mambloo
103952
3571
121
Dec 8, 2015 5:40 AM
mambloo
103952
3571
121
nopolorequired
So, the fan I use for white noise... Bad?
bwandee
This is seriously too long, if it's for concentration. I don't know what it's for, I stopped after the second thing...
Psychedelicious
But juggling is good for you and your brain and shit don't let the post mislead you with its pictures.
FishOnTheInternetz
Get friends or a gf/bf. Hug him/her everyday when you see him/her. Everything is more easy if you feel happy while doing it. I am not happy.
volatiley
Very few people are capable of multitasking
cliojayne
Capable of effectively multitasking. Although many, such as myself are more productive when our brain is given something to concentrate 1/2
cliojayne
On such as music or something in the background so that our own thoughts don't distract us too badly. source: I can't single task at all 2/2
PlatypusOnFire
These could all have been easily replaced with "Get off imgur".
iamthisguy247
Easier said than done.
ByThePowerOfSCIENCE
Instructions unclear. Got off on Imgur.
WTBPandaCubs
.
BemusedPotato
carolinaguuurl
As a mother, I haven't been able to focus on anything for 16 years
CaffeinatedSlacker
"Moderate doses," pffffft, noob
Verldemert
Multitasking is a myth. It is not possible for your brain to focus on more than one thing at a time.
Slash0mega
multitasking is rappidly switching between tasks, not litterally doing 2 things at once,
Verldemert
No. "Human multitasking is the apparent performance by an individual of handling more than one task, or activity, at the same time".
bazookasoup
well, i drink caffeine, take brakes, multitask (games and netflix) so i guess you could say i do alright
Fincozmoz
#3: THAT'S why body builders are so smart!
District9HasFoundTheMechsuit
I can't not multitask. Trying to do one single mental thing at once makes me lazy and distracted. Your uncited science isn't a guarantee.
fromsquareone
As a scientist I studied this post and suggest if you're going to post things which claim to be scientifically backed post sources
Thisismyusernamenotyoursitsmine
Science>punctuation
TonyBalogna
Shots fired!
Ohmydicksmalltoo
Oh shit!
TeammateAssist
What about sources regarding posts which are scientifically-backed? What do I do?
FairylandTrashCollector
I am pretty skilled in embrace boredom.
SiennaSquigs
Cat tax confirmed
Ynigmatik
I work 3rd shift no sleeping at night I do drink lots of caffeine probly too much and multitskng is less efficent at some time but it wrks
frostbittenkingdoms
#5. Starbucks dishwater? Seriously. How about real coffee.
AelatheCuntress
caffeine is stimulating? a thing of profundity, this post
LizardEnterprises
Backed by "Science", but not by citations, statistics, or peer review.
ferdturguson
If you don't cite sources, I assume your "science" is random facebook posts.
jimmySteve1
Everything should be taken in moderation, including moderation,so give me more......moderately
howToLoseTheGame
I can't work offline. I rely too much on stackoverflow
DignamWhenAskedaQuestion
i didn't understand the third to last one....................
goochua
Also, try micro-dosing LSD.
Psychedelicious
Agreed! I get shit done when I'm micro-dosing
StephenMoffatMustdie
or macro dosing nootroprics
StephenMoffatMustdie
phenibut, noopept, Huprezine-A, vinpocetine, aniracetam, Sulbutiamine, bacopa, rhodiola....
fuckmotheringvampyre
Makes just sitting around that much more interesting.
astrononerd
That, or nutropics as a legal option (piracetam, l-theanine, creatine)
StephenMoffatMustdie
phenibut, noopept, vinpocetine
Icosahedral
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
teratrain
i was going to post this, but you already did. thank you for your service.
vanfem
#12 is a bit troublesome when you're a web developer
Horsed
Only thing you need is a editor. Notepad should be enough ;)
vanfem
Not when you're working with a remote database
lookupnuggetporn
Studies suggest* they never show anything.
0Repostmalone0
"Scientists think" I thought the same thing. I'm glad scientists also think maybe possibly some of a little bit of this works
castleinthewind
You know what they meant, Mr Science Philosopher. Anyways, studies are consistent with, unless you have some sort of bias.
Waswat
The braintraining one is nonsense. Simply playing fun games works well: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131514001869
Waswat
To elaborate: Fun games = video games developed solely for fun*; as opposed to those developed for cognitive self-improvement
LuckyICantSeeFarWithThisLeg
Well, these are incredibly old so it's all common knowledge. The problem isn't that there's no source, it's that this will encourage kids1/2
LuckyICantSeeFarWithThisLeg
not to look it up and verify it themselves. 2/2
Icosahedral
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
JanMichaelVincent
That's correlation not causation, hombre. Because science.
mineovermatter
Also, what's the measure for "improve" or "increase"? A 1% subjective measure? Without a real measure it's all but meaningless.
longshorttermmemorynetwork
Most of these, at least, have been verified rather extensively.
OctoPlusNone
Then why are there no citations? OP could at least have linked to a metastudy.
Wastyvez
Because this is not aimed at an academic audience, simple as that;
OctoPlusNone
Any audience interested in the scientific backing of a statement is an academic audience. The title implies that science is important to OP.
Wastyvez
I think you gravely overestimate the intellect of an average person. Source referencing and scientific methodology would only confuse.
OctoPlusNone
To be clear I'm not trying to say that they're all false, I'm trying to say that OP is a lazy shit.
longshorttermmemorynetwork
Citations would have been nice. I've read studies and books on most of these, but I too don't really feel like writing a Works Cited page.
OctoPlusNone
But if OP didn't feel like writing a works cited, then they didn't feel like posting anything "backed by science."
longshorttermmemorynetwork
I agree. If you're going to post claims like that, you should show your research.