The exception is when someone feeds me dense enough information that I cannot process together with other things but I cannot focus on it very long without needing to reprocess it which is why that rarely happens and this kind of information is usually provided (and requested) on paper.
So yes, I agree with you; I have never been diagnosed with anything but I always have been capable of getting work done while others are sitting through slow talking people in meetings (usually the case). It actually helps me not just completely shutting the presenter out and hear nothing at all.
Joel seems to think similarly: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000022.html
I guess maybe the point should be that there is no one size fits all solution for stuff like this (and also floor layouts - I find myself MUCH more productive in open floor layouts. I find a private office a productivity killer . Joel disagrees)
Why would 'millenials' suffer from Attention Deficit more than other generations?
Waiting on IO and refocusing is such a slow task that time scheduling other CPU-heavy jobs during that time can optimize performance a lot.
As a fellow ADHD'er, I realized some time ago that while multi-tasking, I was just doing multiple things poorly. I'd lose the stack, forget tasks, lose conversations - basically be a waste of space, except for the very rare times where I could write brilliant code due to hyperfocus.
When not on medication, I will be forced multitask, but I do so with "tasks" which require differing amounts of concentration - so I can leave one part of my mind stewing on a problem while looking at cat pictures.
Also, bosses + coworkers prefer if you always seem busy – so, while planning code, take a block of paper, and draw flowcharts, class diagrams, etc – it helps visualize the thoughts (so you keep them even if interrupted), and it makes you seem more effective.
It's paternalistic and condescending and always written by those that don't like to multitask already to make themselves feel better about the multitaskers around them.
And it completely ignores those of us with various forms of Attention Deficit (I would venture a much larger component of millennials and software engineers have this compared to previous generations) who know what works for us and what doesn't.
If you give me 3 1-hour-long tasks and tell me I have to work on them sequentially with no switching, I will get bored in the middle of each one, get distracted by something shiny, or stare into space if you try to keep me from doing anything else. I'll need to take a break between each one because my brain is so strained from having to focus on one thing.
In all, I expect each one to take me 1.5-2 hours plus another 30 mins for breaks between, so maybe 5 hours total at a minimum.
On the other hand, if I can alternate and context switch between all 3 as soon as my brain gets bored, I'll be able to keep engaged and work continuously. Sure each one may take me 1.25 hours, but I won't need a break. And the whole thing will get done in 3.75 hours, not 5.
(Numbers completely fabricated, obviously)
The same applies to meetings. I'm not defending coding or working on a challenging problem while listening to a presentation. That will certainly occupy my mind and I won't hear the presenter. But checking some non-complicated emails? Organizing some files or documents? ANYTHING menial is perfect because it allows my brain to stay engaged while also paying attention to the presenter. Without this minor distraction, if I am forced to listen to a boring presentation with my full focus, I will unquestionably lose the focus and find myself drifting off and wondering how much I've missed.