If You Think You're Good At Multitasking, You Probably Aren't
npr.org
npr.org
If someone is "really good" at texting while driving (let's say top 1%), it doesn't mean that he is anymore than average at a different multitasking task, like solving math problems while remembering a string of letters!
For a computer any bunch of tasks can be considered equivalent, they are just calculations (yeah, even in this case we have to ignore a lot to say this but bare with me), but the human brain uses different physical subsystems to handle different tasks. So any multitasking performance depends specifically on the tasks being multitasked. Yes, there are things like general attention and interpresonal differences in it, but for the wetware in our skulls, the idea of "general multitasking" and being better or worse at it is bullshit imho.
We? I certainly don't. Multitasking is a definite myth. Once you switch context your brain has a random OOM killer that will completely destroy your train of thought in other tasks. There is no swap. I suppose swap could be paper, or your computer...
But it's a very high latency swap, and the delay for getting back into flow... forget it.
I recently read an article here - http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2007/Crit_Thi... - which asks the same question abou critical thinking. It essentially argues that critical thinking skills cannot truly be taught apart from a particular context.
Interesting questions!
The hypothesis was that more impulsive and easily distracted people were more likely to use a phone while driving. And that such folk would then claim to be better at multitasking to rationalize their behavior. The experiment was to test the first part of this.
Humans. Can't. Multitask.
We can switch our attention from task to task in rapid succession and call it multitasking, but that only results in doing many things poorly.
I always giggle at the job descriptions that say they are looking for a "great multitasker at home in a fast paced environment".
I can move both of my hands at the same time, or rub my belly and pat my head. Both of these examples are me performing 2 functions simultaneously. I can do these because basic motor skills have become a trivial task through my years of development.
Just like muscle memory, which can be highly developed in professional athletes, I think many tasks can be developed to the point of being able to multitask (like when someone says something becomes 2nd nature, or natural reaction).
As others have mentioned, I don't think multitasking is a proficiency in itself, but rather when you become proficient enough at a task your brain can internalize and multitask it.
It's time this misconception ended. I can't remember the amount of times I've read something like "but only 50% of people can be above average!" To put it another way, I imagine most of you reading this comment have an above average number of legs.
It's also correct if you know that the data fits a normal distribution, or something similar.
So yes, it's not, in general, statistically impossible for most people to be above the mean on some metric. But there are several interpretations of that statement in which it is correct.
People's intuition of stats is not that bad actually, but most invariably fuck up when it comes to mapping their fuzzy intuitive concepts to mathematical concepts: they make the mistake of mapping their "intuitive average" with the "mathematical average" when instead it should map to the "median". And yes, for people that understand the word "average" as "arithmetic mean" (as Excel does and most technically literate people do), there is no such "intuitive average" and its wrong mapping to math. But for "lesser minded" people it works like described above, and in their understanding of the words (incorrect... but real, as this how their minds work), the phrase "but only 50% of people can be above average!" is actually valid.
Statistics are so often abused that rigour is more than just a matter of pedantry. Perhaps if journalists stopped having such a loose relationship with statistics we'd all be better off.
Not that I think you or the article is lying. But I think you are confused by the article's use of the word "average". To you, it means "mean". To the article, it means "median". If you had both used the word you meant, there wouldn't be an issue.
Often you'll see a question like: "Are you better, worse, or about average at doing multiple tasks at the same time?"
Writing the question that way is letting the person answering the question set the scope. Average of what? The general population? Quantum physicists? Secretaries? Nursing home residents? Peers?
And computer analogies are terrible here. My body is ridiculously good at multitasking in ways that I have learned through years of doing over and over. I never have to think about how to breath and walk, walk and talk, etc. Oddly, in some respects I'm terrible at talking and typing. Clearly something is going on with a shared resource. (Off topic, but there is a great Feynman video talking about the differences in how some people count in their heads leading to different people being able to do other things at the same time.)
None of this is to say I'm trying to argue for texting while driving. But to think that it is simply a matter of multitasking without some degree of training being involved seems disingenuous. When I first learned standard transmission, talking while driving was difficult to consider. Now, I can eat a taco in mild traffic.
Which is often the case. When you understanding something well enough to be good at it, you also understand the limitations of your knowledge, and are more likely to rate yourself poorly as a result.
> They asked student volunteers whether they used cellphones while driving, and whether they were good at multitasking. Then they tested the students' multitasking ability by asking them to solve math problems while remembering random strings of letters.
> They found that the people who multitasked the most in real life — the impulsive risk-takers — were actually much worse at juggling tasks than people who rarely drove while phoning.
> Even worse, these demon multitaskers thought they were terrific at it, though the cold, hard data proved they weren't.
So a possible upshot is that it's possible that you can be more efficient when multi-tasking. It's just that the kinds of people who multi-task are often the kind of people who shouldn't be doing it (and thus bring down the efficiency scores of those who are able to hack it).
If it's just smaller tasks, -just line them up and knock them out. Even a quick email deserves attention to grammar and spelling and can be undermined by a typo while talking on the phone. What are you really gaining?
In this respect, your post indicates you are an excellent at multitasking.
To add to your point. I've worked in a call center environment where there were two schools of employee: those that documented their interaction with the customer as it was happening (the multitasker) and the employee that did it after the call had ended (the single tasker).
Now, all things being equal, the employee that was not multi-tasking probably didn't make spelling mistakes in their call documentation and might have had marginally better engagement with the customer. However, none of those things were metrics that actually needed to be optimized. So the employee was choosing to optimize one dimension (documentation quality / engagement) at the expense of another (duration).
On the other hand, the multitasking employee could handle 10% more call volume at the end of each day which reduced customer hold time and call abandon rates, which improved a metric our customers (and management) actually did care about.
I'm not making some universal claim. I'm just saying in this particular anecdote, multitasking produced outcomes more aligned with objectives given by management.
1. As little as I reasonably can. (Ah, but what is reasonable?)
2. When I need to, as short as I can. If you call me, my usual response is, "I'm driving, can I call back later?"
3. If I have a choice, in a place where driving is as safe as possible. (Freeway driving requires much less active attention than city streets, as long as you can see what is going on waaay ahead.)
4. The road always comes first. If I catch myself failing to have done regular scans of mirrors and location of nearby cars, this phone call is over.
All of that said, I still feel a minor twinge of guilt every time I call home to give an ETA for when I'll get there. But not much, because it would be more dangerous for me to take the time to get off the road, park, make my call, then get back on the interstate.
Compare to remaining in your lane, in smooth traffic, when you can see well ahead and know it remains smooth, while making a call and saying, "Just letting you know it looks like I'll get there around 8:20." "OK, drive safely." click (Any other variant of this conversation ends with, "I can't talk, I'm driving." click)
If I needed to make a longer call, of course I'd leave the road. But for this, I believe that just making it is safer.
If someone calls, I let it ring and go to voicemail. If I'm expecting something that may be urgent, I will pull over as soon as practical and check it. Otherwise, I will wait until I get to my destination. Really, the vast majority of the time it's something that can wait. In fact, I've never had a situation in which something critical depended on me answering right then. I tend to try to avoid getting into such situations.
How do I give an ETA? I do it before I leave. Sure, traffic might be a bit bad, and slow me down a bit, but usually that can be reasonably well predicted (based on rush hour, weekends that lots of people are travelling, etc). If my prediction is wrong? Well, life goes on. People got on just fine before the invention of cell phones. If it's a multi-hour journey and I will be substantially delayed, again, I pull off to make the call; usually there's a rest stop somewhere reasonably accessible.
Do you really think that your life is so important that you must put other people's lives at risk just to give an ETA of when you'll get there, and you can't be bothered to just plan a little in advance?
Of course, most of the time when I'm in the car, it's with someone else. I generally avoid single-occupant trips. I commute via public transit (where I can talk on the phone all I want safely, though generally limit it to be polite to other passengers) or bicycle (where again, I pull off if I need to make a call). My trips in the car are generally only for longer trips, which I share with someone else, and I can ask them to call or answer for me if I need.
It sounds like your situation and/or value system is different.
1) you aren't
Their multi-tasking was a source of endless problems. But "multi-tasking" was the "norm" and the "best practice".
One reason I have very little sympathy for those now proclaiming the ills of multi-tasking. The worst seem to be the same fad-management oriented folks with no deep insight, and I fear -- where I do not already observe -- that the initiatives are not genuine.
One example: Multi-tasking is "bad" for those who count. But they continue to pile it onto the average worker.
P.S. To clarify my concern about such people and their attitude: "It's my performance that is important. (Whereas my dog could do your job.)" Formerly: "my performance" == multi-tasking. Now: "my performance" == not multi-tasking.
But that says nothing about the jobs under their control. In fact, the less they themselves multi-task, the more they may force it down onto their reports. To pick up the slack, as it were.
How would we do anything if our brain would stop processing arm movements while processing visual information?
Or stop talking while moving the head?
These are all forms of multitasking, or does the brain do sequential processing for all required information?!
I have read and absorbed a great deal of both technical and non-technical literature whilst on the toilet.