I specifically post that article to point fingers at people like Scojo, who watches TV while playing video games. Also pointing at everyone who can't sit still and play an entire board game without getting up or doing anything besides the game. Also Katsu who has his laptop and Internets it up while playing tabletop RPGs.
It's one thing if you really have a condition that prevents you from focusing. It's another thing entirely if you keep switching between things and claim you have a handle on all of them.
It's also annoying to me because I do focus on one thing at a time. When one or more of those activities is with other people, and they do not focus on the thing for the entire time it is extremely bothersome.
I'm not one of those "get distracted" people, but I've wondered quite a bit about what counts as a "single thing" in this multi-tasking paradigm. Does listening to music while doing anything else count? Does using my five foot-pedals, keyboard, and thirteen button mouse while keeping count on both my and my opponents cooldown timers and ability durations count as more than one thing? Cause I can do that, and most people can't.
Thinking of the human brain in the context of single-thread vs. multi-thread is a little bit awkward. We're always doing thousands of little things, but we're not counting those. At what point is something a single activity vs. multiple activities.
I'm not one of those "get distracted" people, but I've wondered quite a bit about what counts as a "single thing" in this multi-tasking paradigm. Does listening to music while doing anything else count? When I juggle my five foot-pedals, keyboard, thirteen button mouse, and keep count on both my and my opponents cooldown timers and ability durations count as more than one thing? Cause I can do that, and most people can't.
Not to mention driving. Observing all the traffic around you, steering, throttle control, brake control, indication, hazard observation and recognition. Throw in shifting gears and paying attention to the speed of the engine, if you're one of the Manual transmission master race and not a filthy automatic peasant with your babby's first transmission.
I'm not one of those "get distracted" people, but I've wondered quite a bit about what counts as a "single thing" in this multi-tasking paradigm. Does listening to music while doing anything else count? Does using my five foot-pedals, keyboard, and thirteen button mouse while keeping count on both my and my opponents cooldown timers and ability durations count as more than one thing? Cause I can do that, and most people can't.
I'm typing this right now, but I'm not thinking at all about my fingers or the keys I'm pressing. I have typed so much, that it has become muscle memory. That leaves my brain entirely free to think about the content of the post. Someone who can not abstract away the act of typing will have serious trouble. Maybe they come up with the content, and then type it afterwards. Maybe they alternate between deciding what to type and typing it. I simply think the content, and my fingers press the keys without any conscious thought whatsoever.
But that thinking of the content of this post, it can't be abstracted away. How could anyone possibly have their fingers automatically write coherently while their entire conscious mind focuses on another task? Imagine if I could read a book and type this at the same time. That is some Kellhus territory.
One thing is no particular set of activities. It varies on the person based on what tasks their mind has been able to abstract away.
But if it varies on the person and multi-tasking is only doing two-things that the specific individual can't do simultaneously, aren't the goal-posts infinite?
If you're listening to music and doing anything else that isn't an automatic activity (e.g., freeway driving), you're either not actually paying attention to the music, or you're not actually paying attention to the activity.
But if it varies on the person and multi-tasking is only doing two-things that the specific individual can't do simultaneously, aren't the goal-posts infinite?
The point is that testing shows MOST people are VERY wrong about what they can actually multitask, and do poorly at ALL tasks attempted simultaneously, while at the same time are deluded into thinking that they're doing BETTER.
But if it varies on the person and multi-tasking is only doing two-things that the specific individual can't do simultaneously, aren't the goal-posts infinite?
The point is that testing shows MOST people are VERY wrong about what they can actually multitask, and do poorly at ALL tasks attempted simultaneously.
I'm not disagreeing with the study, but I'm wondering what the boundaries actually are for the terminology. How would we recognize that any person is better than another at multi-tasking? How do we define that? Strictly who can text-while-driving the best? Do we mitigate that entirely once we've built a better device to do both at the same time?
They'll have a person listen to, say, a radio news broadcast while simultaneously engaging in some other activity.
The person will typically perform worse on both recall of anything said in the broadcast, and on the activity, than they would if they did either separately.
Listening to a podcast while you're surfing the web or coding or something? Constant context switching in your brain, and measurably poor recall of any content from either activity.
You can appear to do multiple things simultaneously because your brain compresses them into a single activity.
With one hand on the table pound the We Will Rock You Beat.
Simultaneously with the other hand pound Beethoven's Fifth.
Can't do it, can you?! The hands will merge, or falter. But if you practice it enough you can eventually merge this two handed beat in your mind into a single activity.
Try turning on a podcast while writing an essay. You aren't allowed to pause the podcast. You must finish the essay when the podcast ends. While you were consciously thinking about what to write, your brain literally didn't hear what the podcast was saying. If someone quizzed you on that podcast, you would fail. So would every person ever.
So is a person that is better than average at multi-tasking simply score higher on that one juncture than another person? If a person did recall all the things from both contexts, would they be considered good at multi-tasking? What if they were "podcast listening" and "coding" experts? If both activities and perfect recall were trained to the instinctual level that apreche mentions, does that no-longer count?
Listening to a podcast while you're surfing the web or coding or something? Constant context switching in your brain, and measurably poor recall of any content from either activity.
Indeed. I tried it once after I got my first iPhone and found out that I couldn't focus on what needed to be done and wasn't getting much out of the podcast either. I even sometimes have issues listening to music with lyrics while coding as my brain wants to try to "sing along" with the lyrics. I can only do instrumental music while coding.
I pretty much only listen to podcasts while driving, at the gym, walking the dog, or while getting dressed in the morning. They're the only times where I can get enough out of the podcast and not have it interfere with more important activities.
It also occurs to me that coding is one of those "never the same" things. If it was the same, you would re-use the code. Podcast listening is also different each time. I'm curious how this would be with vastly more repeatable activities like the mentioned keeping a drum beat.
So is a person that is better than average at multi-tasking simply score higher on that one juncture than another person? If a person did recall all the things from both contexts, would they be considered good at multi-tasking? What if they were "podcast listening" and "coding" experts? If both activities and perfect recall were trained to the instinctual level that apreche mentions, does that no-longer count?
I'm breathing, blinking my eyes, swallowing salive, digesting food, typing, sitting, and writing this post all simultaneously! That's like seven things. OH SHIT I AM A GOD.
You are worrying too much about the semantic meaning of the world multi-task. The point is that each person can only focus their conscious cognition on one thing at any given moment in time. Something like keeping a drum beat (if you have practiced it), typing, or having a song playing that you are not consciously processing is no different than breathing.
My point is, if someone reduces any two activities to the level of breathing through experience, does it no-longer count? If a person masters kung-fu and Confucian philosophy and can fight dudes while explaining the nature of their conflict and how to fix them, does that no-longer count? And if that's the case... I think the goal-posts seem infinite. Whereas if it does count, then I think a person can become good at multi-tasking a specific thing. Then there's the question of if there exists anyone that is naturally inclined to score higher or lower than average at any particular "multi-task" regardless of skill level (meaning you would need two people with equal skill level in both tasks to test), but I think that's beyond our means to really measure.
My point is, if someone reduces any two activities to the level of breathing through experience, does it no-longer count? If a person masters kung-fu and Confucian philosophy and can fight dudes while explaining the nature of their conflict and how to fix them, does that no-longer count? And if that's the case... I think the goal-posts seem infinite. Whereas if it does count, then I think a person can become good at multi-tasking a specific thing. Then there's the question of if there exists anyone that is naturally inclined to score higher or lower than average at any particular "multi-task" regardless of skill level (meaning you would need two people with equal skill level in both tasks to test), but I think that's beyond our means to really measure.
The goal posts are not infinite because there is a limit to human ability. There are some tasks that require conscious attention no matter how much practice you have put in. Michael Jordan doesn't have to think about dribbling or the mechanics of shooting while he plays Basketball, but he still needs to pay attention to the game at all times. That is the limit of the human brain.
I like to watch tv or listen to stuff when I'm crafting, sewing, forging armor, etc. Then again you could say the crafting doesn't involve higher level thinking so of course I can remember what I watched/heard while doing it.
So is a person that is better than average at multi-tasking simply score higher on that one juncture than another person? If a person did recall all the things from both contexts, would they be considered good at multi-tasking? What if they were "podcast listening" and "coding" experts? If both activities and perfect recall were trained to the instinctual level that apreche mentions, does that no-longer count?
I'm breathing, blinking my eyes, swallowing salive, digesting food, typing, sitting, and writing this post all simultaneously! That's like seven things. OH SHIT I AM A GOD.
If you consider "use of the Autonomic nervous system" to be multitasking, then I suppose you might have a point.
Were you actually doing something else when you picked that example?
For a while I tried to double my media consumption by listening to jazz albums while reading Infinite Jest. Sail thought that was bullshit, because you need to either actively listen or actively read, and doing both at once is impossible. He was right!
1) I think some people are extrapolating some extra things from the research that might not be supported.
2) The notion of what counts as multi-tasking is pretty vague. I'm inclined to evaluate each specific "multi-task" independently and stay out of treating multi-tasking as a category of its own to avoid confusing things.
1) I think some people are extrapolating some extra things from the research that might not be supported.
2) The notion of what counts as multi-tasking is pretty vague. I'm inclined to evaluate each specific "multi-task" independently and stay out of treating multi-tasking as a category of its own to avoid confusing things.
2) You are the only one who seems to be confused about the definition of multi tasking.
Only because I'm not willing to jump to unsupported speculation.
Basically from the report:
multi-task: Engaging in multiple tasks aimed at attaining multiple goals simultaneously. Multi-tasking involves concurrent performance of two or more functionally independent tasks with each of the tasks having unique goals involving distinct stimuli (or stimulus attributes), mental transformation, and response outputs.
Only because I'm not willing to jump to unsupported speculation.
Almost nothing can truly by multitasked beyond the lowest level motor actions like the physical act of typing.
Even freeway driving. Sure, it's "automatic" in the sense that you can move your mind to other things without any real difficulty. But, if you've done so, and an emergent situation occurs, your reaction time is FAR worse than if you hadn't been listening to the radio.
Humans basically can't multitask in any real sense, and claiming that one can is correlated to being worse at it.
You always sacrifice something from one activity if you share its time with another activity. Always.
1) I think some people are extrapolating some extra things from the research that might not be supported.
2) The notion of what counts as multi-tasking is pretty vague. I'm inclined to evaluate each specific "multi-task" independently and stay out of treating multi-tasking as a category of its own to avoid confusing things.
2) You are the only one who seems to be confused about the definition of multi tasking.
Says the guy who used something which is almost entirely autonomous as his example.
1) I think some people are extrapolating some extra things from the research that might not be supported.
2) The notion of what counts as multi-tasking is pretty vague. I'm inclined to evaluate each specific "multi-task" independently and stay out of treating multi-tasking as a category of its own to avoid confusing things.
2) You are the only one who seems to be confused about the definition of multi tasking.
Says the guy who used something which is almost entirely autonomous as his example.
Eh, the report even says that some people are actually fairly good at multi-tasking. They tend to be the opposite of the people that try to do it or think they are good at it though. :P
1) I think some people are extrapolating some extra things from the research that might not be supported.
2) The notion of what counts as multi-tasking is pretty vague. I'm inclined to evaluate each specific "multi-task" independently and stay out of treating multi-tasking as a category of its own to avoid confusing things.
2) You are the only one who seems to be confused about the definition of multi tasking.
Says the guy who used something which is almost entirely autonomous as his example.
Uh, my sarcastic point-making example. Yes.
Do I need to start pulling out "I'm taking the piss" blue fonts again? Or was blue the "I'm being facetious" part of the rainbow? Either way, no shit. Your sarcasm couldn't have been more ham-fisted if you were literally typing with fists made of ham.
Though, it wouldn't be the worst example you've ever used. You've never been terribly good at examples.
Comments
It's one thing if you really have a condition that prevents you from focusing. It's another thing entirely if you keep switching between things and claim you have a handle on all of them.
It's also annoying to me because I do focus on one thing at a time. When one or more of those activities is with other people, and they do not focus on the thing for the entire time it is extremely bothersome.
Thinking of the human brain in the context of single-thread vs. multi-thread is a little bit awkward. We're always doing thousands of little things, but we're not counting those. At what point is something a single activity vs. multiple activities.
But that thinking of the content of this post, it can't be abstracted away. How could anyone possibly have their fingers automatically write coherently while their entire conscious mind focuses on another task? Imagine if I could read a book and type this at the same time. That is some Kellhus territory.
One thing is no particular set of activities. It varies on the person based on what tasks their mind has been able to abstract away.
Most people listen to music as background noise.
They'll have a person listen to, say, a radio news broadcast while simultaneously engaging in some other activity.
The person will typically perform worse on both recall of anything said in the broadcast, and on the activity, than they would if they did either separately.
Listening to a podcast while you're surfing the web or coding or something? Constant context switching in your brain, and measurably poor recall of any content from either activity.
With one hand on the table pound the We Will Rock You Beat.
Simultaneously with the other hand pound Beethoven's Fifth.
Can't do it, can you?! The hands will merge, or falter. But if you practice it enough you can eventually merge this two handed beat in your mind into a single activity.
Try turning on a podcast while writing an essay. You aren't allowed to pause the podcast. You must finish the essay when the podcast ends. While you were consciously thinking about what to write, your brain literally didn't hear what the podcast was saying. If someone quizzed you on that podcast, you would fail. So would every person ever.
I pretty much only listen to podcasts while driving, at the gym, walking the dog, or while getting dressed in the morning. They're the only times where I can get enough out of the podcast and not have it interfere with more important activities.
You are worrying too much about the semantic meaning of the world multi-task. The point is that each person can only focus their conscious cognition on one thing at any given moment in time. Something like keeping a drum beat (if you have practiced it), typing, or having a song playing that you are not consciously processing is no different than breathing.
...I don't know what my point is. :-P
Were you actually doing something else when you picked that example?
1) I think some people are extrapolating some extra things from the research that might not be supported.
2) The notion of what counts as multi-tasking is pretty vague. I'm inclined to evaluate each specific "multi-task" independently and stay out of treating multi-tasking as a category of its own to avoid confusing things.
Basically from the report:
Even freeway driving. Sure, it's "automatic" in the sense that you can move your mind to other things without any real difficulty. But, if you've done so, and an emergent situation occurs, your reaction time is FAR worse than if you hadn't been listening to the radio.
Humans basically can't multitask in any real sense, and claiming that one can is correlated to being worse at it.
You always sacrifice something from one activity if you share its time with another activity. Always.
Though, it wouldn't be the worst example you've ever used. You've never been terribly good at examples.