Slashdot Mirror


Research Suggests Brain Has a 2-Task Limit for Multitasking

suraj.sun writes with a story from LiveScience about just how much attention you can devote to each of the tasks on hand that scream for it: "The brain is set up to manage two tasks, but not more, a new study suggests. That's because, when faced with two tasks, a part of the brain known as the medial prefrontal cortex (MFC) divides so that half of the region focuses on one task and the other half on the other task. This division of labor allows a person to keep track of two tasks pretty readily, but if you throw in a third, things get a bit muddled. 'What really the results show is that we can readily divide tasking. We can cook, and at the same time talk on the phone, and switch back and forth between these two activities,' said study researcher Etienne Koechlin of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France. 'However, we cannot multitask with more than two tasks.'"

257 comments

  1. Dear boss.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..please note that this study proves that I can read Slashdot and work at the same time. Thanks, your dutiful employee

    1. Re:Dear boss.. by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      You're FIRED!!!!

  2. I must be the human iPad by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

    So how come I can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

    1. Re:I must be the human iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can eat popcorn and watch tv at the same time.. I'm so gifted.

    2. Re:I must be the human iPad by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can eat popcorn and chew gum at the same time.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:I must be the human iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can watch TV and walk at the same time - together we'd be unstoppable!

    4. Re:I must be the human iPad by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2, Funny

      An iPad can multitask more, it can do 3 tasks at once: you can put a beer glass, the bottle and some food on it at the same time!

    5. Re:I must be the human iPad by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      I can read books and walk at the same time! Used to do it on campus; got pretty good at dodging people with headphones on who weren't looking where they were going!

    6. Re:I must be the human iPad by ManlySpork · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling that with your eyes focussed on your book, you weren't really either.

    7. Re:I must be the human iPad by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      Clearly, as I was able to avoid people, trees, benches and cracks in the sidewalk, I was paying more attention than some!

      I'll admit I wasn't looking straight ahead but rather down at the book, and using my peripheral vision to catch obstacles. I did also look up every so often to double-check my intended course. However, I had a good record of not running into anything or anyone, and that's better than a lot of the kids who would step into traffic with their headphones on. At least I wasn't dumb enough to cross the street without looking first!

    8. Re:I must be the human iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walking as a specific example is actually coordinated by ganglia at the spine.

    9. Re:I must be the human iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe your polish, this is a french study afterall - us americans can halfass to infinity

    10. Re:I must be the human iPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i can eat sonics popcorn chicken drink a powerade and skateboard at the same time

  3. Oh no ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    I am chewing gum while listening to music and I am typing this into Slashdot.

    Oh shit ! My brain gonna explode !!!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Oh no ! by jimmydevice · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, you are chewing gum while listening to music and posting to Slashdot.
      How is this multitasking and not slacking?

    2. Re:Oh no ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, you are chewing gum while listening to music and posting to Slashdot.
      How is this multitasking and not slacking?

      Task 1: Chewing gum.

      10 Chew Gum
      20 Goto 10

      Task 2: Listening to music

      10 Hear Music
      20 Shake head
      30 Hymn a little bit
      40 Shake leg
      50 Goto 10

      Task 3: Typing to Slashdot

      10 Think of words to type
      20 Search for the spelling of the word
      30 Lift fingers
      40 Use right fingers to hit the right keys
      50 Eye look at screen
      60 Check for typos
      70 Check for grammar mistake
      80 Goto 10

      If that's not multitask, what is?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Oh no ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listening to music and chewing gum are both things that dont really need your attention. Music comes from the heaphones weather or not you pay attention to it and chewing gum is a simple up - down motion that you make hundreds of times every day that does not really need attention either.

      Posting to slashdot is the only thing that requires some amount of thinking.

    4. Re:Oh no ! by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Isn't your last task really two tasks in one? I mean what're your left fingers doing eh??

      Ahem, a delicate observation. Of course, it could mean you used your right (as opposed to wrong) fingers, but who knows what a slashdotter means...

    5. Re:Oh no ! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the one to tell you this ... but while looking at your code I think I stumbled on the reason you may feel like you're "stuck in the same old same old" these days. Every tasks ends with Goto 10. You should see a flowchart about that.

    6. Re:Oh no ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't your last task really two tasks in one? I mean what're your left fingers doing eh??

      Ahem, a delicate observation. Of course, it could mean you used your right (as opposed to wrong) fingers, but who knows what a slashdotter means

      Mea Culpa.

      Should have used the word "correct" instead of the word "right".

      Sorry !

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    7. Re:Oh no ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the one to tell you this ... but while looking at your code I think I stumbled on the reason you may feel like you're "stuck in the same old same old" these days. Every tasks ends with Goto 10. You should see a flowchart about that.

      Keen observation !

      Next time I'll use "goto 10" for the first task, "goto 11" for the second task, and so on.

      Note to self: Need variety.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    8. Re:Oh no ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hymn, or hum a little bit?

    9. Re:Oh no ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Listening to music and chewing gum are both things that dont really need your attention. Music comes from the heaphones weather or not you pay attention to it and chewing gum is a simple up - down motion that you make hundreds of times every day that does not really need attention either.

      Posting to slashdot is the only thing that requires some amount of thinking.

      Hmmm.... hmmmmmmmm....

      Listening to music and chewing gum are both things that dont really need your attention.

      Lemme see ...

      Music comes from the heaphones weather or not you pay attention to it

      But... but... I need to pay attention to the BEATS so I can shake my head and shake my leg according to the BEATS !

      You don't expect my body movement different from the music beat, do you?

      and chewing gum is a simple up - down motion that you make hundreds of times every day that does not really need attention either.

      Dunno about you, but if I chew without paying attention I might end up chewing my tongue or my lips or ...

      Painful, man !

      Posting to slashdot is the only thing that requires some amount of thinking.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    10. Re:Oh no ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Hymn, or hum a little bit?

      Urgent notice to self: Typo checking function crashed !

      The eyeball function needs thorough debugging !

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    11. Re:Oh no ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Posting to slashdot is the only thing that requires some amount of thinking.

      You're new here, aren't you?

    12. Re:Oh no ! by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      60 Check for typos
      70 Check for grammar mistake

      Some of us is not so fsusy.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    13. Re:Oh no ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      60 Check for typos
              70 Check for grammar mistake

      Some of us is not so fsusy.

      I did make mistakes even with the error trapping codes !

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    14. Re:Oh no ! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      It's multislacking!

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    15. Re:Oh no ! by daveime · · Score: 1

      Posting to slashdot is the only thing that requires some amount of thinking.

      It doesn't seem to impede timothy from posting his daily iNonStory ...

    16. Re:Oh no ! by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I think you should have picked something better than a Commodore VIC-20 to plan your tasks on. I don't see how those tasks could possibly be executed in a multithteaded manner! ;)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    17. Re:Oh no ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that will never compile.

    18. Re:Oh no ! by mordjah · · Score: 1

      +1

      --
      "A mind reader? That sounds like sci fi." "Honey, we live on a space ship"
    19. Re:Oh no ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is more that you're stuck in an infinite loop.

    20. Re:Oh no ! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        # It would seem that you aren't actually multitasking.
        # We retrieved this from your data storage unit.

        while ($system_state == "awake"){
          $starttime = time();
            chew_gum();
            listen_music();
            post_slashdot();
          $endtime = time();
          if (($endtime - $starttime) > 2){
             distracted();
          };
        };

        function chew_gum{
          hardware_actuate_mandible_updown();
        };

        function listen_music{
          open(MUSIC_RECV, /dev/ears);
          $soundchunk = <MUSIC_RECV>;
          if ($soundchunk){
             hardware_actuate_skull_updown(1);
             hardware_actuate_femur_updown(1);
          };
        };

        function post_slashdot{
          $msg = $slashcomments[rand @slashcomments];
        };

        function distracted{
          hardware_actuate_speech("Sorry, I was distracted.");
        };

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    21. Re:Oh no ! by Illogical+Spock · · Score: 1

      Task Computer_Gum_Music

      10 Chew Gum
      15 Think of words to type
      18 Search for the spelling of the word
      20 Hear Music
      25 Lift fingers
      27 Use right fingers to hit the right keys
      30 Shake head
      35 Eye look at screen
      38 Check for typos
      40 Hymn a little bit
      45 Check for grammar mistake
      50 Shake leg
      60 Goto 10

            You can put some IFs to check if the gum is out of taste yet, etc, but basically this is not multitasking. :-)

      --
      --- Illogical Spock
    22. Re:Oh no ! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't intend to call the function while you were drinking. We'll fix that up in version 4.01.

          Damn humans, so picky about their coding. The Cylons aren't as picky.

          while(1){
            acquire_target();
            shoot();
          };

          function acquire_target{
              identify_live_human();
          };

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    23. Re:Oh no ! by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      You have a shell which can only handle 2 running jobs, but daemons don't count. Chewing gum, and often listening to music, can be handled fine by daemons, and only take up one of your user processes when you need to specifically interact with them (for example, to change the piece of gum), just like the print daemon can sit there looking at the spool and printing whatever it sees, but you still need to run lpr if you want it to print anything.

    24. Re:Oh no ! by phtpht · · Score: 1

      60 Check for typos 70 Check for grammar mistake

      You must be new here...

  4. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the researchers never played a Bach piece written for 3 voices. You have to play 3 different melodies with 2 hands, read ahead sheet music and keep the tempo. More than 2 tasks, right?

    1. Re:Hmmm by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1
      FTFA

      What really the results show is that we can readily divide tasking

      What really the results show is that this researcher is related to Ralphie Wiggum.

      How is testing three similar tasks proof that we are limited to only two tasks? Maybe it only proves that we can't handle more than two simultaneous spelling tests. What about some hand-eye coordination thrown in there ... or speaking ... or even making up a story, telling it aloud and clicking "Next" to get out of doing the spelling test? I call shenanigans!

      Also, this whole premise of dividing and/or prioritizing based on reward or perceived value doesn't jive with me either. Sure, if I have to chose between doing a stupid spelling test for a researcher or doing a stupid spelling test I get paid for getting right for that same stupid researcher, I'm going to focus on the one that pays. That's not my brain managing multitasking, it's my cable bill reminding me it's due next week. If their hypothesis were true then later today while I'm cleaning the bathroom, listening to my iPod and wishing I were eating enchiladas, the bathroom would never get cleaned.

  5. How quickly can I get my boss to ignore this? by cavehobbit · · Score: 3, Funny

    7 projects, 2 of which are corporate mandates with no additional funding or 'resources' to do them, 4 other administrative tasks, plus an hour or so each day dedicated to HR-related corporate marionette-ing to satisfy the Political Correctness Police. All for 2 shell scripts and a mainframe extract. That took 3 months to get done. And this isn't even a government job.

    1. Re:How quickly can I get my boss to ignore this? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, your boss won't be able to register your argument because he's too busy sitting on his ass and brown-nosing his superiors.

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  6. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I call bullshit. Right now, I'm replying to this Slashdot article from my cell phone, eating a quick breakfast, and driving my car in morning traffic. I'm doing all three with the utmost saf

    1. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the article is comparing the brain to a 2 core processor. Sure, we can do 3 or 4 tasks, but are we REALLY doing them at the same time? Maybe the brain is seamlessly pushing tasks in and out of our prefrontal cortex.

    2. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to say that you are breathing, beating your heart, heating your body, and providing video to your brain to interpret through your eyes. I agree.

    3. Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you are a woman!

      Woman are better in multitasking...

  7. what is a single task to the brain? by slashmojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is talking on the phone really a single task? Is cooking? Surely each of those is made up of countless sub-tasks even if you don't consciously think about them.

    1. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is talking on the phone really a single task? Is cooking? Surely each of those is made up of countless sub-tasks even if you don't consciously think about them.

      If you were just saying random words, then perhaps not. But if you are discussing the new project at work, or what little Johnny did at school, or even about sports, it requires pulling in previous experiences, remembering specific events, drawing conclusions, etc., which are "subroutines" in a single task, communicating. A phone conversation can actually take more brain power than driving down the highway. Think about it, when someone is driving and talking on the phone, it is obvious that the cell phone requires more attention than driving. As for being sub-tasks, all tasks are generally linear subtasks that would qualify as a single task.

      Perhaps that is why people tend to stray into the other lane when driving/talking on the cell. A third activity comes in or they have to fork a thought for consideration during the conversation, and they run out of brainpower/memory, so the least important activity (driving) gets swapped out for a second. Humans just need more RAM.

      How about that, a computer analog for a car problem, instead of the other way around!

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 1

      I think the analogy would be humans need another processor. We could do for more RAM as well, but that is another issue.

    3. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a good point. The fellow above speaking about Bachs 3 way couterpoint does as well. To further both your points, I'd like to point out that synthesists can be a good example. Playing 2 synths ,analog, lots of knobs,sliders and buttons and running a Taurus bass pedal sans sequencing while manipulating envelopes, VCOs, LFOs and more while maintaining 3 parts. All the while whacked out of your gourd on substance du jour.

                I'd like to put a definition out there for the common knowledge dictionary:
                Study n. 1. Activity indulged in by state college science departments in order to continue flow of funding. Findings not important so long as quantity is achieved and costs are kept minimal. Findings are substituted for proofs in order to manipulate a public ignorant of difference. 2. Activity indulged in by commercial research houses in order to further the agendas of corporations and government with the results they are paid to find.

              Probably an unfair definition and not inclusive of all examples, but, it's a bad world out there , full of people who would pimp their mother for a buck. It should also be pointed out that "studies" are frequently conducted in close time frames or even simultaneously that end up contradicting each other. hmmmmmm. Anyone got any favorites to share?

    4. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by UpnAtom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Especially in men, right brains don't talk. So that's exclusively left-brain.

      Driving (at least the direction & speed control) is right brain. The time it's most likely to engage your left brain is when you have to consciously think ie planning your route, adapting to unusual road conditions. Apart from that driving & talking is fairly easy for experienced drivers. Typically, drivers talk in a monotonous voice as inflection is right hemisphere.

      Try adding a column of figures eg restaurant bill and having a conversation at the same time - pretty damn hard because both are left brain. So there we're only single-tasking.

      I think what this research shows is that we use both sides of our brain when we're single-tasking. Some areas of the brain are very specialised but other areas can be trained to perform similar functions (for some people, the right hemisphere spelling a word would be an unnatural task). If we're doing two tasks for which different hemispheres of the brain can assigned one of the tasks, then the brain is quite adept at dividing up the workload.

    5. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Is talking on the phone really a single task? Is cooking? Surely each of those is made up of countless sub-tasks even if you don't consciously think about them.

      There are many challenges like this:

      Its impossible to spin your RIGHT leg in a clock wise possion and then rub your stomach with your RIGHT arm in a counter clockwise possisoneverytime you do it either your right leg or your right arm will start spinning the same way as the leg or arm

      Just try it. Stand up. Spin your right leg to the right. Then place your right hand on your stomach and rub your stomach in a counter clockwise possion at the same time as your leg is spinning

      It's obvious to me it's not just the thinking but the brains inputs and outputs... however, I think people in general seriously overestimate their ability to do multitasking (well). Usually they do a bunch of things half-assed, like chatting online, watching TV, etcetera, and not really catching half of the interactions they participate in. Maybe it's a modern desire to appear busy (hardworking), I honestly don't know.

      I wonder if they would make fun of Einstein for being so single-minded?

    6. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      We have plenty of storage. I'm thinking we could use some more on-die cache.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . and the baby on your hip, while thinking about whether you paid the power bill and where did you put the file you need for work tomorrow, and could the bug be in your coworker's code and it merely crashed in your module because your incoming data verification decided the data was out of bounds, and washing the pot you needed because someone used it and left it in the sink, and calculating when you have to leave work to meet the contractor, and negotiating with your sitter to care for the kid with the fever while answering the geometry question from the kid doing their homework . . .

      Chances are they didn't test working moms because they don't have time to participate in research studies.

    8. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Sanat · · Score: 1

      Thanks for sharing your insights... I am left handed so spend most of my mind activity in the right side of the brain. Often times when I am multi-tasking such as talking while driving... I find that I constantly shift the focus between the two tasks.

      As an example if I was making a left turn in downtown St. Louis with all the one-way streets, crazy drivers, and pedestrians then I would stop talking while executing the turn. Once the turn is completed then I start talking again. I am the same way when debugging code or solving a methodology problem... I don't talk but rather focus on the issue. Actually it is not that I don't talk, but rather that I can't.

      Maybe it is because I have a very limited resource to share between the tasks... but it is my style and my partner thinks it is funny because she can easily and effortlessly do two things at once.

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    9. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by daveime · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is talking on the phone really a single task?

      According to Steve Jobs, a definitive "yes" (until version 4 is released anyway).

    10. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by mindbrane · · Score: 1

      How far do you take the right/left hemisphere argument? Do you subscribe to a J. Jaynes breakdown of a once bicameral mind? Has the language centric left hemisphere put a ring in the nose of an affective, right hemisphere?

      I can't see it that simply but YMMV.

      --
      ideopath @ play
    11. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Is thinking how to reply to a slashdot post really a single task?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    12. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      I know you're trying to be funny, but talking on the phone is the only thing the iPhone can currently multitask.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its impossible to spin your RIGHT leg in a clock wise possion and then rub your stomach with your RIGHT arm in a counter clockwise possisoneverytime you do it either your right leg or your right arm will start spinning the same way as the leg or arm

      I know that I'm a terrible multitasker, and I'm even more uncoordinated, but I can do that rubbing belly thing while spinning my leg no problem. Either leg, either arm, any direction. That's a pretty large null set.

    14. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      The whole definition of “task” has no meaning to a system like a brain.
      See it like this: It is the number of parallel I/O streams that is limited.
      An I/O stream being a constant flow of input and resulting output.
      If you got two of those at the same time, they will mess each other up wherever they cross the same neurons in the brain. (You will start associating things that you shouldn’t.)

      Which is why you can think about math, while walking at the same time. (Truly parallel.)
      Because walking happens somewhere else.

      But if they happen in the same area... Well, imagine trying to say two different letters in parallel. It’s physically impossible, and can at best result in a third sound that is a modulation of the two. Now imagine trying to speak like that to two or even more people in parallel.
      Humans obviously don’t do that. Because it’s impossible. They switch very fast. And switching is itself work that takes up resources, and slows everything down.

      So there is a limit, when you can’t do anything anymore, because task switching takes more time than you actually still use for doing the tasks themselves. Or much earlier, when it’s simply not worth it anymore, because you became too slow.

      So you can do 50 tasks “at the same time”. If your measuring resolution is so low, that you don’t see yourself switching between the tasks every X minutes or so. But I wouldn’t call that “parallel” anymore. But sequential with breaks.

      For my work I have a strict no-multitasking policy. If I work, I work. If I don’t I don’t.
      That means that I have a minimum for how long I wait before switching to a different task. (Exception: Life-threatening emergencies where I just drop everything and run.)
      That minimum depends on how long the switching takes.and how much those tasks can be done parallel.

      For programming that means, that I will never ever switch projects in the middle of a day. Ever. If I started the morning on one project, that’t what this day is for. No discussion, no compromises, no exceptions. Accept it or GTFO.
      Because otherwise, I can’t work or hold my quality. And that is a no-go for me, because quality is a selling point of mine.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Humans have multi processes but we only have two cores. So it is done by rapidly switching between tasks to give the effect of simultaneous actions.

    16. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I don't know if my left-handedness has anything to do with it, but I am very much linear. If I have two things to do I complete one before starting on the other. I even eat linearly - I'll eat all of each item in turn (much to my friends' amusment).

    17. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that is why people tend to stray into the other lane when driving/talking on the cell. A third activity comes in or they have to fork a thought for consideration during the conversation, and they run out of brainpower/memory, so the least important activity (driving) gets swapped out for a second. Humans just need more RAM.

      Not quite. Humans are concurrent tasking with a maximum of about two tasks and an ability to ferry out some subtask simultaneously (something like remote procedure calls but with a delay-able return value; ferrying out a subtask to the GPU for processing is another conceptual idea); there's also a hardware watchdog to bootstrap a "fight or flight" task (override all existing tasks). The problem is either (a) a subtask stalls so the main task is stuck waiting for a reply and can't swap to another task or (b) the main task itself is taking too long. Nothing about RAM or memory swapping has anything to do with it.

      Oh, and unlike the lower submitter, another processor might not help. Yes, you might be able to ferry out the subtask to the other processor to get a faster response. But, odds are good the subtask would simply stall on the second processor and you'd be in the same position.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    18. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Humans seem to have about 4KB of RAM and one freaking huge hard drive.

      Think about it - the access latency matches up! ;)

      It should be noted that while we have a HyperThreading prefrontal cortex, we also have cores available doing background tasks, like managing movement, processing what we hear and see, alerting us to sudden movement/danger, etc.

    19. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that is why people tend to stray into the other lane when driving/talking on the cell.

      Uh, I tend to make incoherent sentences and stop listening when driving gets interesting. lol I schedule "talking" with a higher nice value.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    20. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      "Especially in men, right brains don't talk. So that's exclusively left-brain"

      I was thinking the same thing.

      Women can add a column of figures in a restaurant bill and have a conversation at the same time.

      At least thats what I have observed and can do tasks around the house with continual loud interruptions and its still considered a day off and why they get mad at us for not doing anything.

    21. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Theril · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that the hemisphere-function division is as straightforward as you, and much of popularized psychology, suggest. From eg. lesion studies the evidence seems to hint that there are some tendencies to somewhat specialized functionality in the hemispheres, but these are quite "vague".

      Some quotes from Wikipedia to back this up:

      "Broad generalizations are often made in popular psychology about certain function (eg. logic, creativity) being lateralised, that is, located in the right or left side of the brain. These ideas need to be treated carefully because the popular lateralizations are often distributed across both sides."

      "Hines (1987) states that the research on brain lateralization is valid as a research program, though commercial promoters have applied it to promote subjects and products far outside the implications of the research. For example, the implications of the research have no bearing on psychological interventions such as EMDR and neurolinguistic programming (Drenth 2003:53), brain training equipment, or management training."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

      Also the study that the article refers to does some quite bold assumptions about how brain works (eg. quite strict functional localization) and the whole concept of "task" is so generally defined that it's quite easy to escape any falsification by modifying its properties.

      In general, most of the stuff about psychology/cognitive science that "leaks" to public should be taken with a grain of salt. Much less about brain functioning is known that may appear to a casual reader, or to some self-criticism challenged researchers.

    22. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      The bicameral mind doesn't make much sense because both Wernickes and Brocas are in the left hemisphere.

      Language seems to be an evolutionary adaptation from grunts & non-vocal communication.

      We talk to ourselves in our heads. You're probably talking to yourself as you're reading this. Both of these areas would be lighting up.

      I haven't followed recent research esp re: fMRI and was taught much of this by a colleague so there's probably more accurate information out there.

      I'm a psychotherapist. 80% of people's problems are typically 'wired' in their non-dominant hemisphere. Is it because they're much more flexible with the dominant hemisphere? Doesn't seem like it would account for the overwhelmingly one-sided distribution.

      People also typically have physical problems on the non-dominant side of their body. There even seems to be a bias with injuries.

      I seem to recall that some kids who had their language centres destroyed typically re-develop them on the right hemisphere. Some/all women have been shown to have smaller language centres on the right hemisphere. Seems to be true of left-handers too.

      Brain plasticity is a primary quality of the brain, especially in the young, but there also seems to be a lot of specialisation encoded genetically.

    23. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Very few left-handers are hemispherically reversed in my experience (and how would you measure it?)

      Rather, some of the brain functions eg speech are more likely to be represented on the non-dominant hemisphere. It's a different kind of specialisation but probably increases communication across the corpus callosum - which would improve one's ability at synchronising both hemispheres.

    24. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      I'm a psychotherapeutic expert but not a brain expert and much of this knowledge is being updated with fMRI scanning.

      As I said, we tend to use both sides of the brain all the time.

      There's also a question of defining "logic". Spatial logic would be processed more in the right hemisphere I suspect

    25. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by mindbrane · · Score: 1

      Brain plasticity is a primary quality of the brain, especially in the young, but there also seems to be a lot of specialisation encoded genetically.

      I'm a lay person with an abiding interest in epistemology. My readings, including a recent canvassing of the mit, Berkeley and Yale online courses, would seem to broadly indicate brain plasticity is our forte. Some readings suggest our brain doesn't fully complete it's embryological programme until as late as 24 years of age. With such a slow development tied into our deep social embeddedment, it seems to speak directly to the most salient, primate characteristic of our brain being it's high degree of networking. One of the courses, (apologies for not recalling the class and time on the audio but the classes vary from year to year as much as from course to course), suggested that the most remarkable characteristic of our brain is the massive wiring especially to and from the frontal lobes, (excepting the alpha and omega thalamus). No more than a decade ago I recall being taught the relative size of our prefrontal cortex was our salient characteristic but now it's not thought to be so relatively large. So our brains appear to be widely distributed and massively parallel processed.

      I defaulted to a 'what' and 'where' paradigm with a back pocket sketch of a triune, hemisphereically distinct, cartoon look at things. One of the little things that popped up was that the brain, i.e., all brains, evolved from a neural control network around the mouth. If the brain began as a "shut up or die", or, "get it well the gettings good" sensor then mapping out the evolutionary trail is going to be a bitch even with genetics. Although, the brain as initially a neural switch for feeding, appeals to my own epistemology.

      Language seems to be an evolutionary adaptation from grunts & non-vocal communication.

      There's a thread running through evolutionary biology that communication can be seen as a co-evolutionary trait driven by competition. I've only just noted the idea so my knowledge is minuscule, but if communication traits, making spoken language an instinct, can be seen to have in large part developed as a competitive trait enabled and augmented by our social characteristics, then the complexity of our speech, tied to our low seated vocal cords, at least comes into evolutionary view, much like colour vision and bipedal motion. From this point on my ideas sprout wildly and I'll save you the eye strain. Although, what's missing from a back of the envelope sketch of the working brain is the accelerating pace of the development/evolution of our social institutions. Aside from the brute economics of building modern cities it's not uninteresting to note our coming to populate large urban centres. Life in a city requires complex social feedback, one to many, many to one, inter alia, and, such feedback and interaction requires a high degree of social planning on the part of any one participant. So my own little cartoon of brain activity requires massive wiring of the frontal lobes to act as a feedback control in terms of executive planning. The only off the wall thing I'll leave you with is that I've postulated warfare as one of the main contributing factors to development of the executive planning and social feedback loops that allow us to co-habit large urban areas. It was to a considerable extent the planning necessary to never ending tribal wars that was instrumental in our developing the wiring allowing us to even think about living in peace.

      thanx for taking the time to reply

      cheers

      --
      ideopath @ play
    26. Re:what is a single task to the brain? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Humans have multi processes but we only have two cores. So it is done by rapidly switching between tasks to give the effect of simultaneous actions.

      So the human brain is kinda like Windows 3.1?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  8. Women can do it better.. by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Somewhere not so long ago I saw research article that pointed out women can multi-task better than men.
    And that it was a trait of women in general.

    Its a matter of dealing with kids.

    So if two is the limit, what does that say about men?
    Which head are they thinking with?

    1. Re:Women can do it better.. by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Based on this research, it would appear that women are better at cooking and talking on the phone. Gasps of surprise, and film at 11, probably something with Renee Zellweger being charmingly quirky.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Women can do it better.. by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      So if two is the limit, what does that say about men?
      Which head are they thinking with?

      I think the answer is obvious. Our two tasks are:
      1) Thinking about the woman we're are talking to
      2) Thinking about the other woman over there.

    3. Re:Women can do it better.. by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Somewhere not so long ago I saw research article that pointed out women can multi-task better than men. And that it was a trait of women in general.

      Its a matter of dealing with kids.

      So if two is the limit, what does that say about men? Which head are they thinking with?

      My apologies if I call bullshit here. A "matter of dealing with kids" is your proof? And the women who don't have kids?

      It used to be that mens car insurance rates were MUCH higher than womens. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the rates today, since women think they can drive, put on makeup, and talk on the phone at the same time, and the insurance rates prove it. So does the side of my car.

    4. Re:Women can do it better.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Next time a woman claims to be a better mutitasker because she is a woman point out that it's just an excuse for her inability to focus.

      Disclaimer: Don't try this stunt without a crotch protector.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Women can do it better.. by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Women deal with the kids, but we have to deal with the women, so who's really the better multitasker here?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    6. Re:Women can do it better.. by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Most of the fat ones can't kick very high.

    7. Re:Women can do it better.. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      ... and lets not forget get pissed off at us for wanting a day off when kids are screaming all around us and we are multitasking, cleaning, and having a conversation all at the same time. I really think they do all 3 things subconsciously in a relaxed day off like walking and chewing gum.

    8. Re:Women can do it better.. by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      It's the prehistoric brain. Evolved in several hundred millennia.

      Women: look for berries, plan meal, take care of kid 1, kid 2, kid 3, watch the surroundings for danger, maintain relations with the rest of the tribe, upsell your DNA to the fittest male, acquire protection for kids and you from as many males as you can without causing drama.
      Men: maintain squad coordination, attack target (threat, enemy, food, bounty or booty).

      No political agenda will re-wire that piece of hardware in a sensible amount of time. But we *can* create a lot of misery for all the parties involved through trying to.

      We could just accommodate for people that are wired differently, and be done with it, but the "normally wired" hordes would subdue them. So we subdue the majority. Good plan.

  9. Please define task by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can eat, breath, type and read at the same time while listening to music.
    At these moments I am also thinking ahead of what I am going to do.

    Even typing could be considered doing several tasks at the same time. The sample of 'cooking' in the summery can be defined as multiple tasks. You are standing, you are tasting and smelling, you are planning of what to do next and probably stirring as well as looking.

    For a chef in a kitchen, cooking is also interacting with other people at the same time.
    For some people cooking is pressing the button on the microwave and waiting for the 'ting' of the machine.

    So what is a 'task'?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Please define task by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, have a letter: e. You can stick it on the end of breath if you like.

    2. Re:Please define task by Skexis · · Score: 2, Informative
      If you require constant attention to keep breathing, you have bigger problems than defining a task. But from TFA:

      Koechlin and his colleagues had 32 subjects complete a letter-matching task while they had their brains scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The subjects saw uppercase letters on a screen and had to determine whether those letters were presented in the correct order to spell out a certain word. They were given money if they performed the task with no errors.
      ...
      But then they made the task more difficult. In addition to uppercase letters, the subjects were also presented with lowercase letters, and had to switch back and forth between matching the uppercase letters to spell out, say, T-A-B-L-E-T, and lowercase letters to spell out t-a-b-l-e-t.
      ...
      To make things even more complicated, the researchers introduced a third letter-matching task. Here, they saw the subject's accuracy drop considerably. It was as though, once each hemisphere was occupied with managing one task, there was nowhere for the third task to go.

    3. Re:Please define task by daveime · · Score: 1

      He already used one by mistake in summery. Don't give him any more, he'll only squander them.

    4. Re:Please define task by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I can eat, breath, type and read at the same time while listening to music.

      No. Every time you swallow, you have to temporally stop breathing, so eating and breathing are not exactly same-time activities.
      Also, while you type and read, you may hear the music, but you're certainly not listening to it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Please define task by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a 'task' is anything that requires more than two brain cells. When you actively have to think about something. Like in that Sherlock movie, he sits there before hand and decides a billion moves he's going to do...who does that in reality? In reality you have to easily adapt to rapid changes and unexpected results. An athlete doesn't sit there and think to himself he's going to run over to first base, catch the ball, and then get the guy before he reaches base...he just does it. You do it so much it almost becomes a reflex or a preprogrammed set of steps. So instead of Cooking and standing and breath...it turns into Make eggs bennedict...that's a task...and the moments between actions in that task can be filled with any number of other tasks. This is not truely multitasking though and that's what everyone here seems to be confusing. Multitasking is actively thinking and considering two things at the same time. The mind is designed to generalize and group tasks to make them easier to manage. Most fighters get into a habbit of doing a series of steps in a row...which is why there are so many combinations that are common with common counters. Just like in chess or anything else. Those uber chess players...aren't uber anything...they memmorize steps...and if they know more sequences of success than you do then you're out of luck and surely will die. Just because they remember the steps of one of the book of steps...doesn't mean they used the same parts of their brain to defeat the opponent that the loser used.

      The entire point is this...a task is very simply defined as doing one thing...and if you're going to confuse matters by claiming breathing is one thing...well hey...I'm digesting food, beating my heart, typing, listening for a phone call, and thinking about the next few words I'm going to say all at once and that's just a start. The point is a task covers many steps. A fighter doesn't sit there and think TOO much about how he's going to tackle his opponent. He just does it.

    6. Re:Please define task by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      This is actually very easy. A task as OP refers to it is a performance which requires unoptimized raw calculating power from higher, conscious functions of the brain.

      When you learn a task, such as for example walking, your brain will always attempt to optimize it so that your lower, unconscious thought threads handle it passively, without any conscious input. In fact, walking is used as a book case scenario of how human (and in this case any being with organic brain capable of learning in general) learns to delegate tasks to unconscious "threads" which can be handled without any conscious input at all. Breathing is ever further developed, with multiple reflex actions which do not need to be learned at all - as it is a key element for survival ever since birth, it is fully automated through a specially designed neural area where brain and spinal cord link. Same area is also responsible for setting the speed of the heartbeat, or more accurately, it is responsible for making sure that proper oxygenation levels are provided for it (i.e. lungs and heart work in tandem to deliver sufficient amounts of oxygen - it has neural sensors to detect CO2 levels of blood and adjust both of above automatically to compensate).

      But I digress. Back to tasking, a higher function task is something that is either not automated yet, for example, walking process in infants, or a process which is too difficult to be automated as we have no brain area that can be sufficiently optimized to handle the task fully autonomously, such as for example completing a word puzzle. Walking is once again the best example: at birth, infant has no information on how walking happens - nor necessary physique. At early age, when infant already has sufficient bone density and musculature to enable upright walking, they still cannot for quite a while. This is because walking is in fact a VERY complex process that involves several dozens groups of muscles working in various directions and doing a very precise balancing act - complexity of learning this artificially is shown best by how difficult it is to produce a upright walking biped robot - even modern ones still walk very slowly in comparison to a human. As a result, until the task is first learned consciously, phase by phase, it is so complex in terms of multitasking, that an infant with all the necessary physique cannot do it. Instead infant first learns how to crawl, then how to stand, and only then how to walk (combine balancing of standing with motion control of crawling). In all simplicity, infant learns how to combine various simple tasks into several complex ones and finally one very complex one, and then his brain optimizes the entire process to automate it fully.

      However an adult who has fully automated walking as a task can easily walk without having to think about it at all. It is a fully automated process optimized to function on unconscious level without any conscious brain function input other then "set initial direction and speed". And even those can often be automated - just grab you phone and try to engross yourself into a game or texting on it while walking. You will notice that after a few minutes you will adapt and easily maintain course and avoid stumbling and colliding with objects in spite of not focusing on walking at all and with phone screen fully covering your visual focus - your unconscious mind will handle the visual ques from your peripheral vision and adapt your walking course, as well as alert your conscious mind in case an obstacle that cannot be handled by this "autopilot" alone comes on the path.

      The tasking that OP refers to is the complex tasks that require consciousness to focus on the task. It does not refer to tasks handled unconsciously and autonomously without conscious input.

    7. Re:Please define task by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      A task is a control flow. You can multiplex a control flow to do many things, but there is still only one physical mechanism to support each flow, which can simulates sub-tasks.

      So basically the article says that the brain is dual core. If you happen to possess a higher core brain, please notify the authors.

  10. Pshaw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am typing this comment sitting in a library ogling a hot chick sitting in front of me while humming a tune and thinking about burgers. fur burgers.

  11. Musicians by Landak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What about professional musicians, who have to concentrate on far many more things than two at once? Organists, in addition to playing anything up to five keyboard manuals with their hands and one with their feet (simultaneously reading anything up to twelve lines of music, though in practice usually never more than five), have to listen to a choir and/or congregation, watch a conductor, and read the music, all at the same time. Some of them can even sing competently one line whilst doing so!

    Whilst I can accept that it is very difficult to consciously concentrate on more than two things at once, somehow some people can train their subconscious into doing so -- when sight-reading music, I experience a lovely sensation, almost as if my brain is being "split" down the middle -- if I concentrate for too long, I start to develop a headache and feel exceptionally exhausted. It is a most wonderful feeling, and nothing else in the world quite comes close (although doing some rewarding mathematics isn't far behind). I would not be surprised if it were possible to find many more examples of people concentrating on more than two things at once, "simply" through getting other bits of their brain to do the dirty work. Juggling on a unicycle while jumping over a skipping rope, anyone?

    --
    My UID is prime. Is yours?
    1. Re:Musicians by cthugha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I remember it, all of that repetitive fine motor control musicians need is handled by the cerebellum at an unconscious or preconscious level once the necessary movements have been learnt (this is why practice is important). So yeah, there is division by delegation of many tasks, like you said, but I'm not sure how many pure "thinking" processes could be performed at any given time.

    2. Re:Musicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen a piano player reading a newspaper while playing in a pit orchestra. When there is three shows a day I guess it becomes pretty automatic after a few months.

      The one that really impressed me was hearing someone do a reduction of a full orchestral score down to a single piano part. They were sight reading too. To do that you have to be thinking of so many things at once, not only about where your fingers are, but where the important melodic and chordal/rhythmic parts in the score are, and how to find that from over twenty or so different instrumental parts at once. There is no way the player is only thinking of two things at once!

    3. Re:Musicians by B3Geek · · Score: 1

      Any jazz organist does this when he carries the bass line for the group. There appears to be a complete separation between the left hand which is carrying the bass and the right which is comping and soloing.

    4. Re:Musicians by karlwilson · · Score: 1

      It's funny that you mention music. I remember when I was learning to play piano as a little kid, I always practice the music (even if it had multiple melodies) as one piece. I never thought of it as two separate songs going on at once. I had to relearn that same process of learning music as one piece when I started playing guitar while singing at the same time. I'm also a pilot for the Air Force, a job that requires an incredible amount of multitasking. The key there is to keep everything in your mind organized and accomplish tasks in logical sequence. After a while, you also begin to develop "muscle-memory" which allows you to pile on more tasks.

    5. Re:Musicians by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Yes, playing difficult music requires a lot of concentration. Now have the musician talk on the phone and solve a crossword puzzle while they're playing and see how well they do.

    6. Re:Musicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably right when you say professionals use the cerebellum to handle the repetitive tasks, to the point where playing the instrument (or when chefs cook; when f1 drivers drive) become a second nature. For me, I remember having the hardest time singing and playing guitar at the same time when I was just learning how to play.

    7. Re:Musicians by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I saw a drum solo at a santana concert that blew me away, he was playing a different beat with all four limbs.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Musicians by cynyr · · Score: 1

      i doubt it's F1 drivers, they loose tenths just talking on the radio, or adjusting brake bias.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    9. Re:Musicians by P-Nuts · · Score: 1

      They adjust brake bias on the straights. The straight at the current Grand Prix at Shanghai is so long they'd have time to swap CDs if they only had a stereo in the car.

    10. Re:Musicians by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I suspect much depends on how you define 'thing'. While the organist in your example may appear to be doing many 'things', in truth they are all closely related and may not be treated by the brain as more than two 'things'.
       
      It may also be that organists are like air traffic controllers or NASA mission controllers - from the right hand side of the bell curve.

    11. Re:Musicians by catmistake · · Score: 1

      For me, I remember having the hardest time singing and playing guitar at the same time when I was just learning how to play.

      The performer is actually doing a little bit more. I'm sure the stuff that the hand "just knows" isn't quite conscious, moving fingers around hitting the notes, the other hand/wrist in rhythm. But a performer, not one that's in his bedroom playing and singing, but a working performer is doing all this AND observing the audience, AND making eye contact AND giving emotion and facial expression (no, not always without thinking, sometimes those emotions are completely contrived... and if they're really good, you can't tell... and you are moved), and, especially, of course, listening and doing that critically. I've seen performers adjust a mistuned string on the fly, without stopping the song. I've also been to a Phish show: bouncing on trampolines, chording and soloing with one hand, picking individual strings and/or strumming all with the other, singing, doing synchronized bouncing, spinning, reacting to the audience, reacting to anything that might be happening (such as unscheduled fireworks behind the stage)... those guys are freakin aliens.

    12. Re:Musicians by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I saw a drum solo at a santana concert that blew me away, he was playing a different beat with all four limbs.

      I saw one at a Def Leppard concert once, but it was only three limbs.

    13. Re:Musicians by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reading the study (actually the summary), I think the problem is the people doing the test weren't actually switching tasks, they were trying to focus on all the things at the same time. I notice that when I work on multiple things (for example, music), I am actually switching between them very quickly. As an example, playing the piano and singing, it's like I queue up a line of words in my mind to sing, then switch instantly back to whatever my fingers need to do. You just get very good at switching between things. Which is actually multi-tasking, even as the scientist in the story uses the word.

      The people in the story didn't seem to be switching. They were presented with moderately uncommon tasks, and from the MRI it appears they didn't actually switch, they were keeping everything in their mind the whole time, It is well known that you can only keep seven things or so in your mind at the same time, so this is not surprising. If they hadn't used the MRI then this story would have been utterly uninteresting, but even as it is, I don't think the facts of the study supports the author's conclusions.

      PS To avoid a headache have you tried giving more sugar to your brain? Bobby Fischer used to drink fruit juice during chess games to help keep up his concentration.

      --
      Qxe4
    14. Re:Musicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say something similar to this, but it looks like @cthugha already answered that.

      I have been playing drums for about 8 years now and have complete limb independence, meaning I can play four completely different time signatures, one with each limb, simultaneously.

    15. Re:Musicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but could that singing organist at the same time discuss on the phone details of a complex dinner party that his wife is organising? I think not. All those musical tasks are very closely related, appertaining to and focussed on the same thing - performing a song. In a sense, for all its complexity, it is a single task. Blowing your nose in a handkerchief is a simple single task, but it involves an immensely complex collection of individual processes.

      I think the really interesting thing here is not how many tasks we can carry out at the same time, but quite what we mean by a single task. For some, as in Landak's example, it can be "playing anything up to five keyboard manuals with their hands and one with their feet (simultaneously reading anything up to twelve lines of music, though in practice usually never more than five), have to listen to a choir and/or congregation, watch a conductor, and read the music, all at the same time". For lesser mortals and small animals, scratching their bottom might require the maximum number of related processes they can concentrate on at once. The significance is the word 'related', I think.

      Anonymous because I can never remember either my username or password, as neither seem to be related to Slashdot. Must change that.

    16. Re:Musicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was about to type the exact same comment until I read the rest of the board.

      I wanted to add that there are even better organists that can do all that, while sight-reading an untransposed score, and that's assuming the choir and the conductor are on top of their game, which they are :)

      The nature of any task from what I understand requires heavily upon either the left or right brain. Wouldn't it be easier to multi-task if all three tasks, used similar functions of the brain?
      When we practice a certain task are we not strengthening the bridge between left and right brain, facilitating the task for next time?

      When they carried out the experiment, instead of adding a third match making game that was based on the first two tasks, what would the result of been had they added a simple math problem (which occupies different functions of the brain) instead.

      Why not perform the same test with a bilingual candidate? Two tasks in the same language, (upper and lowercase), and the third (upper or lower). Wouldn't you get different data if you had the 2 of the same language both be upper case, and the second language be lower case as opposed to both languages having upper or lowercase words?

      My biggest problem with reading articles that start off "For those who find it tough to juggle more than a couple things at once, don't despair. The brain is set up to manage two tasks, but not more, a new study suggests. " I always feel like there are psychological trappings to convince people that the article be infallibly true, even though they are carefully worded such that I would not be able to technically prove the intention as such. "...don't despair. (PHEW!) The brain is set up to manage two tasks, but not more, (pause...wow really? I'm such a bad juggler) a new study suggests. (OHHHH I see, a study SUGGESTS)

    17. Re:Musicians by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that when you are sight-reading music, you can "understand" many musical notes simultaneously? If so, it may have something to do with the human visual system, which, like GPU, is massively parallel.

    18. Re:Musicians by JohnKFT · · Score: 1

      Yes, but could that singing organist at the same time discuss on the phone details of a complex dinner party that his wife is organising? I think not. All those musical tasks are very closely related, appertaining to and focussed on the same thing - performing a song. In a sense, for all its complexity, it is a single task. Blowing your nose in a handkerchief is a simple single task, but it involves an immensely complex collection of individual processes.

      I think the interesting thing here is not how many tasks we can carry out at the same time, but quite what we mean by a single task. For some, as in Landak's example, it can be "playing anything up to five keyboard manuals with their hands and one with their feet (simultaneously reading anything up to twelve lines of music ...), have to listen to a choir and/or congregation, watch a conductor, and read the music, all at the same time". For lesser mortals and small animals, scratching their bottom might involve the maximum number of related processes they can concentrate on at once. The significance is the word 'related', I think. Consider the frenzied, multifarious activity on the floor of a stock exchange for example; then try phoning one of the participants to ask their advice on bleeding the brakes of your car.

  12. I used to work on the road... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1
    And when I had a really busy day, at the same time, I was able to:
    1. Drive my car
    2. Eat my Subway
    3. Take a call with my cell phone (no hands free, I had the phone between my ear and shoulder)
    4. Take note of what my client was saying (I had a kneeboard)

    Of course, I was not able to hold the steering with my hands, but I was using my knee (was driving on the highway).

    So this is 4 tasks at a time. I never had an accident.

    1. Re:I used to work on the road... by lattyware · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not having an accident doesn't make it safe.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    2. Re:I used to work on the road... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 0

      Where did I say it was perfectly safe? I just said that I was able to do it all at the same time.

    3. Re:I used to work on the road... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Not having an accident doesn't make it safe.

      I think "not having an accident" could be considered the 5th task ;-)

    4. Re:I used to work on the road... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      How many times have you repeated this experiment?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:I used to work on the road... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father is the only other person I know who can drive with his knee, eat and talk at the same time. I've been practicing (in rush-hour traffic, no less - why not take advantage of the slowdowns to do something useful?), but I don't think that it's very practical. My commute follows a pretty twisty highway and knees weren't meant for turning steering wheels.

    6. Re:I used to work on the road... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really believe you're doing all of those simultaneously, try to discuss contract details that will make or break you as a result of the call, keeping notes to refer back as needed later, while driving on a windy mountain road and let us know how it works out.

      You're not talking on the phone while eating Subway, so the eating is time sliced at appropriate times when you know you won't have to speak. Listening to someone on the phone doesn't require your full attention.

      With cruise control set on a mostly straight highway and no abrupt changes in traffic speed, only infrequent, minor steering inputs are needed. This isn't much more of a task that you're performing than riding on a bus.

      The experiment showed that performance went way down when a third task was added. The tasks you listed do not have quality of performance measurements. You can do every one of those poorly at the same time and not have an accident. Closing your eyes and taking your hands off the wheel for 10 seconds at a time would not cause an accident in most cases. However, if you did get in an accident and it was apparent that you were doing all of the things you mentioned while driving, you can bet that you'd be found to be entirely at fault for the accident, unless the other car was a blind meth addict driving perpendicular to traffic.

    7. Re:I used to work on the road... by brendank310 · · Score: 1

      That's incredibly dangerous... you should NEVER eat Subway.

  13. doesn't apply to computer by hey · · Score: 1

    Maybe 2 tasks in the foreground but its useful to have your computer checking mail, RSS feeds, defragging, etc in the background.

  14. Pick two by characterZer0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thinking
    Talking
    Listening

    Pick two.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    1. Re:Pick two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's really easy to listen while talking. You will not retain much, but you can do it. Same with thinking: if you are busy pondering your response while the other person is talking, you are most likely missing some information.

      Proper listening is not a task that can be done along other tasks. It is underrated because it seems like a passive activity, but real listening requires a lot of effort.

    2. Re:Pick two by IANAAC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If you are an interpreter, you routinely do all three at the same time.

      Sorry, just because it's difficult for some doesn't mean it's impossible. It does take training and practice, though.

    3. Re:Pick two by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      And if you ever doubt it, try listening to something in another language (especially one you've just started learning).

    4. Re:Pick two by rattaroaz · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's pick one for men. Sex is #1. Now you have 1 more thing you can focus on at the same time.

    5. Re:Pick two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a woman then you're only able to choose Talking

    6. Re:Pick two by rodox · · Score: 1

      What about musicians that play an instrument and sing at the same time in a band? They do all three.

    7. Re:Pick two by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Their brains likely organize it as one task. Just like driving involves moving your hands, feet, head and eyes in pursuit of both short-term and long-term goals.

    8. Re:Pick two by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Baseball.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    9. Re:Pick two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know why it takes training and practice? Because it's not multitasking. What training and practice do is all you to get used to doing several tasks as if they are one single task. You learn to break up each task into distinct components and put those components together in the form of one super-task. This is something that takes a lot of practice to figure out, but we do it all the time. The more we practice, the more becomes one single unified task for us, and the better we are at "multitasking" with these particular tasks.

      Moreover, for some activities, repetition makes that task something we do by rote. Accomplishing that task becomes the responsibility of the cerebellum instead of the cerebral cortex. In other words, instead of the using the CPU, it's like plugging in a video card to offload that computational intensity off of the CPU, thus freeing up the CPU for other tasks. This is why you can talk on your phone while walk, driving, or cooking. That is also why it is dangerous in situations when those learned tasks are not adapted, such as coming across a bump in the sidewalk, you see sudden changes in traffic while driving, or you're cooking a new recipe.

      So, go ahead, keep telling yourself you're good at multitasking. And I'll be the one who continues to, you know, stay alive, since I won't take my "multitasking" abilities for granted when driving or crossing the street.

    10. Re:Pick two by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Interpreters don't multitask. They task-switch. It's not possible to talk & listen at the same time. And I see many people fail to talk and think at the same time.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  15. A victory for the workforce by sanche · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm glad to see this. There are way too many people in my business life claiming to be good at multitasking when their only real strength is never giving anything their full attention.

    It takes a certain amount of horsepower for your brain to help you get through a list of tasks, simple or not. When you focus, you get those things done faster, and usually at a higher quality.

  16. iPhone by skyriser2 · · Score: 1

    So our brain is better at multitasking than an iPhone?

  17. Windows XP Starter Edition by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

    So the three-app limit in Windows XP was scientifically justified!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  18. A Minority Can Multitask by sonicmerlin · · Score: 2, Informative

    I recall an article at Arstechnica about cell phone use while driving mentioning a study that found a minority of people are actually capable of multi-tasking while the rest are "bad at it". Oh yes, here we go:

    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/rare-supertaskers-balance-driving-and-cellphone-use.ars

    1. Re:A Minority Can Multitask by timothy · · Score: 1
      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    2. Re:A Minority Can Multitask by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Then again that's skewed by the sort of tasks that still get the job done when done very badly in comparison to when you concentrate.
      For instance typing in some sort of online chat while doing other things - nobody expects or cares about perfect spelling (just as they shouldn't care here), so a greatly reduced level of skill gets the job done.
      Driving is an incredibly bad example to choose because most driving tasks are very easy and a dangerously low level of skill for the few difficult parts is considered acceptable by most people until they have their first car accident that causes injury to themselves or someone they care about. The irony is most skilled drivers consider themselves far less skilled than those with little or no experience, compare a real race driver with the next smug idiot you see.
      That makes it difficult to measure, and even under highly controlled conditions a good driver performing badly while distracted may be a better driver than an inexperienced one. One study showed that very inexperienced drivers were not distracted from upcoming hazards by mobile phones because they were not looking for potential hazards in the first place. Something like that could be misinterpreted as saying that the distraction has no effect while the reality is just that the skills are at rock bottom and can't get worse.

    3. Re:A Minority Can Multitask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMO, there's a lot of difference between the two studies. The 2-task study seemed to be more about wanting to watch the brain as things happen; note that it's a forced context switch with no sense of priorities. On the other hand, driving with a phone, you have a strong sense of priorities and some ability to schedule your task switching. Mostly by ignoring or putting down the phone when more important things are going on. An even simpler variant is playing with the radio and AC while driving. A much more complicated variant is flying a plane - lots of tasks, still in a rough hierarchy. The plane example is kinda like the human example of an OS scheduler algorithm - different things needing different amounts of attention, but each having minimum attention requirements.

      Humans can do these things with the right combination of training and practice, but can't instantly cope with more than two randomized tasks sprung on them at once. The new study tells you that our on-the-fly random task coping limit is two tasks. The old study tells us some people have learned to drive and talk at the same time (and a whole lot of people think they can, but are actually horrible at it).

  19. Obviously... by ThoughtMonster · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...all the researchers are men and have never met any women.

  20. Multi...what? by Drune · · Score: 1

    Try making a simple math operation inside your head while you are reading a book or writing an SMS.. Did you stop the reading or the SMS writing while you got the result of 22x11x2? You are not multitasking..sorry!

    1. Re:Multi...what? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      You ARE multitasking. You are able to work on a second task before finishing the first one. That's how multitasking works. Put task1 on hold and work on task2. Then put task2 on hold and work on task3. and so on. Judging by the state of my desk and how you want to define the hold time, I can multitask thousands of things. :-)

      However, what you're talking about is multiprocessing: working on multiple tasks simultaneously. How many a human brain can do will depend heavily on how a task is defined, and what the tasks are. My guess is that we can easily do a right brain task and a left brain task simultaneously. Working on two math problems simultaneously probably won't work.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  21. Multi-processor but multi-threads, too... by xandercash · · Score: 1

    So we have a 2 processor system, but, at least for me, one of the two processors can also multi-thread.

  22. I can.. by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

    Because I'm special. And superior to all other beings.

    1. Re:I can.. by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      My mother says I'm special.

  23. OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

    This being 2010 I would have expected:

    int main(String[] args() {
    new Thread(new Task1()).start();
    new Thread(new Task2()).start();
    new Thread(new Task3()).start();
    Thread.sleep(86400000L);
    }


    // Task 1: Chewing gum.
    class Task1() {
    void run() {
    while(1) {
    chewGum();
    }
    }

    // Task 2: Listening to music
    class Task2() {
    void run() {
    while(1) {
    hearMusic();
    shakeHead();
    hymnALittleBit();
    shakeLeg();
    }
    }

    //Task 3: Typing to Slashdot
    class Task3() {
    void run() {
    while(1) {
    thinkOfWordsToType();
    searchForTheSpellingOfTheWord();
    liftFingers();
    useRightFingersToHitTheRightKeys();
    eyeLookAtScreen();
    checkForTypos();
    checkForGrammarMistake();
    }
    }

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    1. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait till you see I use the "gosub" command ! Muahahahaha !

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    2. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, 2010 and we have to wrap a function in a class to get a reference to it.

    3. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why does 2010 require so many empty parentheses?

      I would think that in 2010 it would look more like this:

      1. Slide to Unlock

      2. Chew Gum App (Free Version)

      3. Click!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Typical iPhad response. 3 sequential steps and call it multitasking :)
      Oh wait, I forgot, iPhad can only multitask 2 tasks (one builtin app and one 3rd Party app). No, background notifications don't count. If interrupt handling is considered multitasking, then msdos was a multitasking beast (I wrote many TSR apps back in the day).
      Full disclosure: I'm writing this on my iPhad so don't peg me as anti-apple (I have 4 more iPhads I'm paying for for wife&kids). I'm supporting Apple more than any shill so I will speak my mind.
      The last time I made a remark critical of apple I got modded troll so I'm aware of the iGod followers here.
      If this draws a troll mod, then I say F U moderator.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    5. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by Cylix · · Score: 1

      That is a very serial representation. Give this a try and see if you feel more efficient.

      $thought = $self->searchForTheSpellingOfTheWord(thinkOfWordsToType)
      $self->type($thought) //aggregate function
      $self->eyes->checkForFuckups()

      I consolidated some things to logical functions.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    6. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry if this went past you. Let me explain this to you s l o w l y...
      iPhad is a play off of the iPhone & iPad platform with a double meaning. Remember "double entendre" from grade school?
      Say iPhad very slowly several times and maybe you'll get it - but then again maybe not.
      I don't even know why I'm responding to an AC (that's Anonymous Coward if you need an explanation of that as well), but since you appear to need spoon feeding; if you'll pay attention, posts on /. are initially set to Score:1 and either modded up or down - or ignored (in which case they stay Score:1) - by the moderators.
      However, I don't post here for the scores. I do it because I enjoy participating in the (occasional) interesting discussions and even the (more frequent) jousting of ideas and points of view.
      I will say though, posting as an AC will not garner you much respect because it shows you don't have the guts to put your identity behind your comment.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    7. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it shows you don't have the guts to put your identity behind your comment.

      Your mother named you "mswhippingboy"?

    8. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Of course you're only at "1" -- I had to browse at lowest level even to see you.

      Of course you're only at "-1" -- I had to browse at lowest level even to see you.

      You must be new here (of course, I actually have everything below 4 abbreviated, not hidden, but that isn't the default)

    9. Re:OMG! Is that BASIC I see??? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Pay attention, please.
      Did I say "put your name behind your comment" ?
      No, I said identity , as in online identity.
      I doubt CmdrTacos mother actually named him that, but there is little doubt on /. as to who his is.
      I suppose in some respects, your choice to post as Anonymous Coward belies who you are as well :)
      As I've stated before, if you want to be taken seriously, the least you can do is register (it's free after all) and post under your own identity.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  24. I can verify it's true by lord_rob+the+only+on · · Score: 1

    I had an accident and the zone of my brain which is responsible for the communication between the two hemispheres of the brain (corpus callosum) was damaged during a important head injury. Now it's difficult to take notes while listening to a speaker for example because I need to concentrate on two tasks.

    So both hemispheres need to work actively but what is more important is the communication between them

    1. Re:I can verify it's true by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had an accident and the zone of my brain which is responsible for the communication between the two hemispheres of the brain (corpus callosum) was damaged during a important head injury. Now it's difficult to take notes while listening to a speaker for example because I need to concentrate on two tasks.

      Can the "other" hemisphere act on its own? I mean, is it more like having lost half your brain, or having been split into two beings in a single body?

      So both hemispheres need to work actively but what is more important is the communication between them

      Yes. I theorize that in order to meld separate nodes to a single entity, the communication between them has to be at least as fast as information processing within them. That way they stay so well synchronized and coordinated that they are, for all intents and purposes, a single entity - a brain, rather than just a bunch of neurons.

      This is important for AI research, since it implies that the current design of computers - fast processor, but huge cost of communication and cache misses - is as bad fit for AI as can be. Instead, you'd want lots and lots and lots of relatively weak cores with their own dedicated on-chip memory and capability of sending messages to each other.

      I wonder if graphis cards and compute shaders would fit the bill? They certainly are much better at parallelization. Of course, even then you'd need lots and lots and lots of them...

      Or just run the whole thing over the Internet. Let's add AI nodes to various P2P programs and see Skynet emerge :). Seriously, the burden on a single computer would be pretty low, so it should be technically doable...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:I can verify it's true by howzit · · Score: 1

      Thank heavens! Someone who sees sense and knows what he's talking about! What almost all don't realise is that you are only thinking of one thing at a time. If a high-speed photo were taken of a musician's brain it would be seen to be, for that moment, concentrating on ONE thing. But alternating between the tasks at light speed. Like a CPU. They are saying that we are like two CPU's RUNNING IN PARALELL. Geditt?

  25. Not counting what the small brain does, I guess by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    The small brain takes care of the mechanical movements of the body, such as walking, swimming, dancing, bicycling etc.

    As an aside, my brain is certainly restricted to a single task, since I'm an aspie.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Not counting what the small brain does, I guess by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      As an aside, my brain is certainly restricted to a single task, since I'm an aspie.

      The prevalence of people who claim to have Aspergers on geek related web sites like Slashdot tends to very high. I think there are a few reasons for this.
      One is that people with Aspergers are more likely to be driven to a geekier lifestyle; another is the perception by many non-aspie geeks that having Aspergers wouldn't really be such a bad thing (there are several positives associated with it as well as the negatives). The most interesting reason for me though is that I don't really think of Aspergers (or even complete autism) as being a fundamentally different thing to being "normal". From everything I've seen and read about it (which admittedly is less than most medical professionals that focus on it, but significantly more than most laymen) I would consider there to be various mental factors that have a range of possible states. To keep it easy, let's start with one: Empathy. If a normal person has an empathy value of "50", and a complete sociopath has an empathy value of "0", I would put myself somewhere around 10. Another factor may be "external awareness" (how much priority your brain puts on actually processing the signals coming in from your senses). Again, we'll say a normal person has a value of "50", and in this example, someone with extremely serious Autism may have a value around "5". My value is probably around 40.
      Slowly but surely getting to my point here... Let's say we define a good hundred or so of these things. Chances are, we'll find correlations pretty quickly that show many of them are related - for example, people with lower external awareness also tend to have lower empathy. I would consider Aspergers to be a significant lowering of some of these factors. But people who are above this line, and below normal, tend to just be "socially awkward geeks" (such as myself - borderline aspie by symptoms but never diagnosed as such and generally don't refer to myself as such at all... quite happy with just saying "socially awkward geek").

      Now... I'm not saying here that you do or don't have Aspergers - that's actually beside my point... Whether you do by a formal definition or not, you're probably somewhere in these "lower values" that I've described, and so from my point of view, any formal definition is fairly irrelevant (I'm sceptical of the mental health field in general, as there's a lot of quackery that clouds the real science being studied and even professionals seem to get mixes of both). The entire point of describing all of this is to suggest something that helps me greatly to understand my own mind: LSD. It's also very likely to help you multitask in your own brain for a bit, which would probably be a novel experience for you... it definitely was for me the first time. The best "multitasking" experience I ever had involved performing no physical tasks whatsoever, but with one part of my mind I was intensely focused on some music, picking out each instrument and each note that it played, savouring it in fine detail and then moving on to the next (which in reality was taking tenths of a second at longest, but the amount of time was meaningless... it was enough to fully savour each note), with another part of my mind I was finding geometric patterns in the stucco on my wall, and finally with yet a third part I was intensely aware of my left leg (no idea why only my left...) and the minute amount of pressure pressing down on each hair of that leg from the weight of my trouser leg. Being able to focus in great detail on these three things simultaneously is definitely WELL beyond my capabilities when not under the influence of LSD (other hallucinogens I've tried have had mild effects like this (even with stronger other effects such as visual distortions) but never to the level that a high dose of LSD (around 5 to 8 tabs) gives (although if you're new to it, I wouldn't recommend more than 2 tabs until you're comfortable and then build up from there over the course of a year or so)).

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    2. Re:Not counting what the small brain does, I guess by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I read your post.

      I have only one remark: sociopaths (I guess you mean psychopaths, since they are marked by lack of empathy) belong to a very different category than the Autism Spectrum (to which aspies, autists etc. belong). I notice that aspeis (it's harder to say about autists, because they are so closed) have perhaps an even higher level of empathy than the average person - but they typically have a hard time reading people's emotions. Usually aspies care a lot for the common good, while psychopaths care only for their own and to the expense of everyone else's - even to the whole world's. Aspies usually have some kind of ethics to which they adhere very closely, while psychopaths have none, just as they have no conscience.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:Not counting what the small brain does, I guess by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but I'm not sure we agree on the meaning of "empathy". In my post, I was meaning it purely as "ability to feel for other people's emotions"... this naturally requires reading others emotions of course, which you quite rightly pointed out that people on the autism spectrum have great difficulty doing.

      Also note that I wasn't really equating sociopathy with autism spectrum disorders - I do believe they have some commonalities, but are by no means the same thing (just as "beer" and "coffee" have some commonalities, but are by no means the same!)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    4. Re:Not counting what the small brain does, I guess by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      In my post, I was meaning it purely as "ability to feel for other people's emotions"... this naturally requires reading others emotions of course

      No, not "of course" - an aspie may not be able to read the facial expressions or body language, but if the other person explains, describes or specifies his/her emotions, an aspie definitely can empathize.

      I noticed that people who present arguments which have shaky standing, usually add adverbs such as "naturally", "obviously" and "of course". That ticks me off, sorry.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Not counting what the small brain does, I guess by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      No, not "of course" - an aspie may not be able to read the facial expressions or body language, but if the other person explains, describes or specifies his/her emotions, an aspie definitely can empathize.

      I wouldn't call that "empathy" at all. That's "feeling an emotion", which most certainly aspies can do. Feeling an emotion because someone else is feeling one is NOT empathy. Empathy is mentally putting oneself in the position of another. To do this, one has to be able to comprehend how the others mind works (even if actually falsely assuming how it works). The majority of people with aspergers would find this extraordinarily difficult and require conscious effort to do so, where as neurotypicals tend to do this without even thinking about it. The reason I consider it to not be empathy when the emotion is described is that the aspie would not be consider him/herself in the place of the other, but instead simply perceiving themselves as feeling the same emotion. It's perhaps a relatively subtle distinction, but nevertheless very different.

      As mentioned, I don't consider myself an aspie, but I definitely do have empathy difficulties, so this topic isn't far from my own understanding.

      Glancing at the Wikipedia page, I see Hans Asperger essentially described the lack of displayed empathy as being one of the key points of the children he worked with. A Google search for "aspergers+empathy" seems to give a lot of conflicting data. There are MANY anecdotal reports on both sides, and several studies that claim aspies empathise "too much" (information overload causing shutting oneself out) but the general consensus still seems to point to a lack of real empathy.

      Using the adverb "naturally" and the phrase "of course" in my post were not attempts at weasel words, but rather my own projection of following a logical conclusion (equivalent to: "If I pick something up, then of course I am now holding something").

      Rereading your posts, I don't think we entirely disagree as to whether aspies have empathy, but rather on the definition of empathy itself, which makes any discussion like this difficult.

      And as a last note: I am not attempting to lump all people with aspergers together. Just as every mental state of being has varying degrees, there are people that would be clinically diagnosed as having aspergers that show varying traits to different degrees. I don't doubt there are highly empathetic people with aspergers, but they'd be an exception rather than the norm.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    6. Re:Not counting what the small brain does, I guess by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      On another topic (hence separate reply):

      sociopaths (I guess you mean psychopaths, since they are marked by lack of empathy)

      No, I mean sociopaths. Neither is a recognised term in modern psychiatric medicine and amongst those that do use the terms there are debates about the differences. Both are generally regarded as having a lack of empathy. Personally, I tend to agree with David Lykken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Psychopathy_vs._sociopathy) on the subject.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  26. its partial redone of an old study by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sI remember reading years ago about the US airforce doing the same study. they wanted to know if it was better to put one or two pilots in a fighter. They found with training the number closer to 5 tasks

    1. Re:its partial redone of an old study by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Key word is "with training"

      Once trained, they are automatic and are not consciously managed. Sure, there's some higher-level stuff, like "listen to your threat indicator" and "scan your gauges" but it's not an "active" process.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  27. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL Dual core!

  28. No. Just, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People do countless tasks every day at the same time, and "second nature" type tasks don't even come in to it.

    People have to deal with multiple inputs every day and filter them correctly, be it someone taking some notes or a bartender in a busy club with loud music blaring.
    Maybe they should rerun the tests on people like this.
    I, personally, deal with multiple inputs almost every day and have no problem keeping track of them all.
    The only downside for me is that i'm unable to do a lot of logical-heavy computation. But that is just for me, i know of others who are perfectly capable of it.

    While we think we know a lot about how the brain works, we really are still pretty clueless. We don't know what any of those neural firings are doing, or mean, just that they are there and happening at the same time a task is being performed.
    The brain isn't hardwired to deal with binary data, the main idea of the brain is to deal with countless inputs every nanosecond.
    That is what led to it being so complex in such a small size. If the brain were to be expressed as a binary machine, it would be significantly larger.
    People hate deciding between more than two things? That isn't the case at all, people like choice, and from my own experiences, most of the people i know usually tend to look for more options if they are presented with binary choices.
    32 test cases just isn't a large enough dataset. Nowhere near large enough for something like this.

    Hell, if there is one thing we DO know is that the brain is FLEXIBLE. Saying that the brain isn't capable of learning to multitask beyond some sort of "natural default" is just crazy, we have seen much bigger things than this, such as people echo-locating, brain adapting to alternative inputs such as UV and magnetic inputs, as well as emulated sight through stimulation of the TONGUE.
    The brain is by no means a static structure.

    And while we are at it, the definition of a task within the brain is a bit blurry, at best.

  29. Ah, I get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can drink and drive, or drive and talk on the cellphone, but I can't drink, drive *and* talk on the cellphone.

  30. Practice by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously though, you might be able to learn how to do that if you could practice doing that 100 times every day, for a month under safe simulated conditions (e.g. driving simulator, and simulated eating too, otherwise you'd end up killing yourself by overeating ;) ).

    It's all about practice. Practice, practice, practice.

    The first time you drive a car (especially a manual), there are so many tasks.

    After a while of practice, your brain configures itself to automatically make those tasks into a subtask, and groups them all into one task - "driving".

    Of course some people may never be able to do it. But I think a high proportion of people can. And I bet there are some people who can learn to do it after very short time - just like some people can learn to juggle very quickly, and there was that recent article about supertaskers.

    I'm sure Michael Schumacher can eat breakfast and type on a cellphone and still do F1 laps faster than I can, when I'm just doing F1 laps (just driving, not eating or doing other stuff).

    The trouble with most people is they're trying to do "for real" without practicing _properly_. That's like trying to juggle chainsaws, without learning how to juggle balls first, and then gradually working your way up under controlled conditions.

    --
    1. Re:Practice by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      95+% of the time you can, but the problem is with something high stakes like driving you always have to be on the lookout for the unexpected. You cannot maintain full situational awareness while multi-tasking, thats that. If you want to text or eat or do whatever during your commute, just take the bus. It's what I do.

    2. Re:Practice by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Sure. But that gets into repetitive muscle training that no longer requires a lot of conscious thought. Ever try and learn the piano? You only get good when you practice enough so your fingers 'automatically' go where you want them to. As soon as you start thinking about finger placement consciously, you miss tempo.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    3. Re:Practice by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      Makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why so many new parents feel overwhelmed with the first kid, but breeze through the next one. Trying to make breakfast while the dog's whining at the door and Timmy's refusing to get out of his pj's isn't something you can practice, but once you can do it, it seems rather mundane. I'd like them to do a long-term study on multitasking now. Once learned, is a series of tasks that we do frequently (like paying the bills while talking on the phone, or checking the news and eating breakfast) something we will never forget, or must it be continued in order to maintain adequate multitasking? I've been very good at various multitasking sets in the past but have since discontinued them; if I tried to do them again would I be able to pick up where I left off, or can the brain only manage a certain number of sets?

    4. Re:Practice by JamesP · · Score: 1

      It's all about practice. Practice, practice, practice.

      Also learn to steer with your chin, WHILE you're eating something...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    5. Re:Practice by raynet · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would think driving a bus while texting or eating would be even more dangerous.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    6. Re:Practice by mdarksbane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just from my own experience, it seems like there are a bunch of different things going on when you try to multitask.

      There are things you have practiced so much that your brain no longer has to think about them - like say, walking, or driving when there are no changes in the road or other cars. Let's call these "background processes" although in terms of computer architecture it's more like you've delegated the work to a specialized unit like a GPU. I can generally walk and do multiple things at once with the conscious part of your brain. The thing is that this requires the background process to be both well=practiced and unchanging. If the road ahead of you is empty, you can drive for miles without really consciously thinking about the road, sometimes even missing your exit by miles without realizing it. But if a deer jumps out or someone cuts in front of you, that part of your processing can't handle it, and you have to go back to the active part quickly or you're going to crash.

      I've also noticed something like what this article is talking about, where it seems like you're processing things in parallel, sort of like a multi-core system. You're just doing two active thinking things at once. Some people are better than others at this. Personally, when thinking in this mode, I have a hard time handling more than two things or so, as this article says I should, and my performance in both those tasks decreases. I've also noticed that certain types of tasks are harder to do this with - I only seem to be able to have one input and one output stream open at a time. Have you ever failed at talking to someone on the phone while writing something else (or listening to your wife while also reading slashdot)? If you're actively processing both at the same time, it can be pretty hard.

      But this is where I get to what people never seem to mention when they talk about multitasking, which is how I personally handle greater than 2 things at once. It's like a time-slicing model. There is a (sometimes large) portion of my attention that is thinking nothing but "do this task, then do this next task, then go back to this other task." Sometimes it's shorter slices than others. Like with the wife and slashdot model - I have to listen, then read a sentence while she pauses, then go back to listening. You sort of jump between each task quickly, get it back to a steady state, then jump to your other task and try to do some work on it before the last one needs attention again. As long as I am focusing on the multitasking queue and not too much on any individual task, I can do a lot of things this way, and I think it's how most people end up handling large numbers of tasks. The problem is first that there is a lot of overhead, and second that if you end up locking onto one task (and starving your scheduling thread, essentially) you can not realize how much time has passed and let the other tasks all go to shit. This is more of the driver who talks on his cell phone but is still actively paying attention to the road (instead of just going on autopilot) and will therefore occasionally miss bits of the conversation or shift lanes later than he is supposed to because he's thinking about remembering both of them.

      Does that sound familiar to anyone? Just realized that model has been floating in my head for forever, but I don't know if anyone else thinks that way.

    7. Re:Practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few additional points:
      Even an injured "brain" can do things like regulate heart rates, blood pressure, proprioception adjustments ( like balance while sitting, walking etc), process visual data for both motion,
      and distance, all at the same time as well as many others that slashdot readers will think of very quickly. These are all processed by dozens of pathways from the lowest to the highest in the brain.
      In addition to this, and at the same time, one can consciously (what ever that means) worry about the social appearances/interpretations of one's behavior, fashion choices etc, which implies
      advanced simulations that involve so many things going on at the same time, in addition to all the things allready going on at the same time. Simulating hypothesized real situations, while actually living real-time in a situation.
      This research was known since the "split-brain" studies with damaged corpus-callosum patients in the 70's. There are many many studies regarding this going all the way back to before the 50's.

      One thing these researchers should also consider in interpreting their results is the recently contested value of monetary "utility" as an "incentive" to better performance, as some studies from economics suggest that offering a monetary reward actually produces worse performance. I believe the recent bestseller "Justice": What's the right thing to do?" by Michael J.Sandal discusses for example.

      As for cites, just google for "monetary rewards", "split brain", "A. R. Luria", "Richard Restak", "corpus callosum", "right brain", "left brain","economic satiation" etc etc

    8. Re:Practice by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) You don't need full situational awareness[1] while driving to be safer than the average driver. If we ever are going to officially allow some drivers to multitask, there better be a driving test where people have to prove that they are much better than the average driver while multitasking. Then we ( the average drivers) are far more likely to kill them than the other way round ;). I'd prefer it if every driver was required to take that test, even if they can't pass it (and don't have to for a normal license) - it's a good thing to try to make most of us know how crappy we are at driving.

      2) Don't do multiple dangerous tasks at once. That way you can drop the other tasks if "stuff happens". The trouble is even with a hands-free kit, too many people are too stupid[2] to just shut-up and drive when stuff gets dangerous.

      [1] There are zillions of things a driver can be aware of which can improve safety, but we don't require all of them to drive better than average. The average driver does not look for toddler/animal feet under parked cars, and prepare to brake. So many drivers don't even seem to look many cars ahead for potential issues (prepare to change lanes well before the problem). And you can easily learn to do this sort of stuff even if you are talking to someone else (if you can't multitask, just stop talking, do stuff, resume talking).

      [2] I saw a video where a sword swallower said he had a bad accident when a bird sat on his shoulder unexpectedly. To me that shows he is very bad at prioritization for him to do what he does safely. When you have a sword swallowed in your throat, you do NOT turn your head no matter what. It's like the "pain box" test in Dune.

      --
    9. Re:Practice by Cylix · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am little more concerned at the apparent theft of a vehicle. I hope there were at least no passengers on board.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    10. Re:Practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [2] I saw a video where a sword swallower said he had a bad accident when a bird sat on his shoulder unexpectedly. To me that shows he is very bad at prioritization for him to do what he does safely. When you have a sword swallowed in your throat, you do NOT turn your head no matter what. It's like the "pain box" test in Dune.

      "Damnit, Jim, I'm a sword swallower not the Kwisatz Haderach!"

    11. Re:Practice by russotto · · Score: 1

      [2] I saw a video where a sword swallower said he had a bad accident when a bird sat on his shoulder unexpectedly. To me that shows he is very bad at prioritization for him to do what he does safely. When you have a sword swallowed in your throat, you do NOT turn your head no matter what. It's like the "pain box" test in Dune.

      I'd think that would be a matter of suppressing a reflex rather than conscious prioritization. There'd be a lot fewer Bene Gesserit if the gom jabber test candidate wasn't told what was in the box ("Pain").

    12. Re:Practice by shmlco · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the average person can't spend 100 hours in a driving simulator, so most of us can't adequately practice emergency situations.

      Basic driving (keeping the car on the road in a semi-safe fashion) is a task. Talking on the phone is a task. Then a truck appears out of nowhere (emergency task) and the brain freezes as it tries to reprioritize its task queue. Boom. Crash.

      This "third task hesitation" has been studied and documented, and it's a killer when you're in a situation where you have to make the proper decision in the blink of an eye... like when you're driving.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    13. Re:Practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Regarding sword swallower, it's not about turning heads. When something unexpected happens, you may just get startled and then your body starts to act differently. Most "accidents" are caused by involuntary muscle contractions.

      2. You DO need full situational awareness if you plan on driving safely. Try it on a motorcycle sometime and let's take bet when you are going to crash if you are not paying attention.

      Secondly, you really do need to pay attention 100% of the time unless you have blind faith into other people's ability to pay attention and not kill you. Just 2 weeks ago, a tub of a woman floors it backwards from her driveway right into my path. If it wasn't paying 100% attention to what she was doing prior to flooring it onto the road, I would have hit her. The problem: she was too fat to bother turning her body and head to see if there is traffic on the road. Her comment: "I didn't see your fucking "

      Drive safely and watch the road.

    14. Re:Practice by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      > Just from my own experience, it seems like there are a bunch of different things going on when you try to multitask.
      Yep ;-) From my own experience, the time-slicing model is pretty accurate, except that there is enough processing for a certain amount of things in the conscious mind. There is a lot more processing ability in the subconscious. Plus, much of the processing occurs at lower levels, like how much of coding is actually in the fingers, how much of driving is the the eye-hand-foot coordination. It's more like a higher level affecting a control loop well after the control loop has done its initial reactions.

      How often:
      Not realy paying attention and miss a turn off?
      Not really paying attention and do the turn off to where you used to go?

      For fun, try walking with total concentration and total conscious control of all aspects of movement and balance.

      For things that require immediate attention (driving, balance) you develop well-trained reflexes.
      For everything else you can do such as replaying what you were hearing when you were not paying attention. (Saved my bacon many a time while sleeping in class)

      The two-tasking theory seems to me to be more a case of the one, two, many. Without a clear distinction between the nature of the two and the many. I like yours better. Probably much more like a continuum between the one task in the forefront and everything else going on in the background(s). If you think or concentrate enough, you forget to breathe, so the two-task thingee must be some kind of oversimplification.

  31. The type of task matters by Webz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my opinion, the type of task matters. And I think it has to do with what parts of your brain are used. For example, I can code/refactor and listen to a podcast just fine simultaneously. But if it's two comprehension-based tasks, like reading AND listening, I can't do them. Or lately I've even noticed I can't mentally elaborate on a thought and listen to a podcast at the same time.

    The coding and listening thing seems very left brain/right brain to me.

    Also, to the poster that mentioned musical multi-tasking... That's really interesting! But I think it helps that we as musicians have been training since a very young age to accept that level of multi-tasking, so the things that become muscle memory do. Fingering, breathing, sight reading, etc. Really the only thing that matters by show time is watching the conductor, the rest should be on semi auto pilot.

    1. Re:The type of task matters by Aranykai · · Score: 1

      I have been playing musical instruments since I was 6 years old. I have played many things from piano to trumpet to my current love, bass guitar. I find that I have little problem carrying on a conversation when I am playing a song I am familiar with, but when I am playing something new or something that requires improvisation, I cannot even carry on rudimentary conversation while playing.

      I have trouble even answering yes or no questions until I reach a point where I can rest for a short period in the song or until a chorus returns where I am not formulating what I am about to play next. It sort of feels like I am 'speaking' through the instrument.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    2. Re:The type of task matters by olau · · Score: 1

      For example, I can code/refactor and listen to a podcast just fine simultaneously.

      Peopleware claims that programmers listening to music loose their creative dimension. Maybe your code isn't so good when you do that.

  32. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some justification for talking on the cell phone while driving.

    1. Re:Finally... by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 1

      Not really - I suspect if you analyze it, driving is complicated enough to be more than one task (one task is operating the car, the other task is watching the road, but it's probably more complicated than that). That may actually be why cellphones are such a problem when driving. The medial prefrontal cortex may already be focusing on two tasks.

  33. Re:No. Just, no. by dominious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is an example from R. Feynman, where he said he used to count the time in his head but he could not talk at the same time, whereas someone else could do that easily but he could not read a paper at the same time. OTOH Feynman could read the newspaper while counting time.

    What was the difference? Feynman was counting time by narrating the numbers in his head (using the speech system), while the other guy was picturing the numbers in his head (using the image system). So if he was using the speech system he could not speak at the same time because that system was already in use, while the other guy could not read because he was already using the image system.

  34. not me, I got a one-track mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- a dirt track!

  35. I was a drummer by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Playing a drumset requires both wrists and both feet moving, seemingly, at different times..

    It's really all one thing - one movement. In other words, my wrists and feet where acting synchronously to the beat. The position for each body part would be different but the timing was the same. Probably the most impressive drummer I've ever heard was Omar Hakim - drummed for Sting on "Dream of the Blue Turtles". Sometimes I wonder if that guy's hemispheres actually communicate. Which makes me wonder of those folks whose hemispheres were disconnected wouldn't be awesome drummers or piano players.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  36. Slacker. by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    Most people only GOTO 10, but, the special amongst us go all the way to 11!

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:Slacker. by baubo · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for mod points.

  37. Are you sure? by louzerr · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm not sure if I ... hang on, that's my phone ... I'm not sure if I ... hold on, I've got an IM. But the study ... dammit! I give up!

    --
    "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
  38. You're just using somebody else's brain. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > when sight-reading music, I experience a lovely sensation, almost as if my brain is being "split" down the middle -- if I concentrate for too long, I start to develop a headache and feel exceptionally exhausted.

    Oh, that's easy: psychic implementation of parallelism. You're the one who's been using my brain all these years, which happily explains my occasional stupid moments: somewhere in the world, you're singing and using my brain.

    This is because correlation yields causation, of course, and everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong--you can tell because causation is correlated with correlation.

    Asa result, every once in a while, when you're sight-reading, I get this splitting headache and blurred vision of sheet music. What's worse is that it's all in Treble Clef...

  39. They are wrong its more then that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your brain controls all your bodies systems that keep you alive plus the two tasks they are saying . So your brain does a lot more then two things at a time

  40. Cerebral Processor Limited to.... by vudufixit · · Score: 1

    Core(tex) 2 duo?

  41. Every one else is bragging... by P-Nuts · · Score: 2, Funny

    So many posts bragging about being able to do a million different things at once. I don't think I can do two things at once. Once I get going I need a hardware interrupt to stop me. Usually it's the "desperately need to piss" interrupt.

  42. We could multitask before the dual core... by mas5d2 · · Score: 1

    So the hardware that is your brain is a dual core processor, but it's running a pretty rock solid OS that's able to coordinate threading and task scheduling fairly well without any noticeable lag time.

    I think it's just the media trying to scare you into upgrading your brain to a quad core. Attack of the Cybermen!

  43. RTS by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

    How do people play RTSs then? Show me a good player of Warcraft, Starcraft or Supcomm and I'll show you a person that can manage at least half a dozen tasks simultaneously.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
  44. Doing nothing at all ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Multitasking is not as hard, as our zen masters teach us, as doing nothing at all ...

  45. Round Robin Scheduling by Gri3v3r · · Score: 1

    it is difficult when you have no idea about how to set the quantums but once you set it up,it blows! i am typing this balancing a notebook on my nose,riding a one-wheeled-bike, talking to phone using handsfree.

  46. Bundling? by Guppy · · Score: 1

    Seriously though, you might be able to learn how to do that if you could practice doing that 100 times every day, for a month under safe simulated conditions (e.g. driving simulator, and simulated eating too, otherwise you'd end up killing yourself by overeating ;) ).

    It's all about practice. Practice, practice, practice.

    When I first started practicing driving, it seemed like a chaotic cloud of different tasks -- pedal, clutch, brake, steering wheel. With time, they seemed to "bundle" together into one single task, mentally treating the separate threads as one process. I think a certain amount of shared context is needed though. Things like "fiddle with radio" or "adjust GPS" still feel like a separate task, no matter how many times I do it.

    1. Re:Bundling? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Things like "fiddle with radio" or "adjust GPS" still feel like a separate task, no matter how many times I do it.

      How many times have you actually _practiced_ it? You can't just do it a few times a day to get better at it. It has to become like walking to you, so that you don't think of the separate things to do to fiddle with the radio. You just think "radio channel #1" and it happens - the rest of your brain goes and does it.

      That said, some people never ever learn how to fly a conventional helicopter no matter how much they try and practice.

      And I guess most people will never get this good at tetris even if they practiced a lot:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwC544Z37qo

      Skip to about 2:50 and watch till the end where the "locked" blocks go invisible...

      He can probably play normal tetris while driving and talking on the phone. I'm assuming he can learn how to drive ;).

      --
  47. duh... by garompeta · · Score: 1

    maybe it is limited logistically by our... two arms?

  48. Core2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we are all Core2Duo's at heart... That must mean those who multitask better are simply hyper-threaded.

  49. Apple Schill by MogNuts · · Score: 1

    Notice this article is popping up around the launch of the IPad, and on tech sites of all places? This is just a plant story to say that we all don't need multitasking because we humans can't do it. Sorry Apple, multi-tasking is a basic feature for about 30 years. And no fanboys, don't attempt to rationalize not having it.

    Look at that article recently about justifying the A4 wasn't ready for multitasking. When u've been able to multitask since the first IPhone in 2007 by jailbraking it, it can do it.

    When will you people learn?

  50. Cowboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then please explain how a man can ride a horse, manage a herd, sing, watch for predators and obstacles, navigate, speculate on dinner, and wonder at the beauty.

  51. Doing 4 tasks right now? Can you beat it? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is bogus. Watching porn, masturbating, a cigarette in my mouth, and I'm still able to type this message with my other hand.

    That's 4. Can anyone beat that?

  52. Serious Single Tasking? by Phoe6 · · Score: 1

    Have you ever tried to seriously concentrate on a single task at hand.

    * A Single vim/emacs session with a code or text. No Windows, No buffers.
    * Or a single webpage open and you are concentrating on that one only.

    You will switch only after one is over

    Compare this with the multiple buffers open with multiple tabs and multiple applications open, which you constantly switch back and forth. It may not take a genius to figure that the first one is 'more efficient'. This research substantiates that.

    I personally favor single tasking with a longer task switching.

    --
    Senthil
  53. Re:Tasks? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Okay, the article seems a bit fuzzy but I haven't dug into the fine print of the study. But we from the computer world may think of "task" differently than the psychologists. Perhaps a better word for us is "Application", aka a whole connected series of subtasks. So I'd say your typing to slashdot is the ONLY "task" you have going. If you opened your email and worked on that, to me that would be Task/Application 2, still within "Brain Specs". So then if you were posting on a message board, per the study that's when I think it would get a little hairy, but they said "a bit muddled, not a total disaster".

    However, I believe that things like chewing gum are more loaded into automatic/muscle memory areas (roughly cited source - Biology of Transcendence by Joseph Chilton Pierce). So if muscle memory is handling that one, it doesn't hit the limit of the two front line tasks. Then drawing from This Is Your Brain On Music by Daniel Levitin, music also hits different areas of the brain, and can serve to actually help some people, perhaps such as you, focus better on a different two tasks.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  54. agreed, load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they left out the cached task center of the brain where the timer is going on for >2 cached tasks.

  55. Re:Doing 4 tasks right now? Can you beat it? by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Funny

    No one wants to beat that

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  56. Define "task" by gmuslera · · Score: 0, Redundant

    One could do a lot of things at once, but maybe is up to a few to actually solve new problems instead of being just receptor (reading, watching tv, hearing music, probably recognizing patterns in that input) or do a somewhat automated thing (walking, eating, even writting what you are thinking).

    Talking with a cellphone while driving could fall into this category, you have one task thinking in what you are talking, and if you try to solve something else you could be out of tasks to solve the problem on how to avoid the next obstacle.

  57. Re:Doing 4 tasks right now? Can you beat it? by orangesquid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When you practice doing two tasks simultaneously, they become a new, single task. How do good drummers play syncopated beats? You learn a multitude of "keeping the beat" tasks involving many combinations of common patterns on the bass drum, hi-hat, and ride cymbal, then you learn a variety of syncopated beat tasks to play "overtop" of the other task. (You also have to learn strategies for performing these tasks at the same time, especially when you have to borrow a foot or hand from the keeping-the-beat task for an accentuated part and then un-borrow it; however, my point---namely, for a good drummer, many complex patterns involving multiple limbs, when practiced sufficiently, become simply "one task"---still stands.)

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  58. Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 Tasks? Yeah right. They must not have tested anybody with adhd.

  59. someone has to say it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dual core? or hyper threading?

    i guess i have a disabled core at manufacturing, its a quite hard to do more than one complex task at a time, but at a nice clock anyway =]

  60. typical bullshit by Nyder · · Score: 1

    If there's one thing I've learned in my 4 decades on this planet, is when you say something, peeps prove ya wrong.

    Most of us probably can only multitask 2 things at a time, but saying thats all humans can do?

    Sorry, I'm more then sure there's peeps who can do 3 or 4 things at a time, while there's some who can only do 1 thing, or not anything.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  61. Re:Doing 4 tasks right now? Can you beat it? by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1

    I'm doing that and eating a bowl of cheetos!

  62. By that logic we are only single tasking, ever. by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

    Using your drum analogy then people can only do 1 task.

    And if I add a 2nd task of "chewing gum" to the singular task of playing multiple drums? Then you can say, well, with practice chewing gum and playing drums becomes a new single task.

    Then if I say, well, he is doing the single task of chewing gum and playing multiple drums and then added the 2nd task of singing (Phil Collins for example)

    The you'd say well, with practice that becomes a single task, playing multiple drums, chewing gum, and singing is really only one task.

    So now we have the single task of singing, chewing gum, and playing multiple drums and then we add the 2nd task of thinking what song to perform next based on the crowds reaction to what you are currently playing.

    So now, with practice, you can say we are single tasking when playing multiple drums, chewing gum, singing, judging the crowds mood, and planning what song to play next.

    1. Re:By that logic we are only single tasking, ever. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      chewing gum, singing,

      Isn't that a bit like saying that with enough practice, you can type on a computer, write a paper (as in, pen and paper), and play a piano, all at the same time, despite only having 2 hands? Or if you'd like to include additional appendages, then for x appendages, you can learn to do x+1 tasks which require said appendages?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:By that logic we are only single tasking, ever. by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      I'm leaving two free variables: what keep-the-beat task to use, and what syncopation/accentuation task to use. I'm expecting the drummer to be able to freely switch among many combinations on the fly, which is how I'm requiring it to be two tasks, and not just another learned merged-task. Of course, if you learn a particular combination of those two (e.g. for a particular song), then, yep, it becomes one task. Ask any drummer that sings and plays drums at the same time if he/she can sing the same part overtop of a different, arbitrary combination of keeping-the-beat and syncopation/accentuation, and you'll see him/her trying to focus on three tasks at once.

      With practice, singing and drumming through a particular song will because (mostly) an isolated, single task---that's the point where nothing bizarre occurring onstage will throw the drummer off from singing or drumming, unless he/she is experimenting with a task combination that hasn't been yet learned as a single task (singing a different harmony part when another vocalist in the band is out sick, for example).

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  63. Which hand? by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

    >>I'm doing that and eating a bowl of cheetos!

    Are you going to need to clean the keyboard or take a shower when done?

  64. MFC? by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, 2 cortecis down from the KFC.

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  65. Two hardware threads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two hardware threads doesn't mean you can't do more than two tasks. It just means that you will incur a task switch penalty. How large that penalty is depends on how fast you context switch and how big your thread local storage is.

  66. SMP by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

    Yes but when it multitasks is it a fork or a pthread?

  67. bullshit by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    We can also JUGGLE tasks. So they are not SIMULTANEOUS tasks but more a rapid switching between multiple tasks. The switching being fast or slow, but nevertheless more than two task can be achieved in parallel.

  68. ADD/ADHD people would disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have pretty severe ADD (diagnosed since childhood, have used various ADD medication, etc) and I am by far my most productive in situations where i need to multitask about 4 things. 1 is nearly impossible to do, 2 is not enough, and more than 6 starts to become difficult.

    It is important to note that the type of task - things that still remain impossible for me to multitask are include hard math problems, tracing bugs though code, and other things that require many linear steps with lots of temporary information in my working memory.

    1. Re:ADD/ADHD people would disagree by Renraku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's more about switching tasks than it is doing tasks at once. Imagine a normal person having to stack their working papers neatly, put them in a drawer with a file, and then close the drawer, every time they wanted to think about something not directly related to the task they're doing. For ADD people, they can actually just throw the papers on the desk or still hold them while answering the phone.

      Studies show that it takes about 5-10 minutes of work to get back into the flow of things and work at peak efficiency. A noisy phone ringing or baby crying will start this timer over again. ADD people can pick it up within a minute or a few seconds, but they have trouble doing one simple task all day.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  69. why class ? by unity100 · · Score: 1

    why use classes and objects for stuff that do not have nature of an object ?

    none of the elements you put into the classes (and therefore going to use as objects) exhibit object properties at any point. there is little difference in treating them objects, or flat out functions or blocks of code.

    1. Re:why class ? by mswhippingboy · · Score: 1

      Implementation details! Jeez you'd think this was a peer review. There are as many ways to do this as there are programmers. However, if you really want to go there, I used classes because this is java and at least one class would be required. I don't know that I would agree that this would not lend itself to OO without further detailed analysis - which I will not do. You are free to come up with your own design should you choose.

      --
      Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  70. Women can do N simultaneous tasks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as long as N-1 of them involve talking.

  71. Absolute BS... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    At every moment we are doing dozens if not hundreds of multiple tasks at the same time. Cooking alone is not a single task, but a bunch of different tasks.

    1. Re:Absolute BS... by howzit · · Score: 1

      What you and almost all don't realise is that you are only thinking of one thing at a time. If a high-speed photo were taken of a musician's brain it would be seen to be, for that moment, concentrating on ONE thing. But alternating between the tasks at light speed. Like a CPU. They are saying that we are like two CPU's RUNNING IN PARALELL. Geditt?

  72. This young lady can handle 3 tasks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Safe for work :-)

    http://www.funvid.eu/index.php?page=videos&section=view&vid_id=103467

  73. Apple Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a marketing ploy from apple to get you to go out to buy a second ipad :P

  74. Re:Doing 4 tasks right now? Can you beat it? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Here's an example, one even non-musicians should be able to get.

    Tap eighth notes with your left hand. Tap triplets with the right hand at the same time. At first you'll probably trip over this, but after a while you'll figure out that it's a pattern that goes ||:[both]-[pause]-[right-left-right]-[pause]:||. That is, the two previously separate patterns become just one pattern using both hands.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  75. Obligatory BOFH reference by ace123 · · Score: 1

    http://www.marginart.com/misc/bofh/13may98.html

    "Managers are stack-based," I explain. "Rule one is that they have, at most, a two-item stack limit. Mention a technical term and they'll push it onto their mental stack. Mention another, they push that up there as well. Mention yet another and they stack overload and reboot. That is, they think about what they're going to do after work, how sore their bum is, whether the marketing assistant knows her blouse is almost see-through, and so forth."

  76. What about that Harry Kahne guy? by utenaslashed · · Score: 1

    I heard that someone named Harry Kahne in 60s or 70s did a literal multitasking. Does this mean that, with practice, you can push the limit up to 4 or 5(I'm not sure how many he insisted)? On second thought, I guess you can with practice anyway..

  77. Filling one 'slot' up for concentration? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I've always found if I need to get through a monotonous task that turning on some music or talk radio helps me focus. My parents in high school thought I was full of crap to put on some Tull records to study history, but I still do it today when I have a deadline (less Tull, more Free Talk Live). Not having the distraction opens me up to all kinds of "ooh, shiny" weakness.

    So, I wonder if somehow one of my two task slots needs to get filled up so the other one can get the work done. I probably have some weakness in sticking tasks to a particular slot or something like that, or perhaps they bounce back and forth causing some opportunity for leakage (I know, stretching the metaphor). I try to resist the term 'ADD' because I can concentrate like hell at times, but 'leaky task slots' feels right.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  78. Most are missing the point entirely! by howzit · · Score: 1

    Most are missing the point entirely. A computer can only do ONE THING. The on/off or hi/lo thing. But it can do it very quickly. The research says we can do TWO things AT THE SAME TIME! Like two processors running in parallel. Geddit?

  79. Research Suggests... by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    ... that LiveScience has a two bit limit for understanding what they publish and so can get correct. These are the people that produced the 'top 10 mysteries of the brain' some of which had nothing to do with the brain. If they understood what they read, they'd not reprint such drivel laden press release pubs.

    I don't expect them to know about the study that found human facial recognition in the brains of dead salmon. That was a real study and required some actual background knowledge. But you have to wonder why they persist in reprinting fMRI stories that fail to show all the relevant parts of the brain operating rather than just the one that controls one function involved. (In TFA frinstance, switching tasks means switching attention which means anterior cingulate. So where is it?) It's probably because the articles have those pretty pictures of colored lights in the brain -- which they fail to include in their reprintings.

    So of the two 'things', what's a thing? Per their example, cooking takes at least two tasks (recipe/memory and mixing/motor) and switching between them requires attentional control which is a third. Add the phone and you get a second attentional control function as well as language comprehension and language production. So there's six. Now what happens if you drop the phone into the cake batter? An executive function has to monitor constantly in case novel response is required. Seven. An emergency motor function kicks in that lets you try to catch it. Eight, if called upon.

    As for the relationship between TFA and decision making, it is certainly worthwhile to read such scientific wisdom as 'might' 'seem' 'don't appear' and 'perhaps'. Which suggests the question, 'how many "things" is a hypothetical'? One question? One for each possibility? In any case, considering the hypothetical connection between TFA and decisions is a complex collection of interacting items to compare and contrast. Despite the fact that they are unaware they're doing it, the "science" "writers" and LiveScience juggle a fair amount of items in the last section. But just so we don't overtax them, let's let them continue to think they're comparing 'one science thingy' (that's one!) with 'another science thingy' (oh, wait. that's um... there's one and then.... darn, this thingy and thingy stuff is hard).

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  80. Whare are my keWHATCHOUT by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

    It is axiomatic that humans can dual-task well? Since when? Citation needed. In fact University of Utah researcehrs that is the rare 2.5% of the population that can truly "supertask" two activities without any loss in efficinecy. For example, drive and talk on a mobile. Citation needed?

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/only-a-few-can-multi-task/?ref=technology

  81. The cerebrum's not the really smart part. by Peter+G+Kinnon · · Score: 1

    All such claims regarding brain function need to be taken with a pinch of salt. The "brain" as a whole clearly multitasks over a very wide range of activities. For instance, balance, coordination of skeletal muscles, vocalisation, temperature regulation, eye movement, aural, optical, tactile and chemoreceptor monitoring. That's just a few of the host of parallel processing capabilities. There are, of course, many more. The greatest source of misunderstandings in this regard is our habit of considering the conscious activies as the main (and cleverest) part of the brain. brain. It is not so, for if considered carefully enough, the subconscious, represented mostly by the cerebellum, hypothalamus and related structures is seen to be way "smarter". The the much-vaunted "conscious" is basically a navigational facility used for interaction with the external environment. It requires extensive memory storage and processing systems in order to form and manipulate internal models of the external environment. Analogous to map-rooms. Since our interactions with our environment are far more complex than those of other species the main locus for the memory required for these map-rooms are the cerebral hemispheres. These considerations are discussed at greater length in chapter 6 of my recent book “Unusual Perspectives”, the full electronic edition of which can be freely downloaded from the eponymous website.

  82. Running MFC? No wonder... by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    That's because, when faced with two tasks, a part of the brain known as the MFC divides so that half of the region focuses on one task and the other half on the other task.

    No wonder the brain is so limited, it's written using MFC. C'mon god, don't you know that Cocoa Touch is this century's class library du jour?

  83. Yeah, you can do two things at once. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But your skill at each drops down to the same level as someone buzzed on alcohol.

    Drunk driving is about as dangerous as talking on the phone and driving.

  84. Girly girly can do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a girl in my physics class, she would talk to her classmates and watch the board...

    The teacher always told her she could not do two things at the same time...

    Once she protested and said "yes I can" or something like that ;) :)

    (I believed her I think... she was smart/intelligent ;) :))

  85. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I regularly play piano,sing and shake hand percussion.so the theory is just that!

  86. Musicians? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      I doubt this holds true for the best musicians.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    1. Re:Musicians? by Hawkins · · Score: 1

      I'm not even close to the best of musicians, but I learned a long time ago that I could sing and play guitar at the same time easily. Trying to do any more than that, even including thinking about other things while I'm doing both, is a recipe for disaster.

      I guess YMMV, though.

  87. Absolute Idiocy by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Because regulating body temperature,
    corrdinating over 20 organs,
    regulating resparation in response to oxygen demand,
    food processing,
    maintaining balance by manipulating spinal alignment along with extremeties while tossing in corrdinating queues from the inner ear
    speech faculties
    vision and depth perception
    memory storage and retrieval
    object permancy analysis
    checking out the hot chick's legs

    All are going on at once and some brainless twit wants to tell us there is a two task limit in the brain?

    Is this the same tard that submitted his thesis indicating a radical new way to get fresh water by using solar radiation to evaporate ocean water then condense it back down into fresh water where the peer comittiee rejected his 2 year long thesis work with a single sentence, "You mean like rain?"

    Science is dead, long live the Idiocracy....

    Human Brain != Computer. Computer is a deterministic device, the brain is not. It's not even an apple and orange comparison (where they are both fruit at least) it's more of an "Apple and Liter" comparison where one is an actual object and a fruit where the other is an abstract and abritrary measurement of fluids.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-