Metautomationatics...

Or, thinking about automated processors such as breathing.

Do you think you could document every breath you took? I can tell you now that you can't. The human brain just can't function with that sort of data. Don't believe me? Next time you're walking along the road try counting the amount of steps you take while ALSO counting the number of time your breathe in and out.
Not easy? Now also factor in that you're also trying to find that song you like on your iPod and avoiding all those older drivers who can't actually drive.
Women say they can multitask; try saying that to the lady whose arm was found severed 100 metres away from her crashed car. The important part here is the mobile phone clasped in her hand.
People can't drive and do other things; generally. While some people can drink their coffee, switch into fourth to overtake that P plater while not spilling a single drop on their morning paper, they most certainly would have had several near misses previously. Practice makes perfect.
The overall idea is that once something becomes automated, we generally tend not to think about it. The problem with multitasking is that if you try to do two tasks that you're NOT VERY GOOD AT you are sure to fail at least one. Or in the lady drivers case, both.
However, most people can breathe and walk so long as they don't think about it too much!
The point that I'm slowly getting to is; If your learning and problem solving has gotten to these levels of proficiency, would that make it difficult to monitor there two activities?
YES!
Granted, there will always be massive problems that smack you into the pavement, and that's just natural, but most people get to a point in certain subjects (art, rock-climbing, dodging traffic) that any small problems pretty much go completely unnoticed. One doesn't even pick it up as a problem.
You're rock climbing and the rock your holding onto breaks off, so if you're good enough you grab another one without even thinking and continue on your way. While computer, film and media problems may be more time consuming than 0.5 of a second, the principle remains that same.
Just say the computer crashes, I'm going to spend a while working out what happened and get pretty pissed off by the end of it. Then I will come one here and rant about all the stuff I had to slog through to get the computer to work. However, if I'm going on my movie editing ways and I want to do some chroma-keying (i.e. bluescreen/greenscreen but covers all colours) and I want to know which would be the best for a night scene. I'd either press F1 to get the Vegas help files or zip over to the internet and find the answer in about two minutes. That's not even going to register as a problem (BTW: Pure green is pretty good at night).
So, what's the problem? I can't help but feel as though this course EXPECTS you to detail all these problems. But by now, solving most of my digital problems is automatic. So, if it doesn't register as a problem it ain't going to get a mention. So if all runs smoothly, we lose an entire criterion JUST BECAUSE WE ARE USED TO TEACHING OURSELVES.
We don't have to think about what we don't know, we just autonomously have that running in the background. I'm not going to sit there at the start of a project and list all the stuff I have to learn or might have to learn. I won't do it during the learning process either. Gathering knowledge in this area (film/media) is automatic now. I do it constantly in little bursts.
It's like all those soccer mums. They've gotten so good at checking out the saturated fat content of their food they probably don't even though they do it anymore. Working in a supermarket, I've seen this first hand.
My point here is that there is no point to the mums thinking about their dietary habits, just like there is no point me thinking about my breathing. If something goes wrong, I'll notice, but until then we'll all just go on out knowledge harvesting ways.
Oh, and don't be a soccor mum, their cars are massive!