Slashdot Log In
Multitasking Considered Detrimental
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jun 23, 2008 02:20 AM
from the but-we-knew-this dept.
from the but-we-knew-this dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hang on a sec (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hang on a sec (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
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..."
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:One-size-fits-all doesn't fit all (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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:Multitasking is easy! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Apparently it affects memory as well. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Multitasking bad? (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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:old man can't multitask (Score:5, Funny)
Give him a break, he's 314!
Parent
Re:old man can't multitask (Score:5, Funny)
True, eating brains does take up most his day now.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Gender very much part of this! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent