Multitasking Considered Detrimental 371
djvaselaar sends along an article from The New Atlantis that summarizes recent research indicating that multitasking may be detrimental to work and learning. It begins, "In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice: 'There is time enough for everything in the course of the day, if you do but one thing at once, but there is not time enough in the year, if you will do two things at a time.' To Chesterfield, singular focus was not merely a practical way to structure one's time; it was a mark of intelligence... E-mails pouring in, cell phones ringing, televisions blaring, podcasts streaming--all this may become background noise, like the 'din of a foundry or factory' that [William] James observed workers could scarcely avoid at first, but which eventually became just another part of their daily routine. For the younger generation of multitaskers, the great electronic din is an expected part of everyday life. And given what neuroscience and anecdotal evidence have shown us, this state of constant intentional self-distraction could well be of profound detriment to individual and cultural well-being."
Hang on a sec (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hang on a sec (Score:5, Funny)
Seems real enough to me (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind of sad if you really didn't get it... I hope that was just "more joke."
I just wrote something [wordpress.com] on the superiority of written matter over video because written matter has numerous advantages that relate to focus and reflection. I value these things. Right at that time, I ran into this very article (I mean the one TFS refers to), I found it a horrifying thing to read — like reading someone's report of losing their own mind.
Since I wrote it up, I've been paying attention to how others pay attention, and I've seen a few things that signify, at least to me, that the problem is widespread.
For instance, I introduced our youngest boy (he's in his twenties) to some music that is in his line of interest (he plays bass, this musician I was showing him is a fabulous bassist) and he listened for, oh, maybe 15 seconds before he began to talk about music, which segued quickly into other areas. I didn't answer him; he just took off on his own.
Before the piece had finished playing, he was completely off on something else, and he had no idea what I was talking about afterwards when I asked him direct questions about the bass techniques demonstrated in the cut.
It was disheartening, to say the least.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes when people show me stuff I already know about I try to teach them about tangential things. Sometimes they're too slow to catch the shift.
Sometimes I'm wrong (maybe your kid is into Primus and you showed him Mingus and he immediately filed it "jazz; boring") in thinking I know about something, but it's still there for re-evaluation.
Maybe you're a pedant?
Re:Seems real enough to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Seems real enough to me (Score:4, Insightful)
You can tell the difference between a document that's been rewritten and polished, verses something that looks like a hungover homage to Jack Kerouac written in Perl, on a cloudy day, after a bad breakup.
Best wishes with the son.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been decades since I was young. I'm still stupid, however.
(now watch, they'll mod this "insightful")
Re:Hang on a sec (Score:4, Funny)
a bit tricky to work for an employer while going to college... oh lookie a business idea!
I do all my breathing in the first 2 hours .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Multi-tasking is efficient when used appropriately.
Re:I do all my breathing in the first 2 hours .... (Score:5, Insightful)
The joke here seems to be that the stated behavior is the opposite of multitasking. However, breathing is an autonomous function - while you can consciously interfere with it to a certain degree, it just happens - and it requires very little intervention from the brain. Breathing and the beating heart are more like examples of coprocessors :P
Christ, here's a whole area of analogy virtually untapped on Slashdot - horribly mistaken medical analogies. This one should be even more exciting than the car thing, because even LESS people know anything about how the body works than know how their car works (hint: most people here who think they know what's going on under the hood are sadly. fucking. mistaken. as proven by the floods of bad automotive analogies.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Calm down before you fracture a kidney.
Re:I do all my breathing in the first 2 hours .... (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is that a slashdot thread without an analogy is like a car with only one liver?
old man can't multitask (Score:3, Funny)
News at 11.
Re:old man can't multitask (Score:5, Funny)
Give him a break, he's 314!
Re:old man can't multitask (Score:5, Funny)
True, eating brains does take up most his day now.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality check, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
You raise an interesting point. TFA says "In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice: ... ". According to Wikipedia, the 3rd Earl of Chesterfield [wikipedia.org] died in 1726, and the 5th Earl of Chesterfield [wikipedia.org] was born in 1755, so the only "Earl of Chesterfield" that could have written letters in the 1740s was the 4th [wikipedia.org].
So, how the fsck could he have written to his son if his *first* son, who inherited the title, wasn't born until 15 y
Re:Reality check, anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
You raise an interesting point. TFA says "In one of the many letters he wrote to his son in the 1740s, Lord Chesterfield offered the following advice:
So, how the fsck could he have written to his son if his *first* son, who inherited the title, wasn't born until 15 years after that decade?
Project Gutenberg has the letters: http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/c#a1187 [gutenberg.org]
Genuses don't multitask (Score:5, Insightful)
News at 11.
People seem to think that geniuses are simply more intelligent than the rest of us, I hear talk of IQs of 200, 250 etc. Which is utter bullshit, there aren't enough people on the planet for that, never mind the validity of IQ tests. What you really see when you take a look at the life of a genius is damned near monomania. The drive, ability and desire to focus on a single thing for years, decades, to the exclusion of almost everything else. To the point that they finally see "the truth" or at least, closer to the truth than the rest of us who are more distracted by daily life.
Not to say that geniuses aren't spectacularly talented people, obviously they are, but what really makes the difference is focus.
Re:Genuses don't multitask (Score:5, Insightful)
Good call. I score some bullshit number on IQ tests (185, once, in a real one). I am smarter than the average bear, for sure, but... that bright and glinty ability to whizz through IQ tests is only vaguely related to my analytical success which is down to grim concentration and long, hard, thought. Quite why the shithead management persist in putting us in pods of cubicles so that I get the 'benefit' of background chatter is beyond me. Fortunately my sound cancelling headphones deal with that, albeit at the expense of giving me something more interesting than spreadsheets to entertain myself with.
Clue for fuckwit managers- if your staff are interested in music and are truly listening to the Brandenburg concertoes, then they are not paying much attention to the screen in front of them. Bach is a mind sucking alien.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before I start, yeah, I do subscribe to the POV that IQ tests are just a trainable skill, and thus measure only... how good you are at IQ tests. Plus, I don't think one number is anywhere near able to sum up the gamut of human skills and abilities and talents.
That said, I do seem to recall that there _are_ differences in the brain wiring of different people. E.g., IIRC it was even linked here on Slashdot that Asperger's Syndrome causes neurons to form more connections and be much more reluctant to break old connections. E.g., they seem to have found a gene responsible for ADHD, which, again, causes the brain to work differently.
And in the end, is it that big a surprise? How your whole body looks like, and how it works, is dictated by some proteins which are encoded by some genes. E.g., we already identified, say, the protein which is encoded differently for a human brain as opposed to a chimp brain. And sometimes seemingly unrelated proteins affect the various pathways and reactions. E.g., a broken MC1R doesn't just give you red hair, but also has effects including different fight-or-flight priorities and pain sensitivity.
Because "God" doesn't seem to believe in neat, orthogonal, cohesive coding. Or rather, because we're the result of some random mutations that worked. If modifying another protein to fix the effect of the first works too, chances are you get that instead of fixing the first one. We're the result of some billions of years of spaghetti code and layers upon layers of hacks, that often address the symptoms instead of the real problem. We even have pieces of DNA that seem to be both code and data segment (very loosely using those terms, anyway.) We have deliberately self-modifying code, fer crying out loud. (That's how the immune system can match almost any foreign protein.)
At any rate, there are a lot of genes at work there. There are mutations in every generation. There are recessive traits. Etc. So it's not that far fetched that some people's brains would be wired slightly differently.
Whether that's good or bad, if up for debate. And, yes, IQ isn't measuring that. But you can't say that everyone has the same brain and only differs in how focused they are.
Heck, even that focus itself seems to be often a result of genes. E.g., Asperger's Syndrome has a narrow focus of interest as one of its almost invariant symptoms. The ability to hyperfocus is right behind on that list. So even that goes back to genes and brain wiring, it seems.
Basically, I dunno, I have no problem believing that some people _are_ born smarter. Again, it may not be measured by IQ, but I believe it's happening.
Re:Genuses don't multitask (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing genius with dedication.
Either that, or his monomania was "using woodworks".
The benefits of ADD (Score:3)
If you have ADD, you'll naturally be good at multitasking and this article does not apply to you.
This article applies to those who have the new disorder, multitasking deficit disorder.
Re:The benefits of ADD (Score:5, Interesting)
One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand this; I find it oddly difficult to focus without something to also ignore.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Insightful)
It can be applied to most of us, companies should be aware of that. Cubicles and open offices are default nowadays, so people can constantly drop by and ask things. Instant messaging and e-mail only make it worse.
When I'm at work programming, I want to do just that. When my manager asks me about the state of things, I lose my concentration, have to write down some notes about what I was working on, answer his question, read my notes and try to regain my concentration. Sometimes it takes fifteen minutes or more to regain my concentration, most of the time I completely lose important work because I lost the idea or can't make sense of the halfway finished code I just wrote. A simple question (from his perspective) costs fifteen minutes or more of my time and could lead to ugly unmaintainable code.
When companies just start to realise that most people can't multitask and change their corporate culture accordingly, overall productivity will increase.
Re:One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow. It's good to know that I'm not the only one who tries to use the "push all registers to the stack" technique when a non-maskable interrupt is raised! It's also useful when I'm too tired to continue coding and have to go into "suspend" for the night...
At one place I worked, we joked about our MTTI -- mean time to interrupt. But then people thought it was cute to swing by the cube saying, "Hey, I'm afraid I'm going to have to lower your MTTI..."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It typically takes me 10 minutes to store the state of where I was, 5 minutes to answer the 'quicky', and then 45 minutes to get back to where I was, in terms of train of thought.
That adds up to an hour.
So I switch me email off and turn my phone down.
Sorry guys...
Re:One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Insightful)
So you've got a short attention span. Do you really think that makes you as efficient as someone who has trained their mind to be focused?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Short attention spans are quite common, especially among programmers - interruptions are the norm, and should be dealt with in a calm manner.
Myself, I make the notes first, and if interrupted continue as if I was a ghost dog in the city.
Re:One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said.
I have never understood the people who claim to multi-task, because I've often observed that when they do multi-task, do so rather poorly, and perform poorly at all the tasks that they have to do. Why would you simply not take the time to focus on each one, and get it out of the way?
If I'm doing something, my girlfriend often tries to interrupt me, but for the most part, I just tune everything else out and do the one thing that I want. She finds it hard to understand, but it's just the way I've been raised (and wired). Growing up, distractions were a strict no-no, and I'm quite thankful for that. If I'm at work, I turn IMs and emails off (the Blackberry remains turned on, though, just in case).
The end result is that I find that it takes me a lot less time to do something than the people who claim that they can only multi-task. I have friends who are so much more better and so much more focussed at doing things, and the one thing that I can tell you is that they are all a lot more efficient at getting things done than me.
Likewise, my ADD friends claim to be able to multi-task, but do a VERY poor job of actually doing it. Sure, you do ten things at the same time, but I could have done 20 things better, faster and more efficiently by focusing separately than you did ten without any focus or singular goal.
Just my two cents.
Re:One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:4, Informative)
I've worked in reasonably extreme examples of both kinds of environments:
The productivity and work efficiency in the second kind of environment is several times (3 times or more) higher than in the first.
This seems to be true not only for me, but also for my colleagues. Amongst other things, in noisy environments with frequent interruptions people seem to make more mistakes and be more likely to forget important things.
From what I've seen, the most extreme cases of multi-tasking (crack-berry users) are also the people most likely to forget important things while dealing with unimportant ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:multi-tasking equals survival (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is my complete speculative analysis on multi-tasking.
Just take a look at human evolution. Do you think that being "extremely focused" is a really good survival trait? Being able to do more than "one thing" at a time would seem to be a much more advantageous, in the greater scheme of things, than being able to focus at the detriment of other things. Human beings are meant to multi-task. Staying alert for potential predators while gathering food seems like a top notch trait to carry on. Human beings are at the top of the totem pole not because we are physically superior, but because we are mentally superior. Our ability to out think more physically capable predators is not only because we are smart, but also because we are cognsaint of more than one thing going on at a time, and are better able to process that information.
It seems more likely that the "genius" trait, while desirable for geek credit, is really not a trait that evolution seems to favor.
Re:One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In my case it depends on the music.
First, it has to be some I know really well. Listening to unfamiliar music requires too much attention.
Some kind of music, even if familiar, still tend to require more than I can afford. I cannot hear Chopin in the background without giving it proper attention for example.
Ideal case is an energetic, upbeat series of tunes I know really well and appreciate at a low level of sound, until I need my full concentration on a tough task. By then I stop the music to concentrate en
Multitasking is easy! (Score:5, Funny)
I have absolutely no problems with...
hold on a minute...
multitasking. It makes me...
one second...
much more efficient, because I can handle...
sorry about this...
many different tasks at once
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Multitasking is easy! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Multitasking is easy! (Score:4, Funny)
That was a very well thought out, cogent, and well structured answer. I feel smarter every time I read it.
Your intelligence and ability to express yourself being well established, I would pose the following question to you....
When I switch hands and gain a stroke is that not multitasking changing to multiprocessing and then back to multitasking?
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but you miss something:
we have areas in our bodies that can be used as "co-processors". For example, a trained martial artist will have a movement (ie. circular kick) stored in his muscle tendons. That way the movement (kick) executes faster because the signal travels less time.
This is normally called "reflexes". We can train reflexes, we can also train our fingers to play guitar (we think on the note and they "play" it). This is why people can improvise singing while playing a guitar song.
We
Apparently it affects memory as well. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2001 Called, They Want Their News Back (Score:4, Funny)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
which is, if analyzed deeply, a very complicated task.
Just try to do the same thing with a computer.
Evolution is wise.
Multitasking bad? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have linux, yes. If you're using MS Windows, then no need. In addition, if you're using MS Outlook in MS Windows then it is a much better choice than MS DOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Multitasking bad? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah. There's a modern solution to this. Just get an X Windows window manager that can be configured to force maximized windows. If that's not enough for you, configure it so that it won't run more than one application at a time. If still not good enough (after all, with GUI applications, popups are kinda like using multitasking), just ditch X, remove screen (an application), and use only one virtual console. Possibly tweak the kernel so that suspend signals won't be delivered, if you're worrided you might get distracted by accidentally pressing ^Z.
So just a little bit of tweaking, you can go all the way to MSDOS level of single-tasking with Linux! And if you need those MSDOS applications, there's dosemu too, so there's absolutely no need to use proprietary MSDOS directly.
Just try to achive this with any modern Windows!
Cooperative vs. Preemptive (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote from the article:
I think the key here is forced. When I'm solving a problem or trying to learn something, I find that I am more effective if, after each noticeable success in my effort, I take a little break and do something else, such as read a Slashdot story, while my brain thinks about what I just learned or did. I'm much less effective if I have to work straight through on a long problem or learning task.
In other words, I multitask fine if I've picked N tasks, that I can switch among freely, whenever I want to switch. However, if the tasks are forced upon me, or I have to switch on a schedule or in response to interrupts, such as phone calls, then productivity goes down.
Re:Cooperative vs. Preemptive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cooperative vs. Preemptive (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have the right to make that decision for me. If you're on the phone in your car while you're all alone 4-wheeling in the woods that's one thing. But if you're in the car right behind me, that's another. Your decision about sacrificing safety for a cell phone conversation is also about my safety too. That kind of decision cannot be made by an individual.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that one should consider the potential effect on others when making choices, particularly with respect to safety.
But you're argument is generally ridiculous, and I have trouble believing you don't already know that. By the "it could hurt others" standard we shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place -- you would certainly be safer in your car if the person behind you not only wasn't allow to use their phone, but also wasn't allowed to drive at all when others are on the same road.
As a society
Re:Cooperative vs. Preemptive (Score:5, Insightful)
Your example of simply having no 2 cars being on the same road at the same time example is especially wrong. Consider the "2 second following distance" rule. Many people don't follow it, but if they did (and paid attention to the road), there would be very few fender benders. Here is where the pay attention to the road part comes in. The current laws don't matter at all if people aren't paying attention to the road, and this is why people shouldn't be allowed to use cell phones in cars. Talking/texting on a phone has been shown to reduce the attention of the driver to the road. If the law doesn't deal with people paying attention to the road, then there will be no safety on the roads at all, since all of the other laws depend so heavily on that one simply concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cooperative vs. Preemptive (Score:4, Interesting)
The additional time lost because you are out of the "zone" is also very significant - for programmers this time loss has been estimated to be 15 minutes beyond the time for the interruption itself. That means that if you get more than one e-mail, phone call or at-your-desk interruption per 15 minutes (Source: Peopleware), your productivity in your main task starts to approach zero.
Yet another reason for ignoring these "immediate" interrupts is because they are often "urgent", but rarely "important". You should read Stephen Covey for more on these, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that urgent things that aren't important are dangerous to productivity, and should be ignored as much as possible.
If it really is important and urgent and needs to interrupt you, then people will try again until you know it's important enough. Or you can arrange emergency channels (personal cell phone number) that should be used only when you really need to be interrupted. Just make sure that this channel is never abused for non-important, non-urgent communication.
Re: (Score:2)
We problem is not with multitasking/multiprocessing itself, but with our "conscious self" connecting to more than one data output at the same time.
What you are doing is sending "batch programs" to your brain so it learns them. Very useful indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhh, well (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is way too narrow. I can't really say since this was a fairly crappy writeup and not the original research itself, but just because in a narrow set of constraints multi-tasking equals less performance, doesn't mean overall it is worse. I think there's three main things not considered here:
1) Just because you perform both tasks worse, doesn't mean it's less efficient. An example would be driving while talking on the cell phone. There's little debate that your driving skills are worsened when you do this, as you simply have less concentration to go around. Ok, fine, but that doesn't in fact mean it is detrimental to efficiency. If you need to drive somewhere that takes 20 minutes, and you need to set up something over the phone that takes 20 minutes, you save time doing both at once. Even if because you aren't concentrating as much on either it takes 25 minutes to complete both, you are still ahead.
I realise with driving there is a safety consideration in this case, but I am talking overall about task performance.
2) Many tasks involve waiting. There are plenty of things in work, particularly computer work, that involve waiting. You'll give input and have to wait before you can give it again. It is not efficient to just sit there and stare at the screen. It is more efficient to work on multiple tasks. You work on another task, and periodically check on the first one to see when it needs input (this would be similar to how an OS multitasks on a single processor). Yes, no single task will get done as fast but you'll get more done in a given amount of time.
3) Sometimes you need to move away from something for awhile to be able to do better at it. I find this is true when I'm writing certain things. I can't just sit there and write the thing straight out. I can either stare in to space, or I can go ahead and do something else for a bit then come back to it. I'm not talking about needing an over all work break here, just that I need a bit to switch away and then come back. This is particularly true of editing. If I want to read over something I've written for errors, doing so right away does no good. I need to switch to something else for a bit, then come back.
As a simple example of where I've seen multi-tasking work much faster due to tasks that don't require constant input was setting up some software in a lab. Our management system was broken and we needed some new software in a lab right away for a presentation. So I grabbed one of our student workers and had him come help. We'd each take a row of computers and start doing installs by hand. He did everything sequentially, sitting at one computer and doing all the steps until it was done. I multi-tasked, dancing back and forth between 3-4 computers at once all at different stages of the setup. I ended up doing over twice the number of rows as him.
The reason was this was a perfect place to multi-task. The setup involved a fair bit of waiting on things before giving input, so rather than wait I'd go on to the next one. Thus the job got done quicker.
Re:Uhhh, well (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because it's deemed highly inefficient if you kill someone else who was minding their own business while you slightly increase your own productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uhhh, well (Score:4, Insightful)
Those handsfree phone devices are still a distraction and impact the attention you pay to the primary activity on hand: driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm paying attention to the road and the traffic. What are you doing?
Re: (Score:2)
It's only inefficient if the person you kill was doing something too -- if they were just sitting there on a bench enjoying the afternoon sun there's probably no loss to overall efficiency, other than the time you spend cleaning them off your car; if you can continue using your cell phone in the car wash you might still come out ahead.
Could even help efficiency (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
I debated using that example because I knew some jackass would start crying about the safety aspect rather than what is pertinent to the argument. I am not advocating talking on the phone in a car, I am using it as an efficency example, since they used it.
However, if you are unable to set emotion aside and evaluate it objectively then let's go for walking and talking on your phone. Again, you will find that one interferes with the other, you'll probably walk slower and such as you are thinking about your conversation as well as where you are going, you may have to stop to dial or press keys in response to auto prompts and such. That doesn't mean that it is going to be more efficient to get to where you are going, then pull out your phone and make your call. Despite both tasks suffering, there is still an overall gain.
That is the point here. I'm not talking about safety, that's a separate issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Just because you perform both tasks worse, doesn't mean it's less efficient.
Right. What's the goal? Getting more work done, or getting a raise? If the boss values crap work as long as you can work on 5 crap things at a time, then that's what you do. You get your raise more efficiently. When the boss wants you to do one thing only, that's what you'll be told to do. It's his capital that's invested in the business, and there's no reason why you should help him use it more wisely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of my best technical problem-solving occurs while pushing a lawnmower.
I guess that's a time when I'm not being interrupted by the phone, email, IM,..
Re: (Score:2)
I do find it kind of strange (Score:4, Insightful)
The most annoying thing I can think of is when I'm at my job or in labs at school, and people come at me with a bunch of different requests, all expecting me to drop everything and get it done 'like now!'. Yes, I can manage several things at once, but sometimes properly managing things means doing them one at a time, carefully. Providing it's not a pressing issue, I wish people would be okay with the answer 'I'm just finishing up my current task, I will get to the next one as soon as I'm done'.
Re: (Score:2)
the feeling of being uncomfortable in genuinely quiet settings is not unlike the anxious muddled tense feeling a smoker gets when he hasn't had a cigarette in a while....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
interesting. (Score:2)
i spend far too much time online, typing up reports with rhythmbox, slashdot, and pidgion going in the background.
but i dont even notice it all anymore, i just jump between things without thinking.
i used to be able to focus on one task for a long time. a few years ago, i could go and paint non-stop for 12 hours straight and wonder where the time went. now after 2 hours, i am fighting boredom and i have to get up and walk around, and just do something else. i now find it impossible to do only one thing fo
As I type this... (Score:2, Interesting)
submitter gets a fail (Score:4, Insightful)
For those that don't get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful [wikipedia.org]
Disconnecting Distraction (Score:3, Interesting)
Paul Graham recently wrote an essay [paulgraham.com] about a related topic just last May, on distractions. It seems that he even works by actually disconnecting his computer from the Internet while working, in order to reduce the amount of distraction that would come from use of the Internet, and using a separate machine somewhere else that had Internet access for those times when he really needs to do something online. It's a radical idea. Maybe it explains why I feel bit more productive while working from home, where Internet access can only be had by hooking my cellphone up to a special SIM card that has a data plan, and connecting to the Net via Bluetooth. With such awkward steps needed to get a working Internet connection, and with no coworkers to bother me, distraction is kept at a minimum. Whereas at the office the lawyer who's sharing our office space has a television permanently tuned to a news channel, I get distractions from coworkers up the wazoo, and a fast broadband connection which basically encourages me to read and post to Slashdot and engage in other diversions...
Spot-on (Score:2)
I find I am most productive when I am only working on one thing. I can focus all of my attention on it and wrap my brain around the subtle aspects of the problem at hand.
The problem with task switching is that one has to dig back down into the task after every interruption. This wastes time.
If I start to feel burned out on the thing that I am working on, I put it down and pick up something else. I forget all about the previous task and turn my focus on the new task.
I also find that alternating between di
As Said By.. (Score:4, Informative)
As said by Charles Emerson Winchester III:
"I do one thing, I do it well, and I move on."
What a great show MASH was. Sadly, judging by what's followed from the major networks in the years since, it seems to have been one of the last gasps of truly quality TV series.
Cheers!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Multitaski... (Score:3, Funny)
There's multitasking and there's multitasking (Score:4, Interesting)
When I first started driving, it took all my conscious, active effort to pay attention to everything on the road and this is just driving in the sedate neighborhood. The interstate had me utterly intimidated for the first year. I would not have the radio on, not talk to passengers, was totally white-knuckled focused. As I got better at it, the process became automatic and I could drive, talk to people, and it didn't hurt my driving performance at all. If tricksy situations arise, I'll tune out on any conversation and be focused just on the road. Of course, many people screw up by devoting more attention to the conversation (or makeup, or food) than the road. Nothing irritates me more than the kind of people who feel they have to maintain eye contact with a passenger while driving. NO! ROAD! CONCENTRATE!
People can juggle multiple low-level tasks. Walk or ride a bike while listening to a book on tape, get a big meal moving in the kitchen while singing along with music, just fine. A high level and low level task can be combined like driving and audio books. But it falls apart when multiple high-level tasks are competing. It's very difficult to, say, follow along with a TV show and write at the same time. There's no way in hell that the typical office multitasker gets anything done. These are the people you have direct conversations with and retain nothing because they're thinking about something else. My personal pet peeve, blackberries in meetings. STOP! There's no fucking way you're keeping up with what I'm talking about when you're typing with your thumbs. Check your berry to make sure it isn't a server calling for help and if it isn't, put the damn thing away and pay attention!
Depends on Which Hemisphere Dominates (Score:5, Interesting)
Polyphasic activity's been researched (Score:3, Informative)
Meyer and Friedman called it part of the symptoms of the Type A Stress Syndrome. It's eventual result is coronary heart disease from plaques via ACTH secretion. It causes time-urgency and stress, and the fight/flight syndrome.
Multitasking is keenly sought because it also heightens brain activity, which some people crave. The downside is that it's really stressful, according to research done decades ago.
Follow TFA links to... (Score:3, Informative)
If you follow TFA links (which includes the sneaky commission referral from newatlantis), it leads to a book on Amazon called "The 4 Hour Workweek".
If you travel that link and read the first review [amazon.com], it includes some very accurate information about this global outsourcing issue we're all facing as we try to cram even more work into a finite span of time:
Well put.
Re:They forgot (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gender very much part of this! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be silly!
Every young woman has to learn how to care for children, cook, clean and - without being raunchy - pleasure her husband. These are things that every young woman must learn, since woman is - in her raw, natural state - an animal that isn't fit to be kept indoors. She must be trained from a young age.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, I hope this is intended as a joke/sarcasm, but with a name like urcreepyneighbor, I could be wrong.
Re:Gender very much part of this! (Score:4, Interesting)
"Multitasking may be detrimental to work and learning" says 18th Century man
Humans as a species don't change perceptably over that short a period. People have always multitasked - we just didn't need a word for it until computers. In fact, here's an old quite about multitasking that unlike yours actually was used before computers, and maybe in the 18th century or before:
"He's so stupid he can't walk and chew gum at the same time".
TFA's premise is too dumb to even read. You couldn't drive a car (or a horse-drawn wagon) without multitasking. You can't play a guitar, let alone a drum set, without multitasking. How many things did you have for dinner last night, were they all cooked one at a time? A cave man had to keep the fire burning, cook, and watch out for wolves all at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A cave man had to keep the fire burning, cook, and watch out for wolves all at the same time.
Yes, this is why we like to use multiprocessing. Cavemen didn't hang out alone so much. If they did, they became a snack for something with bigger teeth. (All debates over human/dino coexistence aside, there's lots of other predators out there which were dramatically more numerous during the stone age.) You had separate cavemen to watch the fire, cook the food, watch for bad guys, et cetera. This permitted the cavemen to operate in single tasking mode, in which they are more efficient due to the lack of c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's no different than polaying a guitar; both hands are doing completely different things. Just because you don't have to consciously think about all the different muscles you have to move, in what order, maintaining your balance while walking doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means you don't notice.
It's not different than playing a guitar, that's true. But the conclusion you draw, that it is multitasking, is not really true. Multitasking means working on two different tasks at once. Skiing down a hill while trying to shoot someone (ala bond movies) is multitasking - that's two totally separate tasks being combined. But the Biathlon is NOT multitasking, because you ski, and then you shoot, and then you ski again. Having to look through the scope and pull the trigger at the same time isn't multitaskin
Re: (Score:2)
You know, after reading the above reply, I really do think geeks tend to try too much to apply sterile and uncompromising forms of logic to human- or individual-level problems real or perceived.
There's no "seriously, though" about what you've said. Threads? Interrupts? Critical paths? Are you kidding? Do you walk around during your day thinking "beep boop I'm a computer" and refer to or even think to yourself - let alone others - in these terms?
Its ironic, in a way, as researchers try to teach computers to