Slashdot Mirror
Multitasking Makes You Stupid and Slow
Reverse Gear recommends a long and interesting article over at The Atlantic in which Walter Kirn talks about the scientific results that support his claim and his own experiences with multitasking: that it destroys our ability to focus. "Multitasking messes with the brain in several ways. At the most basic level, the mental balancing acts that it requires — the constant switching and pivoting — energize regions of the brain that specialize in visual processing and physical coordination and simultaneously appear to shortchange some of the higher areas related to memory and learning. We concentrate on the act of concentration at the expense of whatever it is that we're supposed to be concentrating on... studies find that multitasking boosts the level of stress-related hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline and wears down our systems through biochemical friction, prematurely aging us. In the short term, the confusion, fatigue, and chaos merely hamper our ability to focus and analyze, but in the long term, they may cause it to atrophy."
I always thought multitasking made me slow, but more able to see alternative solutions. Sometimes a solution for task A comes from task B.
I've never actually had a problem with this. If anything I've had difficulty doing any one thing at a time and did better when switching between a few every so often.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
A ha, so that is how Microsoft managed to brainwash everyone into running Windows!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I'm posting from DOS.
Arachne Power!
I find it funny that so many people think they multitask well, even when it's obvious (watching them) that it's not true at all. My boss comes to mind - we were having a discussion where I brought up one of the previous studies showing that people just don't multitask well. He said something like "it's true most people don't - fortunately I'm one of the rare people that can handle doing several things at once". Thing is, it's obvious to all of us in our group that he has trouble finishing anything; but who's going to say that to his/her own boss?
#DeleteChrome
Just about every freekin job add I see requires the ability to multi task. I used to say that I can't do it. Now, I just say that I'm as good at it as any other human. Most of the gung ho corporate types insist that they can multi task wonderfully and trying to reason with them is pointless.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Perhaps it's more a combination of multitasking and immediate gratification. When you get everything you want quickly, there's no need to ever learn patience or persistence.
I wonder if this is what happened to the dinosaurs?
Oh, wait, hold on a minute... Hey! move it! the light's green, you jerkwad... That's it, right foot is the gas... Pay attention to what you're doing for once, huh? Jeez.
OK, sorry, where were we?
Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
It may be fine prose, but is lousy argumentation.
What has a nation's fighting on two fronts got to do with personal multitasking? It's spurious.
What sort of idiot is he to use a cell phone while driving? Around here it's illegal here to talk on a cell-phone while driving, unless using hands-free and even that's under scrutiny. because it has been well-quantified that a phone conversation does distract from driving.
Having said that, I tend to agree with the basic hypothesis, that trying to do two mentally demanding things at once is to do neither well. But that doesn't apply to listening to music while doing something else, or context switching when one has reached an impasse with one task.
I find my IQ of 159 to aid me in multi tasking like playing multiple ogame.org strategy games in differant alliances, and it keeps me sharp to keep doing many things. If i sit there and do nothing. I feel lazy, slow and ....well STUPID. Like i should be doing something. Who did htey test on this a bunch a retards?
You can pry Spaces from my cold dead fingers
I don't agree with
this article context switch
at all.
Hrm. What was I talking about?
The only interesting part of that article is in the summary, so save yourself the time it would take to get through that rambling mess.
I'm not an expert, but I've taken several courses on biologically oriented psychology and I have no idea what "biochemical friction" is supposed to be. Is that just a redundant phrase pointing to the cortisol and adrenaline released by multi-tasking, or is it a separate phenomenon?
Is that why women are so good at multi-tasking?
Or does it go one way really?
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
I've always kind of laughed at the "must be able to multitask" requirements.
Ask yourself why they want that. In a lot of cases, it's because they want people to do the job of more than one person. It's the same reason they try to get people to work 70 hours a week (and, sadly, some of the people that work for them fall for it and even think it's "macho" to trade their entire waking life for a paycheck).
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
I multi-task very well:
1 + 1 = 2
P. I. G. spells pig.
Do Re Me Fa
*rub tummy*
*pat head*
*spin in circles*
Okay, I guess I do look a little stupid.
... but the story looks too long and I know I'd lose focus. Computers have ruined my life and my brain. What's considered multi-tasking anyway. Listening to music and typing? is that too much?
Multitasking is required to ensure profitability. Very rarely will you see a job where a person does ONE thing or performs one role..especially in an office environment.
Lets say your entire job is to take phone calls from customers, but you aren't on a phone call 24/7. You could sit there the rest of the time, but the company isn't getting all of the bang for its buck it could be getting if you were doing something else useful in the mean time. Its common practice to load you up with 5-6 different jobs so you should in theory ALWAYS be working.
The difference between a good place to work and a bad place to work is that the good place to work asks you to help with other tasks, and a bad place to work demands you do so.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Captain Murphy: And give that five Ph.D.'s thing a rest, will ya? Nobody likes hubris.
I must have been multitasking reading this, because I first thought you wrote "freeskin" which immediately made me think you meant "foreskin." Now what I was multitasking with I won't say...
There's a price to everything.
If you're worrying/stressing about something it is no surprise it will help age you. If you worry about 70 things instead of 7, it's no surprise it'll stress and age you faster. I'd say modern life is what's doing that.
If you're multitasking there's also an overhead for switching tasks. Some of your thought is occupied by the mental juggling act. This is also no surprise.
However what's the alternative? Modern life doesn't give you large slabs of time where you get to concentrate on one thing. If something comes up at work or at home while we're in the middle of something else that's important, what do you do? Multitasking isn't something our brains weren't built for. If we couldn't multitask we'd be very easy prey - just distract us and have us for lunch.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Someone tags this story as obvious. Really? Is it really "obvious" what chemical processes the brain goes through during multi-tasking? Just because someone observed something through their personal experience doesn't mean that they have a scientific explanation for why it happens. This is about as absurd as tagging an article that talks about studies that show how the mechanisms within the Sun emit energy as "obvious" (because "like, oh my god, i already knew Sun was hot... I can't believe they spent money to study that").
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I find that I am much more effective when I multi-task at many computer related tasks since they often involve waiting. While there is some efficiency lost since I'm not always ready to respond when something is ready for input, and remembering where things were left off, there's a net gain in productivity since during those waiting phases I'm not just staring at a status bar. I would agree that just trying to do two things at the same time, both of which require your full concentration, will slow them down but there are many things in a work environment that don't. It isn't useful to just sit there doing nothing because you are at a wait state for your current job. Instead, do something else while you wait.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Sure, I can try to watch concurrent porn videos at the same time as writing requirement specs, but I need both hands to type.
These multitasking rubbish started when win95 went out of the closet. It has always been a humain behaviour to compare the work of the brain with the work of the machine... Steam, electricity, computer... and... multitasking computer...
Trouble is...
Multitaksing in 95's computers was just being able to open 2 (or more) program at once and let them fight for processor and memory ressources.
Same for the humans... start several things... lets them randomly take more or less priority according to the mood/weather/cat litter color... and then get nothing done while looking extremly busy.
Listening to music is to be set aside. More of the time it provide a -known- life soundtrack, helping to focus more on one thing at a time while still providing the false impression of multitasking. Still a no-no for learning/memory intensive tasks.
It has never... OH look at the bight light... what was I saying again?
If doing more than one thing means your operate poorly, then your not actually multitasking.
The guy who modded that Flamebait was balancing his checkbook at the time.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
aren't women supposed to be good at multitasking? what is this trying to say?
Simply not possible. Humans, or machines, are not capable of multi-tasking. As humans, we seem to be able to receive multiple input, but, we really can't consciously do it. I'm not sure that we can subconsciously do it. And, we certainly can't provide output in a true multi-tasking form...
The first person that can prove we can, and do, without a shadow of a doubt, I will defer to...
IMO, it's simply task-switching, just like your processor(s).
Have a nice day!
I agree with the author (Walter Kirn) of the article. Multitasking is so time consuming that the brain relies on the cerebellum (little brain) to handle a lot of routine tasks (maintaining posture, walking, standing, blinking, etc...) while the conscious cognitive areas of the cerebral cortex focus on an important task (e.g., talking, thinking, reasoning, planning, etc...). People with cerebellar lesions are known to speak in a halting stacatto-like manner. The reason is that Broca's area (the part of the brain that produces speech) is constantly being interrupted because the brain's motor cortex has to momentarily stop what it's focusing on in order to attend to the routine tasks that a healthy cerebellum would handle automatically. So multitasking is such a big problem that the cerebellum contains more neurons than all the other areas of the brain combined but it cannot do everything because it's a direct sensori-motor automaton. That is to say, it cannot plan or predict phenomena, so it is limited. Only the most primitive animals lack a cerebellum.
"Multitasking is different than singletasking."
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
It all boils down to what you call "multitasking". In the card sorting experiment, for instance, they were asked to perform a cognitive task that takes concentration, while simultaneously being alert to instantly jump at an interruption that they (correctly) expected could happen at any second. Few people I know do that kind of "multitasking" on a regular basis.
For most people I know, "multitasking" consists of talking on the phone while waiting for their code to compile, or answering the office phone when it rings, even if you were in the middle of writing a paper. But that is NOT the same as sitting there, wire-tense, waiting to jump on it the instant it rings. That would drive anybody crazy. No wonder their cortisol and epiniphrine levels were elevated.
(BTW: "adrenaline" is a brand name for one particular company's epinephrine. It is not a chemical name. Calling ephinephrine "adrenaline" is like calling all automobiles "toyotas".)
The ability to effectively multitask ( oh look! A bird ) is based upon the ability to both prioritize and concentrate. Switching gears is no more a matter of re-prioritising the task at hand. I used to talk on the phone while driving, then I saw others do it, and the tiny loss of concentration at a critical moment, can get you killed. Now, I pull over when I want to talk, and don't talk while driving, but I can listen to the radio, and learn to play songs.
Somethings I can do well with multitasking, like playing Bach/Brahms or Joplin, but there are some songs, I will never be able to play. I can play second hands of the concerto for 4 hands. I could do it easily, but when I play first hands, I am distracted by the second hands. I think is just all a matter of practice, in playing instruments, but driving is a completely different story, you have to constantly adapt to the changing road conditions.
But, in typing this reply, I can watch my torrents, and process monitor, and not be distracted by them. Walk and chew gum? The chewing does not take our attention, and is not a distraction. If it was, we would walk into objects.
Singing while playing piano, or playing along with someone. both multi-tasking activities. While driving, you have a lot of tasks to do, keeping on the road, keeping aware of other drivers, keeping your directions, and managing not to run out of ( look, there is that bird again! ) gas, one that has been a recent problem for me. And if your a felon, with a gun under the seat, and drugs on the seat, while speeding... you have to watch for police too!
The author was clearly distracted from driving, and stresed out about his cell phone. He priortized it above his driving, and switched his attention at a critical moment, and he says he cannot multi-task well? He can drive cant he? That is a lot of multi-tasking to take on. I am teaching a teenager to drive. ( but of course, I will never tell him, I can drive with my foot...or show him how! ).
Mod me troll-bait, but this is NOT NEWS or otherwise... this is a bitspam/bucket news item.
I multi-task very well because.. 'scuse me for a sec, I mean, hey, it's just a matter doing a lot of... the phone is ringin, hold on.... Like I was saying, just drop the kids off at the pool and try not to make a mess.
I loved this article...
Computers are supposed to make our lives easier... right? Computers "empower" us to do more with less! Unfortunately, I'm now so empowered that my employer expects me to be a pro programmer, a graphic guru, a PR prodidgy, a sales tsar, a support supremo, and a purchasing powerhouse. Software lets me do all these things. Twenty years ago there was such a thing as a graphics department to put together adverts. Now five minutes, a quick web search, some clip-art of dubious legitimacy, and a healthy dose of "no problem, leave it with me", and I can produce the world's worst job ad that still beats the pants off our competitors.
Geez, I'd love to be really good at one thing instead of mediocre at everything. But I'm still a sucker for an app that lets me pretend I can do something that I really should be thrown in jail for, for even attempting.
It's a generalization, of course, but it's true. Read "Getting Things Done" by David Allen. Any GTD fan will agree that multi-tasking is bad.
Music - www.richardmac.com
Sounds like the test subjects just ran out of physical memory and started thrashing - swapping-out to a note pad under load is an expensive operation.
There's a joke in there somewhere about page faults, but I'm too drunk to find it.
C-x C-s C-x k
In other news, scientists claim that women are much better at multitasking than men...
Multitasking makes you slow and stupid? So should I just sit here and focus on breathing, as anything I do beyond breathing means I am multitasking?
Generalizations suck! I understand I should not drive a car and talk on the phone. This is multitasking, but the problem here is with depriving my life critical activity (driving) of full focus. Even messing with the radio is a bad idea. Did you know there was a lot of thought when radio came out that they should be illegal in cars due to the same reason we are looking at baning cell phones?
But when I am working on a computer system (coding) and it comes to a stopping point as I await input from people, or what ever -- should I just stop and sit there? No, I go on to another project. As it stands, I am currently working about 20 projects. This is multitasking and as long as proper focus is maintained, it works very well.
No I'm....doesn't!
...confusion, fatigue, and chaos...
Timing, control and balance - that's what an x-Hell's Angel told me were important to master. Without confusion, fatigue, and chaos, we'd have no need for timing, control and balance, and then where would we be on the ladder of evolution...
Some of us multi-task just fine. If you happen to be dyslexic like me, you need to multi-task, or you'd never get past addressing an envelope, much less licking a lousy stamp while you try to hold onto the darned thing.
It depends on what you think multitasking is. You can't do two different things at the same time if both require continuous conscious attention. You can do two things at a time if one is a motor skill and only one requires conscious attention. Another factor is your capability to "see the big picture," i.e. to have a mental model of a complex system: I guess it's not a problem for you to read email in between copying files, and installing software. But a person who is not versed in handling computers does not have the installation process figured out well enough to know in advance what's going to happen and what the expected intermediate results are, so for them it takes a much more conscious effort to handle that task and reading email in between would throw them off. That's probably what HR people don't understand about the "computer people." HR people use computers too, but mostly for short administrative tasks, where the computer interaction is at the end of a conscious process. They don't realize that the work of programmers entails fewer, but longer, more complex tasks. Multitasking is harder if there are fewer natural switching opportunities.
Amongst US health professionals, the term epinephrine is used over adrenaline. However, it should be noted that universally, pharmaceuticals that mimic the effects of epinephrine are called adrenergics, and receptors for epinephrine are called adrenoceptors.
As defined by psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, flow is the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing, characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity... what Csíkszentmihályi calls "optimum performance."
In my own view (and experience), it is closely related to "happiness."
Charles Kingsley wrote "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about." Enthusiasm is obviously related to flow.
And multitasking is compatible with neither.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
...I've been a multitasker for many years (better part of 20 years.)...
...are they sure this just isn't a product of aging?
I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm "dumber" as the article suggests, but I will say that there are many instances where I have to stop and think about something that I normally wouldn't have to. It takes me a little longer than it did to remember facts. I have difficulty remembering numbers especially. (I can still remember my childhood phone number, but I can't remember my parent's cell phone numbers. I never remember where I put my keys anymore, so I have to put them on a hook...if I can remember. I always lose the phone/remote/cellphone. It's easy to forget appointments, bill due dates, anything that's static in nature.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
This jives very well with what multitasking 'feels like' to me. Whereas on the one hand I can imagine how doing many things at once, switching the task that I am working on according to the availability of external resources necessary to complete the task, would produce maximal productivity, I find that whenever I attempt this I am left with an unpleasant mental feeling of stress that makes me *not want* to do this anymore.
For example, as a software developer, I find that there are often many things that I could be working on 'at once'. Say I have 10 bugs assigned to me, a major architectural investigation, two features that I am working on, a document or two that I need to write, and of course emails and phone conversations to keep up on.
In the past, I have tried to maximize my productivity by switching from one to the next each time something 'blocks' me from work on the one I am actively engaged in. For example, say that I've written a bunch of code and I'm ready to check it in. But whoops, I find that there is a 'build break' and I'm not allowed to check in until whoever was responsible for it fixes it. At this point, I could switch tasks to working on some other task that is independent of this; say, some other feature that I am coding up. In order to switch to the new task, however, I have to make some mental notes of what I was doing in the first task so that I can pick up where I left off (it might just be as much as remembering that I have to hit 'return' at the end of a command line that I've already typed in, just waiting for the green light to finish the checkin; or it may be significantly more - remembering that I have to re-test a bunch of stuff to make sure it's still working in combination with whatever changes have simultaneously occurred in the code base in between now and whenever I get back to checking this code in). Once switched to this new task, I could work for a little while, only to discover that some key piece of documentation is missing that would explain to me how to use someone else's API, and that the person I need to ask about this is out of the office for the day. OK, time to switch to a new task. Once again I have to store away enough information to be able to continue where I left off on this task when I get back to it; this could mean writing some comments in the code, or sending off an email to the person who is out of the office, the response to which will be enough context to remind me of what I was doing, and pick up where I left off, or maybe doing nothing except making a mental note that I have to re-read the code when I get back to it to remember what I was doing, assuming that when I read the code again, I will come to the same conclusions and once again seek out that person, who hopefully by this time will be back in the office. At this point, I switch to the new task of, say, working on some documentation. Eventually this task will be blocked in a similar way (maybe I will just get tired of working on the documentation - this happens pretty quickly because I hate writing documentation!), and I will have to task switch again, maybe to something new, maybe back to something I was already working on.
The amount of bookkeeping involved with retaining and then re-creating enough state to effectively work on multiple tasks at once is, in a word, exhausting. It is also stressful because one feels like one can at any moment 'forget' something important, and then lose track of a task completely, or maybe just lose track of enough information about a task that getting back to it will be much more work than it should have been. Combine all of this with the feeling that one has to stay very productive within this system in order to be seen as an effective employee, and it becomes very stressful, and mentally exhausting, indeed.
So as a result, my mind eventually starts to 'resist' doing this kind of multitasking; it does so my making me feel like I don't like multitasking. And usually I don't perceive it specifically as a desire not to multitas
Just consider those who still follow Amiga Inc.
But on the other hand Women are better at multi-tasking than men because of the need for them to deal with multiple children at the same time.
Disclaimer: It is not my intention to start a gender flamewar.
./ demographic!
The author mentions that multitasking increasing your stress levels, and I myself have experienced this at work when I have had to switch back & forth between several different types of tasks. However, I have also noticed that many of my female co-workers do not seem to get nearly as stressed in similar situations. Since the author is also a guy, I wonder if anyone here has a different perspective on the gender differences in the effects of multitasking that they might be willing to share.
To avoid the obligatory "you must be new here" posts, no, I've been here for a while, and I am well-acquainted with the
that's why i find myself multitasking instead of just tasking.
That's time-slicing tasks, and it isn't what the article is talking about. Time slicing would mean you'd drive the car, notice the phone went off, pull over, then handle the phone call, then drive off again.
Multitasking in terms of the article is having two resource intensive tasks happening at the same time. Think about running two tasks that would each require 60% of the CPU on a computer at the same time to react in real-time - instead the tasks run slower, reaction time drops or quality of response is lowered (e.g. skipped frames in a video), and so on.
Listening and understanding and forming responses is a resource intensive task for the brain (if it's not all, like, yeah, yeah, really she did that did she?) as is driving, or walking across a tightrope, and so on. Ever noticed how talk radio presenters speak smoothly, slowly and with clear enunciation so that the listeners in cars aren't distracted - you notice it more as a passenger, and I suspect that drivers listen to talk radio a lot because subconsciously it is a lower load on the brain. As you do a task more (like learning to juggle) the more you can handle at the same time (conversations, or more balls) - it's like the repetition JIT-compiles the actions into a more efficient format for the brain to handle.
Multitasking is the ability to screw up several things at once.
/. while cooking dinner. Dinner is roast chicken (which is already in the oven) and wild rice (simmering over a low flame) and a vegie (not done yet) so I guess I can multitask as long as I don't forget to clean and cook the vegie. So far, so good.
Now, let's all see if I can post a comment to
The ability to multitask has a lot to do with what the tasks are although I know people who have trouble doing the above tasks concurrently. I also know people who can prepare several much more complicated dishes concurrently. It all depends on the tasks.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
>> Perhaps it's more a combination of multitasking and immediate gratification.
Or perhaps some peoples' gratification comes in small doses? I always found the "time management" kind of managers very annoying, regularly distracting me from concentrating on my work just because they had a deep belief in making everything subservient to the clock, their organizers, and their arbitrary day schedules.
>> When you get everything you want quickly, there's no need to ever learn patience or persistence.
Well they were past masters at persistence, but only a couple learned that patience was a virtue, and that it got them better results. You really can't be distracted in the middle of a core dump analysis say, not without starting from scratch anyway. And there are many similar kinds of task in the general field of computing, where human multitasking doesn't pay.
OTOH, machines don't have that frailty, and as long as they complete their concurrent tasks without intrusively interrupting us, we're peachy.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I guess I'm the exc
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I'm going to disagree because I work in a field where I have to multi-task.
I will often have 3-5 jobs 'open' at any given time. If I were given just one or two jobs I would sit around idle for half the day. With 3-5 I am forced to balance the demands of the clients in real time. Sometimes asking one to wait while doing something that is small and fast to appease another. Sometimes I'm fielding questions for one client while working on another client.
Am I slower while working on each job? Sure. But it would be ridiculous for my employer to have me work for 3 hours a day simply because I will do marginally better and work marginally faster on the 1 or 2 jobs.
Often 20% decreases in efficiency are superior to 50-60% drops in productivity.
It also comes down to dependencies. Often a job will depend on the work of someone else. Now you could do one job one day... and a second job the second day but then you have someone somewhere else sitting idle waiting for you to complete your job. If you can switch tasks. Get what person A needs to proceed done immediately because he has nothing better to do and then switch to the job that Person B will need shortly thereafter or at least finish the parts that are needed for person B to proceed you've probably overall taken longer to complete your job but as a dependency network you've served what's needed in a dramatically faster time.
The job where what you do is completely independent and a person can devote themselves to 100% for extended periods of time is a rare job indeed.
My problem with multitasking is the overhead associated with calculating what has to be started when, how long it will take, etc... I think it's this overhead that breaks up the flow in my concentration. Flow, however, is also related to how difficult a task is for you; if you have a more innate sense for calculating schedules, it will probably break up your flow less. Also, for me, the problem is when I multitask and several tasks end almost at the same time and I have to batch out a new series of tasks; afterwards I always have to swap back in what I was working on when I got interrupted and had to figure out how to lay out new tasks. I think this is where flow breaks down the most.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I'm totally serial.
Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
... by any chance?
As I'm sure some of you know well, the mark of a skilled programmer is a peculiar kind of multitasking -- the ability to maintain several 'stacks' of instruction and code in your head, representing the internal state of what you're working on at any given time. This can often encompass multiple path of execution. On the other hand, these are all facets of the same task; and perhaps not truly different/qualifying as multitasking.
Why do we have multicore processors? Why do they work so much better in multitasking? Because they are simply multiple brains at work. A single core, no matter how fast it runs, can only do as much.
I'm curious how this would work with non-productive non-stressful but literally two-things-at-the-same-time multitasking. In virtually all of the examples I've read here citing real-world situations it always goes to trying to increase productivity, which inevitably leads to increased expectations and stress. What about things one can easily back out of? I started doing things like this a few years back for kicks. One example is videogames: I often control two characters at once (one hand on each controller). Just yesterday with some friends I was playing two vs "two." It's certainly far more difficult and often confusing but - for me - it's relaxing. I'd hate to think my hobbies - where I run to relax after a stressful day - could cause atrophy.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
One thing that isn't pointed out is that after a few years of this multi-tasking crap you get addicted to it.
I am so used to doing multiple things at once (mostly because my high paying job is so skull fuckingly boring [FN1]) that I am almost unable to give things my undivided attention.
I'll try to watch TV or talk to someone and I need that constant over-stimulus.
I used to not be that way. But at 35 it feels like I have developed something akin to ADD.
I am so used to giving simultaneous partial attention to multiple things (Bill Gates' phrase for it) that slowing down is a real problem.
[FN1]
One guy at work has a TV running 24-7 just to keep him less bored.
Always wondered why they said women were so good at multitasking.
You hit right on the nail buddy. If it takes one person 70 hrs a week to do a job, then maybe the company should hire two people. This profit driven ideology is driving our society into the ground. Even though they are doing well financially, the ones doing the 70 hrs are neglecting their lives and their family. They are more likely to breakdown or have family troubles. The others struggle making ends meet with lower paying jobs working the same hours and have the same problems. All the while, America is decaying and heading straight towards recession.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I like to multitask between doing one job and napping. Any further tasks just confuse me.
Or at least under certian definitions I am. I am multitasking in the same way a single processor computer does: I give some time to one task, then some time to another task. I switch from tasks, checking to see if they need time and if they don't, move on. I am not focusing on a single task.
Sure explains how a guy can have sex and smoke a cigarette at the same time.
I can:
:)
1. Chat online
2. Watch TV
3. Listen to music
4. Do homework
All at the same time... but the quality of each task is less and less decent with each thing I'm doing. But I still can
It's more - working on project A, managing project B, researching project C. Typically long term tasks don't consume all your time every day, effective multi-taskers are those who can plan and weave different projects together not on a minute-to-minute basis, but rather a day-to-day.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200711/multitasking/ so you can focus on the article, and not advertisements or 'page turning'.
i can juggle three balls and read at the same time. in fact, i like doing that because i find it therapeutic. it forces me to take my conscious mind out of both activities. i've never tried to determine if i do either task better or worse when i combine them, so i can't say much about the positive or negative impact of multitasking. i just find it relaxing.
(semi) seriously:
...IS ,
This article may explain 'stereotypical managers' aka PHBs. Some of them were apparently once-competent.
They may have bought-in to the multitasking meme and suffered the long-term consequences.
In short that which SEEMS to be the result of brain-damage
and it's not (just) the necktie http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/suit.html
..it will be self correcting. All these "high paying and boring" jobs will soon be gone, the world's economy is adjusting rapidly back to the basics, because I think even the big bankers/fraudsters/ponzi scheme hustlers just found out how much stupid lame and totally unnecessary busywork electron shuffling jobs can actually be out there now without risking it all, and the practical number there of such "jobs" is a LOT less than what we have right now.
America isn't decaying, it's been the same for 200 years.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I test between 147 and 161 and I can't multitask for jack. Seriously, when I even start a conversation with somebody, I'm totally and utterly oblivious to EVERYTHING going on around me. But what I am concentrating on blows by like the wind - I used to get locked in the library because I'd miss the repeated announcements while buried in my PChem tests, but I'd get them done in a day and a half where everybody else needed the full week.
It's like a floodlight vs. a spotlight, both have their utilities.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Nuff said...
Multitasking for a computer program might give a good throughput, as tfa states not necessarily for humans.
I get off of my game of Team Fortress 2, a game where everything happens at once, and check this article and without even think about it, decide to start shaving while reading the article! How do i fix myself from a life of inability to concentrate to a useful, non-premature dying dude?
you are a mediocre person with poor or average IQ. Elite people definitely different brain (i.e. IQ) to handle multitasking and that's why they become elite while you are still struggling for your life.
No matter how much you are multitasking, you can still break it down into smaller individual tasks so its not so stressful.
Bing!
... the problems with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Have gnu, will travel.
Multi tasking means no focus, news at seven.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Finally a definite proof that browsing Wikipedia makes you stupid.
Knowledgeable, but stupid.
ooooo Shiny Penny!!!
I would add the following: Given that at the time the Buddha statues were first built, people had no idea that the brain is the organ responsible for thinking (rather than the heart, or the stomach, or the soul etc), it's therefore revisionist nonsense to claim that the Bodi-Tree is a symbol for the cerebellum.
Read some of Belbin's stuff to see how this works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Belbin
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Fantastic. A while back I was stuck in a long and frustrating conversation with my girlfriend (now ex). Frustrating because she was doing something something else and it clearly showed. When I called her out on it, she rather dismissively told me that 'girls are able to multitask'. I wish I had had this study to quote at that time!
I'm not sure if this is better than anecdotal evidence... But we had a major system revision last night (This morning?). There were lots of changes going on in the window, being performed by different teams, and each had seperate conference lines up, and were on different IM channels. The customer contact had three separate IM sessions going on, while we were trying to walk him through MAJOR changes to our equipment, where the hardware interface was also running on his desktop. Every time he would try to do what we needed him to do, he would get at least two IM's that were urgent, and then had no recollection of what we had asked him to do when he had answered the IM requests. Let's just say if we had access to the customer's system, we would have been focused, and would have finished the work at least two hours earlier.
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
We just need multi-core brains and SMP optimized synapses then multi tasking should be no problem.
You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
There are times when I shut out the world and stay glued to a screen solving a problem through the night, brain swimming through tons of complex interactions and temporarily important bits of data. And then there are times when there are 50 things on the to-do list, none of which is especially taxing. I'm better at the focused sessions, I let myself get bogged down on side-problems or minutiae when trying to finish a to-do list, and generally fall far behind. My wife is the opposite. She's incredibly smart, and able to plow through to-do lists like there's no tomorrow, but she glazes over when she has to do something requiring long periods of focus. She can muster up the strength to do it, but it's a real effort for her.
Some jobs (e.g. software developer) are well suited to focus, with minimal people interaction. Some jobs like product manager require ridiculous multi-tasking and interruptions, to the point that its amazing anything gets done. I've done both, and found a happy medium in architect roles where I get some time in each domain.
Then, I wander downstairs, optimizing my route - delay peeing because, "well coffee can be brewing while you do that", but allowing that pushing the button on the radio isn't "that much effort" to start the noise that I can listen to while I pour the water for the coffee... oh, an ant, squash it. Now I can step out front to get the paper.
So, the coffee is going, the paper is in, I get to pee... and sit... Damn. The toilet paper is empty. While changing it I see another ant... then I rinse my fingers, damn, now my hand it wet...
Couldn't I have waited until after I put the TP back on the holder?
And so it goes. Do I have an attention issue?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I'm in no position to comment on the subject matter, not being a neuroscientist or whatnot
But GODDAMN the writers' prose reads like a pompous 3rd rate copy of Neal Stephenson - talk about rambling. Woohoo you lost concentration whilst driving. And if you stretch that basic point out into 500 turgid words, throw in a wounded girlfriend etc. then you apparently have an article.
No I am not impressed with your descriptive prose or what you think of cameraphones. Reading post-modernist theory into 'where do you want to go today' may get you an Arts thesis but its still a load of wanky BS.
YES WE GET THE PICTURE, GET TO THE GODDAMNED POINT
Disclaimer:
- For the record, I am a big Neal Stephenson fan, but the article just reminds me of his prose style without any of his substance
- I also have an arts degree, I know first hand the kind of drivel you are forced to read and write
You gotta be fast and smart to play real time strategy games. You need to micromanage and macro at the same time.
God spoke to me.
And then some of us do it so we can keep our jobs.
There's always someone else who will do what someone else won't.
Make sure to give Windows permission to switch between windows. Might be a security risk.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Er... As someone with an IQ of 159 you should realize that you are abnormal, and that writing articles addressed only to such a minority of people would be rather... absurd. Actually I don't think your subjective experience can really be generalized to other people with high IQs. For example, I've got a pretty decent IQ myself (153), and generally try NOT to multitask, I'd rather handle one situation at a time. I think its called hyperfocus, which pretty much turn tasks into "flow" like experiences. Intelligence does not lead to one style of expression, there still is tons of neural baggage, and experiences, that will shape your strategy of using it.
I'm right there with you at about 155, last time I tested. I'm partner, CTO, and software engineer for a small software company. (12 staff, 3 software engineers including myself) So I write software, specifications for the other programmers, and frequently answer questions about software layout, design, and also often talk with customers. In other words, my job description is all over the map. I've learned however. I've learned how to answer the phone, answer a few quick questions, and NOT lose my train of thought in programming.
Most importantly, I've learned to say "My mind is in another place, and I can't think this through right now. Can I call you back when I have some spare brain available?". This comes when I notice that I'm losing my hard-earned train of thought, and need to keep it. I don't know if I can stress how important this last point is. When I'm on something, I'm on it and not much of anything else. I'll answer a quick question or something, but as soon as the event window exceeds 1-2 minutes, it becomes an item on my "to-do" list. I do one thing until it's as done as I can before moving on to something else.
Multi-tasking is a fiction. You do only as much as you must to be polite, and even then, not overly polite. Demand respect of your mental state and you'll get it, and you'll get more respect for doing so.
I've told powerful executives of client companies to hold their tongue until I'm ready for them, sometimes rather bluntly. I've never gotten anything but respect for this, because when I'm ready for the executive, I'm 100% theirs, I'm very, very good at what I do, and they appreciate that.
Forget multi-tasking - pretending you can do it only screws you over, and makes others treat you like a doormat.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
(and, sadly, some of the people that work for them fall for it and even think it's "macho" to trade their entire waking life for a paycheck).
Meh. If they're happy, why bother?
that multitasking decreases the effiency greatly, unless they are very simple task. I have alway tried to do two things at a time since I was kid, and now I can read manga while writing at the class, sometime I don't even know that I am writing at all, as i am focusing at the manga. That may sound good for a lazy bum like me, but now I can' concentrate in anything longer than 2 minutes :( Guess that I have to change my habit after reading this.
In my personal experience of meeting various interesting people, I feel that learned behaviours have a lot to do with how one's mental skills are shaped, and hence how the person is perceived by others.
One friend of mine had a very bad childhood. She learned to escape inwardly, by concentrating on books, study, escaping physically to a library any time she had the chance. Now, she is a doctor. She also has a photographic memory and can "re-read" pages she has scanned. People might perceive her as "high IQ". However she has trouble reading people, and cannot pick up more than the basics of computers, as she gets frustrated and bored easily. You could say she's a bad multitasker.
If an IQ test was based on mechanical cognition, she wouldn't rate very high. If it was memory-based, she would excel. If it was dependent on multi-tasking, she would also struggle.
Briefly, I'm the opposite. Multi-task all the time, rarely bored, but my visual memory sucks. I'm good at judging people's moods, but terrible with faces and names. I grew up slightly hypervigilant, and for some reason need to swap tasks to keep my brain ticking over, like those old watches you had to shake to wind up. I'm good at remembering practical and mechanical skills, of which I class programming as one. Which is funny, others I've spoken to class programming as technical, or mathematical. To me, it's mechanical, like a watch.
If I sat an IQ test which required visual memory, I'd fail. If it relied on drawing meaning from literature, or reading body language I'd do well. If it required multi-tasking (like the classic male-secretary-in-busy-office experiment) I'd breeze.
My point is, learned behaviours can sometimes be extreme, leading to some amazing skillsets while impairing other skillsets. So what does a measure of multi-tasking ability or IQ really mean, in terms of gauging "intelligence"? Nothing, in my opinion.
To me, intelligence, simply means we function well in our environment. As modern humans, we tend to pick our environments so that our learned skills are most applicable. That's "comfort zone". Sometimes dysfunctional, but always dependent on the skills you have learned therefore, ideally, the place where you are most "intelligent".
The rest of the world call it adrenaline. Which was all the point of the wiki article you missed.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Because they are often used as leverage against everyone else.
"Jones works 70 hours a week. If you don't as well, we'll find people who will"
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Us geeks realized that we couldn't both date girls and create a Nobel-winning thesis.
Table-ized A.I.
are never bored. They constantly see a complex, beautiful universe and never lack for engaging questions and challenges.
I have this job, which is called CM, and which requires me to do many things. One of the reasons we do it is that we start and monitor jobs, which can take hours, so you do something else in between. We also provide support for specific issues.
In 2002,2003 things where at a an extreme. I had to do many releases, and in between I also wrote software to automate this. In 2004 I realised something was amiss, because I lost concentration, was tired, didn't feel like working, and carried out mostly routine jobs. This carried on through 2006.
In 2006 I started to stabilise, I could work 4/5 of a week, which helped me rest. In 2007, I have mostly recovered, but I still have some issues which probably won't disappear. My short term memory does weird things, and I can concentrate, but it is mostly so focused that I do not notice other things.
Like I said, I work 6 months in a year now 4/5 of a week, and I started taking fish oil caps, because I found that my eating peanuts and fatty fish always had a positive effect on me.
I have organised my personal and work life more. I use (x)emacs org-mode to have a good view on things that I want to plan, taking care that every idea I have is entered immediately.
Regards, another victim of too much multitasking.
You multitaskers are making me too dumb to do work and read SlashDot all day (or night in my case).
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
Sure they can. As others have pointed out, it's easy to "multitask" when the tasks don't require higher brain functions. I'm sure all the gung ho corporate types are very efficient at being gung ho corporate types AND keeping their hearts beating and lungs breathing!
Multitasking can help improve the brain function, and enhance memory too in the end. But in our current learning paradigm, and corporate environment of faster, faster, faster--well we've become inefficient due to the lack of time and lack of meaningful priorities.
Either give the mind more time or change the learning paradigm. Otherwise, we are truly becoming inefficient with conditions like ADD.
Some times quality quantity and some times quantity quality. I once took a math class with my dad at the local community college. He would spend 3 hours a night and get a 95 on an assignment, and I would spend 30 minutes and get a 90. Who would you hire? Correct answer: depends on the job Its the same concept for multitasking. Some things are better in serial (such as a train) and some are better in parralel (such as a freeway). I dont want my surgeon to be diagnosing and treating other patients when Im on the table, but my secretary better be able to remember two different phone numbers at the same time. I can multitask. Im not saying I can do two things at the same time without slowing down or loosing quality, but when necessary I can reallocate some mental resources from project A to B for a positive net gain. Example I wrote this while watching TV and IMing my parents at the same time. So what if there are some gramatical errors and typos in it. This is /.
I can't help drawing a conclusion.
Multitasking makes you stupid and slow
Women multi task more than men
Therefore.....
Does walking and chewing gum count????
Through personal experience I have found that woman have a much better ability to multitask. When I was in high school I took an electronics class and the way woman think was described to me like this: Men think is serial. Woman think is parallel. This does not mean that woman are better then men just that woman can come to conclusions faster then men can.
Some of my ex-girlfriends would get mad at me when I couldn't work on my computer and talk to them at the same time. Of course I would also get mad at them for talking to me while I'm working on my computer. They couldn't understand the fact that I had a hard time multitasking.
So based off my personal experience I would say this is not true for woman. I admit that I don't have any scientific proof off the top of my head to back this up. However, it does make sense to me.
it is a way of coping with the exceedingly slow speed of daily life. In my family (with a large number of siblings), my sister and I have obvious hyper-attention problems. Everything is much too intense. So I multitask to take the edge off of things. I can't hold a conversation without millions of thoughts running though my head. While it certainly is a problem, it isn't specifically a problem with me -- I think it's simply a mental divide. Things just need to be fast and complex enough to be interesting. And multitasking systems shouldn't be piles of crap either, it certainly doesn't help to do more things crappily at once.
And the ZX-80 couldn't even display the screen at the same time as processing a keypress. That was one highly-focussed computer!
Society is much different in Europe, but we suffer from asshole employers, too. For example recently Nokia closed a factory in Germany. Nokia has record revenues, the factory is highly profitable - but in Romania they have to pay the workers much less and they can get away with it, so they shut down the factory.
That kind of attitude can bite anyone. We have stricter laws concerning employment, but an employer still has a number of ways he can screw you over if he decides that he'd rather like a new car instead of paying wages appropriate to the amount of work being done. That especially applies to areas where there are more potential employees than jobs.
It's just one of the downsides of capitalism - if a company can make money, they will want to make money, even if that involves working against the employees. Especially when the company is a multnational corporation that can just go elsewhere if there's trouble.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
What you are describing is how capitalism spreads wealth to the lower classes (they just happen to be in another country), improves the overall efficiency lowering prices for goods & services freeing up capital, and creates a net gain. That's not a negative.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Every single task is solved by breaking it down into subtasks and solving each of the subtasks by breaking them down into subtasks.
:).
So single tasking is actually multitasking on a different level. In fact, it is about how you define multitasking.
If the purpose of your multitasking is achieving one single goal (e.g. a software project), then I think it is no different than being focused on a single problem and crunching through the problem's details.
'Surviving in our modern world' is the one task which our brain is constantly focused on. It is just that the task is getting more and more complex.
Going back to TFA, I think that our bodies and brains are surprisingly adaptive and self-evolving structures and by training our brains to multitask, they should rapidly develop an ability to focus while multitasking, thus becoming X times more efficient.
If I'm wrong and the article is right, then we're all fucked, because we live in a world where single-tasking is not an option.
Speaking of multitasking,
I have 5 monitors on my desk right now, hooked to 4 PCs: 2 XP systems, one Linux and an iMac.
I find this setup very helpful with my ADHD, as long as I keep on developing (build on Linux, change the playlist or IM on XP1, debug and code on XP2, read Slashdot on the iMac and so on). Besides that, I have my dog, constantly trying to steal my attention (and being quite efficient at it
I find (my brain finds) this exciting and interesting and so is more efficient at doing more things at the same time.
So TFA is too pessimistic. I think multitasking is cool, perhaps it makes us slower at solving one simple task, but it makes our brains more and more efficient at solving hundreds of parallel / unrelated tasks.
In the Nokia example that's right - the closure is bad for the region (which by the way is considering demanding its tax breaks back) but good for Romania (until people start becoming more expensive there). However, making someone work overtime without paying extra does not spread wealth at all, especially not when it's used as a means to get by with fewer employees than one should need.
Another example of where it doesn't work too well is when a company lowers their production costs but keeps the prices at the same level. If they can get away with it, they will.
The system works, mostly, which is not bad. But there are a lot of loopholes and a lot of slimy bastards that abuse them.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Yup, I've heard it all from you guys about how the boss sucks at multitasking, how I never get anything finished..... Let me explain: it's not my job to get things finished! Oh, I occasionally finish something, but not often, my job is to make sure that the flow of things goes smoothly enough that at the end of the day everything gets done -by somebody else! I have so much stuff coming through that demands my attention: make a decision, get "part A done with employee so that employee understands where we're going with this" answer phone and put the fire out in another location, get to the other side of the building to solve another problem and place a materials order along the way.... I love it and it sucks. There's a notepad with me all the time. Not some electronic gizmo... a pencil and a notepad. If I write it down the old fashioned way, I can remember most of what passes through during the day except lists. Hastily written notes have to be rewritten almost immediately or else they wont make sense even 10 minutes later. Multitasking doesn't work at all without deliberate times where I STOP multitasking and commit things to memory with that old fashioned pencil and paper, writing things down, not as some "note" but as a written explanation. And it's exhausting. But I love turning chaos into order, and somebody has to do it! And everyone knows that if I've gone off to the shop and put the welding hood on, do not disturb............. I need some time of concentration. Nothing focuses the mind like welding.
I am playing the violin only one hand at a time in future.
disclaimer: i am not a ("pro") trained runner. but i do run 30mi (48km) per week.
Come back when you know what a card-punch is.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Delegate your multitasking to the fast idiot. Write scripts to automate everything you can, and schedule them to run them in the background while you concentrate on one thing at a time.
Every now and them one of my coworkers razzes me about not graduating from the command line, but when they want something -done-, they call me.
Time management is, at its base, the ability to tell someone "no" when they ask you to do work. You say "no" because you have 100% of the feasible work load when that person wants you to do some more. NOTE: another error is that 100% is the maximum workload: it isn't. 80% is about the maximum, 100% can be maintained for a short while, 110% for even less time. You need bathroom breaks, informal talks (meetings arranged are already included in your work schedule), you may be sick or late because of an accident (and working late just makes you less productive, even though it's more productive than going home, but then again, you won't feel like working 100% if you've had to work late the week before).
Management think that time management is about you doing what they told you to do and making space for when they change their minds. It isn't. You should already have an idea of what effort work takes and your schedule is filled. At that point, time management is about how to say "no".
"Lie back and look for asteroids"!
'course the women decided to multi-task on THAT one too, so they were busy thinking up knitting patterns (not the Tyranosaur women, mind: they didn't do knitting) and what was on the shopping list ("stegosaur" for the tyranosaurs).
I'd always heard that it made you go blind and get hairy palms. What? Oh, multitasking! Sorry I thought you meant something else.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Methinks in doing Task1 and Task2 simultaneously or one after the other, you have to compromise on the quality of quantity of work done respectively. Multitasking is all good when you read the newspaper listening to music and making breakfast while answering you mail, but you cant exactly read general relativity with metallica on. Point being multitasking produces zilch results when need to do more than just crank a wheel.
Why is this even considered a bad result?
Were the subjects asked to just sort the cards or were they also asked to remember them?
If the instructions didn't mention anything about memorizing the cards while sorting them, then why on earth would it be considered important that the subjects didn't remember them?
This end result sounds more like a positive result than a negative one as the subjects succeeded perfectly on the two required tasks (getting the cards sorted and listening to the sounds)...
So, i've always heard that women are better at multitasking, men at single tasking. Does a lifetime of multitasking hurt women's brains?
There was a show on discovery about men's attention being like a laser, and women's being a flood light. Men focus intently on one thing (like putting a spear in to a gazelle or dodging an enemy's spear). While women mind the kids, cook dinner and balance the check book.
Guess i should R the A.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
ever.
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
There is no such thing as multitasking; there is only managed sequencing.
They say that brain plasticity is directly related to the organ's need to optimize its function. If your environment starts to require one skill more than another, the brain steals from the latter to build up the former. It does this to avoid overstimulating neurons and killing them ("excitotoxicity").
That's what this article is talking about when it says that multi-tasking steals from areas of the brain designated for higher cognition, memory, etc.
However, brain plasticity is a response to scarcity, ie. you only have so many neurochemical chits so you have to figure out the best place to put them down.
So would it be possible to supply the brain with the raw materials it needs so you can retain the benefits of neural plasticity (ie. augmentation of areas focused on new skills) without the concommitant degradation in other areas of the brain? Any biochemists out there know? Inquiring multitaskers wanna know.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Yeah but if u watched enough episodes of Stargate, you'll realize that Buddha was probably a GA'ould and would have know about this anyways, and may even have been a TO'gra...helping humans become more evolved. I would assume that by doing this, it helped us along to then be able to didcover our stargate. Whatever u do don't piss Tealk off! :P
At any point in time when I'm interrupted on one project, I can look at the list and find something else to do from the lines that haven't been crossed off yet. I always focus exclusively on one thing at a time, one item on the list, and cross it off when done.
I've tried computerized lists or spreadsheets or PDAs, but for me they just don't work the same. There is a certain psychological satisfaction of crossing out an item on the hand-written list that a computerized version can't provide. And I save these list pads when they're full for some vague historical reason, if only a psychological boost that I can point to (to myself) all the things I've done. Silly, but it works for me, and I rarely feel disorganized.
America isn't decaying, it's been the same for 200 years. The affordable places don't have the jobs, that's the problem. Of course, we could find ourselves in a chicken/egg argument here.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
This should be one more argument to help your argument on getting faster workstations and servers. The less time you are waiting for your computer to complete something, the less task switching and loss of productivity.
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Arstechnica has a nice article which links to the Kirn article as well.
Intro:
2008: Year of Information Overload?
Interruptions aren't merely annoying; they're also bad for productivity. And when you multiply the interruptions made possible by e-mail, phone calls, text messages, and Twitters across the entire US, the result is lost productivity on a massive scale: $650 billion in a single year.
While true multitasking is counterproductive, what managers and HR people want are people who can handle interruptions and distractions well. You might like to just stick to "your job", but that's not how business works. If being pulled off of something to handle an hour-long emergency makes you worthless for the rest of the day, then you probably aren't as valuable as someone else would be.
Thinking clearly and keeping good notes helps one pick up where they've left off. People who don't do that are more prone to complain about the loss-of-productivity associated with multitasking.
But I completely agree that only a moron thinks that multitasking is a good thing. Now my compile has finished, so I have to go...
Walter Kirn obviously never saw this scene from Iron Eagle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF6R1sJrWPk
Sadly in Corporate America (TM) multitasking is a demand of the job. I blame my job and the web for shaving 40 points off my effective IQ inside the cube walls.
These days if I am sitting in front of a computer and not multitasking it feels funny, like driving a car without a seat belts, or leaving home without my keys.
Of course it is entirely possible that learning to multi-task and shave 40 IQ points makes the average Tech'y ready for a job in upper management.
Think Deeply.
If you'd watched enough Stargate you would know that it is spelled Goa'uld, Tok'Ra, and Teal'C. You geek license is hereby suspended until you have completed all 10 seasons again, can name the four races, and know who Dan Shea is.
-You have been modded appropriately-
I did not "miss the point". Others, including yourself, have taken my casual comment out of context. Here is the context, which YOU missed: it was an American article, written for an American audience. Therefore my statement was correct and historically accurate.
If you want to take casual comments out of context and make a big deal out of them then fine, but that is YOUR doing; it does not constitute a failure on my part.
I practise both Buddhist Mindfulness and Insight meditation and I think it's a very important part of training your brain to be more focused and a deeper / more productive thinker.
As an exercise slashdotters... turn off your monitor, close your eyes and try to rest your thoughts on your breathing for a few minutes. Only be aware of breathing. Don't think about what you have to do today, don't get lost in memories, don't judge yourself, or think things like "am I doing this right?" , or "well, this is me breathing, yup I'm breathing here", etc.
You should only be aware of the in and out. No quiet thought chatter, no daydreaming, no judging.
How long can you keep your mind totally empty of anything but the in and out of the breath? I bet not very long. It's tricky to even last a minute without a single subtle thought. But if you think about it.. we SHOULD be able to tell our mind what do do right?
My point is... our minds are like little children, running all over the place. Training it to sit still is very hard... but very worth while. Not only to be more productive, but also to catch yourself when your thoughts are negative.
But it's called Buddhism Practise, because it takes lots and lots of practise, it's really not easy.
Competition goes both ways.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Interesting that this article should come up. I heard an interesting program on CBC-Radio about people who translate in real-time. Basically they listen to one language and speak the translated terms in another for a public speaker. It is apparently a huge mental exercise that only a few people can pull off. Even when they pull this off smoothly most need to take a break after 30 minutes of continuous translation.
(no wonder so many people haven't RTFA)
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
A possible take on matters is that school teaches us to be slow by forcing us to multi-task. That is, while we're "focused" in one hour blocks on a specific subject the rest of the time we're forced to juggle homework assignments, projects, exams etc. It's not as pronounced in high school as it is in college, but it exists in both levels of education.
Anecdotally, I find that my ability to focus is not a matter of multi-tasking versus single-tasking so much as it is a matter of what kind of feedback I can get from a given task. Tasks where there's a quick, tangible input from my output easily keep my interest. Ones which involve a lot of work without any visible result tend to lose interest quickly. If I'm addicted to anything, it's feedback/response.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Multitasking might work when you're working on easy, non-scary tasks, but as a coach who helps people overcome procrastination and blocks I have seen repeatedly how multitasking is used as a form of procrastination. Most cases of procrastination are grounded in fear of change, success, failure, rejection, etc. - the procrastination is a defensive behavior designed to keep you from making progress and thus facing the thing you are afraid of. (And most of the fears are quite reasonable, btw, even if the procrastination itself is a suboptimal response to them.) This may seem counterintuitive, since the procrastinator typically is desperate to make progress and ashamed of his inability to do so, but what he doesn't recognize is that, underneath, his fears make him more desperate to stay stuck. Procrastination is stealthy and pernicious. Often it masquerades as productive work, so the sufferer will be less motivated to fix a problem that he may not even recognize as such. Multitasking is often a form of procrastination in that the procrastinator busies himself with less important tasks instead of focusing on the more important, often scarier ones. For more information on procrastination and how to overcome it, download my Creative Commons ebook, The Little Guide To Beating Procrastination, Perfectionism and Blocks: a Manual for Artists, Activists, Entrepreneurs, Academics and Other Ambitious Dreamers, from www.lifelongactivist.com/downloads .
According to recent studies, acupuncture is useful as a method of back pain relief, but it is completely irrelevant where you stick the needles. The concept of meridians and the flow of chi are compete mumbo jumbo. Sham acupuncture is as effective as real acupuncture within a reasonable margin or error (47.6% relief for real, 44.2% for sham, and 27.4% for conventional therapy).
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
In an atmospheric environment, heavier items do indeed fall faster. try dropping a sheet of paper and an equivalently sized piece of sheetmetal if you don't believe me. Hell, some items are so light that they don't fall at all, like balloons.
I have ADD and I take no medication. Multitasking allows me to utilize my ADD rather than fight it. If I were to only do one task at a time I would become bored with that task and half ass it. I don't medicate because it makes me tired and slow.
Yes. Items with a greater air resistance / mass ratio fall slower. That's exactly the point. If you just use a simple observation you arrive at the wrong conclusion. If you use the scientific method to check your assumptions and make sure your observations properly sample the parameter space, then you arrive at more correct, and more useful, knowledge.
For example, the paper sheet metal experiment is fine. But you should also drop a working metal glider and bowling ball. Uh oh. Contrary results. That means our simple observation is incorrect and we should do more experiments!
Or to use your last example, drop a large helium balloon and a bowling ball. The balloon is MUCH heavier than the ball, even if you don't count the weight of the helium, yet it rises while the ball definitely drops. With that one you can find out about buoyancy while you're at it.
Speak out against chi meridians and win a free T-shirt, pin or coffee mug: http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/chi-kung-skeptic-to-iron-shirt-master/
I have always been of the opinion that many of the trivial tasks to which "multitasking" is applied by humans in the corporate environment would be much better handled with automation and as a programmer I abhor having to do tasks which I know that I could automate relatively easily with a couple of days of programming work. The computer specializes in running multiple threads of execution and doing it quickly and accurately (where accurate means exactly how the programmer told them to do it, including bugs). The human specializes in high order abstract thinking of the type needed to design and build the appropriate automation. Therefore, it makes sense to automate the mindless tasks and free up the valuable human resources for more focused work on interesting problems which require creativity and abstract thinking. Of course, trying to explain these concepts to managers or even argue about the more fundamental weaknesses of human multitasking itself is usually a waste of time. The managers will never be convinced by any amount of scientific evidence that they cannot multitask quickly and accurately. They will always think of themselves as the one exception to the general rule, that is why they are the manager (or so they want to believe) and the rest of us are working under them. Sigh.
Now the explanation is at hand. Of all the mysteries of the universe that I figured might be explained by a Slashdot post, this wasn't #1 on the list. I always though that there was some kind of stupid-ray emitter in Los Angeles that disproportionately affected women drivers or something.
What other explanation could there be, I surmised, for the extreme preponderance of female obliviousness and idiocy I have observed since moving here -- something which I have never noticed elsewhere, to this day, anywhere else (a sample space which includes Oregon, New York, Nevada, Minnesota and southern Ontario Canada)?
This is even reflected in insurance rates; women pay higher premiums in Los Angeles country, or at least they did in 2003 -- something I had never, ever heard of before; women have always been cheaper as far as I knew.
I was disappointed to read your reply here, because it made it clear that you are part of the problem identified by the parent, rather than part of the solution. You are taking as axiomatic that "MEETING THE SCHEDULE" is the Prime Directive, and you make all your subsequent reasoning subservient to that.
Well one cannot argue against axioms. If your entire existence revolves around "getting product out the door" as you wrote then there is little point in discussing any of the higher goals of management.
You write: " schedules have to mesh, product has to go out the door in a timely fashion."
How simplistic, and how lacking in recognition that you are dealing with people and non-deterministic problems, not with a robot assembly line executing fixed-duration, tightly-specified tasks. You really are part of the problem in industry.
You might like to consider that some of your professional colleagues might have different goals: to do their work to professional standards, or to learn effectively as part of their career progression, or to do some task in a more generic way to benefit future work, as examples. Good managers don't brush aside such divergent inconveniences in the name of meeting deadlines. Only poor managers treat their people as dumb cogs in a machine.
What about musicians who play guitar and sing at the same time? Or chefs who cook multiple meals at a time? The thousands of nerds who listen to deathmetal and program C++ or w/e... I don't buy this story.
~Vexed and loving it!
I just figured all those "must be able to multi-task" was a covert affirmative-action strategy. You know, the old (15 years or so) myth that women multi-task better than men. Those ads basically read: "Woman Wanted", but without setting off any equal rights triggers.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
If you're doing the same thing twice, you're not really multitasking You're not performing two different tasks, you're performing the same task twice. Same rules, different datasets. Your brain may in fact interpret this as a single expanded dataset. An earlier poster commented that he could play several games of chess simultaneously, but that he couldn't play chess and bridge simultaneously.
It's the same with language. When you're talking to your friends, you talk differently from when you're talking to your boss, but most of the difference is in particular words or phrases -- the underlying grammar is the same. Maintaining two or more sets of words (data) and switching between them is easy, but when you switch between different languages, you change the grammar (rules). That's why people sometimes jam up when they change languages, but are perfectly capable of answering the phone appropriately when they're out with their friends and the boss calls.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
haha... I haven't seen that show for a while, despite having all the seasons of it on DVD, plus three seasons of Atlantis. Now bear with me... * Azguard (sp?) * Ancients/forget-their-own-name * Knox * Furlings Don't remember who DAn Shea is.
Yes, I guess it has been a few months since I finished all 10 seasons, now I have been catching up with 24, Prisonbreak, Stargate Atlantis, and a million others my GF likes, will you pardon my overcompressed and under stimulated data storage module, seems the warranty expired a long time ago, and when I asked best buy if they could offer me an extended warranty, they just looked at my noggin
and said, that's not our model, you may have bought this one at staples...
And let's face it, the vanilla scheduler sucks ass. Context switches are so expensive.
In case you were wondering, Republicans' brains run a scaled-down version of the NT kernel.
Obama's on a hacked BSD.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Think about two micro processors both say 2ghz, the two doing completely differant tasks what this article says is that instead of the speed of one cpu at 2ghz doing one task then the other, the article tries to tell you thats faster, and i will add it is a proven fact that ambidextrous people such as myself all have higher IQ's because we in fact have better communication between both halves of the brain and thus are allowed to do things much faster. There is no such thing in a human brain as true multi tasking its the speed with which this tells that, and if my communications about my brain are enhanced then i emulate higher intelligence. One of the things on most IQ tests is the speed you get it done. That means if my math centers tell my motor centers quickly to write an answer whether right or wrong i can get more points i won't waste time and thus learn to do things faster. NOW i have seen a lot a bone head things in my life but trying to tell people not to try and think fast as multi tasking tries to make you do , is well like my view of the people that love games that blow crap up. While great immediate stress relief if you are one for those lifer in action games you tell me you don't want to think you want to pull one trigger and aim at one thing at a time. I am one that plays strategy games tries to think about multiple scenarios and like chess out do an opponent based on not just skill but learning the parameters with which i can win and learn. As to language YOU also are wrong, I was able to program a circlemud coded in c++ before learning the language because i could see patterns of language where code worked and did not, language is simply put the systems of patterns that we develop that allow you and i too understand one another. grammer btw has little to do with it as i could slang or mispell many words and you would still get the basics of what i am saying. Again because the "pattern" of the word was simular and probably you have seen that "pattern" mispelled. I think in patterns adn who am i? well who ever i am i was called by the "pirates" the 4th best hacker in the world back in 2001. this is also why i am easy to adjust into multiple computer languages to program in, it is about patterns and those that have this skill rule computers and are if they apply themselves able to do anything. Having an IQ beyond 160 is genius but if you do not use it then you are not a genius. That is known as the EQ. I have both a HIGH EQ and high IQ. this makes me seem even smarter then a person of simular IQ, as i find ways to use my smarts, now i know this study was a crock cause i think about writing this i am also playing out in my head 2 universes at ogame.org , thinking of my sat dish coming tomorrow and typing this all out. using two hands to type is multi tasking true. your brain needs to coordinate two parts of the body.