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."
a bit trksey to typ wif on hand while im ... oh lookie shiny ponies!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
News at 11.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
I have absolutely no problems with...
hold on a minute...
multitasking. It makes me...
one second...
much more efficient, because I can handle...
sorry about this...
many different tasks at once
Apparently it affects memory as well. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/27/2221228&from=rss
CNN Article from 2001
It's not a bug, it's a feature
...it's been found that most guys already have a great tool for all this mono-tasking, Selective Hearing.
In other words, I should wipe my drive and install MS DOS.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
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.
Oh really? "Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all!" "Stupid sexy Flanders!"
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.
that many of my friends, and sometimes even myself, find it uncomfortable in genuinely quiet settings. While it is a useful skill to be able to keep track of more than one or two things at a time, it seems almost habit-forming. A good friend of mine seems to basically invent things to do so that he doesn't ever get "stuck" with one task at a time, which he says is boring.
The most annoying thing I can think of is when I'm at my job or in labs at school, and people come at me with a bunch of different requests, all expecting me to drop everything and get it done 'like now!'. Yes, I can manage several things at once, but sometimes properly managing things means doing them one at a time, carefully. Providing it's not a pressing issue, I wish people would be okay with the answer 'I'm just finishing up my current task, I will get to the next one as soon as I'm done'.
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.
For those that don't get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful
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.
As said by Charles Emerson Winchester III:
"I do one thing, I do it well, and I move on."
What a great show MASH was. Sadly, judging by what's followed from the major networks in the years since, it seems to have been one of the last gasps of truly quality TV series.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
To preempt a likely reply to the parent-- there are no women on /.
News at 11.
People seem to think that geniuses are simply more intelligent than the rest of us, I hear talk of IQs of 200, 250 etc. Which is utter bullshit, there aren't enough people on the planet for that, never mind the validity of IQ tests. What you really see when you take a look at the life of a genius is damned near monomania. The drive, ability and desire to focus on a single thing for years, decades, to the exclusion of almost everything else. To the point that they finally see "the truth" or at least, closer to the truth than the rest of us who are more distracted by daily life.
Not to say that geniuses aren't spectacularly talented people, obviously they are, but what really makes the difference is focus.
Deleted
I debated using that example because I knew some jackass would start crying about the safety aspect rather than what is pertinent to the argument. I am not advocating talking on the phone in a car, I am using it as an efficency example, since they used it.
However, if you are unable to set emotion aside and evaluate it objectively then let's go for walking and talking on your phone. Again, you will find that one interferes with the other, you'll probably walk slower and such as you are thinking about your conversation as well as where you are going, you may have to stop to dial or press keys in response to auto prompts and such. That doesn't mean that it is going to be more efficient to get to where you are going, then pull out your phone and make your call. Despite both tasks suffering, there is still an overall gain.
That is the point here. I'm not talking about safety, that's a separate issue.
"Multitasking may be detrimental to work and learning" says 18th Century man. "Verily, this is why women should not be permitted work or learn!"
Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
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.
Multi-tasking is efficient when used appropriately.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Just in, man stabs himself in mouth with BBQ fork instead of beer, while barbequeing. The dangers of multitasking,News at 8.
War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, the lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade.- Shelley
If you have ADD, you'll naturally be good at multitasking and this article does not apply to you.
This article applies to those who have the new disorder, multitasking deficit disorder.
You raise an interesting point. TFA says "In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice:
So, how the fsck could he have written to his son if his *first* son, who inherited the title, wasn't born until 15 years after that decade?
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.
Here is my complete speculative analysis on multi-tasking.
Just take a look at human evolution. Do you think that being "extremely focused" is a really good survival trait? Being able to do more than "one thing" at a time would seem to be a much more advantageous, in the greater scheme of things, than being able to focus at the detriment of other things. Human beings are meant to multi-task. Staying alert for potential predators while gathering food seems like a top notch trait to carry on. Human beings are at the top of the totem pole not because we are physically superior, but because we are mentally superior. Our ability to out think more physically capable predators is not only because we are smart, but also because we are cognsaint of more than one thing going on at a time, and are better able to process that information.
It seems more likely that the "genius" trait, while desirable for geek credit, is really not a trait that evolution seems to favor.
20th century Marxism is not progress...
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.
Meyer and Friedman called it part of the symptoms of the Type A Stress Syndrome. It's eventual result is coronary heart disease from plaques via ACTH secretion. It causes time-urgency and stress, and the fight/flight syndrome.
Multitasking is keenly sought because it also heightens brain activity, which some people crave. The downside is that it's really stressful, according to research done decades ago.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Works very effective.
Another thing: I work 1 day a week not at the office, but at home using VPN. Less people at my desk, less phone calls. Somehow that is always the day I do the most of the work for that week.
If you follow TFA links (which includes the sneaky commission referral from newatlantis), it leads to a book on Amazon called "The 4 Hour Workweek".
If you travel that link and read the first review, it includes some very accurate information about this global outsourcing issue we're all facing as we try to cram even more work into a finite span of time:
Well put.
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."
Detrimental but we do it anyways... alcohol, tobacco, television, fighting, preservatives, pets we're allergic to, driving old, inefficient cars... name one thing you do in a day that doesn't involve putting something into your body or putting it back out that is completely necessary.
Even if we get two things done less efficiently than if we did each of those things separately, we're still getting two things done at the same time. This seems perfectly fine for two jobs that don't have to be done perfectly or rapidly.
It doesn't matter anyhow, even if it is bad for us it's still human nature to push the limits of our thinking, even if it's regularly over what we can do.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
1. Some managers believe that people who want quiet and concentration at work are troublemakers.
2. HR-types consider task-oriented workers and thinkers dangerous to morale and workplace cohesion. I guess that's because task-oriented people get TOTALLY FED UP WITH EVERYONE'S CONSTANT PRATTLING and don't mind saying it once in a while.
3. OT, but the word 'Meebo' is nearly as stupid as 'Druple'; Lutherans have been doing ubuntu for years.
The demand of modern life is that people be able to handle tasks in unison, to micromanage their thought processes, and so to some extent I think this will be selected for.
Just as the road to increased productivity from CPUs calls for further parallelization, so does the refinement of the human mind.
and maybe it's a case of one or the other --increasing the ability to balance multiple tasks decreases a persons ability to work effectively on a single one.
... but I see it's just a discussion of a B.S. Bingo buzzword.
So this entire time me shunning the idea that people could really multitask was more or less correct. Now when people complain that I can't multitask, or I'm just ignoring their IMs and emails I'll send them this link.
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
Men's brains are more oriented towards focusing on a single task, while women's brains are designed for multitasking. So I'm not so sure that multitasking is really as detrimental for women.
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!