Jun 29, 2008
It is well known to technologists that multi-tasking, multi-threading and multi-core are a good thing for computers to do. Your operating systems pretty much sucked if it could do only one thing at a time...but what about us? Is multi-tasking as good thing?
The New Atlantis has quite an interesting article focusing on our lack of focus. I am thinking long and hard these days on how to refocus my attention on singular tasks without interruption. Turneth off thy WiFi!?
Something to think about...
Comments
Nothing new here. For years, data have shown that sequential processing is the absolute best way for humans to operate, but hubris and ego (I can do 10 things at once!) and simple bias (I am special!) make people ignore the findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/business/25multi.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214810435-2GrYxecraGttdkToqnm9Yg
Posted by: John Jenkins | June 30, 2008 02:22 AM
Even computers don't *really* multitask, correct? They just do one thing at a time, back and forth very quickly, isn't that right? Like really, really fast plate spinning, it just looks like all the plates are being spun at once.
We are like computers, except with more errors. The work doesn't really get done faster when we multitask, we're just spreading out the sum time, which usually ends up being longer... or at least with diminished quality.
I saw a 20/20 or 60 mins thing about how employers are having to cater to the new generation of workers (x or y or millennial, I don't remember) who need to have be coddled at work and told how great they are and what wonderful job they are doing on everything. They have to have little parties all the time and given rewards for every little "accomplishment."
Sorry if I sound like a FOG (F#@k!n& Old Guy-- H.T.- History Channel's "Axe Men"), but what happened to doing your job and getting a paycheck. The companies were told by "consultants" that this was necessary in order to attract and retain this new generation of worker who had an advanced ability to multitask.
I've seen to the results of this multitasking. When you get to the end, it's chock full of errors that need fixed, negating any perceived saved time.
As one who has been diagnosed with ADD, I can tell you first hand the importance and benefits of focusing on one task at a time. Not only are the results of a better quality, but it's more relaxing and rewarding. You see task, task, task, and check them off in your brain. And your brain can forget about the finished tasks and move on. When multitasking, there is this shared stress that your brain is under--- like shopping without a grocery list. Constantly, "Did I forget milk, did I get eggs, what about ding-dongs?" Even if you *do* get everything you were shopping for, you're much more stressed at the end than if you had just moved down your shopping list and check off each item as you put it in your cart.
Don't know if that makes any sense.
I've always said that ADD and OCD make great bedfellows. :-)
Posted by: Mike Radcliffe | June 30, 2008 11:35 AM
I knew I should have asked John Jenkins - always a fine source of knowledge.
Amen Mike...and you are correct in your Computer understanding. Most OSs have a scheduler to allocate a slice of time to a task and switch back and forth as needed. Now there are some cool things in processor design which breaks down instructions and executes them in various pipelines, branches etc. Linearity is not removed but parallelism makes things move very fast - divide and conquer. Most even do some dynamic branch prediction - which is "guess right most of the time" and you'll go even faster.
Anyway, I am a long way from my study of microprocessors...but it is of course interesting stuff.
This wiki is good - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
Posted by: Reid | June 30, 2008 03:24 PM