« Some quick links... | Main | Clicker trained by our email »

Multitasking makes us stupid?

Multitask_1

I'm typing this while talking on my cell phone to one person and IMing another. Am I fooling myself that I can actually do these three things without a loss of quality? No... because I know I can't. I understand that what most of us call multitasking comes with a steep price tag.

But where I once believed that the myth of multitasking was about time (that doing four things simultaneously takes much longer than to do those same four things in sequence), scientists now know it's also about quality. And it gets worse... it's not just that the quality of those four things in parallel will suffer, it's that your ability to think and learn may suffer. Some researchers believe that all this constant, warpspeed, always-on multitasking is causing young people, especially, to become less able to follow any topic deeply. (more on that in another post)

Perhaps the biggest problem of all, though, is that the majority of people doing the most media multitasking have a big-ass blind spot on just how much they suck at it.

We believe we can e-mail and talk on the phone at the same time, with little or no degradation of either communication.

We believe we can do homework while watching a movie.

We believe we can surf the web while talking to our kids/spouse/lover/co-worker.

But we can't! (Not without a hit on every level--time, quality, and the ability to think deeply)

From the current cover story in Time magazine:

"Decades of research (not to mention common sense) indicate that the quality of one's output and depth of thought deteriorate as one attends to ever more tasks."

And according to Jordan Grafman, chief of the cognitive neuroscience section at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke:

"Kids that are instant messaging while doing homework, playing games online and watching TV, I predict, aren't going to do well in the long run."

And from this study on young people and media use:

"Nearly one-third (30%) of young people say they either talk on the phone, instant message, watch TV, listen to music, or surf the Web for fun “most of the time” they’re doing homework."

The news is not all bad, of course -- from the Time article:

"The breadth of their knowledge and their ability to find answers has just burgeoned...but my impression is that their ability to write clear, focused and extended narratives has eroded somewhat."

And yes, we are all able to do some form of multitasking--some can even win an Olympic gold medal listening to an iPod. But the brain science helps explain this--we can do two things at once as long as one of them is something we've practiced so much that it doesn't require any sort of cognitive planning (there's a lot about this in the Time article).

The main problem today is that cognitive overload--provoked by so much media to attend to--is happening at a pace our poor little hunter/gatherer brains never evolved to deal with, and there's only so much that neural rewiring can do. And of course this is all very recent. When I was in high school, there were no iPods. There were no cell phones. No web, email, or IMing. No blackberrys. No PSP. (How did we ever survive? asks my daughter.) Multitasking for me in high school meant a ripping game of 1-bit Pong while simultaneously flirting with the geek from my history class.

Whenever I talk about the big myth of multitasking, people always come up to tell me how they themselves just "have the kind of brain that can do this." Riiiiiight. They don't. I don't. You don't. And maybe you'd realize it if you turn off your cell phone, disable IM, mute the little "ding" alarm that says you've got email, and just sit there for a few moments.

The big problem for most young people, it seems, is that they don't know how to "just sit there." They get the shakes after just a few minutes without media stimulation. But that is also a whole separate topic I'll get to very soon...

One of the most interesting things discussed in the Time article is that neuroscientists have established the specific area of the brain responsible for context switching. And unfortunately for some of us, it appears that this part of the brain performs less well as our brain ages. In a nutshell, the older we get, the less quickly and effectively we can multitask. But... most parents of teenagers already know that we have no frickin' idea how our kids manage to do what they do simultaneously. The key issue, though, is that while we now know they're better at it than we (the parents) are, they aren't half as good at it as they think they are.

And chances are, you aren't as good at it as you think you are. ; )

Posted by Kathy on March 22, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/220252/4510961

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Multitasking makes us stupid?:

» The Stupidity of Multitasking from The Bell Curve Scar
In Nurture Your Inner Slacker, I suggested a connection between multitasking and the lack of available time for thinking. To summarize: Many people respond to information overload and task overload by multitasking. As a result, due to to (a) taking o... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 22, 2006 8:53:02 PM

» Multitasking is only good for computers from David's blog
[Read More]

Tracked on Mar 23, 2006 5:41:16 AM

» multi-tasking in the news from silk and spinach
Goldratt's Theory of Constraints shows why multi-tasking delays everything we do and everyone who needs to work with us. Over a year later, I still haven't learned that lesson [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 24, 2006 1:58:56 AM

» Multi-tasking the Theory and theExample from Graham Chastney (oak-grove)
This morning I read this on creating passionate users: Perhaps the biggest problem of all, though, is that the majority of people doing the most media multitasking have a big-ass blind spot on just how much they suck at [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 24, 2006 9:18:12 AM

» Multitasking makes us stupid? from Startup Fever
Kathy Sierr asks whether multitasking makes us stupid: Im typing this while talking on my cell phone to one person and IMing another. Am I fooling myself that I can actually do these three things without a loss of quality? No because I ... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 27, 2006 6:05:55 PM

» The Programmer's Perfect Day from shuai
[Read More]

Tracked on Apr 1, 2006 7:11:45 AM

» Mac vs. Windows - It's All About The "Maximize" Button from Forever Geek
Chris argues over at resetiffbard.com that the fundamental difference between Windows and Mac users is not so much the user interface in general, but only certain specific characteristics of the UI. In particular, it's all about the "maximize" button... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 20, 2006 7:24:05 PM

» Questione di finestre from casperize 6.0
La scorsa settimana Christopher Cabanillas ha postato un’osservazione apparentemente banale sulle rispettive interfacce di OS X e Windows, ripresa due giorni fa e analizzata nelle considerazioni di J. Angelo Racoma su Forever Geek, da dove è infine ... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 22, 2006 5:52:13 AM

» The Multi-Tasking Myth from Coding Horror
In Quality Software Management: Systems Thinking, Gerald Weinberg proposed a rule of thumb to calculate the waste caused by project switching: Even adding a single project to your workload is profoundly debilitating by Weinberg's calculation. You lose... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 29, 2006 11:50:36 AM

» Multitasking vs. multigoaling from Muses et essais
I read this piece some time ago about how bad multitaskers could be at delivering quality job, and then, more recently pointed on the same blog, another post on the dangers of actually believing you can multitask. I was starting to feel badly bitten by... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 20, 2006 4:39:16 AM

» Links for Charles from ntschutta.com
The other day I gave a presentation with a set of links in it and when I mentioned that to my friend Charles (no, not that one) he said post them to the blog. So, let it never be said I dont listen to my constituents! First and foremost is an in... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 24, 2007 2:30:46 PM

Comments

It absolutely comes at a cost. Sometimes the cost might be worth paying. However, the long-term cost I question. I can definitely see a loss of "deep" ability among kids who are young and massively context switching (I think this is part of the overdosed diagnosis of ADD/ADHD). Again, I wonder if it is true for us who have gone "deep" (read: degrees, experience) and have to multitask at our jobs. I certainly know that my brain does a reboot on the drive home. And I know that at certain times I wouldn't be able to focus on a programming task unless left fully alone, uninterrupted, for a few hours to complete.

Posted by: JohnO | Mar 22, 2006 5:25:29 PM

I second JohnO's comment about "rebooting." My evening commute is a 40 minute bike ride and I can feel my thoughts slowing down. By the time I get home I can spend all evening on a single event (e.g. dinner, reading a book, a little hacking) and get a lot "accomplished." Ironically, it doesn't feel like "work."

We were having a discussion at work today about how much business we accomplish when we're home sick.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 22, 2006 5:55:22 PM

While I agreed this to a large extent, I wish to add that "multitasking" do also help our mind stay alert.(Or I should say preventing our brain bored by doing the same task continually for too much time)

Switching task at your wish stimulate your brain and enhance your performance without disrupting your work. It's the interruption that do harm the performance.

--
To avoid spam, please change all the "e" in my email address to "a" to email me.

Posted by: Cheong | Mar 22, 2006 6:30:45 PM

I think a lot of this comes from the avalanche of information sources that we need to deal with these days.

You take your typical information worker, and they will have a laptop with Internet, Email, Instant messaging, a deskphone, a cell phone, RSS, etc.

So there are multiple channels active at once PLUS we need to do our job. not to mention real-live humans interrupting us too!

One of the things I recommend is to cut down the chatter and compartmentalise much of it into seperate tasks. I eschew IM all together and do not have email set up to alert me to new mail. I get to is when the time is right.

I have blogged some techniques around this here http://www.techpersonality.com/productivity/

Cheers,
Simon

Posted by: Simon | Mar 22, 2006 6:37:36 PM

I agree with Simon. My email is set to only check once an hour, and I often shut it down altogether. Another thing I do is, when I'm on the phone, get up and walk away from my desk. That way I don't get tempted by the computer and can focus on what the other person is saying.

(I realize this is may be impossible at an office. I work at home, so it's easy for me to escape the computer.)

Posted by: Derek Scruggs | Mar 22, 2006 7:04:02 PM

Nice article, though I did only skim the last half - I was eatng lunch and talking to my cat at the same time.

Posted by: tristan | Mar 22, 2006 7:22:57 PM

i realise that most of this discussion seems to be about office or academic environments, but it may go a long way to explaining why people who work in a retail environment for long periods of time (per week, or over a number of years) become scatterbrained or anally, almost OCD about being organised... and why you can't find the things you want in a supermarket.

Posted by: adam | Mar 22, 2006 7:31:43 PM

Whoa there, Nelly!
***Still Very very early days for multitasking and our ancient hunter/gatherer brains. And Tech/Gadget cheapness and proliferation only s/t highlight this. --Possible we are simply on the cusp of a new type of Evo.

Traditional education systems simply Do Not teach parallelism or alt. mind techs. ->If you talk to any psychologist, most will tell you that singularity of thought is a Total Myth.
Each of us, -Ok, except for the really stupid ones, is experiencing several, at least 3-5, different opinions on events in our lives at any given time.

I.e. The different members of the boardroom in our heads: The CEO, The worrier, The accountant, The Frat Boy, The Wise Man, etc.

It is very possible that multitasking and parallelism can become viable tools in time. But we're still in that "Totally Suck at it" bracket of the Learning Curve.

***Everything Is A Skill. Each skill should be learned, practiced and revered for its unique role and benefits in the composite landscape.

If I'm facing down a Bear with a rifle in Idaho, the last thing I want to do is multitask. However, if I'm a certain type of stock trader, a type of multitasking is very helpful.


*My guess is women would ult. be better at M/T due to the enhanced connectivity in the corpus callosium. Maybe they could M/T while Men focus. Hmm...

perhaps there is a way to track down the world's best m/t-ers and learn what/how they do (it).

Posted by: Will | Mar 23, 2006 12:07:10 AM

A very real example is this site. This site has very long posts compared to the regular blog and I've found it difficult to sit still and just read it. In the time it took me to read this post, I couldn't help but fire up a new browser tab and check my mail; it just felt too weird to have my hands do nothing for so long.

Here's the reason I fired up a new browser tab: http://www.43folders.com/2005/11/11/the-myth-of-multitasking/

Posted by: Jack | Mar 23, 2006 1:12:01 AM

"Multitasking for me in high school meant a ripping game of 1-bit Pong while simultaneously flirting with the geek from my history class."

Where were these women at my school?

Posted by: Dr Nic | Mar 23, 2006 4:23:43 AM

I talked about this Time Magazine article and I think they are wrong. The biggest problem is the researchers don't remember what it was like when they were teenagers. I do believe children have a better ability to multitask than adults, but I don't believe it makes them unable to "think deeply."

http://www.quotationspage.com/weblog/2006-03-21-plugged-in-or-zoned-out/

They just don't remember what it was like so long ago, but I do. I didn't have an iPod or PSP, but I multitasked all the time. I listened to the radio while I did my homework. I watched movies while I talked with my friends. I did word searches while riding the bus. There were always ways to disconnect from the world, even back in the "dark ages" before iPod.

Even more importantly, I believe all of us can disconnect whether those gadgets are available to us or not. I could slip into a fantasy world during class without the help of IM or earbuds.

Scientists need to spend a little more time reading their old journals from junior high school.

Posted by: Laura Moncur | Mar 23, 2006 6:29:16 AM

This makes sense. It's probably why, as I age a bit, I can't handle MySpace and I prefer longer blog posts.

I've recently come to terms with the fact that I'm never going to be a competent programmer. My teenage brain spent too much time twitching from subject to subject, and my adult brain can't cram enough stuff in. And I agree with JohnO: uninterrupted time is crucial. There just isn't enough.

Posted by: Drew Bell | Mar 23, 2006 6:47:25 AM

No scientific evidence, but I have observed when playing video games with my 9 year old granddaughter that she sees and processes a lot more on the screen than I do. She follows every player's progress, keeps track of information in little boxes on the side that give status, and even offers me advice about what to do while running her own game. The closest I can come to something like this in my own life is to compare it with driving a car and managing a turn signal, windshield wiper, changing the CD in the player, turning a corner, watching the pedestrians and cars, and talking to someone on my hands-free phone all at once with no difficulty. My conclusion is that it's a matter of what you've practiced and trained yourself to do.

Have you seen and commented yet on the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" I'd really like to hear what you think about it.

Posted by: Virginia DeBolt | Mar 23, 2006 6:57:27 AM

Lately, I've been noticing that television programming or speakers or anything that happens in a linear way (i.e. unrolls over time) is becoming unbearably boring. Look at all the television shows--they're all edited to be flashy, to "pop", to jolt the viewer. But at the core of it, it's still the same amount of content--i.e. not much. I'd much rather be at the computer (or with a book) where I can skim, skip and go to something more interesting when what's in front of me becomes irrelevant to me. Or, an honest-to-goodness interaction with a person is much more interesting as well with give and take, etc.

Posted by: Nick | Mar 23, 2006 7:03:01 AM

It might not make me stupid, but it sure does make me sloppy! I am always amazed by my artist friends who claim that they can listen to audiobooks or music (any type ~ take your pick) while doing art. I can't do it. I forget what color I'm supposed to be using. I can't find my scissors. My paintbrush is hiding, even though it's right where it always has been.

Hey, maybe it *does* make me stupid after all!

Anyway, I thought that I was the only moron who couldn't divide up my brain that way while doing artwork. Hmmm...maybe I'm not the only one who can't, just the only one who will admit it!

Posted by: Cyndi L | Mar 23, 2006 7:30:07 AM

Thanks, Kathy, et al.:

We have some scientists at the University of Oregon working on these issues. See for example:

Edward Vogel, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience and head of the Visual Working Memory and Attention Lab:
http://www.uoregon.edu/newsstory.php?a=11.24.05-Vogel.html

Anthony Hornof (Computer & Information Science) and Ulrich Mayr (Psychology):
http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/18/4215beeb46d06

Also, amen to Paul's comment about the bike commute as a way to make a transition; mine is much shorter but it still does a lot of good.

All the best,

Andrew

Posted by: Andrew | Mar 23, 2006 9:18:30 AM

I miss being able to concentrate on one thing at a time. Being that focused and involved was fun.

That said, I realized the other day that our five year old never, ever sits still without any entertainment. He's used to the radio, TV, computer or a person at all times (if he's sitting still.) Then I realized I don't either. I always have a book, my iPod, my cell phone, something!, at all times.

It's a media entertainment world.

Posted by: Stormy Peters | Mar 23, 2006 10:16:02 AM

Sure there is a cost, but you are also able to perform more tasks, i think its more like industry and handcrafts, one thing is not necessarily of less or more quality than the other, but industry is always quicker and more cost efficient, some times you have to cut corners to achieve higher levels of performance, so multitasking is not really the dreaded thing everyone is talking about, like all things in life moderation is the key, some times multitasking if better some times it's not ^_^

Posted by: fiend | Mar 23, 2006 10:24:29 AM

it's a matter of chunking

one thing can easily broken into four and then you'd claim you were being forced to multitask against your will again...

Posted by: R K | Mar 23, 2006 12:15:50 PM

Despite the numerous reports and findings, it seems like users are going to continue to multi-task. So, does the question become how can we best aid the user's learning (and subsequently the use of our application/site) knowing that he or she may be IMing friends or talking on the cell phone etc. while at our site?

Posted by: jessi | Mar 23, 2006 1:19:56 PM

I spoke yesterday with the CEO of a small midwestern marketing consultancy. I asked him what skills he seeks in new talent for his firm. His answer (in the order he provided):
1. strong attention to detail
2. good MULTI-TASKER
3. brilliant writer

Go figure!

Posted by: Curt | Mar 23, 2006 3:11:59 PM

If we may ask, do you try to discourage/forbid multitasking with the myspacing little Skyler? If so, what is her reaction? Do you see this having an effect on her?

Posted by: Richard Cook | Mar 23, 2006 3:28:17 PM

Come on now. When was the last time a young person thought about anything deeply. :)

Seriously though, my sons are 18 and 20 and they do several things simultaneously. Yes there is a price to pay, and yes the quality of any one thing is less than if they were doing that thing alone. Yet when they are interested in something they are both able to think about it very deeply and on multiple levels in ways that often surprise me.

And I agree that too many people feel that they actually do multitask and do it well. I've multitasked all my life, and I know that everything suffers a little when I do it, but I do have that false sense of security that everything is advancing a little bit. But sometimes I actually just stop and do one single thing.

And I don't have a BlackBerry, because sometimes I just want to do nothing.

Posted by: Larry Borsato | Mar 23, 2006 5:53:51 PM

Great comments everyone!

Virginia, you're so right -- she *does* see things that you don't, although that's not because your brain is older... it's because you grew up, as I did, without the kind of media/visual stimulation that she's had probably since birth. While the part of the brain that does context switching does perform less well as we age, the ability to process information visually that is switching very rapidly (think MTV and video games) is more about not being wired for it when we were younger. In other words, when her brain is the age yours is now, she'll probably still be able to process visual information differently from the the way you do now.

jessie: you ask the really important question!! I think that's exactly what we should be thinking about. We should start a conversation on that one...

Richard Cook: "If we may ask, do you try to discourage/forbid multitasking with the myspacing little Skyler? "

LOL! Hmmmm... the idea of putting "forbid" and "Skyler" in the same sentence is hilarious, but she's actually not as bad as most of her friends about multitasking. She is completely capable of having an extended conversation without anything else "playing." She does keep her phone ON, of course... just in case! But not for voice calls... actual "talking" on the phone has dropped to a bare minimum for her and her friends-- it's now a steady stream of text messaging all the way. I think I'm the only person she actually talks to on the phone the "old" way, you know, with my VOICE. She even gets updates from myspace on her cellphone.

Although I never forbid it, we killed our television when she was 12, so that's at least ONE media type she's not addicted to. Still, the idea of sitting in a quiet room reading (without her iPod) is inconceivable. But she's pretty happy to JUST be on myspace or JUST listening to music and doing something more mindless for her, like cooking.

She's about to take an intensive, semi-private foreign language course that requires a great deal of extended focus on nothing but listening and speaking Spanish. We'll see if she has withdrawals... I'll keep you posted ; )

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Mar 23, 2006 11:22:30 PM

This just recall me this very good post:
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/03/your_brain_on_m.html

Posted by: Laurent | Mar 23, 2006 11:23:43 PM

I just found this old but very relevant post from Joel On Software at:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000022.html

(It's exceptionally geeky)

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Mar 23, 2006 11:37:57 PM

...Several million years ago, fishes were sure that it is impossible to live outside water. Scientific researches proved it. And it was obvious. Those who tried to jump out of water degraded, some of them died...

...But our blood is still saulty, isn't it?...

Posted by: Francesco Calmo | Mar 24, 2006 2:08:32 AM

I don't know about others, but I use music to help me focus to the point that I stop hearing the music. I found that out when I heard a new song on the radio, which I found out was in the album that had been playing non-stop in my stereo in the last couple of days (I was doing a project and used the new CD has background music).

If you're looking for books on managing your energy and attention, check "On form" and "Getting Things Done".

Posted by: João Miguel Neves | Mar 24, 2006 2:47:22 AM

I don't know about others, but I use music to help me focus to the point that I stop hearing the music. I found that out when I heard a new song on the radio, which I found out was in the album that had been playing non-stop in my stereo in the last couple of days (I was doing a project and used the new CD as background music).

If you're looking for books on managing your energy and attention, check "On form" and "Getting Things Done".

Posted by: João Miguel Neves | Mar 24, 2006 2:48:00 AM

I think one of the reasons we think we have to be multitasking all the time is the same reason we can get so overwhelmed by "*aaalll* the stuff we have to do..." and can then end up getting frozen by panic. Once we think of one thing we could/should/need to be doing, anything else that we could be doing gets piled on top by induction.

On another note, I'm glad Cyndi brought up the topic of artists listening to audiobooks and so forth. Last summer when I was working at an animation studio, I found that some days it would be too distracting to listen to an audiobook while animating, but much of the time I would actually improve my performance by listening to an audiobook. Of course, if my work were writing code or poetry or talking to someone, then...well, I'd be pretty much completely lost.

A good theoretical model to explain this kind of thing, by the way, is Baddeley's model of Working Memory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baddeley%27s_Model_of_Working_Memory

Visual-spatial and linguistic stuff gets dealt with using different pools of attentional resources, so we can mutlitask better when the tasks aren't both using the same juice. My CogPsych prof told us about some driving-simulator research that a grad student of his (at the time) did where the results indicated that we process the area in front of the car with visual-spatial resources, and everything behind our car we process with phonological resources (Johannsdottir 2004, if you want to look into it).

Anyway, my theory with the audiobooks sometimes increasing my performance is just that my phonological part of my brain was particularly eager for content in those times, and if I didn't occupy it with a story on an mp3 file, then it would occupy me with stories of its own. It may also have to do with the kind of animation and the kind of audiobooks I was engaged with. When the audio decreased my performance, maybe it was because the prose was full of particularly rich visual descriptions, or perhaps the animation approach I was using was somehow more narrative, like focusing on shuffling around keyframes instead of on using the shapes themselves to guide me.

The seminal book "Drawing on the Right Side of The Brain" deals with some of this stuff too, AFAIK.

Posted by: James MacAulay | Mar 24, 2006 9:57:11 AM

One thing that I've been trying to stop me from multitasking is to set the windoze taskbar to autohide.

It works great. I'm less distracted by the clock and by the other things that I could be working on at the same time.

Posted by: dave | Mar 24, 2006 2:13:53 PM

Speak for yourself.

I have Hyperfocus Syndrome (which is what I'm now calling ADD to take away from the words "deficit" and "disorder" which are both negative) which allows me to easily context switch.

In fact my brain doesn't do very well working on singular items in series. Its just not the way I work.

The problem is that when I was young all the schools and most of society told me that I need to work on one thing at a time.

When I was about 18 I decided that they were all insane and I never went back :-P

Anyway... its important to realize that not everyone thinks alike.

Onward!

Posted by: Kevin Burton | Mar 25, 2006 3:00:12 AM

Absolutely right. Specially when someone is working on real creative work its become very imp to concentrate not like doing IMing or anything else. One can imagine how that idea would be or time duration to conceptualize; Instead of thinking on one thing at a time and coming up with great result.

Posted by: Paavani | Mar 25, 2006 11:05:48 AM

I think Dave's comment about hiding the task bar is interesting. When we decrease the number of options available to ourselves (or our users), the less likely we are to become distracted and multi-task (and maybe the more likely we are to learn and become a passionate user). It doesn't seem that we can remove distractions outside our site from our users' field of vision. So, one solution would appear to be remove extra content/links/noise on pages where you want the user to be in learning mode?

Posted by: jessi | Mar 26, 2006 11:18:53 AM

Kevin: thanks for the reminder, yes. I do not know nearly enough about ADD (in any form) although I'm doing brain therapy at a place where about half the clients are there for ADD (I'm there for seizures). I do know that there have been studies with ADD children where when placed in front of a video game that they are extremely engaged in, they can focus on one thing for a very long time. Or that putting them in front of a movie and removing all other potentially interesting distractions (like toys, for young children) also helps them focus.
But yes, there are definitely people who are more capable of fast context switching. Removing distractions, though, is supposed to help. Which brings me to:

jessi: Yes, I think that's exactly the right idea. I have been reading "The Paradox of Choice" -- much of it I don't necessarily like or agree with, but the main point is pretty compelling (with lots of research) -- the more choices we have, the less *happy* we are -- once past a certain "peak" (too few choices is bad as well, obviously). The book isn't completely related to what you're saying, but overall -- reducing distractions (including things we could choose to click, etc.) is exactly the best thing we could do in a learning--or focusing/working/flow--situation.

For me, disabling wi-fi is a huge help, but so hard to do. But it renders everything else (surfing, email) impossible : ) [I got rid of IM completely a year ago]

Thanks again for all the comments, everyone. And of course I wonder what y'all were doing at the same time you were reading this post and making your comment ; )

Thank GOD that drinking coffee while doing anything else doesn't usually count as multi-tasking (zero cognitive planning).

Posted by: Kathy Sierra | Mar 26, 2006 12:08:21 PM

"Perhaps the biggest problem of all, though, is that the majority of people doing the most media multitasking have a big-ass blind spot on just how much they suck at it."

correlate this with

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html

Posted by: sch | Mar 27, 2006 5:32:50 AM

Just goes to prove that multiples are a myth.

Posted by: john | Mar 28, 2006 1:02:29 PM

Such a nice read.. with lots of insightful comments!!

Posted by: Manoy | May 23, 2006 11:28:19 PM

After one year on the job I was told that they were terminating me because of my inability to Multitask. At 59 years old were do you go?

Posted by: Maryanne | Sep 13, 2006 7:05:30 AM

"Multitasking is only good for computers "

Then you should never drive a car...

Posted by: IxBen | Oct 19, 2006 1:32:36 PM

I was too distracted and unable to focus to finish this entire article. Based on the first few paragraphs I'd say it was...hold on... uh yeah, good stuff.

Posted by: bob | Nov 3, 2006 2:55:27 PM

I've always had a very REAL awareness that I can not multi-task.

As a man, relationships have suffered for it. Professionally, I had to just go run my own business, because the circus of multi-taksing required in Corp-Am chopped me in half.

But since I do realize that I can't MT, and I don't bother trying... the things I do focus on are (HUGE OPINION COMING UP) masterpieces.

They just take forever to come about :P

Thanks for an awesome post. This is the coolest Blog on the Planet.

Jeremy

Posted by: Jeremy Estes | Dec 9, 2006 10:39:58 PM

Multitasking is bad for computers too. The cache gets flushed, registers are saved, memory maps are redone and no user job gets done in the meantime. The CPU then crawls with an empty cache and continuous interruptions for page faults. When it really gets up to speed it's time to task switch again.

Posted by: Michele Costabile | Dec 15, 2006 9:17:27 AM

Lets all rewind the clock a decade or two people!

I recall a fantasy time in DOS where, if you needed to run a spreadsheet, thats ALL you did. After your work was saved and you exited the program, only then were you able to do something else like check your email.

Since when did multi-tasking imply that you MUST drive a car, have sex, eat a burger, text your friends all at the same time you are reviewing your traffic report from Google Analytics?

If I am searching the internet, I will employ muti tasking techniques by opening links from my search page in (pre-IE7/Firefox separate windows) separate tabs so I am never waiting for a single site to load (and have it be the wrong site). If I am writing a business letter and I want to know the mailing address for my contact, I can actually open two programs at one time and do that.

Multi Tasking OS's were invented precisely due to maximizing an efficient use of computer resources. Two decades may seem an age to you computer people, but its just two decades, and how quickly we all forget. sheesh.

Posted by: Sean Bickford | Mar 8, 2007 11:44:19 AM

We LOVE to hear from you, and we think of this blog as a big dinner party. Y'all are our invited guests, but if you're being rude and obnoxious we'll let the bouncer toss you. So please, stick to debating and criticizing ideas rather than personal attacks. Also, if you don't see your comment right away, it means we've turned on moderation to fight the evil spammers. It'll show up soon.