Slashdot Mirror
Multitasking Considered Detrimental
djvaselaar sends along an article from The New Atlantis that summarizes recent research indicating that multitasking may be detrimental to work and learning. It begins, "In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice: 'There is time enough for everything in the course of the day, if you do but one thing at once, but there is not time enough in the year, if you will do two things at a time.' To Chesterfield, singular focus was not merely a practical way to structure one's time; it was a mark of intelligence... E-mails pouring in, cell phones ringing, televisions blaring, podcasts streaming--all this may become background noise, like the 'din of a foundry or factory' that [William] James observed workers could scarcely avoid at first, but which eventually became just another part of their daily routine. For the younger generation of multitaskers, the great electronic din is an expected part of everyday life. And given what neuroscience and anecdotal evidence have shown us, this state of constant intentional self-distraction could well be of profound detriment to individual and cultural well-being."
It's a reasonable statement to make, and I can agree with it, in general terms. Generalisations, while usually true, can't be applied to everyone. I actually find it harder to focus on one thing when there is only one thing to focus on. I can't even read a book without the dull murmur of a TV with the volume turned down just on the edge of my awareness. On the other hand, I can't concentrate on anything when there's an infomercial on...
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Quote from the article:
I think the key here is forced. When I'm solving a problem or trying to learn something, I find that I am more effective if, after each noticeable success in my effort, I take a little break and do something else, such as read a Slashdot story, while my brain thinks about what I just learned or did. I'm much less effective if I have to work straight through on a long problem or learning task.
In other words, I multitask fine if I've picked N tasks, that I can switch among freely, whenever I want to switch. However, if the tasks are forced upon me, or I have to switch on a schedule or in response to interrupts, such as phone calls, then productivity goes down.
I think this is way too narrow. I can't really say since this was a fairly crappy writeup and not the original research itself, but just because in a narrow set of constraints multi-tasking equals less performance, doesn't mean overall it is worse. I think there's three main things not considered here:
1) Just because you perform both tasks worse, doesn't mean it's less efficient. An example would be driving while talking on the cell phone. There's little debate that your driving skills are worsened when you do this, as you simply have less concentration to go around. Ok, fine, but that doesn't in fact mean it is detrimental to efficiency. If you need to drive somewhere that takes 20 minutes, and you need to set up something over the phone that takes 20 minutes, you save time doing both at once. Even if because you aren't concentrating as much on either it takes 25 minutes to complete both, you are still ahead.
I realise with driving there is a safety consideration in this case, but I am talking overall about task performance.
2) Many tasks involve waiting. There are plenty of things in work, particularly computer work, that involve waiting. You'll give input and have to wait before you can give it again. It is not efficient to just sit there and stare at the screen. It is more efficient to work on multiple tasks. You work on another task, and periodically check on the first one to see when it needs input (this would be similar to how an OS multitasks on a single processor). Yes, no single task will get done as fast but you'll get more done in a given amount of time.
3) Sometimes you need to move away from something for awhile to be able to do better at it. I find this is true when I'm writing certain things. I can't just sit there and write the thing straight out. I can either stare in to space, or I can go ahead and do something else for a bit then come back to it. I'm not talking about needing an over all work break here, just that I need a bit to switch away and then come back. This is particularly true of editing. If I want to read over something I've written for errors, doing so right away does no good. I need to switch to something else for a bit, then come back.
As a simple example of where I've seen multi-tasking work much faster due to tasks that don't require constant input was setting up some software in a lab. Our management system was broken and we needed some new software in a lab right away for a presentation. So I grabbed one of our student workers and had him come help. We'd each take a row of computers and start doing installs by hand. He did everything sequentially, sitting at one computer and doing all the steps until it was done. I multi-tasked, dancing back and forth between 3-4 computers at once all at different stages of the setup. I ended up doing over twice the number of rows as him.
The reason was this was a perfect place to multi-task. The setup involved a fair bit of waiting on things before giving input, so rather than wait I'd go on to the next one. Thus the job got done quicker.
I'm reading /. frontpage, listening to a George Carlin standup youtube video (R.I.P.), chatting to three people on two protocols and waiting for a reply to an SMS I just sent.
Not really being very productive at all, unsuprisingly.
Paul Graham recently wrote an essay about a related topic just last May, on distractions. It seems that he even works by actually disconnecting his computer from the Internet while working, in order to reduce the amount of distraction that would come from use of the Internet, and using a separate machine somewhere else that had Internet access for those times when he really needs to do something online. It's a radical idea. Maybe it explains why I feel bit more productive while working from home, where Internet access can only be had by hooking my cellphone up to a special SIM card that has a data plan, and connecting to the Net via Bluetooth. With such awkward steps needed to get a working Internet connection, and with no coworkers to bother me, distraction is kept at a minimum. Whereas at the office the lawyer who's sharing our office space has a television permanently tuned to a news channel, I get distractions from coworkers up the wazoo, and a fast broadband connection which basically encourages me to read and post to Slashdot and engage in other diversions...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Kind of sad if you really didn't get it... I hope that was just "more joke."
I just wrote something on the superiority of written matter over video because written matter has numerous advantages that relate to focus and reflection. I value these things. Right at that time, I ran into this very article (I mean the one TFS refers to), I found it a horrifying thing to read — like reading someone's report of losing their own mind.
Since I wrote it up, I've been paying attention to how others pay attention, and I've seen a few things that signify, at least to me, that the problem is widespread.
For instance, I introduced our youngest boy (he's in his twenties) to some music that is in his line of interest (he plays bass, this musician I was showing him is a fabulous bassist) and he listened for, oh, maybe 15 seconds before he began to talk about music, which segued quickly into other areas. I didn't answer him; he just took off on his own.
Before the piece had finished playing, he was completely off on something else, and he had no idea what I was talking about afterwards when I asked him direct questions about the bass techniques demonstrated in the cut.
It was disheartening, to say the least.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Before I start, yeah, I do subscribe to the POV that IQ tests are just a trainable skill, and thus measure only... how good you are at IQ tests. Plus, I don't think one number is anywhere near able to sum up the gamut of human skills and abilities and talents.
That said, I do seem to recall that there _are_ differences in the brain wiring of different people. E.g., IIRC it was even linked here on Slashdot that Asperger's Syndrome causes neurons to form more connections and be much more reluctant to break old connections. E.g., they seem to have found a gene responsible for ADHD, which, again, causes the brain to work differently.
And in the end, is it that big a surprise? How your whole body looks like, and how it works, is dictated by some proteins which are encoded by some genes. E.g., we already identified, say, the protein which is encoded differently for a human brain as opposed to a chimp brain. And sometimes seemingly unrelated proteins affect the various pathways and reactions. E.g., a broken MC1R doesn't just give you red hair, but also has effects including different fight-or-flight priorities and pain sensitivity.
Because "God" doesn't seem to believe in neat, orthogonal, cohesive coding. Or rather, because we're the result of some random mutations that worked. If modifying another protein to fix the effect of the first works too, chances are you get that instead of fixing the first one. We're the result of some billions of years of spaghetti code and layers upon layers of hacks, that often address the symptoms instead of the real problem. We even have pieces of DNA that seem to be both code and data segment (very loosely using those terms, anyway.) We have deliberately self-modifying code, fer crying out loud. (That's how the immune system can match almost any foreign protein.)
At any rate, there are a lot of genes at work there. There are mutations in every generation. There are recessive traits. Etc. So it's not that far fetched that some people's brains would be wired slightly differently.
Whether that's good or bad, if up for debate. And, yes, IQ isn't measuring that. But you can't say that everyone has the same brain and only differs in how focused they are.
Heck, even that focus itself seems to be often a result of genes. E.g., Asperger's Syndrome has a narrow focus of interest as one of its almost invariant symptoms. The ability to hyperfocus is right behind on that list. So even that goes back to genes and brain wiring, it seems.
Basically, I dunno, I have no problem believing that some people _are_ born smarter. Again, it may not be measured by IQ, but I believe it's happening.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
When I first started driving, it took all my conscious, active effort to pay attention to everything on the road and this is just driving in the sedate neighborhood. The interstate had me utterly intimidated for the first year. I would not have the radio on, not talk to passengers, was totally white-knuckled focused. As I got better at it, the process became automatic and I could drive, talk to people, and it didn't hurt my driving performance at all. If tricksy situations arise, I'll tune out on any conversation and be focused just on the road. Of course, many people screw up by devoting more attention to the conversation (or makeup, or food) than the road. Nothing irritates me more than the kind of people who feel they have to maintain eye contact with a passenger while driving. NO! ROAD! CONCENTRATE!
People can juggle multiple low-level tasks. Walk or ride a bike while listening to a book on tape, get a big meal moving in the kitchen while singing along with music, just fine. A high level and low level task can be combined like driving and audio books. But it falls apart when multiple high-level tasks are competing. It's very difficult to, say, follow along with a TV show and write at the same time. There's no way in hell that the typical office multitasker gets anything done. These are the people you have direct conversations with and retain nothing because they're thinking about something else. My personal pet peeve, blackberries in meetings. STOP! There's no fucking way you're keeping up with what I'm talking about when you're typing with your thumbs. Check your berry to make sure it isn't a server calling for help and if it isn't, put the damn thing away and pay attention!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
This is a classic case of what's good for 88% of the population being exported to all people. In fact, if you are right-handed (88% of us) then your left-hemisphere is dominant and you do not benefit from multitasking. However, if you are left-handed (12% of humans), then your right-hemisphere (the image side) is dominant and it is perfectly acceptable for you to multitask. Why? The left hemisphere of the brain (the language side) is optimized to process linear sequential information. In right-handed individuals, the linear side is dominant. The left side is optimized to do one thing at a time. If a right-handed person is in the middle of a task and they break that off to do something else, they must return to the beginning when they resume the interrupted task. In left-handed people, the right-hemisphere (the image side) is dominant. That hemisphere is optimized to process visual-simultaneous information. Breaking off one task while in the middle of another task is possible. The left-handed/right-brained individual can resume where they left off, thereby making multitasking efficient. This is why, for example, we see left-handed people way over-represented in the presidential contests. Currently, both Barack Obama and John McCain are left handed. So, while I'm sure this article is statistically accurate, it glosses over some complexities that have only come to light in past few years.
The whole post is a joke. I have ADD, and I'm terrible at multi-tasking. I used to think I was good at it and to the casual observer, I probably appear to be good at it. But I have realized that the less I multitask, the more I actually get done. I came to this realization when I noticed that I couldn't remember a damn thing I read when there is any fair amount of background noise.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
"Multitasking may be detrimental to work and learning" says 18th Century man
Humans as a species don't change perceptably over that short a period. People have always multitasked - we just didn't need a word for it until computers. In fact, here's an old quite about multitasking that unlike yours actually was used before computers, and maybe in the 18th century or before:
"He's so stupid he can't walk and chew gum at the same time".
TFA's premise is too dumb to even read. You couldn't drive a car (or a horse-drawn wagon) without multitasking. You can't play a guitar, let alone a drum set, without multitasking. How many things did you have for dinner last night, were they all cooked one at a time? A cave man had to keep the fire burning, cook, and watch out for wolves all at the same time.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Of course, nowadays, multitasking is a corporate buzzword which mainly means that you have to do the actual task you were hired to do, but also usually do a lot of other bureacratic, time consuming stuff at the same time. It's why people are happy when they can work outside of their primary hours and actually get things done.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
As an actual genius, I feel qualified to comment on this. No seriously, I hate that word. But I've been writing music for about 20 years, and have been accused of writing some impossibly inspired things. Now if we can look past the presumed arrogance of the above, the truth is, I attribute it to monomania and persistence, not some magical faery dust in my genes. I have done some absolutely terrible stuff too, but the difference making the difference here is a strong belief in the monomania you speak of. I do not tolerate interruption.
The idea that anything great can be retrieved from the human mind while it's being preempted and prompted by the mundane influence of everyday life, is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who meditates or prays wouldn't think of trying to multitask during those activities, why should anything else that requires deep introspection or concentration have to suffer nuisances and interruptions? You can't create anything of metacognitive value while you are beholden to the normal cognition of the world around you, you must LEAVE IT BEHIND.
It's not different than playing a guitar, that's true. But the conclusion you draw, that it is multitasking, is not really true. Multitasking means working on two different tasks at once. Skiing down a hill while trying to shoot someone (ala bond movies) is multitasking - that's two totally separate tasks being combined. But the Biathlon is NOT multitasking, because you ski, and then you shoot, and then you ski again. Having to look through the scope and pull the trigger at the same time isn't multitasking - it's all part of the same task, shooting. You're drawing artificial distinctions where there are none. Guitar isn't using one hand to specify notes and one hand to play them - it's using two hands to make music. The fact that the hands are doing different things doesn't make it two tasks any more than steering and shifting makes driving two separate tasks - because they are part and parcel of the same activity.
Now, we could split hairs back and forth all day about this, but it's unrelated tasks that are discussed when we talk about multitasking. Holding a board and cutting it with a saw, that's just not two tasks, even if it takes two hands.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Scatterbrains do not bring down game.
Distracted dummies cannot track wounded game for miles and hours, maybe days.
The best hunters in my family are the most serene.
Human beings are meant to multi-task. Staying alert for potential predators while gathering food seems like a top notch trait to carry on. Yes, and the very act of gathering food requires sustained attention to the task.We are talking about two nonexclusive modes of human operation, and the point of being human is that we can choose how to operate in this spectrum. Animals have less, if any, choice.
We can employ our volitional consciousness to develop our mindful awareness.
It is what makes the martial arts so beautiful.
And what makes the martial artist so dadgum hard to sneak up on!