3 ms·
The same can be said of single-core computers, but we have been referring to that as multi-tasking for a long time. If the term multitasking is used commonly to
by brownleej 16y ago
The same can be said of single-core computers, but we have been referring to that as multi-tasking for a long time. If the term multitasking is used commonly to refer to context switching, both in people and in computers, on what grounds do you disagree with its use?
Also, I question the scientific basis for suggesting that no one can do more than one thing at a time. My understanding is that the brain is massively parallel, so it seems likely to me that it is capable of running background processes in parallel with foreground processes. It's probably true that only one task can have conscious attention at a given time, but that doesn't mean that we can only do one thing at a time.
- timmorgan 16y agoI don't disagree with its use per se, I just think it's horribly inefficient for people to do it. There is a cost to switching focus. Please note, I am completely unqualified to make this observation, being only a software engineer, but it seems to hold true in my own life, so... There are tasks which can be done simultaneously, due to the fact that they use different parts of the brain. Starting at a low level, e.g. breathing and driving a car; changing gears while steering your car; listening (and paying attention to) a radio program while driving; etc. But this gets inefficient when the tasks start to overlap cognitively, e.g. talking on the phone while driving (which is why it's unsafe to do those two things at the same time -- has almost nothing to do with hands-free vs handheld IMO). I'm not saying you shouldn't context switch. I'm not saying you shouldn't do two things in parallel. I'm only saying that you should know the cost.
- gtdminh 16y agocompletely agree, switching from complex tasks to complex tasks is very inefficient. you will take time to switch your mind again to the context of new task.