Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️

Cards, Blues, Mizzou, Titans and Lindenwood Lions. Proud husband of @AnneSTL, father and grandfather.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@MattGajtka Makes sense. Most of the time the finalists are more or less evenly matched, especially when they split the first 4.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@ForemanTaxLaw That’s tax consequences.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@CPATaxTeam @SmithMatthewC Not unless that’s an old picture 😀

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@CPATaxTeam @SmithMatthewC Barely a boomer, fully atypical, by the way.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@CPATaxTeam @SmithMatthewC Sounds about right. It’s not about a specific generation as much as about typical traits at a given age. I want trying to be mean, sorry if it came off that way. Signed, an atypical (barely) boomer.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@CPATaxTeam @SmithMatthewC Twitter is the official website of ad hominem characterizations. Welcome.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@LU_Lions @jumbojack21 @LindenwoodHKY @STLCIC Can’t wait!

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@KurtisHanni Depends on who the CPA is and what they’ve been engaged to do. And, of course, how competent they are. When you post stuff like that, you’re just undermining your own credibility.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@MattGajtka @ClintHurdle13 @CoachLisle I love both sentiments…either way you’re playing for something bigger than yourself.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@hochman The comments to your original post make me sad. Why so much hate? Let’s focus on what we have in common. I love baseball. I’ll play catch with anybody. Maybe common ground can help us solve a problem.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@todd_zell @summithardball I figured. That name was involved in all the seasons, no?

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@todd_zell @summithardball I’ll bet you knew that😜. Those 2009-10 teams had some sticks.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@RammerSTL @BBGreatMoments Wouldn't Rose be better on a 1B or OF list?

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@ProfRobAnderson <=2 days-suitcase
>=3 days-drawers

[Jomboy Media @JomboyMedia]

This is how you attack a Friday

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@p1huycke @ProfRobAnderson I don’t know.

[Ihtesham Ali @ihtesham2005]

A Stanford professor spent years trying to prove that people who multitask the most are the best at it. He tested 262 students and found the exact opposite. It was the most embarrassing result of his career.

His name was Clifford Nass.

He had spent decades at Stanford studying how humans interact with technology, and by 2009 he was certain he knew what the results would show before the study even started.

He was wrong about everything.

Nass and his colleagues divided 262 Stanford students into two groups: heavy media multitaskers and light media multitaskers.

People who regularly juggled email, texts, multiple browser tabs, music, and TV simultaneously versus people who mostly did one thing at a time.

The assumption going in was obvious. Heavy multitaskers must have built some kind of superpower. Their brains had been training under constant load for years. They should be faster at switching between tasks, better at filtering out irrelevant information, sharper at holding things in working memory.

They tested all three.

Memory first.

Students were shown sequences of letters and asked to identify when a letter was repeating. The heavy multitaskers did worse and kept getting worse the further they went. The more they had multitasked in real life, the less their brain could hold in the moment.

Filtering second.

Students were shown a grid of red and blue rectangles, which disappeared, and were asked whether any of the red ones had moved. The instruction was clear: ignore the blue ones. The light multitaskers had no problem. The heavy multitaskers could not stop looking at the blue rectangles. They were pulled toward irrelevant information even when explicitly told to ignore it.

Task switching third.

This was the one that ended the argument. Researchers expected that if heavy multitaskers were better at anything, it would be moving between tasks quickly. That is the entire premise of multitasking as a skill. But the heavy multitaskers were dramatically slower and less accurate at switching than people who barely multitasked at all.

Nass described it in the words he would repeat for the rest of his life.

They are suckers for irrelevancy. Everything distracts them.

He went looking for what multitaskers were better at. He found nothing. Not one thing.

What he had discovered was the opposite of what everyone believed. Multitasking is not a skill that improves with practice. It is a habit that degrades the very machinery you need to think. The more you do it, the worse your brain gets at focusing when you finally try.

5 years later, neuroscientists at the University of Sussex put 75 adults in an MRI machine. They measured how often each person used multiple screens simultaneously and then looked at their brain structure.

The heavy media multitaskers had less grey matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex. That is the region responsible for attention, impulse control, and decision-making. Not weaker activation. Less physical tissue. The damage was structural, written into the architecture of the brain itself.

Nass had been warning companies about this for years. In 2012 he stood in front of a room of executives and told them that forcing employees to multitask was not a productivity strategy.

It was a brain safety problem. He used the exact words: OSHA problem. The same language you use when a factory floor is injuring workers.

Nobody changed anything.

The notifications stayed on. The open-plan offices stayed open. The Slack channels kept pinging. The expectation that a good employee responds to everything immediately and handles ten things at once stayed exactly where it was.

Clifford Nass died in November 2013 at 55, collapsing after a hike near Lake Tahoe. He had spent his entire career measuring what constant switching was doing to the human brain. The world listened politely and went back to checking its phone.

A psychiatrist in London had found something related a few years earlier. He gave IQ tests to workers while emails and phone notifications arrived in the background. Their scores dropped 10 points. More than the drop from smoking marijuana. More than missing a full night of sleep. The distraction did not just interrupt the work. It made people measurably less intelligent while it was happening.

Most people read that and laughed and went back to their inbox.

Gloria Mark at the University of California spent years tracking how long office workers actually stayed on one task before something pulled them away. The average was three minutes. And after each interruption, it took 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully return to the depth of focus they had before.

Do that math across a normal workday and you arrive somewhere most people would rather not look at directly.

You are not bad at focusing. You have been practicing the wrong thing for years, inside systems designed to fragment your attention, and you have been rewarded for it the whole time.

The heavy multitaskers in Nass's study were not careless. They were the ones who said yes to everything, responded to everyone, kept every channel open. They were doing exactly what modern work asked of them.

And their brains were paying for it in ways nobody could see from the outside, until someone put them in a scanner.

The one thing that will not fix this is trying harder to focus while the notifications are still on.

Nass knew that. He said it out loud for years.

The people who would not listen are still sitting in open offices with 14 tabs open wondering why they cannot think straight after lunch.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@dgoold @kyler416 Rhetoric seems pretty spicy this early in the process. I’m not sure I know what it means. Might signal a long, heated fight, but maybe something else. Hopefully just a sense of urgency.

[Steve Coleman ⚾️🏒⛳️ @SColemanLU]

@ProfRobAnderson Another way to look at it is that the law degree builds off ANY legitimate undergraduate degree in which the candidate has acquired general graduate attributes such as general knowledge, communication, analytical and critical thinking skills.