
If You Think You're Good At Multitasking, You Probably Aren't - richeyrw
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/24/170160105/if-you-think-youre-good-at-multitasking-you-probably-arent
======
nnq
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.

~~~
blindhippo
I've never believed Multitasking exists as any sort of skill or ability.

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".

~~~
path411
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.

------
Osmium
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.

~~~
nnq
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.

~~~
Osmium
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.

------
taeric
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.

~~~
bonaldi
"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.

------
danso
From the OP:

> _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).

------
deveac
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?

~~~
hermannj314
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.

------
btilly
Here are my rules for using the phone in the car.

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.

~~~
eterpstra
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?

~~~
LukeShu
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.

~~~
afterburner
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.

------
path411
This just seems like a classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect>

------
tjic
A simple algorithm to determine if you're good at multitasking:

1) you aren't

------
readme
"Good at multitasking" is one thing I would see as a huge red flag if it ever
appeared on a programmer's resume.

~~~
Shish2k
Dang, all this time I thought that putting effort into learning Erlang would
/improve/ my job prospects :(

------
j_baker
This sounds related to Restraint Bias:
<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_bias>

------
pasbesoin
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.

------
pjmlp
Well, my brain does multitask.

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?!

~~~
TeMPOraL
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.

------
izietto
I don't think I'm good at multitasking, so probably I am!

------
gadders
I am excellent at multi-tasking.

I have read and absorbed a great deal of both technical and non-technical
literature whilst on the toilet.

------
blissofbeing
Is juggling (balls) considered multitasking? Because i'm fairly good at that.

------
jaequery
another example of taxpayers money well used ...

