Message from discussion Multitasking: adaptacious or not so much?
Received: by 10.68.211.136 with SMTP id nc8mr348577pbc.6.1335376490963;
Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Multitasking: adaptacious or not so much?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:58:26 -0400
References: <email@example.com> <27892783.125.1335320400015.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbow2> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <0tOdnUccgL-rRgrSnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com> <email@example.com>
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1335377275 89647 18.104.22.168 (25 Apr 2012 18:07:55 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:07:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:37:12 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
>On Apr 25, 4:08 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And that's taking an adaptationist slant on the issue. Could be that
>> supertaskers have merely cultivated a skillset that is subject to
>> phenotypic plasticity (ie- learned).
>I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to explain to me how the
>ability to multitask is anything but adaptacious.... Still waiting.
Did you miss my previous post to you?
>Or please just admit that multitasking is a pure benefit, without
>exception, and riddle me this: why can only 2.5% of people multitask
>effectively? This is your burden to prove. According to Darwinistas,
>since people have been 'volving for grillions of years and
>multitasking is so adaptacious, we should all be smackscoop
>multitaskers. And yet, we're not. Sadly, we're typically capable of
>doing just one thing at a time with any facility.
>I'm also wondering why I don't have wings, considering my grandma was
>a fruitfly, according to some man with a PhD, huzzah huzzah.
>I'm also wondering why I don't have eyes in the back of my head. Can
>you think of a single downside to 360-degree vision? Again, I can't.