Comments on: One Thing at a Time and the Multitasking Myth

By: c.a.l --- milos chmel

c.a.l --- milos chmel — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:20:54 +0000

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

By: not-so-anonymous-julie

not-so-anonymous-julie — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:17:12 +0000

I�ve had a few conversations lately about multitasking, and have also concluded that it�s 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)

By: Barry Sindlinger

Barry Sindlinger — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:22:01 +0000

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!

By: Nick Buzikashvili

Nick Buzikashvili — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:42:04 +0000

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 SIGIR�06 paper strikes with scare, I�ll send this paper by e-mail ;-)

By: Aza Raskin

Aza Raskin — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:04:04 +0000

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…

By: Massimo Dentico

Massimo Dentico — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:39:12 +0000

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

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:51:10 +0000

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.

By: [ICR]

[ICR] — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 14:45:13 +0000

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.

By: [ICR]

[ICR] — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:49:45 +0000

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.