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 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.
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.
Absolutely ... they were so focused on mating and finding food and stuff that they totally forgot to watch out for asteroids.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think it depends on what you're doing and how you define "every so often".
Doing something different every couple of hours for a little while provides a mental break from the task at hand. Having to constantly switch between things, on the other hand, causes you more stress and makes you less effective as a general rule.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Seems more likely that switching between tasks just distracts you from noticing how poorly you're working.
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?
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.
... 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?
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
The guy who modded that Flamebait was balancing his checkbook at the time.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
Computers have only accelerated the problem in some jobs, as they a great facilitators of even greater levels of multitasking, where you can do several different tasks at the same time.
Not necessarily by choice, but customer demands, supplier demands and fellow staff member demands all need to be fulfilled and earning a reputation for multitasking, just leads to ever greater demands being made upon you, until, burnout, you've made enough, and a single focused effort on doing nothing becomes appealing ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I've always fund the habitual multi-taskers leave in their wake a series of tasks almost finished.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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!
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
That was a problem at work for me some time ago. Now, I know that a tolerance for interruptions depends upon one's personality and job. However, as a software developer, I liken it to someone building a house of cards, and then having some well-meaning idiot knock it down every half hour or so. Incredibly frustrating and annoying.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
>> 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
Not me. I multi-task all the time, and finish everything I start. Just proof this
Great Intellect...
I guess I'm the exc
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
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.
Well the average "multi-tasking" that I have encountered in the modern workplace is not of the type you describe.
.1ms, but even for trivial tasks (like I'm cooking spaghetti sauce in this pan, *INTERRUPT--The water is boiling* CONTEXT SWITCH, put noodles in water, lower heat, *INTERRUPT--Sauce simmering too vigorously* CONTEXT SWITCH, stir sauce) Even something simple like that the context switches will take 1-5 seconds, many thousands of times slower than a CPU, and those context switches have next to zero data overhead associated with them. Context switching is not cheap in silicon, and it is a lot less cheap in my experience in carbon.
Currently I am a member of 4 dev teams, working on 4 different products. It is 100% ineffective frustrating, and stressful (but so management has decided to structure the teams, most of the devs here are on at least 2 or 3 teams). Sure, at any one time I'm only working on 1 thing, because you can't physically type in 4 different windows at the same time. However, it is extremely difficult to get ANYTHING done. On a day where I have zero interruptions, and am able to focus and work on a single product all day, I can probably produce 1-2k lines of working code (given that the features are just in need of coding, and there isn't a lot of "ok let me think about this for 3 hours to figure out the best way to do it", if there is design/algorithm work obviously not as much code gets written, but this is even harder work to context switch on). However, I get a day like that maybe once a month, and its usually a saturday. On a regular day, even with prioritized task lists, when I have to touch 2 of the 4 products in single day, I probably can only produce 5-600 lines of working code total, it cuts my productivity in half, just the 1 context switch. Most days (probably 4 of 5) I touch all 4 products each day... Under these circumstances, I can only produce 1-200 lines of actual working code.
Context switching in software development is EXTREMELY expensive. Just like in this guy's driving example, what he is describing while his car careens off the road and he's still thinking "where did the phone go? I wonder if it was a nude pic?" is a context switch. Context switching even in SMP machines is expensive and they are designed for this purpose. It is the reason why there are limits to improvements you can achieve through parallelism. For some processes/tasks sure you can fully parallelize them, but there are plenty of tasks, and I'd argue the majority of creative type work (programming, system design, network design, research, book writing, painting, song writing, etc) are of the type which cannot be context switched easily.
Sure I can pay my bills and book a vacation online at the same time, but programming in parallel is a big no no. Our brains were not designed as and are not SMP computers, they aren't even very good preemptive multitasking machines (a single processor computer). A decent CPU can probably context switch in
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.
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".
But he...he was told that he could watch the television at a reasonable volume... Well, he...he...he told Bill that if... if Sandra's going to listen to her headphones while she's...while she's filing, then he should be able to watch the television while he's collating... so I don't see why he should have to turn off the television, because he enjoys watching at a reasonable volume. and according to...
Worst. Signature. Ever.
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-