly experiencing both things. Giving each your full attention should result in a higher quality and more meaningful experience. I think it's more respectful to the media you're watching to give it your proper attention as well.
In the past I watched shows with a friend occasionally, and he had a nasty habit of whipping out an iPad mid-episode to look something up. He didn't even pause. Sometimes he'd fall asleep as well. Then he had the nerve to say things about how the show didn't make sense or he thought there were plot holes. I didn't agree, and I assume he just missed major bits by splitting his attention. It's always bothered me when people put on shows (not broadcast TV, but things watched intentionally) in the background or on a second monitor and then claim later that they've "watched" it. The way I see it, if you don't want to really watch it, then don't. Go do that other thing that's on your mind. Come back to the show later. Or if it really can't hold your attention, don't make yourself watch it at all.
Maybe this is why most high-budget shows today are more visual and action oriented with superficial plots, so you can watch them while not devoting your full attention. It certainly makes them easier to follow in this age of distractions and notifications.
How can you judge what is the "more meaningful experience" for someone else? I think that's entirely disrespectful of people. And I honestly don't care about having respect for media being consumed.
This reminds me of the (probably protestant-inspired) way that some people hold all books in reverence, afraid to scribble in them, dogear them, or rip any pages.
I read "probably" as implying uncertainty, but I concur with his assessment. When I was around 20-25 I used to program or game while watching TV while listening to music, and it felt good because my brain craved overstimulation during that period. In retrospective, my main focus was the computer, the distant second focus was the TV, and the background noise was the music. I wasn't gaining a lot by doing the three at once.
I still prefer strongly two monitors over one big for work and programming but! The content must be one. It's either result in one screen and code in other or reference email in one and code in other etc. Two monitors is a way to go, if the content is the same.
No messengers/YouTubes or anything unrelated open in any screens constantly. Phone behind monitor or somewhere away where I can't see it.
I started realizing that I wasn't picking up that much of the tv/movies that I'd have on in the background. I tend to do one thing at a time for the most part. Sometimes with background music but mostly not.
I used to watch mostly the law and order / CSI series while doing things. Which were almost all reruns to me, so I guess it doesn't require as intense processing, mostly reliving the plot points.
Sports, sports blather, and other things are also basically designed for intermittent attention in the modern American viewer, so those can also be background entertainment as well.
I guess this is what happens when you're a couple that likes having TV on in the background all the time, but also want to do other things on the TV while still having one on in the background.
This looks insane, but I bet a lot of people do the same thing, just with their own games or shows on tablets, laptops, phones, Switches, or gameboys, and the biggest screen just doing the background-noise-TV thing. In that case, three TVs is just formalizing that situation.
Controversial opinion: if your tv show or film isn't good enough to give it 100% of your attention, then don't watch it and give 100% of your attention to the competing multitask and do the other task better/faster.
Most tv and movies are simply not that good, and you can just ignore them.
This assumes every task will get done better/faster if you give it 100% of your attention and therefore "it is good enough to give it 100% of your attention" must be equal to "you are going to give it 100% of your attention".
A matchmaking screen, loading screen, unskippable cutscene you've already seen multiple times, orbital maneuver you have to wait for, game event you're waiting for like enough currency or materials to start your next project, and so on do not follow this assumption. In many cases these parts of the game actually get worse if you give them 100% of your attention.
I find Marvel movies in particular are better if I watch them somewhere I can use my phone or chat with people whenever I like. They're worse in the theater where I don't have anything to do but pay attention the entire time. They don't really reward close watching and the not-very-good nearly-all-CG action sequences tend to bore me at times.
I try to spend my time outside of work not staring at a screen, running, cycling, walking, swimming, cooking. I cannot imagine spending time and money perfecting a three television setup? Is there no regret for time wasted? A life wasted?
Your definition of a life 'unwasted' is no more or less correct than the article author's or anyone else's.
Perhaps the author spends their time running, walking, swimming, cooking, and jacking in to the three-tv-experience. You wouldn't know, but you judge nonetheless.
So you think them doing something they enjoy together is a life wasted? Why call someone else's choices wasting. I enjoy spending time with my kids and doing things with family. Should I tell a couple with no kids who travel they are wasting their lives by not having a family or am I the one wasting my life by not traveling? Seriously to each their own. Let people live without judging. How much life are you wasting by browsing HN?
I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, there is occasionally something magical about a living room with a television that brings a group of friends together. Especially for a new movie we all get excited about. It's too bad that is so rare.
Not sure why this sensible comment is being downvoted. The living room used to be a place for a family to congregate and spend time together doing shared activities. If everyone is on their own device… there is no opportunity for quality time and shared connection.
I think it's because two tvs on a wall tell you nothing about the way people spend the rest of their time away from the TV.
The living room hasn't changed. Instead of one person reading and one person on the TV; or one person doing crafts while another reads; two people are on two TVs. Why the moral panic?
Only so much as a pair of chairs for two family members to each sit and read a book in or a pair of bicycles for two family members to each ride is a step in the wrong direction.
To each their own I guess. But I'm with you, I got rid of my TV in the living room and put some house plants on the table instead. Now I just sit there in chill, no entertainment necessary. Sounds boring, but idk, I can just drink tea and daydream and be lazy for hours.
I did this in high school when I had a TV and computer in my room. DVDs of family guy or south park running nonstop while I played warcraft 3 on the computer. My attention span was essentially 0. At school, work or with friends I constantly felt like I needed to be somewhere or had something that was left undone, this is definitely damaging to the psyche.
You can get a refurbished Epson Home Cinema 1080p projector on eBay for like ~$350 and have a huge screen in your living room. It has a nice immersive effect that reduces the draw to engage in other content.
I am running into the problem of "too many TVs" already with real televisions, computer monitors, etc. I kinda want to buy a fancy 4K and HDR TV but I don't need it and I'm not sure how I'll change my room to find room for it.
I have been thinking about hacking projects like making a tinkerbell-sized Pepper's Ghost machine with a small screen and piece of space blanket.
If you have a lot of screens don't you have to start putting information displays on them?
Does anyone make a TV that can show PIP from different inputs? Seems like it'd be better to have one large display and then pipe everything into it
I was surprised/annoyed to find our new cable box (Spectrum) doesn't even do PIP at all - the previous Cisco one did, but it was very sluggish and eventually died
You could probably make something like this with a Raspberry Pi or media center. However you would have trouble with HDCP protected content. The TVs have a chip that decrypts the content from the provider (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc...) Without a valid HDCP key you can't composite the two video streams to make your PIP. So you are essentially stuck with what your TV can do unless you license an HDCP key for your device.
Luckily there are HDMI switches out there that can do this for you.
PIP stopped being cheap when everything started getting high bandwidth. I've never been a fan of the concept, but some of my screens can do it but only with some inputs, depends on the screen. Some screens can do side-by-side as well (usually messes up the aspect ratio), and I'd guess you can find some that will do a 2x2 grid, but you might need a video processor for that.
NEC digital signage displays can split the screen in various ways and show things from different inputs. I've also seen some Dell monitors advertised as able to do it. There's probably some sort of box you could put between the screen and all the devices to handle this for you as well.
They most likely are also using their phones during loading screens and commercial breaks. I would be interested to see if someone who has a setup like this could meditate or some other activity that doesn't have sensory overload.
This person seems to have some sort of problem or emptiness that they are trying to fill with media. I wonder if they could sit in silence with their own thoughts for 30 minutes without losing their mind.
Not sure if it has to do with getting older, or my primary monitor getting larger and taking up too much FOV. _Occasionally_ I'll run music videos in the "picture in picture mode" while working, but that's about it.