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?
... oh look, a butterfly!!!!!!
...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.
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
Damn! You're right. I was reading Slashdot and I forgot to breathe again.
And then there's those who can't even mono-task...
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.
Actually, I think this study suggests that multitaskers try to get around this problem by not formally context-switching, but rather just reacting to everything as it comes in and attracts attention. Ideally this would be like an interrupt-driven system, where rather than trying to monitor and decide when to switch tasks, you simply service interrupts as they come in using a minimal context. The problem is that the people who do this regularly have no way to "disable interrupts"; they're always distracted by other information flows regardless of the importance of the primary task.
I have a better idea for you. Put the damn shit down. I don't care what kind of "emergency" you are having at work. Your business can wait the 30 minutes for you to get home. If not, you need to rethink your business processes. I don't care who you are or what company you work for, your stupid fucking text message is NOT worth more than anyone's life.
If you or anyone else who is too self-centered and self-important to stay off the fucking phone for a few minutes while you drive ever plow into anyone, you better not hope it's me. I will haunt your fucking dumb ass for the rest of your life. I will torture you and your family until you are all on the brink of madness. Then your family will watch you commit suicide right in front of their eyes by shoving that fucking phone into your eye socket and pulling it out of your throat.
I hate you all, you fucking phone drivers. Get off your fucking phones and out of my damn lane. YOU are the reason that it is such hell to drive now. YOU are the reason there are so many wrecks and red light running. YOU are the reason that so many lives are lost and everyone's insurance is so high. Hang the fuck up.
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.
It's kind of ironic that the research team is also studying how to design computer voices for cars.
I agree with you but add the proviso - if one thinks an incoming call or text is urgent and vital, safely pull off the road into a parking lot and return it safely. Here in Rochester we had a 17 year old girl kill herself and several of her friends who were passengers in the car by texting while driving - she crossed into the path of a large tanker truck. Death by imprudence...
I agree - he was much too polite. Texting drivers needs to have their fingers chopped off. Since it will happen anyway, sooner or later, only with more collateral damage, it's not a punishment but simply a matter of prevention.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
I hate you all, you fucking phone drivers. Get off your fucking phones and out of my damn lane. YOU are the reason that it is such hell to drive now. YOU are the reason there are so many wrecks and red light running. YOU are the reason that so many lives are lost and everyone's insurance is so high. Hang the fuck up.
Yes, because as you can see, the annual number of accidents per vehicle miles traveled has gone up in direct proportion to saturation of the cell phone market.
Except... not. No, accident statistics have stayed pretty darned flat with respect to VMT (which continually goes up, year after year). The severity of injuries and incidence of fatalities goes down as new innovations in passenger safety come out and are implemented in the fleet.
BTW, one thing that has stayed VERY constant, for the last 30+ years: half of road fatalities are caused by a drunk driver. Even though road fatalities have gone down (even as the total population and per capita VMT have risen), 50% are from accidents caused by drunk drivers. You'd think we would have learned better by now, but nooooo.
So it'd be dead easy to determine, once and for all, what effect cell phone use has on driving: run a multiple-regression analysis on accident rates, taking into account VMT per capita, total population, and other such stats that we know influence accident rates, plus add cell phone market penetration over time. Look at data for the last, say, 20 years. That will show you how much cell phones (remember when they were all "car phones"?) impact accident rates. Until someone does this (law enforcement has all the accident data, and I'm sure the cell companies would cough up the subscriber numbers if it meant the possibility of getting all these laws against using their product repealed), everyone needs to calm the f*** down and realize that there are good drivers, and bad drivers, and mediocre drivers, and if it wasn't the phone, it'd be something else distracting the a**hole in front of you.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?