One Thing at a Time and the Multitasking Myth
I can only think about one thing at a time.
Any girl reading this just going to roll her eyes and think, “Of course. You’re a guy!”. But it’s not just true for me, it’s true for everyone. It’s true for you.
And not in that way.
At first, this claim can sound fantastic. We can talk on a cell phone while driving to work, and we can compose complex sentences while typing. But, if you stop to reflect on it, you can only do those things at the same time because at least one of them is automatic. In the first case driving is automatic, and in the second case typing is automatic. You’ve done them so often that you’ve habituated to them: doing them doesn’t require any thinking. Can you still talk on your cell phone while driving through a rainstorm on unfamiliar roads? Would you still be able to concentrate on writing if you had just switched to a Dvorak keyboard? I didn’t think so.
In both cases the extreme situation frustrates your habits and forces you to actively think about what you are doing at the expense of your other task. When you are thinking about driving safely in adverse conditions, you can’t also hold a conversation. And while you’re searching for the “e” key, you can’t also compose the next line of your sonnet.
Still not convinced? Then try this experiment: Think about the about the taste of chocolate (that glorious silky rush of sweet earthy flavor) at the exact same time as you add 47 and 56. Really try. At the same time. If it makes your brain fuzzy in the way your mouth feels after you’ve had an unripe banana, you’re in good company: it’s impossible. You can switch back and forth really quickly, but you can’t actually think about both things at the same time.
Software often requires us to actively think about two things at once: like needing to know if the current content of the clipboard is important (when you should be thinking about the edit you want to make), or whether the “predictive” text entry on cell phones has incorrectly guessed the word you want (when you really just want to be writing your message). Unfortunately, this is like asking us to simultaneously press two buttons that are 10 feet apart. It’s impossible, and it’s not humane, so we’ll make mistakes. But, it’s not our fault.
Not being able to think about two things at once means that we can’t truly “multitask” things that we need to think about. Instead, we cycle through tasks in quick succession. But be warned, there are costs. At each switch we risk losing our train of thought and even if we remain on track, it takes time to re-situate ourselves with where we were before the switch. The net effect is that it takes more time to multitask a set of actions than it does to do them sequentially.
Time for another experiment. Time yourself doing the following two actions:
- Spell aloud, letter by letter, “Jewelry is shiny” at the same time as you write your full name.
- Spell aloud, letter by letter, “Jewelry is shiny” and then, after you are done with that, write your name.
It took me 18 seconds to do the tasks concurrently, and 8 seconds to the tasks sequentially. However, if you practice spelling “Jewelry is shiny” aloud for a couple minutes, it’ll become automatic. You’ll no longer have to think to do it, and you’ll be able to complete the two tasks at the same time without incurring the switching cost.
What’s the lesson to be learned? If you want a boost in productivity, try rethinking how you multitask so that you only ever need to think about one thing at a time.
Even if it is about that.
RT @azaaza One Thing at a Time and the Multitasking Myth | Follow @azaaza on Twitter | All blog posts
[ICR]
I think it is important also to draw out the distinction of motor skills.
The most effective “multitasking” only occurs when you are performing a motor skill that is familiar (typing on a keyboard, playing on a piano, kniting) and something new (like talking).
I have an interesting article in Scientific America: Mind that talks not only about how you can only most effectivly multitask with familiar motor skills, but also analyses how we appear to multitask and draws in the use of computer software into a study. I’ll find it tommorow and post bits of it.
[ICR]
Found the article. Scientific American: Mind Volume 14 (The begining of the article and the chance to buy the rest at http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?&articleID=000AFFBA-1A95-1196-906983414B7F0000)
The distinction is not, as I incorrectly said above, with motor skills but just two skills that concern different parts of the brain (such as reading and writing).
The article also suggests that you cannot give equal concentration to both tasks, and your brain in fact switches between one task and the other (similar to how a computer multitasks). Studies also show that your brain cannot work twice as hard when you try and do two things at once, and the sum of the effort actualy ends up being less than if you did one task at a time.
It also links attempted multitasking with increased stress.
“Multitasking saves time only when it is a matter of relaxed, routine tasks” – Meyer.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct01/multitask.html gives a little more information.
Jon
I agree completely. Most people I know who think they are good at ‘multitasking’ are not. They don’t realize that there is a difference between multitasking and not being able to focus.
Massimo Dentico
There is a PDF of one of the cited articles at APA web site.
See at the bottom of this other article: “IS MULTITASKING MORE EFFICIENT? SHIFTING MENTAL GEARS COSTS TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN SHIFTING TO LESS FAMILIAR TASKS“.
Direct link: “Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching,” Joshua S. Rubinstein, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Atlantic City, N.J.; David E. Meyer and Jeffrey E. Evans, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., Journal of Experimental Psychology – Human Perception and Performance, Vol 27. No.4
Aza Raskin
Massimo and IRC, thanks for those links to some great articles and findings. It’s clear that the evidence is definitely in: multitasking under most situations is harmful. Now, if we could just get our interfaces to respect this finding…
Nick Buzikashvili
Aza, I pitch upon your text (and blog) in my search on multitasking&switching_costs.
I sobbed!!! (see below) Recently I finished a work on multitasking Web search ;-(
In this blah-blah based on the web logs analysis I wearily show that ~commonly recognized multitasking Web search is nothing else but myth (which bases on the artifactual interpretations of multitasking). Real fraction of multitasking search in the web logs is >1% rather than commonly accepted >10%!
I sobbed since I could not insert in the paper I can only think about one thing at a time. Any girl reading this just going to roll her eyes and think, “Of course. You’re a guy!” — May be next time.
Though I agree with you and partly with me, I should say (with a mournful air!!!): when a multitasking complexity is ACCEPTABLE (lesser some threshold), multitasking exists ;-(((
Best
Nick
PS Whereas (or since) reading of my SIGIR06 paper strikes with scare, Ill send this paper by e-mail ;-)
Barry Sindlinger
While I agree that multitasking is inefficient — as to pure productivity — I also remember what Linear minds quickly forget: creativity thrives on cross-pollination.
It seeks divergence, not convergence of thought. It thrives on the diffused, “unfocused” practice of forcing analogies from the dissimilar.
Yes, Editing requires focus. But Idea-generation needs flow. The first, while essential, is often considered “productive” when it is more truly “destructive.”
Production, especially today, requires “constructive” thought, and this is rarely found in “linear thinking” from within a discipline. And “focus” fails to forge freely-associative synapses.
Thus, “focusing” is inefficient training for the “right brain.” The “right brain” wisely gets off the “train of thought” to invoke the “galaxy” (or at least the circus)!
For instance, near-concurrent reading of multiple books (or articles from diverse magazines) feeds and exercises creativity.
In short, innovation is served by switching between (or combining) subject matters. So, beware the absolute rule against multi-tasking. Beware strict time and object management. These are not suited
seed-beds for development of out-of-box originality.
Each rule serves its purpose. Let us not become so enamored that we press it farther, favoring linear thought while harming lateral.
And, let us remember: Lateral thought IS productive! It needs its tools of production, one of which is multitasking. So, for creativity’s sake, seek opportunities to multitask. And, often, to discipline output, avoid them!
not-so-anonymous-julie
Ive had a few conversations lately about multitasking, and have also concluded that its not particularly possible. And that some things (like carrying on a phone conversation while typing) are impossible, some kind of mental data interference. Whereas listening to a podcast while drawing, even with a bit of thought involved, is possible, because my brain seems to handle the information differently and thus can process it all at once.
-Julie
(by way of DGS and, of course, Peishan)
c.a.l --- milos chmel
great article + comments.
I conclude by that it reminds me of unix philosophy. You can have any (;)) amount of different tasks at time. Your process (1 task you focus on) is solid block. Blocks comunnicate “only” trough one matter – text.
blocks can be imagined as (black;) boxes of lego you add together to “make a dinosarur” or “write a letter”.
i think the gui interfaces miss the unified communication layer (text). i know there is xml…, but i ment some graphs and stacking of programs so that they form input/output.
this kind of unification on some level (applications, commands in application…) is worth investigating. it just has to be used where appropriate
Ebiye
I have to respectfully disagree with your article. One you use yourself as proof that all humans can’t multitask. You make the assumption that your brain is an indication of how other people handle multiple tasks.
It took me 7 seconds to do the tasks concurrently, and 11 seconds to the tasks sequentially.
If you don’t believe I can multitask check out my video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgrDrlGLvFk
Zayıflama Lida Fx15 Ve Biber Hapı Zlfvbh
The most effective “multitasking” only occurs when you are performing a motor skill that is familiar (typing on a keyboard, playing on a piano, kniting) and something new (like talking).