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)
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: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:True... for everyone but you of course (Score:0, Interesting)
People have not evolved to effectively multitask. In the last hundred thousand years society has structured itself so that a person works on a task, completes, then moves to the next. Multitasking really is a concept which, while it may have been primitively present in busy offices, wasn't really quantified to the level that it is now until computer processing introduced it. Most people, in general, still don't multitask well. They're still in the Windows 3.1 era of multitasking where they need to wait for definite breakpoints in their tasks to switch. Probably the earliest form of effective multitasking was a wife who was good in the kitchen. Can she cook a Thanksgiving Day meal for 20 relatives in one day without burning or spillng anything? If so then she's multitasking well. Most people would get stuck on the biscuits and forget to start the cranberry sauce until 15 minutes before turkey is done... and then what do you do? Because you can't let the turkey get cold just because you forgot to prep the cranberry sauce, and now that the biscuits are started the turkey will get cold if you don't baste it, or it'll burn if you ignore it. Better learn your job, woman!
Besides, it's not like HR actually has a measure of multitasking prowess. If you have six degrees and twelve letters of recommendation from people earning $millions, then you're a good multitasker. If you claim to be a good multitasker but you don't have the social connections to sing your praises on paper, then you're obviously a liar and a suspect for administrative discipline.
Screw the subjective hoops and hurdles. Do you have an opportunity for me or not?
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.
The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Interesting)
I CALL B.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
For most people I know, "multitasking" consists of talking on the phone while waiting for their code to compile, or answering the office phone when it rings, even if you were in the middle of writing a paper. But that is NOT the same as sitting there, wire-tense, waiting to jump on it the instant it rings. That would drive anybody crazy. No wonder their cortisol and epiniphrine levels were elevated.
(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".)
Shoot the Articles author (Score:1, Interesting)
Somethings I can do well with multitasking, like playing Bach/Brahms or Joplin, but there are some songs, I will never be able to play. I can play second hands of the concerto for 4 hands. I could do it easily, but when I play first hands, I am distracted by the second hands. I think is just all a matter of practice, in playing instruments, but driving is a completely different story, you have to constantly adapt to the changing road conditions.
But, in typing this reply, I can watch my torrents, and process monitor, and not be distracted by them. Walk and chew gum? The chewing does not take our attention, and is not a distraction. If it was, we would walk into objects.
Singing while playing piano, or playing along with someone. both multi-tasking activities. While driving, you have a lot of tasks to do, keeping on the road, keeping aware of other drivers, keeping your directions, and managing not to run out of ( look, there is that bird again! ) gas, one that has been a recent problem for me. And if your a felon, with a gun under the seat, and drugs on the seat, while speeding... you have to watch for police too!
The author was clearly distracted from driving, and stresed out about his cell phone. He priortized it above his driving, and switched his attention at a critical moment, and he says he cannot multi-task well? He can drive cant he? That is a lot of multi-tasking to take on. I am teaching a teenager to drive. ( but of course, I will never tell him, I can drive with my foot...or show him how! ).
Mod me troll-bait, but this is NOT NEWS or otherwise... this is a bitspam/bucket news item.
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?"
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.
I have to concur with these findings... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm "dumber" as the article suggests, but I will say that there are many instances where I have to stop and think about something that I normally wouldn't have to. It takes me a little longer than it did to remember facts. I have difficulty remembering numbers especially. (I can still remember my childhood phone number, but I can't remember my parent's cell phone numbers. I never remember where I put my keys anymore, so I have to put them on a hook...if I can remember. I always lose the phone/remote/cellphone. It's easy to forget appointments, bill due dates, anything that's static in nature.
Re:Funny... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Really (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a pity that high IQ doesn't always correlate to having any common sense though. I'm lucky enough to have some, but many 'smart' people do not.
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:I knew it all the time. But explain that to the (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 lowered (e.g. skipped frames in a video), and so on.
Listening and understanding and forming responses is a resource intensive task for the brain (if it's not all, like, yeah, yeah, really she did that did she?) as is driving, or walking across a tightrope, and so on. Ever noticed how talk radio presenters speak smoothly, slowly and with clear enunciation so that the listeners in cars aren't distracted - you notice it more as a passenger, and I suspect that drivers listen to talk radio a lot because subconsciously it is a lower load on the brain. As you do a task more (like learning to juggle) the more you can handle at the same time (conversations, or more balls) - it's like the repetition JIT-compiles the actions into a more efficient format for the brain to handle.
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.
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:3, Interesting)
What about programmers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Multi-Tasking Addiction (Score:2, Interesting)
I am so used to doing multiple things at once (mostly because my high paying job is so skull fuckingly boring [FN1]) that I am almost unable to give things my undivided attention.
I'll try to watch TV or talk to someone and I need that constant over-stimulus.
I used to not be that way. But at 35 it feels like I have developed something akin to ADD.
I am so used to giving simultaneous partial attention to multiple things (Bill Gates' phrase for it) that slowing down is a real problem.
[FN1]
One guy at work has a TV running 24-7 just to keep him less bored.
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, some stutterers benefit by _not_ listening to themselves speak.
Re:Price and overhead (Score:2, Interesting)
You really don't *have* to respond to each e-mail as it comes in, and you really don't have to have your phone on or your instant messaging client open
all of the time. You can set blocks of time during the day during which you minimize distractions like those and focus directly on single projects. Of course, you also set times specifically for responding to communications as well. After a short while those who communicate with you regularly will become accustomed to the fact that you respond at specific times of day. What's more, they will probably come to appreciate the increased focus you are putting into your communiques, since you are no longer distracted by other things while making them.
There may be a couple of folks who try to insist on your immediate availability at all times. Drop them. They are almost certainly more trouble than they are worth.
Re:Funny... (Score:1, Interesting)
yet, modern businesses seem to try to saddle down each person with as much work as they can. I believe the reason is the switch from long term big picture focus, to quarterly profit focus.
I personally have turned down every job I've been offered in the last 5 years where the interviewer asked about my ability to multi-task and how I feel about multi-tasking. I can multi-task, but in my experience, the places that ask that during an interview end up having burned out old timers(not age either, just in terms of how long they've been there) who are in need of very long vacations doing little, while all the newcomers have everything dumped on them. The newcomers will be burned out "old timers" within a couple of years and the cycle repeats.
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:2, Interesting)
There is much anecdotal evidence that women seem to have a hampered ability to focus and analyze. The article is not about how proficient people are at multitasking, but that multitasking is detrimental to focus and analytical function.
From TFA: 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.
So women could indeed be better at multitasking but still have equivalent detrimental effects. Or perhaps women are better at multitasking through practice rather than innate ability. If they are better at multitasking, can they safely drive while using a mobile for example? I suspect not. It would be interesting to know if women who have demonstrated the ability to focus and analyse (perhaps some are reading this?) are also multitaskers or if they have the focus and analytical ability as a result of not multitasking.
Re:True... for everyone but you of course (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of us have the ability to explain a complex concept while driving. If the visual constraints were out of the way, I would imagine that this would easily translate to writing. The worst it would probably do to you is make you more likely to miss an exit on a highway* or make your writing a bit less concise. I might not write a formal e-mail to my boss, but I probably wouldn't mind e-mailing a friend or something like that.
I have missed an exit before on a relatively short trip (~20min) down a highway when thinking about my day or listening to something interesting even though I am still fully focused on and can react quickly to the road ahead. I am not the only one to have ever done so. I think that the previous poster who said that much of driving should be automatic was right on - your "muscle memory" takes care of a lot of the basic tasks that control the vehicle and even watching for visual problems. Higher thought comes in when planning a route or when changing lanes.
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:2, Interesting)
I can play amazingly complex songs, at terrific speeds... but only from memory, and only at full speed. The moment I've learned the song, I burn the sheet music. If I try to use it, I spend so much time thinking about where my hands/fingers should go, they stop performing correctly. If I try to slow the song down enough to teach others, I find I can not remember which note comes next in the sequence.
When I stop thinking and just let my hands do their own thing, they move people to tears.
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (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 exceptions to the above, (My Great Aunt Molly was amazing in her kitchen!) and strictly anecdote...so take with more than one grain of salt.
I would also be interested in checking out some legitimate studies if they exist.
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (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 myself.
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:Really (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually don't even want to know my IQ. I'm only as smart as I am, and finding out that I'm 102 vs 135 wouldn't help me. It would only create an inferiority complex, either way. Either I'll view myself as dumb (if the score is low), or wonder why I'm so mediocre despite a high score. Can't win. I already have the problem of being overestimated. I'm fairly articulate and I read, which gives the illusion of higher intelligence.
"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:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny. Look in the mirror when you say this out loud.
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.
Wow. Posting anonymously to make a derogatory, know-it-all and yet, ill-informed comment, eh? The fact remains that invertebrates and some lower vertebrates (e.g., salamanders) have no cerebellum (look it up on Google, it's not that hard). Besides, a cerebellum makes no sense without a cerebrum. It is precisely because the cerebellum appeared in more advanced animals that they are more advanced. In other words, the cerebellum gives them the ability to spend more time to focus on important things in their environment and that ability increases their chance of survival.
As for the reason why people with cerebellar lesions may sometimes speak in a halting manner, it's not because of anything wrong with Broca's area (in the inferior frontal lobe of the cerebrum)
But who said otherwise? Fighting with your own strawman, eh? I can't believe someone actually modded you up.
Re:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (Score:2, Interesting)
It's interesting that you say what you say. I play the piano, also, but have always been taught that if you can't play the song slowly from memory, you don't truly remember it... and if your muscle memory fails, for some reason, you are in trouble.
That's not to say muscle memory doesn't take place, but simply to argue the point that not all pianists would agree with your method. For me, I know when I really know a song well when I can almost tell you exactly what note is where... that's as far as me actually knowing it - actually doing the physical activity of playing it is, in my mind, different from knowing the music. (for the record, I've played piano for 17 years and am a composer).
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:The Brain Uses the Cerebellum to Multitask (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 at all because you're not "sure"... even though that same unsurety exists with many modern drugs... with much shorter track records.
the whole point is not to ignore the pre-scientific. Use it as a guide for future scientific exploration.