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.
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.
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.