Multitasking Makes You Stupid and Slow 551
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd half agree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd half agree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd half agree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd half agree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd half agree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd half agree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd half agree (Score:5, Funny)
Now I juggle constantly between Linux, Tru64, Windows XP, and OS/X, and my theological outlook has changed significantly: now I
Re: (Score:2)
Easy (Score:5, Funny)
The guy who modded that Flamebait was balancing his checkbook at the time.
The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to tacitly presume the old urban legend that there are vast areas of the brain that most people don't use, which has been widely debunked. http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp [snopes.com]
It also seems to suggest that Chinese philosophers of, say, no later than the 7th century CE had a substantial knowledge of the physical structures of the brain as well as an understanding of the anatomical mapping of brain areas to their specific functions. This is a concept that, in the first place, wasn't suspected in Europe until the late Middle Ages and, in the second place, continued to be rejected by Chinese medicine long after that, in favor of such concepts as energy meridians, and so forth. I think it's more likely that since almost any nerve structure resembles, at least superficially, almost any tree, the symbolism is probably a modern back-formation.
I don't doubt that you're correct when you credit the cerebellum with helping coordinate martial arts techniques by encapsulating complex motions at a lower layer of organization than the conscious mind. But these are motor skills. The same effect occurs when one learns to ride a bicycle. As long as maintaining control is a conscious act it is nearly impossible. Once it becomes unconscious it is trivially easy. But stretching this point to apply to "prophets and seers" is, as you have noted, fairly esoteric and mystical, rather than scientific.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"As far as the nervous system is concerned, very little is said about the brain in Indian medical literature. Bhela, author of Bhela samhita recognised the brain and considered it as the centre of the 'Manas'. Susruta was aware of atleast four pairs of cranial nerves-one 'Nila' and one 'Manya' situated on either side of larynx which when injured produced los
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ecxept it isn't a weak point, it's naturally heavily armoured. Have you ever headed a sorccer ball? Been hit in the stomach with one?
Oh, they were for decoration, were they?
I'd say about the same, but where the guy had to choose, the evidence shows that he nearly always went for the lid.
Re:stargate... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Insightful)
that is not to say that they are all correct presumptions. However, in the case of "energy meridians", of which I am also a skeptic, there does remain the fact that acupuncture is an AMA-approved treatment for several ailments now... even though it cannot be explained with our current understanding, even by the placebo effect. In general, I do not find it incredible that early eastern understanding of many things was far beyond what one would expect given a lack of scientific rigor... they would often have the "right idea" explained "strangely". don't mistake my lack of conviction that it is all "fakery" make you think I am an advocate for either a chi or meridian based explanation for any kind of phenomena... but neither am I going to dismiss and ignore it all when it has worked for thousands of years to some degree at least, without a serious look.
I am not a big proponent of the imagery representing a "cerebellum" though (the same physical forces that create leaf/tree structures create everything else... similarities are inevitable). And I fully agree that many of the "feats" of martial arts is simply motor reflex training and conditioning. However, the mental discipline taught by many arts does eventually allow for a state beyond mere reflex, where you can invent new maneuvers and react in ways outside of your reflex conditioning, with something that is both conscious and also unconscious.. that is, just conscious enough to direct the overall intent and action, and simply "allowing" that action to come to pass rather than executing it consciously. It's a fine line, to be sure, but I think a significant one.
It's very similar to being "in the zone" with any sport, challenge, etc. You are not mechanically producing actions you have rotely programmed into your muscles or mind. Some part of what you are doing is that.. and some is still conscious, but without disturbing your ability to "unconsciously" make your intention happen, even when your intended maneuver is nothing you have practiced, or is a combination of several practiced movements broken down and reassembled in a new way.
That, I think, is what the OP is talking about. Perhaps it's not "calling 100% on the cerebellum", but it is definitely a different state of mind than normal, that allows for much faster and truer reaction speed to any given situation when "active". and the better you are, the more you can "turn it on" at will. Having reached that state only by accident, I can say it's not surprising that people tend to reach for anything they can to explain it, and that any attempt at explanation might sound a little weird to non-practitioners, but they are on the mark with noting that it's not just reflex at least and is something much more interesting. something we have not articulated in the west with our scientific predilections yet, and something that the eastern descriptions of which leave me unsatisfied as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some pre-scientific medical treatments might actually work, sort of, as well. But more either don't do anything, are actively harmful or are hammers looking for nails.
Science is, among other things
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
to go back to acupuncture; you can poo-poo meridians, and I personally think it's wrong. But science still hasn't come up with anything better to explain its functionality yet. So the choice is, use something that works to some degree or don't use it a
Piercing skin works, but chi & meridians are b (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Heavier items don't fall faster? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody respect the awesome wisdom of the ancients, now that it's been "reinterpreted" to agree with the tacky knowledge of our time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that it may have a lot to do with the type of multitasking involved.
From observation/experience, I seem to have noticed that if it is primarily mental multitasking, then women have a big advantage. Women have a MUCH larger connection between the brain hemispheres than men do.
With mostly physically oriented tasks, my experience has been observations favoring the men.
This is all VERY generalized, and there are many excepti
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, some stutterers benefit by _not_ listening to themselves speak.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, when I'm driving in "boring" conditions, I can hardly go more than a minute or two without finding that I've reached down to turn on the radio. If I consciously try to resist turning on the radio (after stopping my hand in midway to the radio a few times), and I'm successful, I find that I eventually start singing or talking to myse
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember being able to study and read books in high school while blasting Metallica through my headphones. Now, at 27, I can't seem to concentrate on anything without total silence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The cerebral and cerebellar cortices perform very different tasks. The cerebellum is a much more primitive part of the brain, though it may have 50% of the brain's neurons. If "the most primitive animals" were to lack part of the brain, it would much more likely be a cerebrum, or at least a large one. One of the things that's different about humans is the massively increased size of the cerebrum -- supposedly giving us the ability to reason and whatnot.
The ce
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sometimes a solution for task A comes from task B."
And you need to be doing A&B simultaneously in order to make the connection?!
I'm going to have to agree with the others: moderators are all multitasking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
--
There's a 'brightness' control on my TV but I turned it all the way up and everything is still stupid.
Re:Multi-Tasking Addiction (Score:5, Funny)
But he...he was told that he could watch the television at a reasonable volume... Well, he...he...he told Bill that if... if Sandra's going to listen to her headphones while she's...while she's filing, then he should be able to watch the television while he's collating... so I don't see why he should have to turn off the television, because he enjoys watching at a reasonable volume. and according to...
the secret of Windows (Score:2, Funny)
True... for everyone but you of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:True... for everyone but you of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:True... for everyone but you of course (Score:5, Insightful)
I could see in my rear view mirror a SUV that was cutting in and out of traffic moving very fast. I respect others that are in a hurry... happens to all of us at times... anyway the SUV was ready to pass me and suddenly it slowed to match my speed exactly right beside me... thus blocking any escape path i might need.
I looked over to see why a person would slow from 85 to 70 so quickly and here she was pulling out a cell phone and looking at it to dial.
I laid on my horn, holding it down and it so startled her that she dropped the phone and she looked over at me and I pointed my finger at her and she took off at 85 again.
Two point to make:
1: her driving concentration fell way low as she was messing with the cell phone.
2: I realized that I could multi-task by driving and pointing at the same time
Re:True... for everyone but you of course (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:True... for everyone but you of course (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:True... for everyone but you of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Generally when people say "multi tasking" they're talking about higher functions. Anyone can talk while taking a piss, watch TV while walking on a treadmill, or scratch their itchy ass while reading a book. This is about writing an email while talking on the phone, or driving a car while programming a destination into the GPS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
C//
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
20% of the statistics are quoted 80% of the time.
I knew it all the time. But explain that to the .. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
That's why I cheat (Score:3, Interesting)
Every now and them one of my coworkers razzes me about not graduating from the command line, but when they want something -done-, they call me.
Re:I knew it all the time. But explain that to the (Score:4, Insightful)
America isn't decaying, it's been the same for 200 years.
Re:I knew it all the time. But explain that to the (Score:2)
Lets say your entire job is to take phone calls from customers, but you aren't on a phone call 24/7. You could sit there the rest of the time, but the company isn't getting all of the bang for its buck it could be getting if you were doing something else useful in the mean time. Its common practice to load you up with 5-6 different jobs s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Multitasking in terms of the article is having two resource intensive tasks happening at the same time. Think about running two tasks that would each require 60% of the CPU on a computer at the same time to react in real-time - instead the tasks run slower, reaction time drops or quality of response is l
Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of "time management" managers (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps some peoples' gratification comes in small doses? I always found the "time management" kind of managers very annoying, regularly distracting me from concentrating on my work just because they had a deep belief in making everything subservient to the clock, their organizers, and their arbitrary day schedules.
>> When you get everything you want quickly, there's no need to ever learn patience or persistence.
Well they were past masters at persistence, but only a couple learned that patience was a virtue, and that it got them better results. You really can't be distracted in the middle of a core dump analysis say, not without starting from scratch anyway. And there are many similar kinds of task in the general field of computing, where human multitasking doesn't pay.
OTOH, machines don't have that frailty, and as long as they complete their concurrent tasks without intrusively interrupting us, we're peachy.
Multitasking? (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Oblig. Sealab (Score:2)
Re:Really (Score:5, Interesting)
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?"
Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of focusing on an IQ number, how about asking ALL your students what they're going to do with their abilities?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, one of the marks of a highly intelligent person is the ability to concentrate on something for long periods, without being distracted. Taking IQ tests, f
Re:Really (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted multitasking comes in handy, since I've noticed that most intelligent people get bored easily, and thus have a need to create their own stimulus.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's why (Score:2)
Or does it go one way really?
I'm not so sure about this. (Score:2)
1 + 1 = 2
P. I. G. spells pig.
Do Re Me Fa
*rub tummy*
*pat head*
*spin in circles*
Okay, I guess I do look a little stupid.
I'd read the link... (Score:5, Funny)
Price and overhead (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
ok, the tags are officially annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it depends on the task (Score:3, Insightful)
I totally agree... (Score:2)
Multi-Tasking isn't possible (Score:2, Funny)
TRANSLATION (Score:2)
Music to my ears (Score:3, Insightful)
Timing, control and balance - that's what an x-Hell's Angel told me were important to master. Without confusion, fatigue, and chaos, we'd have no need for timing, control and balance, and then where would we be on the ladder of evolution...
Some of us multi-task just fine. If you happen to be dyslexic like me, you need to multi-task, or you'd never get past addressing an envelope, much less licking a lousy stamp while you try to hold onto the darned thing.
Multitasking is the antithesis of "flow" (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
I Multitask just fine! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Multitask just fine! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Multitask just fine! (Score:5, Funny)
best 3 comment joke (Score:3, Informative)
What about programmers? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Apparent" IQ and multitasking (Score:5, Interesting)
One friend of mine had a very bad childhood. She learned to escape inwardly, by concentrating on books, study, escaping physically to a library any time she had the chance. Now, she is a doctor. She also has a photographic memory and can "re-read" pages she has scanned. People might perceive her as "high IQ". However she has trouble reading people, and cannot pick up more than the basics of computers, as she gets frustrated and bored easily. You could say she's a bad multitasker.
If an IQ test was based on mechanical cognition, she wouldn't rate very high. If it was memory-based, she would excel. If it was dependent on multi-tasking, she would also struggle.
Briefly, I'm the opposite. Multi-task all the time, rarely bored, but my visual memory sucks. I'm good at judging people's moods, but terrible with faces and names. I grew up slightly hypervigilant, and for some reason need to swap tasks to keep my brain ticking over, like those old watches you had to shake to wind up. I'm good at remembering practical and mechanical skills, of which I class programming as one. Which is funny, others I've spoken to class programming as technical, or mathematical. To me, it's mechanical, like a watch.
If I sat an IQ test which required visual memory, I'd fail. If it relied on drawing meaning from literature, or reading body language I'd do well. If it required multi-tasking (like the classic male-secretary-in-busy-office experiment) I'd breeze.
My point is, learned behaviours can sometimes be extreme, leading to some amazing skillsets while impairing other skillsets. So what does a measure of multi-tasking ability or IQ really mean, in terms of gauging "intelligence"? Nothing, in my opinion.
To me, intelligence, simply means we function well in our environment. As modern humans, we tend to pick our environments so that our learned skills are most applicable. That's "comfort zone". Sometimes dysfunctional, but always dependent on the skills you have learned therefore, ideally, the place where you are most "intelligent".
Re:Fast lane. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You:
Re: (Score:2)
example. close your eyes and all of a sudden you can hear much better. why? because your not using your eyes and can concerntrate much better.
I CALL B.S. on your CALL OF B.S. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I CALL B.S. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but there are times when the phone ringing while I'm working can make me jump or at least flinch. The thing is that people DON'T call me when I'm just sitting there waiting for something to compile. They invariably call when I'm focused on something (or so it seems). And then there's email. Being a slave to your inbox and compulsively reading ever new message that comes in will definitly cut down on productivity and cause stress. I don't know about elevated levels of cortisol or epinephrin, but I think there is something to the idea that multitasking is stressful. I know I'd feel a lot more relaxed and focused if I could just turn off my phone and email for hours at a time without worry.
The study may have been a little extreme. But I think it still might have some truth to it.
-matthew
Re:I CALL B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently I am a member of 4 dev teams, working on 4 different products. It is 100% ineffective frustrating, and stressful (but so management has decided to structure the teams, most of the devs here are on at least 2 or 3 teams). Sure, at any one time I'm only working on 1 thing, because you can't physically type in 4 different windows at the same time. However, it is extremely difficult to get ANYTHING done. On a day where I have zero interruptions, and am able to focus and work on a single product all day, I can probably produce 1-2k lines of working code (given that the features are just in need of coding, and there isn't a lot of "ok let me think about this for 3 hours to figure out the best way to do it", if there is design/algorithm work obviously not as much code gets written, but this is even harder work to context switch on). However, I get a day like that maybe once a month, and its usually a saturday. On a regular day, even with prioritized task lists, when I have to touch 2 of the 4 products in single day, I probably can only produce 5-600 lines of working code total, it cuts my productivity in half, just the 1 context switch. Most days (probably 4 of 5) I touch all 4 products each day... Under these circumstances, I can only produce 1-200 lines of actual working code.
Context switching in software development is EXTREMELY expensive. Just like in this guy's driving example, what he is describing while his car careens off the road and he's still thinking "where did the phone go? I wonder if it was a nude pic?" is a context switch. Context switching even in SMP machines is expensive and they are designed for this purpose. It is the reason why there are limits to improvements you can achieve through parallelism. For some processes/tasks sure you can fully parallelize them, but there are plenty of tasks, and I'd argue the majority of creative type work (programming, system design, network design, research, book writing, painting, song writing, etc) are of the type which cannot be context switched easily.
Sure I can pay my bills and book a vacation online at the same time, but programming in parallel is a big no no. Our brains were not designed as and are not SMP computers, they aren't even very good preemptive multitasking machines (a single processor computer). A decent CPU can probably context switch in