You Were Obvious Before You Even Began to Type

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

ZoeTick wrote

---

---

 the truth being that men are better multi-taskers when they think it necessary, but are much better decision makers when it comes to prioritising tasks and completing them, whereas the female of the species tends to prevaricate and thus juggles lots of activities, unnecessarily and inefficiently.

---

Source?   Because, studies I've read say there is no, "multitasking", instead our brains switch gears between tasks.  Some brains do this faster than others.  

 

"Sadly, multitasking does not exist, at least not as we think about it. We instead switch tasks."

https://hbr.org/2010/12/you-cant-multi-task-so-stop-tr/

 

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2001/08/multitasking.aspx

 

So, it wouldn't matter when men

think

it's necessary, they do the same gear switching as women, just slower. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24645100

 

(Also, note that within the BBC article is links to other studies.  I'd be willing to wager that as more studies are done on this topic, that women will consistently, (on average) out-perform men.   After all, men were needed for brawn, prior to modern times, not brains.  So, evolution hasn't brought men up to speed...yet.  ; )

 

 

---

The multitasking we do is at the subconscious level, which really isn't what multitasking discussions are generally about. I can breathe, swing my leg over the end of the pier, eat pizza, and carry on a conversation, all at the same time. People have claimed I do all of those things without thinking. Consciously, it certainly feels to me as the research indicates. I drop one task to pick up another. This explains a life full of dropped tasks.

Meanwhile, I get slips of paper under the door from my subconscious, which seems to have been furiously working away on something that vexed me a few minutes earlier, like trying to remember the name that goes with the face in front of me at a party. Hence the phrase "it'll come to me later". That is multitasking, but not the kind I can direct. The brain has a mind of its own and it's often elsewhere.

And the oft stated idea that young people, having been brought up in a more complex society filled with technological distractions, are better at multitasking just ain't true. They're as bad at it as the rest of us. Many don't understand the pace of human evolution. Auto accidents will not have time to weed out those who "multitask" poorly while driving, as we'll have had less than 7 or so generations of humans between the advent of the automobile and the advent of autonomous automobiles.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that more studies show women outperforming men. Then we'll then be arguing whether that's because more women are performing the studies. Unfortunately our recent STEM trends are going the wrong way.

;-).

[ZoeTick]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that more studies show women outperforming men. Then we'll then be arguing whether that's because more women are performing the studies. Unfortunately our recent STEM trends are going the wrong way.

---

No, it'll be because there's no grant money in reaffirming what is patently obvious; instead, funding will be given to studies (probably conducted by ESLers of indeterminate gender) which select elements of "multi-tasking" (as long as they aren't actually simultaneous tasks, for reasons elucidated previously) which will generate headlines supporting apparent female superiority.

They will also probably exclude all those things that men have learned to do subconsciously, that women have to think about, as you have described above. Other examples include deciding what clothes to wear and shaving.

Did you know the REAL reason women live longer than men?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every time they evacuate their bowels they sit down and rest.

[ZoeTick]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Now, 

that

would be almost worth a tedious search through the forum archives. :-)

---

Perhaps I can be of some assistance in the matter.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

ZoeTick wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Now, 

that

would be almost worth a tedious search through the forum archives. :-)

---

Perhaps I can be of some assistance in the matter.

---

Wow.

:-o

Before my time, I think. 

[ZoeTick]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

---

ZoeTick wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Now, 

that

would be almost worth a tedious search through the forum archives. :-)

---

Perhaps I can be of some assistance in the matter.

---

Wow.

:-o

Before my time, I think. 

---

And Pep was rather more than a callow youth even then . . .

. . . but the predecessors of the LWL took him much too seriously.

I think the fragrant Marianne Little is the only contributor to that thread still posting to these forums.

Although of course some may now be using alts!

[LaskyaClaren]

---

ZoeTick wrote:

And Pep was rather more than a callow youth even then . . .

. . . but the predecessors of the LWL took him much too seriously.

I think the fragrant Marianne Little is the only contributor to that thread still posting to these forums.

Although of course some may now be using alts!

---

I doubt that there are many still around using alts. They (like I) would undoubtedly betray themselves by their style, or by responding to echoes of past interactions. 

The thing that struck me immediately was how very different the forum culture was on RA. The use of ResMods is one reason for that, I guess: it was certainly much more of a "Wild West," in some ways -- but there was also more confidence, I think, in the ability of the mods to shut down really nasty flame wars. Or perhaps we just had thicker skins?

(Disclosure: I'm pretty sure I recognize "Blyss" by her posting style. Or maybe not. But the whole incident is ringing bells like mad, even though I don't think I was yet on the forums at that point.)

[ZoeTick]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

The use of ResMods is one reason for that, I guess:

---

Unfortunately, a couple of the ResMods were hypersensitive catlovers and feminists, and other hypersensitive catlovers and feminists only had to sniff about meanness (a concept not even then incorporated in the ToS) or perceived misogyny and threads were locked, although rarely were posts actually removed, except for the odd dead cat or spider images.

Threads involving mental illness, however, were removed extremely promptly, so it wasn't all bad.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

ZoeTick wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

The use of ResMods is one reason for that, I guess:

---

Unfortunately, a couple of the ResMods were hypersensitive catlovers and feminists, and other hypersensitive catlovers and feminists only had to sniff about meanness (a concept not even then incorporated in the ToS) or perceived misogyny and threads were locked, although rarely were posts actually removed, except for the odd dead cat or spider images.

Threads involving mental illness, however, were removed extremely promptly, so it wasn't all bad.

---

Funny that, being a feminist and all myself, I didn't have quite that same sense.

It's true, though, that I didn't start having posts and threads removed through moderation until I immigrated here.

 

ETA: Kelli May still posts here.

[DejaHo]

---

ZoeTick wrote:

<snip>

although rarely were posts actually removed, except for the odd dead cat. . .

---

 

Absolutely beautiful. 

[DejaHo]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Funny that,

being a feminist

and all myself, I didn't have quite that same sense.

 

---

Then you must be a fourth-waver.  

[LaskyaClaren]

---

DejaHo wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Funny that,

being a feminist

and all myself, I didn't have quite that same sense.

 

---

Then you must be a fourth-waver.  

---

I am my own wave. ;-)

[LaskyaClaren]

---

DejaHo wrote:

---

ZoeTick wrote:

<snip>

although rarely were posts actually removed, except for the odd dead cat. . .

---

 

Absolutely beautiful. 

---

Actually, "absolutely beautiful" is exactly what it wasn't, in any sense.

This is, in SL terms, ancient history now, but that particular case is not irrelevant to my OP.

Firstly, because it employed an image which, like Derek's screenshots I suppose, wouldn't be caught by an algorithm seeking to identify or predict trolling. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it would be a relatively simply matter to evade the detection of an algorithm searching for particular types of language, or "irrelevancy." I'd hazard a guess that Pep, who is was (as I've mentioned before) the most accomplished and effective troll I've ever known, would fly beneath the radar almost all of the time.

The second reason the dead cat incident is telling is because, when Pep first posted it, it was not, I suspect, with the intention of creating quite the sh*tstorm that it ended up producing. I think it was, more or less, a nasty joke: respond to annoying lolcats with a picture of a dead cat.

So, had I been a ResMod, I'd have been at least a little forgiving of Pep's first posting of the pic, because I don't think that even he realized how much it would upset people. I'd have removed the post, and maybe issued a warning to Pep.

What was less forgivable -- inexcusable, in fact -- was Pep's decision to repost the picture on subsequent occasions, deliberately, because he knew how upset it made some people. That was pure trolling -- and had I been a ResMod in those situations (there was at least one that I remember, but I think more) I'd have banned him outright.

The point is that the first posting of the pic could, in the context of the discussion in which it appeared, easily (and I think correctly) have been read as little more than a joke in particularly poor taste. The subsequent posting(s), on the other hand, weren't merely "provocative": they were deliberately and consciously cruel.

They haven't yet invented the algorithm that can read with that kind of subtlety, nor that can apply an awareness of context and history in quite that way. For that, you need a human moderator.

[Kelli May]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

... 

ETA: Kelli May still posts here.

---

I do indeed, although I wasn't sure what the relevance of that was until I read the old forum thread. Not that I was any more involved with that thread than I have been with this one. More of an 'I was there' moment than anything else.

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

... 

ETA: Kelli May still posts here.

---

I do indeed, although I wasn't sure what the relevance of that was until I read the old forum thread. Not that I was any more involved with that thread than I have been with this one. More of an 'I was there' moment than anything else.

---

Yep. It was really just an aside, sponsored (in fact) by my surprise at seeing you in that thread, and the suggestion that Marianne was the only person left from that era still posting here.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

ZoeTick wrote:

 

Humans do multi-task; for example, the medulla oblongata operates independently of, say, the areas of the brain involved with reading a book, to moderate breathing in response to carbon dioxide levels in the blood.

 

---

We're not discussing the autonomic nervous system, or cellular functions.   So, not relevant.

 

 

 

---

ZoeTick wrote:

 

Some links that I never posted....

So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway...

 

---

Odd.  The links you're refuting, aren't the one's I posted.   Perhaps, the multitasking was too much for you.

 

I'm game for the hug though, as you could probably use it.  ; )

 

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

. And I have seen at least one person who posts here identified, over and over again, as a sort of

Moriarty figure

who has quietly masterminded a plot that involves manipulating posters as though they were pawns on a chess board, all in the pursuit of . . . well, I'm not quite sure what.

---

More like Dr. Frankenstein, who in a fit of social engineering, created a monster.

 

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Drama and cliquishness are grotty and fairly pathetic, not embued with magical power. Let's demystify, and c

all a spade a spade, as they say.

---

Uh, did you not understand about the ARs?    Can't say directly, as EVERY goddamn thing that got close to calling them out for what, and who, got reported.  Cloaking the language was the only way. 

 

Besides, the code name gives you something to rail about...  ; ) 

 

 

 

 

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

The multitasking we do is at the subconscious level, which really isn't what multitasking discussions are generally about.

---

Exactly.   I didn't refer to any autonomic responses.  That was from one of the....ahem...men...who got off track. 

*chuckling*

 

 

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

 the advent of autonomous automobiles.

---

They better hurry.  I don't want to multitask while in the car, I want to take a nap.

 

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Then we'll then be arguing whether that's because more women are performing the studies. Unfortunately our recent STEM trends are going the wrong way.

---

Yes, and my theory on the "why" of the current women vs men in STEM unbalance, is predicated on academic depts deliberately choosing women (over men), to try and achieve the mythical biological sex balance that they're supposed to strive for.  Only, like most artificial setups, they let the pendulum swing too far.

 

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

. And I have seen at least one person who posts here identified, over and over again, as a sort of

Moriarty figure

who has quietly masterminded a plot that involves manipulating posters as though they were pawns on a chess board, all in the pursuit of . . . well, I'm not quite sure what.

---

More like Dr. Frankenstein, who in a fit of social engineering, created a monster.

 

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

Drama and cliquishness are grotty and fairly pathetic, not embued with magical power. Let's demystify, and c

all a spade a spade, as they say.

---

Uh, did you not understand about the ARs?    Can't say directly, as EVERY goddamn thing that got close to calling them out for what, and who, got reported.  Cloaking the language was the only way. 

 

Besides, the code name gives you something to rail about...  ; ) 

 

 

 

 

---

I take your point about not naming names, but that's not quite what I meant by calling a spade a spade; really, what I was getting at is that the LWL seems to have been elevated to the status of something terrifically powerful and frightening, when what we're really talking about is, at best, a small clique of individuals. It's a lot more fun and flattering to picture oneself in combat with dragons, but the truth is more often that we are really just shooing away annoying rodents.

But, as I said, I really have very little idea of what actually happened, and I think I know only one or two of those involved well, so I'm not qualified to comment on what happened. I do think that "Frankenstein" is likely to be a better characterization of the aforesaid Evil Genius, based on what I know of her (and I do know her somewhat well). But she doesn't require me to defend her: she'd be more than capable of doing so herself if she thought it worth her while.

If ARs were being tossed about gratuitously and malicious, then I am certainly sorry to hear it. They are (and this applies to RICs on the forum too) to my mind a last resort, not to be used lightly, if at all.

 

PS. I'm actually rather proud of myself for not having ranted -- in this particular exchange anyway -- about the implicit misogyny of the term. Can I take your comment to represent permission to do so? ;-)

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

aforesaid

Evil

middling to meddlesome

Genius

smarter than the average poster, based on what I know of her (and I do know her somewhat well).

---

Oh, you don't know her until you dance naked with her!  ; )

 

 

 

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

PS. I'm actually rather proud of myself for 

not

having ranted -- in this particular exchange anyway -- about the implicit misogyny of the term.

Can I take your comment to represent permission to do so? ;-)

---

 

My motto:   "I'd rather beg forgiveness, than ask permission."     (you can use this as your guide : )

 

(Ok, not really on the beg part, screw that....*laughing*)

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

aforesaid

Evil

middling to meddlesome

Genius

smarter than the average poster, based on what I know of her (and I do know her somewhat well).

---

Oh, you don't know her until you dance naked with her!  ; )

 

 

 

---

/me ponders a moment.

No . . . I don't think I've done that . . .

 

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

 

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

PS. I'm actually rather proud of myself for 

not

having ranted -- in this particular exchange anyway -- about the implicit misogyny of the term.

Can I take your comment to represent permission to do so? ;-)

---

 

My motto:   "I'd rather beg forgiveness, than ask permission."     (you can use this as your guide : )

 

(Ok, not really on the beg part, screw that....*laughing*)

---

Oh goodie!!!

 

I'll have my slightly apologetic 1200-word essay on the subject posted by tomorrow morning! ;-)

[ZoeTick]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

ZoeTick wrote:

 

Humans do multi-task; for example, the medulla oblongata operates independently of, say, the areas of the brain involved with reading a book, to moderate breathing in response to carbon dioxide levels in the blood.

 

---

We're not discussing the autonomic nervous system, or cellular functions.   So, not relevant.

 

 

 

Yes we are. Multi-tasking is multi-tasking. Cognitive multi-tasking is an entiely different concept, and has not been specified as a subject for discussion heretofore.

---

ZoeTick wrote:

 

Some links that I never posted....

So don't worry too much about it, Celestiall, I'll give you a hug anyway...

 

---

Odd.  The links you're refuting, aren't the one's I posted. 

 

 

One link was to populist journalistic reformulations of already junk science, so I tried to dig deeper to see what the study

actually

said. My experience of interpretations of sensational research is pretty much the same as that of rugby matches I have played in, descriptions of which were generally written up without the correspondents moving from the bar and using an out-of-date version of the match programme.

One link was to something only semi-relevant to multi-tasking gender differences and focused on the costs of task switching, not multi-tasking itself; that is rather like looking at the salaries of quarter backs rather than examining their pass completion and interception statistics in trying to explain their teams' success or failure.

And f course I ignored the Harvard Business Review link, as it was the usual HBR emotionally confused mashup reflection on stuff they don't understand; they should stick to getting business matters completely wrong ahead of time, and right in retrospect.

---

 

[ZoeTick]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

 

I'm game for the hug though, as

you could probably use it

.  ; )

 

 

---

Thanks for the offer, but I don't need one, actually.

Not just because I am male, but I tend to interpret hugs as a mechanism to get close enough to filch stuff from my wallet.

Which manouevre my daughter is perfecting in the (alas temporary) absence of my wife, who is sailing the Aegean with her ex-boss.

[ZoeTick]

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

... 

ETA: Kelli May still posts here.

---

I do indeed, although I wasn't sure what the relevance of that was until I read the old forum thread. Not that I was any more involved with that thread than I have been with this one. More of an 'I was there' moment than anything else.

---

Sorry Kelli, I didn't notice your contribution.

Perhaps because it was not sufficiently hyperdramatic.

[ZoeTick]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

 

I'd hazard a guess that Pep, who

is

was (as I've mentioned before) the most accomplished and effective troll I've ever known, would fly beneath the radar almost all of the time.

---

Pep always obeyed the letter of the law in regard to the detailed, if vague, content of the CG/ToS, although not necessarily the spirit.

Up until they used the catchall: "the actions taken (or not taken) by Linden Lab and our moderators are at our sole discretion, and we may act without warning or explanation".

Which Pep considered a display of gutless cowardice, and an admission of what has proved to be impotence, in practice.

[ZoeTick]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I don't think that even he realized how much it would upset people.

---

The image was artistic, the feline not even looking deceased, appearing as if it was merely relaxing, floating in a moire of raindrops. It was an attractive, provocative, wordless version of Pep's forum messages, and much less upsetting to the cognoscenti than anthropomorphised ESLers.

You should have seen the images Pep discarded - because they would really have upset people.

Mostly along the lines of a visual answer to the old question: "What's black and white and red all over".

But I don't suppose you'd like to see Postman Pat's cat after he had accidentally run over it, or an illustration of the recipe which starts by saying "put the kitten in the microwave for 23 seconds"