I still need to finish reading the article, but this bit caught my eye. Both because it so beautifully captures the stereotype of the scientists going "If only they would see the data!" and...
I still need to finish reading the article, but this bit caught my eye.
Nass assumed that people would stop trying to multitask once shown the evidence of how bad they were at it. But his subjects were “totally unfazed,” continuing to believe themselves excellent at multitasking and “able to do more and more and more.”
Both because it so beautifully captures the stereotype of the scientists going "If only they would see the data!" and because I don't think people always multitask truly to be more effective. This is highly anecdotal from my side, but I think it is often more about the perception rather than being able to effectively multitask. Certainly in many corporate environments if you appear to be busy tackling a lot of different things that is often already valued.
Even to the point that these multitaskers believe they're being highly effective because they're rewarded for the behaviour.
On one hand, it's a skill to balance a variety of tasks like handling lots of emails and messages on many different topics. On the other hand, my manager always says, "you just need to parallelize...
Certainly in many corporate environments if you appear to be busy tackling a lot of different things that is often already valued.
On one hand, it's a skill to balance a variety of tasks like handling lots of emails and messages on many different topics. On the other hand, my manager always says, "you just need to parallelize better," and it makes me angry because I only have two hands and one brain!!
As a manager I tell people you suck at multitasking it's why you get nothing done. Turn off email notifications. If it's important sometime will IM or call. Handle those over an hour or less often...
As a manager I tell people you suck at multitasking it's why you get nothing done.
Turn off email notifications. If it's important sometime will IM or call. Handle those over an hour or less often if you can. Move emails that will such your time to an action folder. Deal with those one to two times a day.
Block out time and focus on one topic. Make progress on those goals and projects. Do this in the morning.
End of day review of what's still open and needs your attention. Set a list of topics for the next day.
This is all fantastic advice and is pretty much what I do. I have my Slack and email filters all configured so I can be super focused on what's important. My manager's meaning is that he wants...
This is all fantastic advice and is pretty much what I do. I have my Slack and email filters all configured so I can be super focused on what's important.
My manager's meaning is that he wants everyone to take on more tasks in a week than they can handle. Of course task switching is expensive even when it's blocks of well focused time. For example, I can't effectively "parallelize" work on eight different feature requests to get more features delivered. I'd generally be more productive focusing on completing one request at a time.
I was going to make a joke about concurrently patting my head and rubbing my tummy just fine thank you, but then I thought about playing the drums, where each limb is doing soemthing different at...
I was going to make a joke about concurrently patting my head and rubbing my tummy just fine thank you, but then I thought about playing the drums, where each limb is doing soemthing different at somewhat unique cadences, and even singing at the same time. I'm sure some drummers could do math or recount a story while drumming too. Surely this is a type of effective multitasking?
Or pilots running checklists while wrestling their plane through an emergency...
Or those people who can draw 4 different pictures at the same time... (technically that is fast-switching I guess, but there are those who can draw one with each hand purely simultaneously)...
Even if they are, I think you are approaching being correct on a technicality while missing the overall picture territory here. You can make an argument that these are effective forms of...
Surely this is a type of effective multitasking?
Even if they are, I think you are approaching being correct on a technicality while missing the overall picture territory here. You can make an argument that these are effective forms of multitasking but all these examples are highly specific tasks where the person doing them has spent hours upon hours training to do effectively that set of things effectively.
I'd even argue that drumming isn't truly multitasking as it is all highly integrated into a cadence and relates to each other.
With pilots it is a similar story where the checklist they are going through directly relates to the thing they are doing. Where on commercial planes with two pilots I'd wager the co-pilot is the one going through all checklists leaving the pilot flying the plane to focus on flying the plane.
So they are highly specific, trained tasks where I am not even sure the multitasking label properly fits.
More importantly, it is not the sort of thing people mean when they are talking about being great at multitasking. Generally this is discussed in a much broader setting where they claim to be switch effectively between anything. That is the sort of multitasking where I have seen various pieces of research over the year showing that it simply isn't a thing. People are either doing tasks worse than they would otherwise or they are simply task switching (often still with a performance hit).
So all of this tells me that it's a spectrum of challenge, where each combination of tasks attempted (each with varying levels of similarity and therefore difficulty) allows more or less effective...
So all of this tells me that it's a spectrum of challenge, where each combination of tasks attempted (each with varying levels of similarity and therefore difficulty) allows more or less effective multitasking. And when handling such a spectrum, it leads me to ask "at what what points can we call it multitasking, and at what points can't we?", much like Sorites Paradox (Heap).
It also makes me wonder where the concept of "multitasking means that each task must be performed as well as if it were done on its own, or else FAIL" came from, and whether it's a helpful viewpoint.
Because that is a gross oversimplification of what I said. I most certainly didn't say some combinations are easier than others, quite the opposite. I said that the two examples you came up with...
Because that is a gross oversimplification of what I said. I most certainly didn't say some combinations are easier than others, quite the opposite. I said that the two examples you came up with are the results of years of practicing in order to be able to competently do them at the same time. Even then I doubt you can truly call it multitasking in the sense the term is generally used.
Heck, I'd warrant to say that a pilot would be able to go over the checklist more efficiently if they didn't need to focus as much on not crashing the plane either ;). But it is also beside the point as it is an emergency situation where it necessitates multitasking.
Outside emergency situations, generally speaking when people claim they can multitask they also claim it doesn't affect how well they do the individual jobs. Often they one up this by saying that multitasking allows them to do more at the same time. And it is these aspects where research has shown that this simply isn't the case. In almost all instances people that multitask will not do more in less time (sometimes even the opposite) and end up with lesser results.
Is that a "FAIL" as you put it? If people claim to multitask because it allows to do the same thing in less time then yes, it is a bit of a waste. If people simply enjoy it more to do multiple things at the same time and don't mind that the results are not as polished, then I don't see an issue with it.
I don't think it's a gross over simplification. You said I may be technically correct that the singing drummer may be multitasking, but only so because of how easy it may be for them or how much...
I don't think it's a gross over simplification. You said I may be technically correct that the singing drummer may be multitasking, but only so because of how easy it may be for them or how much practice they've had. Ergo, this combination of tasks is easier for someone than others, clearly implying a spectrum of challenge.
"I said that the two examples you came up with are the results of years of practicing in order to be able to competently do them at the same time. Even then I doubt you can truly call it multitasking in the sense the term is generally used."
And how would Karen in Accounting, with her years of experience entering data while watching Netflix, be any different than Trevor the singing drummer? Both are forms of multitasking, regardless of difficulty or experience.
"Outside emergency situations, generally speaking when people claim they can multitask they also claim it doesn't affect how well they do the individual jobs. "
I don't think we get to say "outside of emergency situations" here because I've seen no indicatio that it has bearing on whether something is multitasking or not, but as for how well it allows someone to do their job, it depends on the failure tolerances for the job. If errors don't matter as much for a given task, then what is the real negative consequence for trying to multitask? I assume multitasking is done to improve time efficiency, not product quality, so if it's used appropriately, what's the problem?
At any rate, I'm done here, I have better things to do, and won't be replying any further. Have a nice day.
In piano there's an exercise called Hanon. 60 different ways to play a bunch of repetitive pieces to strengthen your hands. I'm aware of at least one person who could effortlessly play one hanon...
Or those people who can draw 4 different pictures at the same time... (technically that is fast-switching I guess, but there are those who can draw one with each hand purely simultaneously)...
In piano there's an exercise called Hanon. 60 different ways to play a bunch of repetitive pieces to strengthen your hands.
I'm aware of at least one person who could effortlessly play one hanon lesson with the left hand and a different with the right. Basically any combination of the ones they already knew.
Is this multitasking? Hard to say. They're doing two different things with their hands, but mentally I suspect they're just very good at combing those two different things into "one thing" which they can then do. No one would deny that you can do all sorts of complex shit with both your hands in piano, so why not split hanon. As you're getting into the other conversation, i'm sure many talented players could with some practice, and I wouldn't be shocked if the best could do it with minimal effort to overcome muscle memory.
As always I find this is an argument that goes in circles from poorly conducted (and often not exactly replicated) studies with a bunch of conjecture and definition nonsense from those who then hear about them in some pop sci article.
Everytime i've looked into this it's mostly people vastly disagreeing on what the definition of multitasking is or a bunch of "well that doesn't count". Damn near everyone can walk, eat, and hold...
Everytime i've looked into this it's mostly people vastly disagreeing on what the definition of multitasking is or a bunch of "well that doesn't count".
Damn near everyone can walk, eat, and hold a conversation at once. It's well known that something as little as listening to songs on the radio is technically a distraction while driving, and yet also seen as a benefit in comparison to total monotony (which humans handle terribly).
I can type and talk to people easily. Typing is the same muscle memory as walking for me. I can twirl a pen in my fingers like it's second nature and do basically anything else (including half nap which is why I really started doing it).
Further the article doesn't do itself a great service opening with
The latter simply cannot, whereas a computer’s processor divvies up each clock cycle and apportions a slice of time — 200 milliseconds, say — to each task. Round and round it goes until everything is done. The inherent inefficiency of having to split up processor time is why your computer bogs down the more you ask it to do.
This is such a pile in so many directions. You might as well say no operation that takes more than an instant of causality can be occurring at the same time. No one would argue that you can have two separate computers perform two separate tasks, so that's why we started building them that way.
I was going to go through and discuss the rest, but honestly, the article is atrocious. I don't know if the source paper is actually making some of these extrapolations or if its just the writer, but there's all sorts of assumptions that are concerning.
As far as I know, it helps keep drivers awake if they're getting sleepy, but drivers are still more likely to get in a wreck if they're having a conversation or listening to music. It's a sliding...
It's well known that something as little as listening to songs on the radio is technically a distraction while driving, and yet also seen as a benefit in comparison to total monotony (which humans handle terribly).
As far as I know, it helps keep drivers awake if they're getting sleepy, but drivers are still more likely to get in a wreck if they're having a conversation or listening to music. It's a sliding scale though. It's a bit difficult to determine thresholds for what counts as attentive or distracted driving.
I think that most people that say they can multitask are actually thinking about task switching instead. Not that that's any better, mind, but there's a difference between doing multiple things at...
I think that most people that say they can multitask are actually thinking about task switching instead. Not that that's any better, mind, but there's a difference between doing multiple things at once and repeatedly in short intervals do multiple things.
For what it's worth, I can't do either particularly well even if my brain chemistry unwillingly favours the latter.
So my qualifications are that I am a person who can type and talk at the same time, extensively, & not get what I'm saying & what I'm typing mixed up, to the fear and awe and consternation of...
So my qualifications are that I am a person who can type and talk at the same time, extensively, & not get what I'm saying & what I'm typing mixed up, to the fear and awe and consternation of anyone in the room with me lol. I've always had multiple jobs, been happiest when I was doing 25 things a day, I love mashups more than anything, etc etc. so multitasking-wise I'm your guy. I started ADHD meds as one of the billions of millenials diagnosed since 2020 lol—i've written about it here (I think) but I was an outlier case where I had full-blown ADHD but did well in school, completed tasks, etc. because for some reason my brain took it as some kind of challenge, which led to a whole bunch of other problems, thus the dr visit and dx and medication.
And now I can't multitask anymore. I mean I can, but it's like physically painful, because instead of just sort of sitting down and things happening without me really paying attention (prob because my dumb brain was desperate for any kind of stimulation, usually in the form of task completion), now I have to actively choose to do things , which sucks haha. I guess is how everyone else's brain works all the time? Like this is supposed to be how it is? wtf lol. It's an entirely different way of getting things done from what I'm used to, and it's been great but also terrible. I would never go back but also I was so bored before, all the time, that I had signed on to do a million things, and suddenly each one of them takes effort and I just don't wanna. So if anyone wants to do a study please lmk lol
I still need to finish reading the article, but this bit caught my eye.
Both because it so beautifully captures the stereotype of the scientists going "If only they would see the data!" and because I don't think people always multitask truly to be more effective. This is highly anecdotal from my side, but I think it is often more about the perception rather than being able to effectively multitask. Certainly in many corporate environments if you appear to be busy tackling a lot of different things that is often already valued.
Even to the point that these multitaskers believe they're being highly effective because they're rewarded for the behaviour.
Stop multitasking! Get back to reading the article buddy!
On one hand, it's a skill to balance a variety of tasks like handling lots of emails and messages on many different topics. On the other hand, my manager always says, "you just need to parallelize better," and it makes me angry because I only have two hands and one brain!!
As a manager I tell people you suck at multitasking it's why you get nothing done.
This is all fantastic advice and is pretty much what I do. I have my Slack and email filters all configured so I can be super focused on what's important.
My manager's meaning is that he wants everyone to take on more tasks in a week than they can handle. Of course task switching is expensive even when it's blocks of well focused time. For example, I can't effectively "parallelize" work on eight different feature requests to get more features delivered. I'd generally be more productive focusing on completing one request at a time.
This has been known for years, but there are still people who swear that they can do it.
I was going to make a joke about concurrently patting my head and rubbing my tummy just fine thank you, but then I thought about playing the drums, where each limb is doing soemthing different at somewhat unique cadences, and even singing at the same time. I'm sure some drummers could do math or recount a story while drumming too. Surely this is a type of effective multitasking?
Or pilots running checklists while wrestling their plane through an emergency...
Or those people who can draw 4 different pictures at the same time... (technically that is fast-switching I guess, but there are those who can draw one with each hand purely simultaneously)...
Even if they are, I think you are approaching being correct on a technicality while missing the overall picture territory here. You can make an argument that these are effective forms of multitasking but all these examples are highly specific tasks where the person doing them has spent hours upon hours training to do effectively that set of things effectively.
I'd even argue that drumming isn't truly multitasking as it is all highly integrated into a cadence and relates to each other.
With pilots it is a similar story where the checklist they are going through directly relates to the thing they are doing. Where on commercial planes with two pilots I'd wager the co-pilot is the one going through all checklists leaving the pilot flying the plane to focus on flying the plane.
So they are highly specific, trained tasks where I am not even sure the multitasking label properly fits.
More importantly, it is not the sort of thing people mean when they are talking about being great at multitasking. Generally this is discussed in a much broader setting where they claim to be switch effectively between anything. That is the sort of multitasking where I have seen various pieces of research over the year showing that it simply isn't a thing. People are either doing tasks worse than they would otherwise or they are simply task switching (often still with a performance hit).
So all of this tells me that it's a spectrum of challenge, where each combination of tasks attempted (each with varying levels of similarity and therefore difficulty) allows more or less effective multitasking. And when handling such a spectrum, it leads me to ask "at what what points can we call it multitasking, and at what points can't we?", much like Sorites Paradox (Heap).
It also makes me wonder where the concept of "multitasking means that each task must be performed as well as if it were done on its own, or else FAIL" came from, and whether it's a helpful viewpoint.
It might tell you that, but I'd like to point out that is not what I said.
didn't say you did, but i also dont see how you couldn't. How could we not interpret this as "some combinations are easier than others"?
Because that is a gross oversimplification of what I said. I most certainly didn't say some combinations are easier than others, quite the opposite. I said that the two examples you came up with are the results of years of practicing in order to be able to competently do them at the same time. Even then I doubt you can truly call it multitasking in the sense the term is generally used.
Heck, I'd warrant to say that a pilot would be able to go over the checklist more efficiently if they didn't need to focus as much on not crashing the plane either ;). But it is also beside the point as it is an emergency situation where it necessitates multitasking.
Outside emergency situations, generally speaking when people claim they can multitask they also claim it doesn't affect how well they do the individual jobs. Often they one up this by saying that multitasking allows them to do more at the same time. And it is these aspects where research has shown that this simply isn't the case. In almost all instances people that multitask will not do more in less time (sometimes even the opposite) and end up with lesser results.
Is that a "FAIL" as you put it? If people claim to multitask because it allows to do the same thing in less time then yes, it is a bit of a waste. If people simply enjoy it more to do multiple things at the same time and don't mind that the results are not as polished, then I don't see an issue with it.
I don't think it's a gross over simplification. You said I may be technically correct that the singing drummer may be multitasking, but only so because of how easy it may be for them or how much practice they've had. Ergo, this combination of tasks is easier for someone than others, clearly implying a spectrum of challenge.
And how would Karen in Accounting, with her years of experience entering data while watching Netflix, be any different than Trevor the singing drummer? Both are forms of multitasking, regardless of difficulty or experience.
I don't think we get to say "outside of emergency situations" here because I've seen no indicatio that it has bearing on whether something is multitasking or not, but as for how well it allows someone to do their job, it depends on the failure tolerances for the job. If errors don't matter as much for a given task, then what is the real negative consequence for trying to multitask? I assume multitasking is done to improve time efficiency, not product quality, so if it's used appropriately, what's the problem?
At any rate, I'm done here, I have better things to do, and won't be replying any further. Have a nice day.
In piano there's an exercise called Hanon. 60 different ways to play a bunch of repetitive pieces to strengthen your hands.
I'm aware of at least one person who could effortlessly play one hanon lesson with the left hand and a different with the right. Basically any combination of the ones they already knew.
Is this multitasking? Hard to say. They're doing two different things with their hands, but mentally I suspect they're just very good at combing those two different things into "one thing" which they can then do. No one would deny that you can do all sorts of complex shit with both your hands in piano, so why not split hanon. As you're getting into the other conversation, i'm sure many talented players could with some practice, and I wouldn't be shocked if the best could do it with minimal effort to overcome muscle memory.
As always I find this is an argument that goes in circles from poorly conducted (and often not exactly replicated) studies with a bunch of conjecture and definition nonsense from those who then hear about them in some pop sci article.
Everytime i've looked into this it's mostly people vastly disagreeing on what the definition of multitasking is or a bunch of "well that doesn't count".
Damn near everyone can walk, eat, and hold a conversation at once. It's well known that something as little as listening to songs on the radio is technically a distraction while driving, and yet also seen as a benefit in comparison to total monotony (which humans handle terribly).
I can type and talk to people easily. Typing is the same muscle memory as walking for me. I can twirl a pen in my fingers like it's second nature and do basically anything else (including half nap which is why I really started doing it).
Further the article doesn't do itself a great service opening with
This is such a pile in so many directions. You might as well say no operation that takes more than an instant of causality can be occurring at the same time. No one would argue that you can have two separate computers perform two separate tasks, so that's why we started building them that way.
I was going to go through and discuss the rest, but honestly, the article is atrocious. I don't know if the source paper is actually making some of these extrapolations or if its just the writer, but there's all sorts of assumptions that are concerning.
As far as I know, it helps keep drivers awake if they're getting sleepy, but drivers are still more likely to get in a wreck if they're having a conversation or listening to music. It's a sliding scale though. It's a bit difficult to determine thresholds for what counts as attentive or distracted driving.
I think that most people that say they can multitask are actually thinking about task switching instead. Not that that's any better, mind, but there's a difference between doing multiple things at once and repeatedly in short intervals do multiple things.
For what it's worth, I can't do either particularly well even if my brain chemistry unwillingly favours the latter.
So my qualifications are that I am a person who can type and talk at the same time, extensively, & not get what I'm saying & what I'm typing mixed up, to the fear and awe and consternation of anyone in the room with me lol. I've always had multiple jobs, been happiest when I was doing 25 things a day, I love mashups more than anything, etc etc. so multitasking-wise I'm your guy. I started ADHD meds as one of the billions of millenials diagnosed since 2020 lol—i've written about it here (I think) but I was an outlier case where I had full-blown ADHD but did well in school, completed tasks, etc. because for some reason my brain took it as some kind of challenge, which led to a whole bunch of other problems, thus the dr visit and dx and medication.
And now I can't multitask anymore. I mean I can, but it's like physically painful, because instead of just sort of sitting down and things happening without me really paying attention (prob because my dumb brain was desperate for any kind of stimulation, usually in the form of task completion), now I have to actively choose to do things , which sucks haha. I guess is how everyone else's brain works all the time? Like this is supposed to be how it is? wtf lol. It's an entirely different way of getting things done from what I'm used to, and it's been great but also terrible. I would never go back but also I was so bored before, all the time, that I had signed on to do a million things, and suddenly each one of them takes effort and I just don't wanna. So if anyone wants to do a study please lmk lol