Why do we believe in this concept of general multitasking?
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.
>Why do we believe in this concept of general multitasking?
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.
This seems to miss the point of the study. (At least as portrayed by the article.)
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.
It is a good question whether or not something as general as multitasking exists as a skill apart from a particular context.
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.
What makes you believe that humans can't multitask?
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.
Yeah, the "solving math problems while remembering a string of letters" it's a little bit out of context, while comparing it with another type of multitasking like answering email and talking on the phone.
From the article: "Seventy percent of the study participants, all college undergraduates, said they thought they were better than average at multitasking. Of course, that's statistically impossible" [my emphasis]
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.
When people say "better than average", their intuition tends to be "better than half" (the concept here is the median), as opposed to "better than a particular number that happens to be the average value of that hing" (the concept here is the average or arithmetic mean). And in this context indeed only 50% can be above median.
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.
You make a fair point. I'm happy to accept that colloquially when someone says "better than average" they mean "better than the median" but it's when an article, such as this, uses strong language like "[it's a] statistical impossibility" that it irks me, because that's a definitive factual statement that's not true (or, at best, not well defined enough to be meaningful).
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.
Well, it would be correct if they were using "average" to mean "median".
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.
Even if the person meant "median", the author's sentence is still ambiguous: It is definitely possible that 70% of _college students_ are "above median" at multitasking than the _general population_.
If I recall correctly, this was the first lesson in Darrell Huff's "How to Lie With Statistics". Exploit the ambiguity in the word "average", which can mean median, mode, or mean at different times.
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.
IMO, survey results like that are often indicative of a bad survey question, or a survey question hunting for a desired outcome.
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?
In surveys like that, it's also good to give examples, so the respondent can gauge their own experiences against the survey scale; otherwise you are measuring their self-ranking on their own value scale, which hasn't been registered with the survey's scale.
The headline cracks me up. Has the implication that if you think you're terrible at it, you might be good.
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.
"Has the implication that if you think you're terrible at it, you might be good."
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).
I do better focusing on one thing at a time. Instead of multitasking, I choose one task, but allow myself to be interrupted only by small tasks that can be resolved on the spot or within a minute or so. Anything larger goes in the queue. There is something to be said for immediately addressing concerns of customers, vendors, and employees, -even if it could wait. Pays great dividends if your task involves other people.
Most of the projects that I focus on one at a time don't suffer if I break off for a minute to send an email or schedule a resource.
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?
To me, the definition of a person that is good at multitasking isn't the person that sees the least reduction in overall productivity when task-switching. To me, the person that is the best at multitasking is the person that knows where that reduction is irrelevant to the metrics that matter.
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.
Here are my rules for using the phone in the car: I don't.
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.
If you find traffic predictable, you probably don't live in Los Angeles. As for lives at risk - my decision to commute to a client is orders of magnitude more dangerous to people around me than the momentary distraction of letting my wife know whether I'll be able to provide child care. I'm personally OK with doing that, so long as I take steps to minimize the risk to myself and others.
It sounds like your situation and/or value system is different.
I was nodding my head in agreement up until that last bit. How is it more dangerous to pull off the interstate and park (assuming you are using an offramp and not just the shoulder) than making a phone call?
The most dangerous points in a normal freeway drive are merging and lane changes. To exit and park you do multiple lane changes off and on, merge, and have to navigate local traffic signals.
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.
I think GP probably was talking about using the shoulder. However, keep in mind that both merging on to the interstate, and city driving are significantly more dangerous than interstate driving. Combine that with the fact that calling to give an ETA is a lot less focus-consuming that most calls, and it is plausible that staying on the interstate is safer.
Stopping on the shoulder for such a trivial reason as giving an ETA is usually illegal and a bad idea anyways, so it shouldn't even be an option to be considered.
One problem I have is that in traditional organizational structures, it can be difficult to call "bullshit" on what I've found to be some of the worst multi-taskers: Your management.
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.
Those are different kind of multitasking. They are done behind the scenes. The problem starts when you try to multitask on conscious activities, like programming and having a conversation, or texting and driving. Those tasks compete with each other for high-level processing power, which humans have barely enough for one task.
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.