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.'"
So how come I can't walk and chew gum at the same time?
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.
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
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.
Yes, you are chewing gum while listening to music and posting to Slashdot.
How is this multitasking and not slacking?
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.
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?
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 !
Not having an accident doesn't make it safe.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
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.
Thinking
Talking
Listening
Pick two.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
...all the researchers are men and have never met any women.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
No one wants to beat that
my karma will be here long after I'm gone