Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
When I multitask... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When I multitask... (Score:5, Insightful)
text while driving
Please watch this video [bbc.co.uk] and reconsider your habit of texting while driving.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:When I multitask... (Score:5, Funny)
text while driving
Please watch this video [bbc.co.uk] and reconsider your habit of texting while driving.
I don't have time to look at it just now, but I'm usually bored while driving home, so I'll have a look then.
Parent
Re:When I multitask... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:When I multitask... (Score:5, Insightful)
90% of people are stupid on occasion. The other 10% are stupid all the time.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This video is a good argument for why highways should have a dividing wall in the middle. This texting driver would have merely scraped that wall rather than pile into another car at ~120 miles an hour.
Another video worth watching is the one where a U.S. busdriver is texting, and slams into a stopped car on the interstate.
Re:When I multitask... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another video worth watching is the one where a U.S. busdriver is texting, and slams into a stopped car on the interstate.
So I guess that makes a good argument for putting walls across interstates?
Parent
Multitasking just has to be done properly (Score:5, Insightful)
The trick is to use a divide and conquer algorithm on your tasks and divide them into chunks of just the right size - too small and you'll have too much overhead switching processes, too little and you'll essentially reach a dead-lock situation where everything is waiting for you to finish that one thing.
What works for me is, for example, reading a chapter of a textbook, followed by a few minutes on slashdot and whatnot, then going back to the book and so forth ad nauseum.
This way you're always multitasking without actually multitasking and you get a lot more done than just focusing on one task for a few hours, then on another for a few more hours and so on.
Parent
Re:Multitasking just has to be done properly (Score:5, Funny)
you know, that same computer INCAPABLE of real multitasking?
So a pair of conjoined twins is like a Core 2 Duo?
Parent
Re:Multitasking just has to be done properly (Score:5, Insightful)
What works for me is, for example, reading a chapter of a textbook, followed by a few minutes on slashdot and whatnot, then going back to the book and so forth ad nauseum.
Good for you on being able to schedule your time and attention productively, but the above isn't what I would call multitasking.
It's been shown that the average attention span runs about 20 minutes. After that, you _will_ lose the ability to concentrate and your mind will naturally wander. This new period lasts about 5 minutes IIRC. Once that ends, you're refreshed enough go back to what you were doing with renewed concentration.
Mind you, you're free to invoke "willpower" to circumvent that natural ebb and flow, but your performance will suffer, and you'll accomplish half the work for twice the effort. With enough motivation or adrenaline, you'll manage just fine, but like missing few hours from a restful night's sleep to cram more workhours into your day, you'll discover diminishing returns.
So by all means, do browse Slashdot for a minutes. If your disciplined enough to avoid non-essential or otherwise unproductive activities generally, it'll help you work and get more done.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The trick is to stop slacking quickly enough and it's really quite tough sometimes
And yes, I know it's not really multitasking, but it looks like multitasking to the outside world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been shown that the average attention span runs about 20 minutes. After that, you _will_ lose the ability to concentrate and your mind will naturally wander
It's also been shown that it takes about 40 minutes to enter flow, at which point your productivity increases. Somehow, these seem contradictory...
Re:Multitasking just has to be done properly (Score:4, Informative)
I would consider multi-tasking having multiple jobs going at once. This is a daily requirement in my field. I have to manage around 20 employees, streamline processes, stay on top of corporate projects, and still roll up my sleeves to help them with their daily work (due to cut-backs). If they want to study how people multi-task, study some people who are actually working and not just watching tv or blogging.
So you've basically set up a combination of polling and interruption events? You do your own thing and once in a while check on background processes, or give them some attention if there's an interupt?
That's not multitasking, not really anyway. Real multitasking is being able to read while pouring a cup of tea. (for example)
Parent
Re:When I multitask... (Score:5, Insightful)
People that talk on their cell phones while driving, are obviously distracted and drive like they're retarded. Crashing into stationary objects isn't the only hazard these morons face. Pissing off other motorists and getting your dumb ass shot is also a possibility. I for one have felt this impulse on more that one occasion while following some imbecile, talking on their cell phone while trying to stay between the ditches.
Personally, I am all for imposing very large fines for people using cell phones while driving. This is already the case on all military bases. I think it's time to place new laws to include all other roads as well.
In your case, texting while driving: Your eyes are not on the road; Both hands are doing something else instead of piloting your large conglomeration of steel barreling down the road.
I'm having some difficulty putting a suitable punishment for you, my friend. Any first thoughts I'm having are not good for you.
Parent
Re:When I multitask... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would conjecture that those who feel they are good at multitasking do _not_ feel this -- and that's both why they feel they are good at multitasking, and why they are actually bad at it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Texting while driving is STUPIDLY UNSAFE and I only do it when I feel the situation has appropriate trade-offs (no cars close or medium-close in front of me, no turns in the road, importance of sending the text, etc.)
Re:Texting while driving (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a better idea for you. Put the damn shit down. I don't care what kind of "emergency" you are having at work. Your business can wait the 30 minutes for you to get home. If not, you need to rethink your business processes. I don't care who you are or what company you work for, your stupid fucking text message is NOT worth more than anyone's life.
If you or anyone else who is too self-centered and self-important to stay off the fucking phone for a few minutes while you drive ever plow into anyone, you better not hope it's me. I will haunt your fucking dumb ass for the rest of your life. I will torture you and your family until you are all on the brink of madness. Then your family will watch you commit suicide right in front of their eyes by shoving that fucking phone into your eye socket and pulling it out of your throat.
I hate you all, you fucking phone drivers. Get off your fucking phones and out of my damn lane. YOU are the reason that it is such hell to drive now. YOU are the reason there are so many wrecks and red light running. YOU are the reason that so many lives are lost and everyone's insurance is so high. Hang the fuck up.
Parent
Re:Texting while driving (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate you all, you fucking phone drivers. Get off your fucking phones and out of my damn lane. YOU are the reason that it is such hell to drive now. YOU are the reason there are so many wrecks and red light running. YOU are the reason that so many lives are lost and everyone's insurance is so high. Hang the fuck up.
Yes, because as you can see, the annual number of accidents per vehicle miles traveled has gone up in direct proportion to saturation of the cell phone market.
Except... not. No, accident statistics have stayed pretty darned flat with respect to VMT (which continually goes up, year after year). The severity of injuries and incidence of fatalities goes down as new innovations in passenger safety come out and are implemented in the fleet.
BTW, one thing that has stayed VERY constant, for the last 30+ years: half of road fatalities are caused by a drunk driver. Even though road fatalities have gone down (even as the total population and per capita VMT have risen), 50% are from accidents caused by drunk drivers. You'd think we would have learned better by now, but nooooo.
So it'd be dead easy to determine, once and for all, what effect cell phone use has on driving: run a multiple-regression analysis on accident rates, taking into account VMT per capita, total population, and other such stats that we know influence accident rates, plus add cell phone market penetration over time. Look at data for the last, say, 20 years. That will show you how much cell phones (remember when they were all "car phones"?) impact accident rates. Until someone does this (law enforcement has all the accident data, and I'm sure the cell companies would cough up the subscriber numbers if it meant the possibility of getting all these laws against using their product repealed), everyone needs to calm the f*** down and realize that there are good drivers, and bad drivers, and mediocre drivers, and if it wasn't the phone, it'd be something else distracting the a**hole in front of you.
Parent
Re:Texting while driving (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree - he was much too polite. Texting drivers needs to have their fingers chopped off. Since it will happen anyway, sooner or later, only with more collateral damage, it's not a punishment but simply a matter of prevention.
Parent
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Conversely, I believe that being forced to multitask by my environment has created attention deficit disorder in me. I can't pay attention to things like I used to, and staying focused is very difficult for me. Even if NOTHING is demanding my attention, I feel like I have a compulsion to switch to a different task every few minutes. It's horrible. I used to be able to focus on a single task for long stretches, sometimes I could read a book for 14 hours or more in a day if I was sufficiently interested in it. Now, every three paragraphs or so, I feel like I want to check my email.
Parent
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to be able to focus on a single task for long stretches, sometimes I could read a book for 14 hours or more in a day if I was sufficiently interested in it. Now, every three paragraphs or so, I feel like I want to check my email.
I feel that way sometimes too, but I think it's partly because my standard for what's interesting is a lot higher than it was when I was younger. Consequently, (1) there's less stuff that seems worthy of that 12-hour focus marathon, and (2) it's likely that anything worthy is going to require more effort than the average worthy thing did when I was younger.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I just plain don't have the time to focus on any one thing for that long.. but anyway I digress:
The same way a computer multi-tasks is exactly why I find this study is flawed. The preface the study by saying that they were trying to find out why multi-taskers could do so so well. They then threw out this premise by saying that these multi-taskers single threaded performance was low while forgetting that their group in question was known to be good at multi-tasking.
I'll use, for example, a box I'm currentl
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
But it looks so good on my résumÃ& (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you noticed how many employers don't simply want, but insist that new hires be good at multitasking? That the successful employee will be not only able to manage several projects at the same time, but will jump from one to another like a coked-up spider monkey on command?
Now, I admit fully to being resolutely anti-corporate, so it's only natural for me to look at this suspiciously. But I have to imagine that a whole lot of other people will see this as a disorder not just of the worker but of management, accepting sight unseen that multitasking, getting bits and pieces done on a whole lot of different projects in short order, is somehow more "efficient" (Hello? Changeover time?) than doing one thing to a good stopping point and then moving to another project when you're damn good and ready. It's especially a management problem if the management insists on mandating the changeovers, forcing employees to change gears without the clutch engaged.
I can easily believe this sort of affliction can be inflicted. So I say let's study the possibility that ADD can be a workplace injury, to be covered by health insurance, and see how long this trend lasts.
Parent
Re:But it looks so good on my résum (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't attribute this to malice.
Ask someone: Which would you prefer: that you candidate be good at doing only one thing at a time, or that he be good at doing many things at a time? What do you think their answer is likely to be? More is more, isn't it?
The problem is, the requirement going out doesn't get compared against the capabilities of actual working people.
How it should go is like this:
PHB: Find me someone who's good at doing lots of things all at once.
HR: Can't; Tried, Looked, none exist. Pe
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
I think multitasking is detrimental in other ways. When it was a big buzzword and something taught in our studying class (yes, multitasking, as a strategy of getting studying done in your busy life... like in-between stupid timewasters), I just noticed how before when I could think through something like a challenging math problem or concept, even if it was hard to do so, I had to start relying more and more on the back of the book and work the answers backwards. If I tried to think too hard, I went into a mode looking for something else to do as an unconscious and unspoken excuse of "My head hurts, let's do something easier."
Multitasking is sometimes a necessary evil, but companies and schools shouldn't be looking for ways to increase it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I cannot understand folks that listen to music and work -- I do like having my headphones on, but that's only because it blocks out the external noise that's distracting.
I'm one of those people who can't work in quiet places. How do you do it? How do you keep your paranoia of something jumping you from behind so low as to be able to concentrate in a quiet environment?
Personally I need something loud to shut out the outside world, I don't actually process what I hear, I just use it to swamp my audio input so I can't hear myself think (for some reason I hate listening to my internal dialogues) and so I can disregard any audio input as simply being part of the din, thus being
Bullshit... (Score:5, Funny)
... oh look, a butterfly!!!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think I have that bumper sticker (Score:3, Funny)
I think I have that bumper sticker on my...hang on, just let me check this e-mail...and get this call...
People prefer to complete one task at a time... (Score:5, Insightful)
...because they know from experience that it produces better results. People who habitually multitask do not know how to do a better job, so they think they're good at multitasking. Single-taskers are probably under much more stress though as they aim higher even when multitasking.
From the people who brought us clippy (Score:5, Informative)
Note that one of the researchers behind this, Cliff Nass, was the brains behind Clippy.
Re:From the people who brought us clippy (Score:4, Funny)
You've got a typo there. You said there were brains behind Clippy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Clippy wasn't an inherently bad idea - an assistive agent which used a library of tasks to try to accelerate common jobs and act as an interactive tutorial with options to skip. The problem with Clippy was that the fine lines between "helpful", "too helpful", and "really freaking annoying" move around with increased stupidity - and stupid agents are all we have to work with until somebody figures out strong AI.
Agents like Clippy are used all the time to train people how to play video games - quite successf
Are these really tests of multitasking? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a little puzzled by the tests.
The last test seemed to test ability to move from one focused task to another focused task, each one consuming 100% of attention.
I would expect a person with practice focusing on a single task to do well there.
The first test involved focusing on one object while ignoring distractions. Many of the people who consider themselves multi-taskers have probably trained themselves to be high-novelty seeking and easily distracted. Not saying this is necessarily good, just not clear how this was testing multi-tasking.
It seems to me a "multi-tasker" would do better at a test that actually tested tracking multiple inputs at once.
I hate multitasking (Score:5, Funny)
I can involve myself in one high-level function and monitor several low-level functions no problem. If I'm cooking and it's a recipe I know, I can have something on the telly in the background. Certainly not a movie or something that requires 100% focus but I can put the Daily Show or Colbert on no problem, just glancing over during the laughs to catch the sight gag. If it's a recipe I'm unfamiliar with, I have to focus 100%, no time for distractions.
Driving is another interesting case. When I was first learning, I couldn't have the radio on or even talk with a passenger. It was a new skill and consumed 100% of my attention to a ridiculous degree. As I became more comfortable with driving, I could take a more relaxed approach. I can hold a conversation with a passenger. I'm still doing my sweeps, checking mirrors, instrument panel, paying attention to the feel of the road, listening for anything odd, but it takes less effort to do all these things. But when conditions become more interesting, it takes more effort to retain situational awareness. I'll lose track of the conversation. This is the opposite of the way most people do it, the conversation distracting from the driving.
As a mostly monotasker, I'm very skeptical of multitaskers, bordering on contemptuous. It really irks me when I'm trying to work with someone who insists on multitasking to the point where you keep having to repeat yourself because he wasn't fucking listening in the first place. "No, I heard what you said. Just repeat it so I can understand." It's a sick, pathetic, constant pattern. I tell someone x is followed by y and z. They hear x and immediately ask about c. Well, c could be related in some instances but I already told you in this instance it's x, then y, then z. But wait, why is y there? That's the sequence. And then after several more rounds the person will exclaim with a sudden revelation "Why, this is x, then y, then z!" Of course, you numpty pillock. I've only been trying to tell you that for the last ten minutes. I'm going to rip that fucking bluetooth out of your ear, yank the battery from your iphone (they are removable if you use enough force) and make you focus for a goddamn minute!
Re:I hate multitasking (Score:4, Funny)
[citation needed]
Parent
Humans Can't Multitask (Score:3, Interesting)
Multitasking in humans is a myth. You might be able to rapidly switch between tasks, but processing more than one thing simultaneously can't be done.
Re:Humans Can't Multitask (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn! You're right. I was reading Slashdot and I forgot to breathe again.
Parent
Originally had first post (Score:3, Funny)
Bah... (Score:3, Funny)
Not sure I want to make a T-shirt out of THAT expression.
Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I can multitask by reading a book and riding a stationary bike with no appreciable impact in performance of either. I can run and catch a football. I can walk down the hall and carry on a conversation. I can answer emails and listen to music.
All of these examples involve one activity that requires attention and one that does not require attention.
Where humans can't multitask is when two or more activities require attention. A classic example is driving and talking on a cell phone. Most people think that they can do this effectively. They are ALL wrong. They believe this because of two phenomena (1) for the most part, driving is fairly autonomous, only occasionally does it require attention (2) if your attention is on your phone conversation, you tend to miss those times when driving does require your attention unless something interrupts your attention like you have an accident or someone honks a horn at you for driving like a jackass. For the most part, these drivers are blissfully ignorant of their ineptitude behind the wheel.
Most people who think they can multitask with other activities are wrong for the same reasons. I've yet to see someone with an open laptop in a meeting freely contribute to the process and often they force everyone else in the meeting to backtrack when their input is actually required.
Kind of ironic (Score:4, Funny)
It's kind of ironic that the research team is also studying how to design computer voices for cars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Men's jobs demanded social interaction as well, and still do. You can't take down a wooly mammoth with only yourself and a spear. The men hunted, the women gathered. That's why married men are always so exasperated by their wives' "Well LOOK for it!" Male brains just aren't wired that way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, it's a load of bollocks basically. (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, a guy wanted to find out what the differences are between those who multi-task a lot and those who don't, or feel they are unable to multi-task well.
He set up an arbitrary experiment that supposedly tests your ability to multi-task and those who multi-task a lot did not do very well at his experiment, hence his conclusion was that multi-taskers are bad at multi-tasking.
The problem I see with his experiment, and more importantly, his conclusion, is that he assumes the various tests he did actually are all that are required to judge someone's ability to multi-task - effectively he wasn't testing multi-tasking in his experiments, only performing phsycological tests that he assume are the traits that are required to be an effective multi-tasker.
An experiment cited in the BBC article is one where there is a screen with 2 red rectangles and a number of blue rectangles which is displayed briefly and then the screen is displayed again and the subject has to say whether or not a red rectangle has been rotated. The link to multi-tasking in this particular experiment is weak, I can only guess the assumption is that to multi-task better you need to be able to track multiple objects on screen in detail but that seems to be merely speculation on behalf of the researcher.
Doing research on this sort of thing is fair enough, but the fact they seem to have come to the outright conclusion that multi-taskers suck at multi-tasking seems quite a leap from what their research actually shows - that there's simply a statistical link between someone's ability to multi-task and how badly/how well someone can do in those specific experiments which in themselves may or may not tell us anything about someone's ability to multi-task.
I would've thought a better experiment would, you know, involve multi-tasking? An experiment with say a simplified user interface where there are multilple blocks (Windows) where a basic task has to be performed in each but each has a differing time limit as to how quickly it must be completed. Simple, effective, and a good test of multi-tasking ability.
But then, that might not have given them the results they wanted that would get them headlines that the world's media would blindly follow.
Parent
Re:Single-tasking (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent