4 ms·

Multitaskers perform much worse on cognitive and memory tasks

19 points by cwan 17y ago

timmorgan 17y ago
This is something I realized about myself a long time ago. I've met several people (mostly women, for what it's worth) who swear they get more done when they multitask. I don't believe them. I drew this on my whiteboard a long time ago to describe how I felt about it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothymorgan/62139938/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothymorgan/62139938/
pasbesoin 17y ago
However, strong multi-taskers also tend to draw many people into their activities. When (resulting) failure calls for accountability, "everyone" was involved and the (perceived) blame quotient is not high enough for any individual to effect real change. An anecdotal observation, but a general experience of mine in corporate life. Sometimes, it's actually the "hero" who tackles a problem single-handedly, who fare worst. Because blame can easily be apportioned to him or her in great measure, whether deserved or not. Isolation is often the kiss of death in such environments. [/cynicism]
mmt 17y ago
I don't want to see them taking notes. I want to see them paying attention to me. This is something I recall knowing intuitively (and, by high school, explicitly): intensity in note-taking is inversely proportional to information absorption during lectures. I'm pleased to see research on this, since I've remained curious as to whether this is innate to the individual or merely follows behavior.
- niels_olson 17y ago
  My own survey of medical students suggests this is exactly opposite of truth: note-taking was strongly correlated with improved performance, and the class note-takers, the ones who compiled "official" notes for noteservice were the best prepared, while the consumers of noteservice actually fell below the median. Suggesting that if medical students were self-interested and well informed, then noteservice would be untenable.
  - mmt 17y ago
    I think you and the previous commenter have mistaken "note taking at all" with what I actually said, which was "note taking intensity."
- graywh 17y ago
  And my anecdotal evidence contradicts your "intuition". Now what?
  - mmt 17y ago
    Now you read the research.
losvedir 17y ago
Interesting. I don't think I agree with this example, though: He might, for example, ask students to recite the letters A through J as fast as possible, and then the numbers 1 through 10. Each of those tasks typically takes around two seconds. Then he asks them to interweave the two recitations as fast as they can: "A, 1, B, 2," and so on. Does that take four seconds? No, it typically requires 15 to 20 seconds, and even then many students make mistakes. That's not a fair comparison. When I quickly recite the numbers from 1-10, I'm not figuring out which number comes next each time, I'm reciting an incredibly well-rehearsed script I have memorized. Same with the letters. I could memorize the sequence A-1-B-2-... Then I bet I would be able to recite it in 4 seconds. To better capture the "switching time" that purports to demonstrate, you'd need to interleave two tasks which each require that kind of "next step" generation. e.g. Time someone giving every other letter and the square numbers, for instance. It's pretty easy to determine the sequence for each of those, and it's unlikely that someone's memorized the whole thing already.

19 points by cwan 17y ago

This is something I realized about myself a long time ago. I've met several people (mostly women, for what it's worth) who swear they get more done when they multitask. I don't believe them. I drew this on my whiteboard a long time ago to describe how I felt about it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothymorgan/62139938/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothymorgan/62139938/

pasbesoin 17y ago

However, strong multi-taskers also tend to draw many people into their activities. When (resulting) failure calls for accountability, "everyone" was involved and the (perceived) blame quotient is not high enough for any individual to effect real change. An anecdotal observation, but a general experience of mine in corporate life. Sometimes, it's actually the "hero" who tackles a problem single-handedly, who fare worst. Because blame can easily be apportioned to him or her in great measure, whether deserved or not. Isolation is often the kiss of death in such environments. [/cynicism]

mmt 17y ago

I don't want to see them taking notes. I want to see them paying attention to me. This is something I recall knowing intuitively (and, by high school, explicitly): intensity in note-taking is inversely proportional to information absorption during lectures. I'm pleased to see research on this, since I've remained curious as to whether this is innate to the individual or merely follows behavior.

niels_olson 17y ago
My own survey of medical students suggests this is exactly opposite of truth: note-taking was strongly correlated with improved performance, and the class note-takers, the ones who compiled "official" notes for noteservice were the best prepared, while the consumers of noteservice actually fell below the median. Suggesting that if medical students were self-interested and well informed, then noteservice would be untenable.
- mmt 17y ago
  I think you and the previous commenter have mistaken "note taking at all" with what I actually said, which was "note taking intensity."
graywh 17y ago
And my anecdotal evidence contradicts your "intuition". Now what?
- mmt 17y ago
  Now you read the research.

losvedir 17y ago

Interesting. I don't think I agree with this example, though: He might, for example, ask students to recite the letters A through J as fast as possible, and then the numbers 1 through 10. Each of those tasks typically takes around two seconds. Then he asks them to interweave the two recitations as fast as they can: "A, 1, B, 2," and so on. Does that take four seconds? No, it typically requires 15 to 20 seconds, and even then many students make mistakes. That's not a fair comparison. When I quickly recite the numbers from 1-10, I'm not figuring out which number comes next each time, I'm reciting an incredibly well-rehearsed script I have memorized. Same with the letters. I could memorize the sequence A-1-B-2-... Then I bet I would be able to recite it in 4 seconds. To better capture the "switching time" that purports to demonstrate, you'd need to interleave two tasks which each require that kind of "next step" generation. e.g. Time someone giving every other letter and the square numbers, for instance. It's pretty easy to determine the sequence for each of those, and it's unlikely that someone's memorized the whole thing already.