Multitasking Makes You Stupid and Slow

Reverse Gear recommends a long and interesting article over at The Atlantic in which Walter Kirn talks about the scientific results that support his claim and his own experiences with multitasking: that it destroys our ability to focus. "Multitasking messes with the brain in several ways. At the most basic level, the mental balancing acts that it requires — the constant switching and pivoting — energize regions of the brain that specialize in visual processing and physical coordination and simultaneously appear to shortchange some of the higher areas related to memory and learning. We concentrate on the act of concentration at the expense of whatever it is that we're supposed to be concentrating on... studies find that multitasking boosts the level of stress-related hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline and wears down our systems through biochemical friction, prematurely aging us. In the short term, the confusion, fatigue, and chaos merely hamper our ability to focus and analyze, but in the long term, they may cause it to atrophy."

I'd half agree

[n2rjt (88804)]

I always thought multitasking made me slow, but more able to see alternative solutions. Sometimes a solution for task A comes from task B.

Re:I'd half agree

[Skuldo (849919)]

No my friend, you've always been, and always will be slow, stop fishing for excuses!

The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask

[MOBE2001 (263700)]

I agree with the author (Walter Kirn) of the article. Multitasking is so time consuming that the brain relies on the cerebellum (little brain) to handle a lot of routine tasks (maintaining posture, walking, standing, blinking, etc...) while the conscious cognitive areas of the cerebral cortex focus on an important task (e.g., talking, thinking, reasoning, planning, etc...). People with cerebellar lesions are known to speak in a halting stacatto-like manner. The reason is that Broca's area (the part of the brain that produces speech) is constantly being interrupted because the brain's motor cortex has to momentarily stop what it's focusing on in order to attend to the routine tasks that a healthy cerebellum would handle automatically. So multitasking is such a big problem that the cerebellum contains more neurons than all the other areas of the brain combined but it cannot do everything because it's a direct sensori-motor automaton. That is to say, it cannot plan or predict phenomena, so it is limited. Only the most primitive animals lack a cerebellum.

Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask

[Qbertino (265505)]

It is also said - by esotherics and mysticists - that the cerebellum is the part of the brain that prophets and seers have learned to use 100% on command. The Bodi-Tree under which Budda sits is supposed to be a symbol of the cerebellum and have a simular structue with its branches and leaves, and thus represents enlightenment. If you read about the prime goals in Zen Buddisim ('thoughtless thinking', 'reasonless acting' etc.) you get the impression that it does involve a superior flexibility in activating and de-activating cognitive functions of the brain.
I practice Aikido, and the most difficult part of it is not to have your cognitive brain interfere when you're exectuing a technique against an opponent (or two or three ...). It's what you practice in such Arts. Thus all the meditating and all that. It's really nothing religious - it's simply training your mind in the very same methodic and well-planned manner you train your body.

Easy

[Weaselmancer (533834)]

The guy who modded that Flamebait was balancing his checkbook at the time.

True... for everyone but you of course

[93 Escort Wagon (326346)]

I find it funny that so many people think they multitask well, even when it's obvious (watching them) that it's not true at all. My boss comes to mind - we were having a discussion where I brought up one of the previous studies showing that people just don't multitask well. He said something like "it's true most people don't - fortunately I'm one of the rare people that can handle doing several things at once". Thing is, it's obvious to all of us in our group that he has trouble finishing anything; but who's going to say that to his/her own boss?

Re:True... for everyone but you of course

[Xelios (822510)]

A lot of people have the misconception that multitasking is simply being able to do two or more things at once, like being able to listen to music and write a report, or drive a car and talk on a cell phone. Sure it's possible, and most people can do it, but your performance in both tasks will take a hit for it. Research shows that time and time again.

Re:True... for everyone but you of course

[Belial6 (794905)]

First, I have yet to meet a human that does not massively multitask all of the time. Even while sleeping, your body and brain are doing lots of different tasks at the same time.

Second, There is a reason that people would call other people dumb by saying "He can't walk and chew gum at the same time." long before 'Multitask' became a common word.

While a task that takes all of your though to accomplish might take a hit if your doing two of them, the majority of tasks that people preform in a day do not take even a small fraction of our mental capabilities. Such as... walking and chewing gum. By saying that multi-tasking makes you worse at what you are doing, you are also saying at the very least, you cannot walk as well if you are chewing gum.

I don't know about you, but I really can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I knew it all the time. But explain that to the ..

[iknownuttin (1099999)]

hiring manager or HR person.

Just about every freekin job add I see requires the ability to multi task. I used to say that I can't do it. Now, I just say that I'm as good at it as any other human. Most of the gung ho corporate types insist that they can multi task wonderfully and trying to reason with them is pointless.

Re:I knew it all the time. But explain that to the

[bladesjester (774793)]

I've always kind of laughed at the "must be able to multitask" requirements.

Ask yourself why they want that. In a lot of cases, it's because they want people to do the job of more than one person. It's the same reason they try to get people to work 70 hours a week (and, sadly, some of the people that work for them fall for it and even think it's "macho" to trade their entire waking life for a paycheck).

Maybe

[NJVil (154697)]

Perhaps it's more a combination of multitasking and immediate gratification. When you get everything you want quickly, there's no need to ever learn patience or persistence.

Multitasking?

[kylben (1008989)]

What... wait... Multitasking? I'm sorry, what was that again...

Oh, wait, hold on a minute... Hey! move it! the light's green, you jerkwad... That's it, right foot is the gas... Pay attention to what you're doing for once, huh? Jeez.

OK, sorry, where were we?

Really

[CHRONOSS2008 (1226498)]

I find my IQ of 159 to aid me in multi tasking like playing multiple ogame.org strategy games in differant alliances, and it keeps me sharp to keep doing many things. If i sit there and do nothing. I feel lazy, slow and ....well STUPID. Like i should be doing something. Who did htey test on this a bunch a retards?

Re:Really

[ezratrumpet (937206)]

An IQ of 159 means that out of a random sample of 100,000 people, you have 8 people who share your intelligence, and maybe 4 or 5 who exceed you.

I've taught about 20 students with similar IQ levels. To you, and them, this article probably doesn't apply. Your minds are making unbelievably fast connections with little effort - so what to you is really just fast processing and quick changes is a neurobiological impossibility to others.

I always ask my students, "What will you do with the abilities and opportunities you are given?"

I'd read the link...

[computeruser (1150071)]

... but the story looks too long and I know I'd lose focus. Computers have ruined my life and my brain. What's considered multi-tasking anyway. Listening to music and typing? is that too much?

Price and overhead

[syousef (465911)]

There's a price to everything.

If you're worrying/stressing about something it is no surprise it will help age you. If you worry about 70 things instead of 7, it's no surprise it'll stress and age you faster. I'd say modern life is what's doing that.

If you're multitasking there's also an overhead for switching tasks. Some of your thought is occupied by the mental juggling act. This is also no surprise.

However what's the alternative? Modern life doesn't give you large slabs of time where you get to concentrate on one thing. If something comes up at work or at home while we're in the middle of something else that's important, what do you do? Multitasking isn't something our brains weren't built for. If we couldn't multitask we'd be very easy prey - just distract us and have us for lunch.

Multitasking is the antithesis of "flow"

[dpbsmith (263124)]

As defined by psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, flow [wikipedia.org] is the mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing, characterized by a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity... what Csíkszentmihályi calls "optimum performance."

In my own view (and experience), it is closely related to "happiness."

Charles Kingsley wrote "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about." Enthusiasm is obviously related to flow.

And multitasking is compatible with neither.

What this feels like

[Bryan Ischo (893)]

This jives very well with what multitasking 'feels like' to me. Whereas on the one hand I can imagine how doing many things at once, switching the task that I am working on according to the availability of external resources necessary to complete the task, would produce maximal productivity, I find that whenever I attempt this I am left with an unpleasant mental feeling of stress that makes me *not want* to do this anymore.

For example, as a software developer, I find that there are often many things that I could be working on 'at once'. Say I have 10 bugs assigned to me, a major architectural investigation, two features that I am working on, a document or two that I need to write, and of course emails and phone conversations to keep up on.

In the past, I have tried to maximize my productivity by switching from one to the next each time something 'blocks' me from work on the one I am actively engaged in. For example, say that I've written a bunch of code and I'm ready to check it in. But whoops, I find that there is a 'build break' and I'm not allowed to check in until whoever was responsible for it fixes it. At this point, I could switch tasks to working on some other task that is independent of this; say, some other feature that I am coding up. In order to switch to the new task, however, I have to make some mental notes of what I was doing in the first task so that I can pick up where I left off (it might just be as much as remembering that I have to hit 'return' at the end of a command line that I've already typed in, just waiting for the green light to finish the checkin; or it may be significantly more - remembering that I have to re-test a bunch of stuff to make sure it's still working in combination with whatever changes have simultaneously occurred in the code base in between now and whenever I get back to checking this code in). Once switched to this new task, I could work for a little while, only to discover that some key piece of documentation is missing that would explain to me how to use someone else's API, and that the person I need to ask about this is out of the office for the day. OK, time to switch to a new task. Once again I have to store away enough information to be able to continue where I left off on this task when I get back to it; this could mean writing some comments in the code, or sending off an email to the person who is out of the office, the response to which will be enough context to remind me of what I was doing, and pick up where I left off, or maybe doing nothing except making a mental note that I have to re-read the code when I get back to it to remember what I was doing, assuming that when I read the code again, I will come to the same conclusions and once again seek out that person, who hopefully by this time will be back in the office. At this point, I switch to the new task of, say, working on some documentation. Eventually this task will be blocked in a similar way (maybe I will just get tired of working on the documentation - this happens pretty quickly because I hate writing documentation!), and I will have to task switch again, maybe to something new, maybe back to something I was already working on.

The amount of bookkeeping involved with retaining and then re-creating enough state to effectively work on multiple tasks at once is, in a word, exhausting. It is also stressful because one feels like one can at any moment 'forget' something important, and then lose track of a task completely, or maybe just lose track of enough information about a task that getting back to it will be much more work than it should have been. Combine all of this with the feeling that one has to stay very productive within this system in order to be seen as an effective employee, and it becomes very stressful, and mentally exhausting, indeed.

So as a result, my mind eventually starts to 'resist' doing this kind of multitasking; it does so my making me feel like I don't like multitasking. And usually I don't perceive it specifically as a desire not to multitas

Re:Fast lane.

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

Absolutely ... they were so focused on mating and finding food and stuff that they totally forgot to watch out for asteroids.

Re:Funny...

[bladesjester (774793)]

I think it depends on what you're doing and how you define "every so often".

Doing something different every couple of hours for a little while provides a mental break from the task at hand. Having to constantly switch between things, on the other hand, causes you more stress and makes you less effective as a general rule.

Re:Funny...

[rtb61 (674572)]

The reality is that great multi tasking skills does enable you to do far more, the catch is it leads to, surprise, surprise, burnout. In fact a pretty well known condition in jobs that require a high degree of multitasking.

Computers have only accelerated the problem in some jobs, as they a great facilitators of even greater levels of multitasking, where you can do several different tasks at the same time.

Not necessarily by choice, but customer demands, supplier demands and fellow staff member demands all need to be fulfilled and earning a reputation for multitasking, just leads to ever greater demands being made upon you, until, burnout, you've made enough, and a single focused effort on doing nothing becomes appealing ;).

Re:Funny...

[budgenator (254554)]

I've always fund the habitual multi-taskers leave in their wake a series of tasks almost finished.

Re:Funny...

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

That was a problem at work for me some time ago. Now, I know that a tolerance for interruptions depends upon one's personality and job. However, as a software developer, I liken it to someone building a house of cards, and then having some well-meaning idiot knock it down every half hour or so. Incredibly frustrating and annoying.

Re:Funny...

[Eideewt (603267)]

Seems more likely that switching between tasks just distracts you from noticing how poorly you're working.

I CALL B.S. on your CALL OF B.S.

[kybred (795293)]

(BTW: "adrenaline" is a brand name for one particular company's epinephrine. It is not a chemical name. Calling ephinephrine "adrenaline" is like calling all automobiles "toyotas".)

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] disagrees with that:

Although widely referred to as adrenaline outside of the US, and the lay public worldwide, the USAN and INN for this chemical is epinephrine because adrenaline bore too much similarity to the Parke, Davis & Co trademark adrenalin (without the "e") which was registered in the US. The BAN and EP term for this chemical is adrenaline, and is indeed now one of the few differences between the INN and BAN systems of names.

Amongst US health professionals, the term epinephrine is used over adrenaline. However, it should be noted that universally, pharmaceuticals that mimic the effects of epinephrine are called adrenergics, and receptors for epinephrine are called adrenoceptors.