Slashdot Mirror
Habitual Multitaskers Do It Badly
iandoh writes "According to a group of Stanford researchers, people who frequently multitask don't pay attention, control their memory or switch from one job to another as well as those who prefer to complete one task at a time. In other words, multitaskers are bad at multitasking. The research team is also studying how to design computer voices for cars that result in safer driving."
Reader AliasMarlowe adds "The comparison involved multitasking with a number of attention or context related tests. For the study, multitasking was defined as consuming multiple media sources at once — gaming, TV, IM, email, etc. Interestingly, the habitual multitaskers were much worse at multitasking than the single taskers in these relatively straightforward tests. In self-assessment the multitaskers considered themselves good at it and the single taskers considered themselves bad at it. An extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps, with consequences for business and society."
When I multitask, I can feel the lack of attention that I'm devoting to certain things. For example, when I talk on the phone or text while driving. I mentally feel it.
People with attention-deficit problems are probably the ones who are most likely to attempt to multitask.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Can anyone make a quick summary for me?
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
... oh look, a butterfly!!!!!!
I think I have that bumper sticker on my...hang on, just let me check this e-mail...and get this call...
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I cna raed slashhhdott adn work at the same tikme.
syntx errer wtf???
...because they know from experience that it produces better results. People who habitually multitask do not know how to do a better job, so they think they're good at multitasking. Single-taskers are probably under much more stress though as they aim higher even when multitasking.
I multitask a lot, but I've only been doing it after learning how a computer does it - you know, that same computer INCAPABLE of real multitasking? Yeah, humans should do it like that as well.
The trick is to use a divide and conquer algorithm on your tasks and divide them into chunks of just the right size - too small and you'll have too much overhead switching processes, too little and you'll essentially reach a dead-lock situation where everything is waiting for you to finish that one thing.
What works for me is, for example, reading a chapter of a textbook, followed by a few minutes on slashdot and whatnot, then going back to the book and so forth ad nauseum.
This way you're always multitasking without actually multitasking and you get a lot more done than just focusing on one task for a few hours, then on another for a few more hours and so on.
Define "multitasking" so that people are bound to fail, then measure the failure.
I define multitasking to include doing more then one task on my computer at a time. The trick is to start a long running BACKGROUND task and then do something requiring more attention in the foreground. It works very well.
So, I call this study INCOMPLETE. the peole doing it were probably playing video games while measuring their data - LOL!
Note that one of the researchers behind this, Cliff Nass, was the brains behind Clippy.
I'm a little puzzled by the tests.
The last test seemed to test ability to move from one focused task to another focused task, each one consuming 100% of attention.
I would expect a person with practice focusing on a single task to do well there.
The first test involved focusing on one object while ignoring distractions. Many of the people who consider themselves multi-taskers have probably trained themselves to be high-novelty seeking and easily distracted. Not saying this is necessarily good, just not clear how this was testing multi-tasking.
It seems to me a "multi-tasker" would do better at a test that actually tested tracking multiple inputs at once.
I can involve myself in one high-level function and monitor several low-level functions no problem. If I'm cooking and it's a recipe I know, I can have something on the telly in the background. Certainly not a movie or something that requires 100% focus but I can put the Daily Show or Colbert on no problem, just glancing over during the laughs to catch the sight gag. If it's a recipe I'm unfamiliar with, I have to focus 100%, no time for distractions.
Driving is another interesting case. When I was first learning, I couldn't have the radio on or even talk with a passenger. It was a new skill and consumed 100% of my attention to a ridiculous degree. As I became more comfortable with driving, I could take a more relaxed approach. I can hold a conversation with a passenger. I'm still doing my sweeps, checking mirrors, instrument panel, paying attention to the feel of the road, listening for anything odd, but it takes less effort to do all these things. But when conditions become more interesting, it takes more effort to retain situational awareness. I'll lose track of the conversation. This is the opposite of the way most people do it, the conversation distracting from the driving.
As a mostly monotasker, I'm very skeptical of multitaskers, bordering on contemptuous. It really irks me when I'm trying to work with someone who insists on multitasking to the point where you keep having to repeat yourself because he wasn't fucking listening in the first place. "No, I heard what you said. Just repeat it so I can understand." It's a sick, pathetic, constant pattern. I tell someone x is followed by y and z. They hear x and immediately ask about c. Well, c could be related in some instances but I already told you in this instance it's x, then y, then z. But wait, why is y there? That's the sequence. And then after several more rounds the person will exclaim with a sudden revelation "Why, this is x, then y, then z!" Of course, you numpty pillock. I've only been trying to tell you that for the last ten minutes. I'm going to rip that fucking bluetooth out of your ear, yank the battery from your iphone (they are removable if you use enough force) and make you focus for a goddamn minute!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
No, not that kind of multitasking! I mean have they corrected for the difference between men and women?
In our society, and in the hunter-gatherer societies that far preceded it, men's jobs demanded concentration and women's demanded social interaction. This may introduce a sex-linked bias into the experiment.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
I keep seeing insurance-company ads about texting when driving, and wonder if anyone actually sends text messages at the wheel, as opposed to reading them or texting while a passenger?
My father was an insurance detective, and often commented that the companies were constantly warning about quite imaginary perils...
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Multitasking in humans is a myth. You might be able to rapidly switch between tasks, but processing more than one thing simultaneously can't be done.
Journal
The article says:
Do they simply ask "Do you do a lot of media multitasking?" ?
Life is wet, then you dry.
DOS! DOS! DOS!
- PC gamers chant at Microsoft presentations circa 1995
Wow what a shocker... People who meditate do so to focus on ONE point and keep that focus for as long as possible.
Everyone knows that a core problem with people is a lack of focus.... OH Look a Quarter!!! Anyway, where was I?
Oh yes, the lack of attention and focus, And just how much did this study cost us?
You don't know what you're talking about. I multi...
uh, What were you saying?
Very well said. I would consider myself the exception to the rule in that I am aware of how bad I am at multi-tasking, yet still insist on doing it anyway. That whole ADD thing is a bitch...
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
I never said anything about the wisdom and restraint to avoid multitasking. That's a whole other level above self-awareness, and definitely above where I am at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger
For further info, just google "Sarah Palin" or "birthers".
Multitaskers do you.
Yours In Hollywood,
K. Trout
It is impossible for me to multitask. For instance I cannot watch TV and listen to her tell me to take out the trash at the same time. I think that it is possible to multitask though using different senses. For instance type while reading or listening.
I originally had the first post to this article, but I got distracted and forgot to hit the submit button.
Not sure I want to make a T-shirt out of THAT expression.
I have long suspected this. I think people who believe they are good at multitasking give themselves the illusion that they are doing a good job simply because they are so busy. It has been my observation that many women, in particular, pride themselves on their multitasking ability, and are confident that they are excellent at each and every task, when in fact they are just doing a mediocre job.
Pity the poor man who should ever suggest this, however.
Proverbs 21:19
...Know your limits!
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
He thinks that because he can sit in a meeting and halfway listen to what is being said while reading emails on his blackberry, he is multitasking. And therefore, those who work for him should be able to handle several large, high pressure projects at once.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
It's not the shiny buttons it's me trying to multitask!
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
It's like building a house of cards in an earthquake. It always comes falling down. Would you tell your surgeon that it was ok if he stepped out to work on other patients while he had you laying open on the operating table? This stupid myth that multitasking is a good thing is the one thing that has caused me more headaches and failure to get a job than anything else. They would ask me how good I am at multitasking and i would honestly say it was not something I could handle well. It breeds mistakes like mad and it would piss me off when i would get pulled out of something I was about to finish to start on something else. its a piss poor way to do things and I had the studies to prove it a decade ago. They did a study, where they simply interrupted people every 20 minutes. They found it killed productivity - it came to a near standstill. Nothing got done. Why? They found that people work best in a certain rhythm or routine, but that it took about 20 minutes to get into that rhythm but when you interrupts folks, they never get into that rhythm - think of stopping a train every 20 yards and you get the idea. The only kind of multitasking that is ok, is the kind where you break your project into parts or you have a few different projects that if you get stuck or are unsure how you should proceed and have to let the ideas simmer for a bit, then it is good to work on something else for awhile WHEN you are in a spot where you can stop and come back to it later without having to re-orient yourself all the time. PS: I'm a dedicated programmer looking for a job. Hire me! I need work and not to be looking for it while living under a bridge!
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
Basically, a guy wanted to find out what the differences are between those who multi-task a lot and those who don't, or feel they are unable to multi-task well.
He set up an arbitrary experiment that supposedly tests your ability to multi-task and those who multi-task a lot did not do very well at his experiment, hence his conclusion was that multi-taskers are bad at multi-tasking.
The problem I see with his experiment, and more importantly, his conclusion, is that he assumes the various tests he did actually are all that are required to judge someone's ability to multi-task - effectively he wasn't testing multi-tasking in his experiments, only performing phsycological tests that he assume are the traits that are required to be an effective multi-tasker.
An experiment cited in the BBC article is one where there is a screen with 2 red rectangles and a number of blue rectangles which is displayed briefly and then the screen is displayed again and the subject has to say whether or not a red rectangle has been rotated. The link to multi-tasking in this particular experiment is weak, I can only guess the assumption is that to multi-task better you need to be able to track multiple objects on screen in detail but that seems to be merely speculation on behalf of the researcher.
Doing research on this sort of thing is fair enough, but the fact they seem to have come to the outright conclusion that multi-taskers suck at multi-tasking seems quite a leap from what their research actually shows - that there's simply a statistical link between someone's ability to multi-task and how badly/how well someone can do in those specific experiments which in themselves may or may not tell us anything about someone's ability to multi-task.
I would've thought a better experiment would, you know, involve multi-tasking? An experiment with say a simplified user interface where there are multilple blocks (Windows) where a basic task has to be performed in each but each has a differing time limit as to how quickly it must be completed. Simple, effective, and a good test of multi-tasking ability.
But then, that might not have given them the results they wanted that would get them headlines that the world's media would blindly follow.
Have you noticed how many employers don't simply want, but insist that new hires be good at multitasking? That the successful employee will be not only able to manage several projects at the same time, but will jump from one to another like a coked-up spider monkey on command?
Now, I admit fully to being resolutely anti-corporate, so it's only natural for me to look at this suspiciously. But I have to imagine that a whole lot of other people will see this as a disorder not just of the worker but of management, accepting sight unseen that multitasking, getting bits and pieces done on a whole lot of different projects in short order, is somehow more "efficient" (Hello? Changeover time?) than doing one thing to a good stopping point and then moving to another project when you're damn good and ready. It's especially a management problem if the management insists on mandating the changeovers, forcing employees to change gears without the clutch engaged.
I can easily believe this sort of affliction can be inflicted. So I say let's study the possibility that ADD can be a workplace injury, to be covered by health insurance, and see how long this trend lasts.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
When I read the title I interpreted "Do It" as is Bowchicawowow...
Then immediately the joke came to mind.... I know when I multitask it just takes longer to get things done, which really women might appreciate...
But really I guess I just proved the real theory that I am not good at multitasking. Dammit!
I remember a study was reported a couple of years ago or so saying that incompetent people thing they're great at what they do. They lacked the mental equipment to judge performance. This sounds like the same song, second verse.
The problem with "multitasking" is that it shouldn't be attempted unless you're already good at something.
My mother-in-law can knit a sweater, watch a movie and talk to my wife all at the same time, and not miss anything. She is simply amazing at times.
Other times she tries to multitask and it comes out to be the biggest clusterfuck of all time. Especially anything that has to do with computers.
The trick is that to truly multitask well, requires mindless tasks that just occupy time.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I can both read Slashdot and simultaneously listen for my bosses footsteps behind me.
Become a single parent web deveoper. You find out that Multitasking is a skill that can be honed.
Try it. Step #1: Have sex... Oh, sorry, this is Slashdot. Nevermind.
I was very attentive until I got my first DVR back in 2001. The ability to back right up while watching TV creeped in, and has only gotten worse. I now expect that I can backup the radio, and even face-to-face. My mind wanders constantly now. Before it was small thoughts, but last night I had to back up Weeds twice for 2-3 minute segments.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It's a myth
Very close to what I was thinking. Perfectionists choose not to multitask.
A couple of months ago, I became aware of the concept of single-tasking. Back then, the presenter claimed the philosophy was so recent that it didn't even have a Wikipedia page. (It still doesn't.)
The idea behind single-tasking is the same as in this article: multi-tasking gives us the feeling we're doing a lot of work, but actually we lose a lot of time mentally switching between different "contexts". Working on a single task until the end, and then taking on the next one is better.
WWTTD?
What multitasking is not is simply fielding one interruption after another - that's either panicking or extremely poor organisation. Either way, the outcome is what these researchers have found: you start lots of things, do them badly and (probably) never get to finish a lot of them.
So, in practice if you want to "multitask", just do one thing at a time. You'll still have many projects or tasks running at any one time, but you won't find yourself idle when you need a #5 nail and the shops are closed - unless of course you want to be.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I don't attribute this to malice.
Ask someone: Which would you prefer: that you candidate be good at doing only one thing at a time, or that he be good at doing many things at a time? What do you think their answer is likely to be? More is more, isn't it?
The problem is, the requirement going out doesn't get compared against the capabilities of actual working people.
How it should go is like this:
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once.
HR: Can't; Tried, Looked, none exist. People are better at doing one thing at a time.
PHB: OK, let's set up our processes so that people only do one thing.
How it actually goes:
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once.
HR: These candidates who applied all say that they can do this. Interview them and pick the best one we can afford.
PHB: OK. [Hires one]
[Weeks, months, or years pass]
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once. The last guy wasn't as good as he said he was, and burned out.. Now there's even more things that need to be done.
HR: OK. Here's another pool of applicants.
And the thing is, I am good at doing a lot of different things. This makes me valuable, because I'm flexible and also because I can put my various skills together to better effect than I could if I only knew how to do one thing. That doesn't mean that I should be actively involved in several ongoing projects all at the same time.
I can't work well if I'm expected to work on several development projects concurrently, while at the same time supporting the production environment, all while thinking about our existing processes and policies and trying to think of better ones, and keep up with the constant changes with the existing ones that come from my supervisor or higher-ups on a day to day basis. And so, I don't work well. But I do manage to meet expectations. It's just that the expectations are managed downward to where we don't really expect all that much.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The test results pointed to "high multitaskers" being worse at it because the tests weren't designed well to measure multitasking ability, in fact they seem to be testing the OPPOSITE. From the BBC article: [quote] In the first, they were tested for their ability to ignore irrelevant information. They were briefly shown a screen with two red rectangles and either 0, 2, 4 or 6 blue rectangles. The task was to determine whether, when the screen was shown again, one of the red rectangles had been rotated. Low multitaskers were better at the task, regardless of the number of blue rectangles, whereas high multitaskers got worse at it as the number of distracting blue rectangles went up. [/quote] What?? Obviously people who are WORSE multitaskers will be BETTER at ignoring the irrelevant information and focusing only on the rotation of the red rectangles. If they really wanted to test for multitasking ability they would ask for whether the red rectangles had been rotated, how many blue rectangles there were, and whether they were bigger or smaller than the last set. The other two tests also seem to test the ability to focus on a single task rather than try to test what makes someone proficient at multitasking
... when Joel Spolsky wrote "Human Task Switches Considered Harmful".
Yes, I can multitask by reading a book and riding a stationary bike with no appreciable impact in performance of either. I can run and catch a football. I can walk down the hall and carry on a conversation. I can answer emails and listen to music.
All of these examples involve one activity that requires attention and one that does not require attention.
Where humans can't multitask is when two or more activities require attention. A classic example is driving and talking on a cell phone. Most people think that they can do this effectively. They are ALL wrong. They believe this because of two phenomena (1) for the most part, driving is fairly autonomous, only occasionally does it require attention (2) if your attention is on your phone conversation, you tend to miss those times when driving does require your attention unless something interrupts your attention like you have an accident or someone honks a horn at you for driving like a jackass. For the most part, these drivers are blissfully ignorant of their ineptitude behind the wheel.
Most people who think they can multitask with other activities are wrong for the same reasons. I've yet to see someone with an open laptop in a meeting freely contribute to the process and often they force everyone else in the meeting to backtrack when their input is actually required.
Real men multi-thread
Task Mangler
Our eyes are in the front, not on the sides of our heads.
Many people already know what this means, but for those who don't, it means we are predators. This means we hunt for our food and often kill it. It also means we focus on what we do and are (and I use this word very loosely) designed to be one-track-minded and very focused on our objectives.
Being a multi-tasker is not inherent or natural for humans at all. And anyone with familiarity with computer systems (is there anyone here on slashdot like that?) knows that scheduling processes and interrupt systems are required for multitasking on computers. This means that sensitivity to time is critical to being effective. Any human who is very good at knowing what time it is without looking at a clock might also be a good multitasker if he has trained himself to poll himself on intervals and to be able to change focus rapidly. For me, this is an unimaginable skill. And while I am sure there are people who can do exactly this, it's really hard for me to imagine it.
Wouldn't it be nice if somehow we could create some sort of task management system to remind us to change tasks? Even then it would suck because it would sometimes require vast amounts of information dismissal and recall when changing tasks, so at the very best you could have one main task and a bunch of little interruptions that don't require much thought. (A day in the life of a systems administrator right?) Turns out that having a calendar notification system on your mobile phone is probably the most workable solution for most people... if you can remember to keep up with your calendar.
Stanford scientists have again proven, that anomalous results can, in fact, be generated by choosing unrepresentative models for a behavior or phenomena under study. A particular key for reaching such results in this study was to replace the simultaneous performance of multiple tasks with performing a single task involving multiple inputs and success criteria.
It's kind of ironic that the research team is also studying how to design computer voices for cars.
Human beings are ALWAYS multi tasking, just that the majority of it is unconscious. You can see hear and walk at the same time right?
You can move, shoot, listen and watch while you play a video game, these basic functions we take for granted but we are all doing them simultaneously.
That in itself is proof positive we are multi-tasking ALL the time. When we focus on some task or another, this requires only alocation of PART of our attention that we are aware of. There is tonnes of stuff we are doing and aren't aware of it (unconscious).
Really to say we aren't doing many things at once essentially denies how we function normally, I think one should really talk a bout allocation attention to tasks rather then "multi tasking" since even doing a single task requires many things going on at once even if you are unaware of them.
of people over valuing how well they do something.
They got people who believe they are good multi-taskers.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah that's like the people who say they have strong people skills, frequently they can't recognize they difference between building an agreement and bullying opposing points of view into submission.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So, what you're telling me is that multitaskers are bad at multitasking... and the researchers who figured this out were multitasking when they did it?
isn't that multitasking?
Stanford scientists have again proven, that anomalous results can, in fact, be generated by choosing unrepresentative models for a behavior or phenomena under study. A particular key for reaching such results in this study was to replace the simultaneous performance of multiple tasks with performing a single task involving multiple inputs and success criteria.
Yeah, or they simply labeled their subject of study in a way which everybody found confusing.
They used the terms, "Low Multitaskers" and "High Multitaskers", when "Multitasker" is a pop-culture word with no formal definition in terms of psychology. So they basically made up their own definitions and performed some interesting studies, and then published findings which were then poorly reported. --Resulting in people saying, "Hey! I'm a multitasker! What are they talking about?"
It sounds to me as though they might have communicated their findings more effectively to the masses by saying, "Multitasker" instead of "Low Multitasker" and "ADD Sufferer" instead of "High Multitasker". --Though that would have opened up a whole other kettle of smelly fish since ADD isn't clearly understood either and carries its own cultural baggage.
I can see why they chose as they did, and I can certainly relate to their findings. --I consider myself a multitasker; I can have several projects all under steam at the same time, and I can get them all done effectively, --but I also have the ability to focus entirely on one one subject at a time. I only switch when I get run down or stuck, not when something else intrudes into my focus to distract me. It sounds like they were calling that a "Low Multitasker"
Whereas I had this girlfriend once who would carry on a half dozen IM conversations while checking email and trying to edit and upload photographs and make food and plan for her next business day all at the same time. She did all of it very badly and couldn't will herself to focus on any one thing. I didn't consider her a multitasker so much as a bundle of clumsy nerves on the permanent verge of collapse. It was very stressful to be around and it was one of the reasons we eventually broke up. Too bad. She was otherwise a really nice girl.
Effective multitasking requires the ability to choose and focus while also maintaining the agility necessary to jump between thoughts and make intuitive leaps.
-FL
It's not multitasking, but it's definitely keeping more than one ball in the air at a time. I bet this is how a lot of people work when they have a choice.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
heh
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
I once took intermediate C++, Assembler, and Programming Languages(Pascal,Ada,Lisp,Prolog) in the same semester.
Sometimes late at night I would code in an odd mixture of languages/syntax.
I often wished it would work, but then I never tried in in a perl interpreter, so who knows.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Ever since the Amiga OS popularized multitasking, everybody thinks they can do it.
I've never had an important text and neither have you. Note the period in the preceding sentence.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
"My head hurts, let's do something easier."
The crux of it right there.
We might call this "deflective multitasking", where the scheduler switches you over to other tasks as soon as you run into difficulty: trying to remember something, trying to perform a calculation, any sort of challenging task. Deflective multitasking is a natural style to adopt, a consequence of having easy access to many tasks (welcome to the modern day) and having an aversive response to difficulty. Quite natural. But here's one place where "organic" is a bad label to have.
When we keep dodging strenuous mental work our minds atrophy. Focus, recall, calculation all suffer. We grow lamer.
A smarter scheduling method is required for healthy multitasking. Sure, maintain the interrupt sensitivity and context switching skill — those are valuable. But lose the deflectivity.
I think for now I'll try to implement a simple scheduler. 15 minutes per task, no switching. If my brain starts performing better I'll get back to trying a more sophisticated scheduling, honing interrupt sensitivity and context switching, and trying to find sensible moments for switching like actual resource unavailability or alternate task ripeness.
Multitasking is useful. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the brainrot.
So the tests the experiments used were:
the groups were shown sets of two red rectangles alone or surrounded by two, four or six blue rectangles. Each configuration was flashed twice, and the participants had to determine whether the two red rectangles in the second frame were in a different position than in the first frame.
After being shown sequences of alphabetical letters, the high multitaskers did a lousy job at remembering when a letter was making a repeat appearance.
The test subjects were shown images of letters and numbers at the same time and instructed what to focus on. When they were told to pay attention to numbers, they had to determine if the digits were even or odd. When told to concentrate on letters, they had to say whether they were vowels or consonants.
Given three single tasks, they found that "light multitaskers" performed better than "heavy multitaskers." Why is this surprising?
Maurice Wilkes, debugging, 1949
multitsk just fin, tha
There are a few critical flaws with what this study is trying to prove and how it claims to have proved it. If you can play a piano with both hands, why test each finger?
1) You may define multitasking as doing 3 things at once, but is it really? It is multiple tasks to a monotasker who prefers to only do one thing at a time, or who considers a task whole that others simply do not. IM, email, surfing, while listening to HULU , monitoring stocks, and checking your phone... The TV may be on in the background too. There may even be multiple monitors and a cupcake in one hand. To a mutlitasker, that is just "being online." 1 task. Can he do his math and biology homework at the same time? No. Does he do his taxes while he plays basketball? No. Does he want to? No.
2) What are multitaskers good at? Losing focus. It's A.D.D. by design. So for them to not be able to focus on irrelevant rectangles could be because they aren't focused on any of the rectagles to begin with. The whole study bores them, so their brains are listening for the other channels. For those channels to not be there is why the subject slows. I bet if you put a TV next to the rectangles, his eyes would start glancing at the remote.
3)These tests are designed for the monotasker who can think and concentrate out of context. This is a skill. When a mutlitasker is doing 8 things at once, it is all about context and gear shifting. In fact, I would go as far as to say focus is the distraction. Being focused on one thing prevents you from being focused on the whole picture.
4) Memory is overrated. Seriously, it is faster these days to look something up than try to remember it. If you have tried to print a Wikipedia article it may surprise you how many pages they take up. Personal information, addresses, numbers, dates... everything fits neatly in a small device that never forgets. Why compete with it? Just master how to dig and how to use these new tools. Our brains are for other things.
I would have been more impressed if the study went deeper to analyze the types of tasks that these people really do, and how they compare with each other. A multitasker has to be faster at switching between tasks. They have to be better at digging rapidly for information and scanning multiple channels for relevance. And how about brain activity levels, reflexes, and overall information consumption rates?
In defense of the monotaskers though, it must be said that focus and being able to do one thing at a time is in itself a skill that is more difficult, and is becoming more valuable as the rest of us become random sensory input junkies. And it is easier to teach someone who can focus to multitask than someone who cannot to focus.
Art and music are extremely important with this regard. They teach focus. Habitual focus. The kind that matters.
I multitask fine... maybe you shouldn't multitask if you can't do it right? You know: build, surf, edit, build, surf, edit, build, get a coffee, edit, etc.
Define "one". A processor cannot do two operations at once. Everything is put into a line, and that one line is dealt with really really fast. On the surface, we see windows, video, audio, web pages reloading, mail clients fetching mail, and incoming chats making sounds. But the processor is only really doing "one" thing.
No thanks. Next they will try to put a cup holder in my car.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are certainly people who prefer to multitask, and I guess I'd tend to agree with TFS that each individual task suffers to some degree.
However, to avoid writing off multitasking altogether, it's worth considering situations where multitasking is *required* rather than merely preferred. My partner regularly makes dinner, keeps the three kids from drowning in the pool, and has a conversation on the phone. Yeah, some stuff gets burned, but the kids rarely die, so I'd say she's doing a pretty good job.
No wonder I can't seem to get any work done while reading Slashdot.
I would really like to know who these so called multi-taskers are that they tested. I do multiple thing at the same time every single day especially with computers. The test was with gaming, IMing and a bunch of other computer based things. It is called multiple monitors lol. I play 2 games at the same time every day while talking with friends on Steam or Xfire quite frequently. It is not hard to do but not everyone can do it. Some people think they are multitaskers but really are not mentally capable of doing it... others are, so i am just saying that their test group was probably not very good.
What was the question? Oh, yeah it gives you CRS when u mutltiimnf
One sees this a lot in work settings. A lot of women have been told (or have read repeatedly) that they are sooooo clever and great at multitasking, while the dullard men can only do one thing at a time, and badly at that. But -- in real life , as time goes on, it's always the men who become the "go to" employees for getting things done, in every workplace I've been in. The confident, empowered, do-it-all women are eventually seen as not much use, to be worked around and bypassed. Harsh but that's the way it is.
This test worked for me.
In my performance review, while giving me props for how effective I am at my job, I was given several, "I just wish you could multi-task more," jabs throughout. Here is the evidence that *maybe* my effectiveness is due to the fact that I *focus* on the task at hand . . . Thanks for the article
I would conjecture that those who feel they are good at multitasking do _not_ feel this -- and that's both why they feel they are good at multitasking, and why they are actually bad at it.
Yes. And anyone who has ever played with a gamer who fancies him or herself a multitasker knows this. They never seem to understand that you're pissed off for a reason. Subtle outbursts like, "OMG, turn the damn movie off, stop IMing your friends, and pay attention to the screen. There's a reason the rest of us don't want to group with you and that you suck at doing quests!" seem to confuse them, because they are GOOD at multitasking!
Not that I'm bitter. *coughs*
It's insightful to note that I might have been modded "funny" instead of "insightful" with a higher ID. I was shooting for "funny". I thought it was pretty funny that someone found it "insightful".
I've got her convinced that I am listening to her while playing games and watching movies... this could bring down my whole house of cards!
Ability to multitask depends on task's priority, duration etc & brain's training to those tasks.
I was surprised with my kid's science project, (I was a guinea pig), where he picked tasks varied in focus (e.g. balance), duration, computing (simple math), memory.
Once he created combination of tasks, I predictably failed in doing multiple high-priority tasks & on longer duration tasks which overlapped with high priority task.
The habitual multitaskers probably train their brain to periodically interrupt & inability to NMI. Folks who store the context are probably less affected
Unless the researchers controlled for handedness, this study is meaningless. Why?
Thanks to the work of Dr. Roger Sperry [winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize for this work], we know that the Left hemisphere of the brain processes information in a Linear-Sequential manner, which makes it optimized for Language.
This faster, Linear-Sequential Hemisphere--the Left--is mostly gray matter, which reflects how it is specialized to hold many, small, discrete memory locations, such as are used to store words.
Dr. Sperry also determined through his split-brain experiments that the Right hemisphere of the brain processes information in a Visual-Simultaneous manner, which makes it optimized for Vision.
This slower, Visual-Simultaneous Hemisphere--the Right--is mostly white matter, which reflects how it is specialized to have many long axons that connect make the multiple connections between neurons, such as are used to store images.
According to Roger Sperry, in Left-handed people, the Right Brain dominates. In Right-handed people, the Left Brain dominates.
Because their dominant brain hemisphere is the linear one, Right-Handed people cannot effectively multi-task. If a Right-Handed person interrupts a task to do another, when they return to the interrupted task, their progress up to that point is discarded and they must begin again. Therefore, for the right-handed person, multi-tasking is wasteful.
Because their dominant brain hemisphere is the visualone, Left-Handed people can effectively multi-task. If a Left-Handed person interrupts a task to do another, when they return to the interrupted task, their progress up to that point can be resumed because of the ability to hang on to more trains of thought. Therefor, for the right-handed person, multi-tasking is useful.
Try actually playing one of the games once.
Isnt the fundamental assumption here that human beings have only one core? If you think that we actually have mutiple cores albeit each one working at a different level of conscience then this is not really so confusing to understand is it? For example I am actually working on a power point deck right now but I am having a bit of a writer's block and this /. article was on my mind since evening and this idea came up about cores that I thought could be a completely different way of looking at the problem and I am sure somewhere subconsciously my deck is also getting sorted out ;)
My preferred one is "Nerds do it Rarely"
"In the first, they were tested for their ability to ignore irrelevant information. They were briefly shown a screen with two red rectangles and either 0, 2, 4 or 6 blue rectangles." things like this are not equivalent to listening to music and doing things that are interesting to the user. multitasking involves filtering out unnecessary information..sometimes skipping bits all together. perhaps your brain misses part of a song when you have to concentrate harder on some message you are writing, but thats just fine. its completely different that trying to juggle two arbitrary tasks which are far more demanding of attention than doing two things which you've become so used to that you just flow.
I heard this "researcher" talk more about his study on kqed forum program. His tests don't have anything to do with how people actually multitask, which is based on a level of comfort that naturally leads to such behavior. he talked about flashing letters and having the people try to remember letters 3 letters back while multitasking. this is a nonsense task that has nothing to do with how people are actually working. he claims that since people couldn't remember the letters that means that they were totally failing, but that makes no sense at all. if people were failing to remember what they were talking about when switching between chat windows and other media then they would naturally be so confused that multitasking would become impossible. clearly conversing and surfing the web using media is not equivalent to ridiculous tasks like remembering flashed letters that people have no interest in.
..happens to be this little online game called Arcadia. You play four little mini-games all at once and it's really interesting to watch people play it. Some are stressed out from the very start, just by the THOUGHT of monitoring four separate events. To others it comes almost naturally. Also, it's interesting to see how long it takes before people begin to see which of the mini-games are important and which ones pretty much play themselves. The game: http://www.addictinggames.com/arcadia.html