Say what you mean and mean what you say. A lot of arguments these days are about the meaning and usage of words. I’m increasingly dealing with this as a qualitative researcher. For one thing, the term ‘focus group’ gets used incorrectly all the time. But more importantly, understanding what research participants mean is tricky, as words are more emotionally loaded than they used to be. This makes my profession particularly valuable, as humans are very good (maybe better than robots) at parsing and understanding language.

Not only is language particularly fraught nowadays, a lot of terms are being bandied about thoughtlessly and indiscriminately.  Here are a few:

Fascism

Socialism

Genocide

Violence

I could go on, but you get the idea. These are important words. They refer to significant, real-world phenomena. When we use them incorrectly, attaching them to things they don’t accurately describe, we rob them of their meaning. When we call every unpleasant experience ‘trauma,’ the term loses the precision that makes it useful.

English has one of the largest vocabularies of any language – well over 100,000 words. There’s no reason to use the wrong word when the right one almost certainly exists.

I’ve heard people say that, while they know they are using a loaded word incorrectly, they’re doing it to ‘make a point.’ I get the sentiment. But we can make ourselves understood without, as Shakespeare might have said, ‘abusing the King’s English.’ You could argue that deliberately using a word incorrectly might be a subtle form of dishonesty. What’s more, when we incorrectly insert a term like ‘oppression’ or ‘gaslighting’ into a conversation, we make it more difficult to engage in thoughtful dialogue.

Part of what drives this is tribalism. Language informs our identity. We use codewords to signal affiliation and beliefs. In that sense, certain terms function less as descriptive language and more as badges. Using the ‘right’ word signals that you’re on the ‘correct’ side of an issue, even if the word itself is imprecise or inaccurate.

This seems like fodder for a New Year’s resolution. This year, I’m making a habit of questioning my use of language. I plan to research accepted definitions, understand etymological and historical origins, and be willing to change my usage based on what I learn. In fact, based on this process, I’ve already become much less eager to deploy the term ‘fascism.’

As my 8^th grade social studies teacher, Mr. Snyder, used to tell us, “if you don’t say what you mean, you won’t mean what you say.” We all can, and should, be more precise with the words we use.

Squabbling with the people we love.

One habit my profession of qualitative research has drilled into me is that of seeing things from another person’s perspective. I need to suspend my own assumptions to understand someone else’s POV. Guess what: this isn’t just a research thing. It’s an essential life skill, especially during the holidays.

When I was a kid, we celebrated holidays with a family with whom we were close. One feature of these gatherings was the father of this family and his oldest son getting into a bitter argument about something. They did this without fail. One noticeable thing about these disagreements was the betrayal each felt at the other not sharing his opinion. These two were very close. In fact, they still are. And they still fight like cats and dogs.

We tend to argue most loudly and angrily with the people to whom we are closest. That’s important to keep in mind as the holidays approach. We’re going to see a lot of family and close friends over the next few weeks. Wouldn’t it be nice to keep it friendly?

Why arguments with friends and family get so heated is an interesting question. It ties to our tribal nature as a species. We have evolved to have a strong group identity. As the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt points out in his book The Righteous Mind, we highly value loyalty. This is why we see such things as patriotism, identification with an ideology or ethnicity, and self-sacrifice for the group as virtues.

Submission to authority is another evolved trait in our species. Those who are in a position of authority over a family or group instinctively expect members of the group to defer to their beliefs and opinions.

So, the innate need for family and friends to agree with us is rooted in evolutionary psychology. We want the people closest to us to agree with us. When they don’t, it can feel like a breach of trust. Remember this next week when a family member disagrees with your opinion on immigration or health insurance.

Perhaps there’s an opportunity for an early new year’s resolution here. I plan to find a kinder, gentler, more accepting way to interact with others during this holiday season. Whenever I encounter someone with whom I differ, I’m going to try to see things as they do.  Remember: the same instincts that cause family blow-ups are the ones we carry into our politics, workplaces, and communities. We treat disagreement as betrayal because, deep down, we expect people in ‘our group’ to see the world our way. So, we really are all family.

Are attention spans getting shorter?

I don’t know about you, but I’m seeing less ability to concentrate lately, both in others and in myself. This probably isn’t my imagination. While not conclusive, there’s evidence that attention spans are shortening – or at least people feel like they are.

I’ve observed this as a qualitative researcher. It takes more effort to keep people focused. As a result, I’m shortening focus group and interview duration, conducting smaller groups and breaking conversations into shorter sections. Others in marketing research are seeing this trend as well.

Here’s an interesting question: what do we mean by ‘attention span?’ If you’re looking for a single, agreed-upon definition, forget it – there isn’t one. Cognitive scientists generally see attention as the capacity to concentrate on a stimulus before that focus lapses.

Why are attention spans getting shorter? There’s no definitive answer, but our world now contains increasingly more distractions than it once did. It’s more cluttered and complicated, and we are constantly stimulated by mass and social media. I wrote recently about multitasking, which is practically synonymous with distraction, and there’s evidence that people are trying to do this more.

However you define it– and whatever its origin– this trend presents two challenges: improving our own ability to focus and dealing with distraction in others.

When it comes to improving your own attention span, there’s lots of advice out there, including something called the Pomodoro Technique, cognitive exercises and meditation. The thing that helps me the most is controlling my environment– meaning removing distractions and minimizing interruptions. A change of scenery every few hours also helps me maintain focus. This is why you’ll regularly find me working at one of our many local coffee establishments.

As for the challenge of dealing with short attention spans in others, here are a few tips that work for me:

Manage your own expectations. Realize there’s a limit to how long you can command somebody’s full attention.

Break conversations into short chunks. When conducting qualitative, my practice is that if each party in a conversation has spoken two or three times, it’s time to change the subject. This also works well in social and business contexts.

Control the environment.  Limit distractions – don’t try to get somebody to focus when they’re not able to do that. That might mean turning off the TV, going into another room or having everyone put down their phone.

Set goals. If everybody knows exactly what’s on the agenda (such as agreeing on where to have brunch), it will be easy to stay focused until that goal is achieved.

I’ve come to believe that attention is a series of habits. Some habits we need to develop, such as controlling our environment and setting attention goals. Some we need to break, such as always having our phones in our hands and trying to multitask. By paying attention to attention, we can make our world more manageable.

Thanks to Roben Allong, Chris Kann, Jessica Kurth, Abby Leafe, Nancy Ellen Cohn Rich, Rob Riester and Jay Zaltzman for their input on this topic.

You can teach old dogs new tricks.

When the plow was invented in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago, the lives of farmers changed forever. Rather than being subsistence workers, they became part of a complex economic and social system. Those farmers aren’t unique: the world is always changing, and the pace of change keeps increasing.

Throughout history, technology has changed people and the societies around them. In addition to the plow, there’s the printing press, the steam engine, the shipping container and electricity to name just a few. If this topic interests you, check out Richard Currier’s book Unbound, Jared Diamond’s Guns Germs and Steel or Marc Levinson’s The Box.

In my profession, qualitative research, I’ve reinvented myself several times. Since becoming an independent researcher in 1996, I’ve gone through multiple evolutions.

• In the late 90s I leaned into creative and projective techniques.

• In 2010 I learned to conduct qualitative online.

• In 2014 I upped my biometrics game, then added more biometric tools in 2021.

This has required learning new skills and new ways of thinking. Right now the big challenge in my field, as in so many others, is artificial intelligence. The robots are coming, so I’ve embraced AI tools.

I recently conducted research on professional development and learned that adults across a variety of occupations are struggling. They worry about becoming obsolete, and have no idea what to do about it. They are frozen with indecision, unable to move forward.

Adapting to change has always been hard, whether you’re a person, a society or a brand. We evolved in an environment in which things changed slowly, and we’re now in a world where change is rapid and relentless. Adapting requires discomfort and brings risk. However, there are ways to push through.

Think in terms of experiments. Try things, even if you’re doubtful they’ll work. Go for modest changes that can be implemented quickly. If they don’t succeed, try something else. Failure brings knowledge and insight.

Break the task into small steps. Any large, complicated endeavor will seem less daunting if you take it one subtask at a time. Start with one new skill you want to learn and focus on that.

Focus on values, not roles. Try not to view yourself in terms of what you do, but in terms of what you believe and what’s important to you. This will bring clarity to the challenge.

Think in terms of ‘in-between.’ Rather than seeing yourself as immutably being one thing or another, get comfortable with thinking of yourself as being perpetually in a state of transition.

You don’t have to go it alone. There’s a reason we have family and friends: to help us negotiate difficult changes. While some people close to you might not be supportive, you will find people who will stand with you.

Acquiring new knowledge and learning new skills is how we maintain mental health and acuity through life. Not only can old dogs learn new tricks, they really should. So, don’t shrink from change, embrace it. Because we’re always in uncharted territory, and the need to reinvent yourself is eternal.

Is multitasking just an attractive myth?

As a qualitative researcher, much of my work involves talking to parents. Parenthood is a time when the need to be productive becomes particularly acute. Listening to parents talk about their approaches to productivity is always interesting.

I’ve heard people describe organizing techniques, prioritization strategies and delegating approaches. But the thing I hear about the most is multitasking.

It’s a tempting prospect – doing two things at once makes you twice as productive. At least, that’s the idea. Unfortunately, it doesn’t hold up all that well in the real world.

First of all, our brains aren’t set up to handle multiple tasks simultaneously. So, what we actually do is switch rapidly among tasks. This rapid switching comes at a cost of efficiency and accuracy. Second, there’s an illusion of effectiveness – we feel like we’re keeping several balls in the air, but we really aren’t.

There’s evidence that we can pair a demanding task with an automatic one (say, walking and talking), but that’s about as far as it goes. (See the links at the bottom for the research on this topic).

Based on what I’ve learned, rather than trying to multitask, I try to focus on a single task to accomplish it quickly and well. I also focus more on setting priorities and delegating.

Even if multitasking has limited practical value, it carries significant symbolic value. The way people describe it tells you about their values and sense of identity.

We want to see ourselves as productive and efficient. Describing yourself as a champion multitasker projects an image of competence and effectiveness.

It tells people how busy you are. This signals your importance, showing that you are valuable and in demand.

It’s a way of saying that you can do more with less. There’s a lot of importance placed on this ability, particularly in business settings.

That said, describing yourself as a multitasker suggests some qualities that may not be so admirable, such as:

A discomfort with focus. Many people struggle with single-task concentration, often due to a short attention span (this certainly describes me).

A desire to avoid responsibility. The need to focus forces us to confront difficult tasks. Multitasking (or the illusion thereof) may provide a way to avoid them.

An unease with delegation. When you describe yourself as multitasking, you’re saying “I can do it myself.” This may demonstrate an inability to trust others with important jobs.

One insight here is that true multitasking isn’t something you do yourself. It’s what happens when you seek help and delegate. It requires you to trust others.

So, be skeptical of your ability to multitask, but listen carefully when others talk about it. They’re not really telling you anything about how smart or efficient they are. But they’re definitely telling you something about how they see themselves.

References:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-wise/201209/the-true-cost-of-multi-tasking?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0903620106