Serious Multitaskers Can Have 43 Hour Days?

from the ah,-those-43-hours-days dept

Fri, Sep 29th 2006 5:28am — Mike Masnick

Not quite sure what to make of this, but, for those of you who complain about there not being enough hours in the day, you should be happier that you live in a world with the technology we have today. Rather than changing around your sleep schedule to squeeze in those extra hours, Yahoo thinks you should just be multitasking. According to a new study (sponsored by Yahoo) new technologies allow families to cram 43 hours of activity into a single day. Of course, it's not really clear what this means, and the article only suggests it's the result of people multi-tasking, and doing things that overlap (like surfing the web while watching TV). But, from the short description, it's not really clear if those things should really be counted as additional hours. Is surfing the internet a separate task from instant messaging? The article makes it sound like it's counted that way. Plus, even when people are multitasking like that, they're not giving their full attention to most of the things they're doing -- so it seems unrealistic to count them as additional "hours." Even then, it's hard to see how all of that is going to add an extra 19 hours to your day. It might have been a more interesting study if it meant people had an extra 19 hours compared to some time in the past. Things like dishwashers, washing machines and other types of technology clearly do save some time -- but it doesn't sound like that's what this study covered. Either way, even if it's true that we have so many more hours of "stuff happening" in a day, it seems to have the opposite effect of more time on most people. Plenty of people simply feel overwhelmed, and feel that they get less done with so much going on all the time.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Melle G, 29 Sep 2006 @ 5:53am

Polyphasic sleeping worked for me though
Heya,

Just wanted to say that Polyphasic Sleeping worked for me, I just couldn't continue doing this because I drove my girlfriend crazy being on such a sleeping pattern. I tried this for almost a week and the amount of hours I gained every day was stunning. Midnight coding never seemed so easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vasco DaGameboy, 29 Sep 2006 @ 7:23am

The truth of TimeCube proves this, dumbasses
Geez this sounds eerily like the acclaimed internet celebrity and paranoid schizophrenic Gene Ray and his insane TimeCube rantings (http://www.timecube.com). According to him there are 4 simultaneous 24 hour days, so really we should be able to take advantage of 96 hours each day!

I contend that there are 8 simultaneous days, but scientists won't consider my TimeOctahedron theory because they are dumbasses and evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanguine Dream, 29 Sep 2006 @ 7:32am

Its not a matter of saving time...
the problem is as soon as someone figures out a way to save time they immediatly try to figure out a way to sqeeze in a new activity or task. Corporations are espcially bad for this. Why do you think they are willing to give their people fancy laptops, cell phones, and blackberries? By giving that stuff them they have essentially taken control of a majority of their day by expecting them to answer their phone, email, or whatever at damn near anytime of day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Celes, 29 Sep 2006 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: Its not a matter of saving time...
  Amen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 29 Sep 2006 @ 8:11am

A better question is...
...(for investors of Yahoo, of which I am not)... why is Yahoo wasting its $$ on a study to determine such things? How does it add to the bottom line? Should it be implied that if I Yahoo search, IM and web surf their content I can get another 19 hours into my day?

I'm missing the point of them sponsoring such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Annoying Bastard, 29 Sep 2006 @ 8:50am

Just further evidence...
that Yahoo has lost its direction completely.

I wonder how much of this study was done to cover for slackers abusing telecommuting privileges? :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2006 @ 8:50am

Off Topic
This is off topic, but I just heard myspace is valued at 15 billion. Did TechDirt not just run a story about how stupid rupert was?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2006 @ 9:07am
  
  Re: Off Topic
  you heard wrong. it will be worth 15 billion in 3 years
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JG, 29 Sep 2006 @ 9:48am

Aren't there more than 43 hours for families?
The study suggests a FAMILY can cram 43 hours of activity into a day. Assuming at leat two people in the family, aren't there at least 48 hours in the day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam Jusko, 29 Sep 2006 @ 10:49am

This one time I fell asleep with the TV on, which allowed me to cram in 16 hours of activity that night. It was awesome.

The only unfortunate thing is that I didn't leave the radio on and have a book spread out over my face while I was sleeping. Can you imagine the hours of activity I would've racked up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2006 @ 11:32am

So if I have my laptop on while I sleep, and it has a word document I've been working on up on the screen, can I bill my company for my sleep time? Obviously I was multitasking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haggie, 29 Sep 2006 @ 11:38am

Slow Down!
I think people need to slow down and learn to appreciate what is around them at the moment.

Pull the iPod plugs out of your ears.
Put down your Crackberry.
Put your cell phone away.
Take a look around.
Listen to your world.
Intereact with the people around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2006 @ 12:07pm

Times A Wasting
Fill every second of your life with work. God knows chasing after paper currency is the purpose of life. You don't want to die a peasant, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- I Am Such A Coward!, 29 Sep 2006 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re: Times A Wasting
  I'm breathing, typing, and thinking at the same time (look, no hands!!!). How much am I saving compared to how much I just lost?
  TechDirt is my favorite site to read off the wall articles that resemble poor comedic attempts such as those made by Al Franken-stein.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2006 @ 9:27pm

Washing machines do NOT save time
A study found people spent the same amount of time each week handling laundry, the only difference was with a washing machine the clothes were washed much more often (i.e. worn once instead of four or five times before washing). The real winners here were clothing manufacturers, as more wash=more wear, so clothes have to be replaced quicker.

The old dishwashers that required you to wash the dishes first didn't save much time, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]