4 ms·

> The human brain is not a state-of-the-art multi-core processor. It is closer to an old single-core chip from the 90s. That is plain bullshit. Make your case,

> The human brain is not a state-of-the-art multi-core processor. It is closer to an old single-core chip from the 90s. That is plain bullshit. Make your case, but don't mix biology with it.

egglemonsoup 8mo ago
Studies have shown again and again how detrimental "multitasking" is to our cognitive abilities, which is the author's point.
- gaigalas 8mo ago
  Can you share those studies?
  - socalgal2 8mo ago
    https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-multitasking-student/ https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-mult... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf
    - gaigalas 8mo ago
      1. https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking - Not a study. Focuses on productivity (not health, or perceived well-being, supports the idea that the brain have dedicated structures for multi-tasking. 2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 - It's about media multitasking, like watching multiple videos at the same time. Irrelevant. 3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ - About driving. Driving itself is already a multitasking effort. 4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ - Media multitasking again. Irrelevant. 5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ - Study itself admits that has limitations, did not adjust to participants practice levels. 6. https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-multitasking-student/ https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-mult... - Not a study. Reference links broken. Useless. 7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ - Editorial article, not a study. 8. https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf - About interruptions, only deals with unplanned multi-tasking (in which there are interruptions). --- I am aware that there are cognitive loads on some kinds of multi-tasking. That does not translate to all kinds of multi-tasking though. To say that "the brain is like a computer, single thread" is misleading. There are scenarios in which the brain exceeds in multi-tasking (playing instruments like drums, playing games, etc), and there is plenty of evidence that we're tuned for it in all kinds of ways (but not all of them). Furthermore, I'm not defending we should multi-task. I just think the metaphor and the "brain is mono thread" idea is both wrong and dumb.
- dTal 8mo ago
  Yes - for a certain narrow definition of "task" - but the reality is much more nuanced and comparing brains to single core processors is oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy. A human brain has tons of "subsystems", and a given task might use some but not all of them. So some combinations of task are perfectly compatible and do not entail performance drop, while others are fairly impossible to do at the same time. Most people have no problem walking and talking at the same time - but talking and typing different things at the same time invariably results in crossed wires. If I were to offer a tech analogy - the human brain is like an Amiga, with many specialized helper chips coordinated by a central executive which can sequentially multitask but offers no memory isolation between processes...
- selridge 8mo ago
  Yeah, I got that. It was subtle, but I managed.
zahlman 8mo ago
It's just a metaphor.
- gaigalas 8mo ago
  That's my point, this is a terrible metaphor.
  - deafpolygon 8mo ago
    It’s not a terrible metaphor when it’s the closest thing we have to explaining this issue to a layperson.
    - gaigalas 8mo ago
      Ah, yes. The typical layperson that understands threading and processor architectures.
      - deafpolygon 8mo ago
        honestly, young people these days are smarter than you give them credit for. multi-core and threading is something that pretty much anyone on the internet “gets” conceptually, even if not on an engineering level.
        gaigalas 8mo ago
        So, let me get this straight then. You believe the audience for a blog about being tired of multi-tasking is young people, from this new generation that is always multi-tasking (on the smartphone, talking to multiple people, etc)? You honestly believe they need a metaphor like "single thread versus multi-thread" to grasp the idea of what doing multiple things at the same time means, practically? If you do, ok then. Who am I to disagree? I still think none of this makes sense, and the metaphor sucks.
        deafpolygon 8mo ago

> The human brain is not a state-of-the-art multi-core processor. It is closer to an old single-core chip from the 90s. That is plain bullshit. Make your case, but don't mix biology with it.

egglemonsoup 8mo ago

Studies have shown again and again how detrimental "multitasking" is to our cognitive abilities, which is the author's point.

gaigalas 8mo ago
Can you share those studies?
- socalgal2 8mo ago
  https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-multitasking-student/ https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-mult... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf
  - gaigalas 8mo ago
    1. https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking - Not a study. Focuses on productivity (not health, or perceived well-being, supports the idea that the brain have dedicated structures for multi-tasking. 2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 - It's about media multitasking, like watching multiple videos at the same time. Irrelevant. 3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ - About driving. Driving itself is already a multitasking effort. 4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ - Media multitasking again. Irrelevant. 5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ - Study itself admits that has limitations, did not adjust to participants practice levels. 6. https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-multitasking-student/ https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-mult... - Not a study. Reference links broken. Useless. 7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ - Editorial article, not a study. 8. https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf - About interruptions, only deals with unplanned multi-tasking (in which there are interruptions). --- I am aware that there are cognitive loads on some kinds of multi-tasking. That does not translate to all kinds of multi-tasking though. To say that "the brain is like a computer, single thread" is misleading. There are scenarios in which the brain exceeds in multi-tasking (playing instruments like drums, playing games, etc), and there is plenty of evidence that we're tuned for it in all kinds of ways (but not all of them). Furthermore, I'm not defending we should multi-task. I just think the metaphor and the "brain is mono thread" idea is both wrong and dumb.
dTal 8mo ago
Yes - for a certain narrow definition of "task" - but the reality is much more nuanced and comparing brains to single core processors is oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy. A human brain has tons of "subsystems", and a given task might use some but not all of them. So some combinations of task are perfectly compatible and do not entail performance drop, while others are fairly impossible to do at the same time. Most people have no problem walking and talking at the same time - but talking and typing different things at the same time invariably results in crossed wires. If I were to offer a tech analogy - the human brain is like an Amiga, with many specialized helper chips coordinated by a central executive which can sequentially multitask but offers no memory isolation between processes...
selridge 8mo ago
Yeah, I got that. It was subtle, but I managed.

zahlman 8mo ago

It's just a metaphor.

gaigalas 8mo ago
That's my point, this is a terrible metaphor.
- deafpolygon 8mo ago
  It’s not a terrible metaphor when it’s the closest thing we have to explaining this issue to a layperson.
  - gaigalas 8mo ago
    Ah, yes. The typical layperson that understands threading and processor architectures.
    - deafpolygon 8mo ago
      honestly, young people these days are smarter than you give them credit for. multi-core and threading is something that pretty much anyone on the internet “gets” conceptually, even if not on an engineering level.
      - gaigalas 8mo ago
        So, let me get this straight then. You believe the audience for a blog about being tired of multi-tasking is young people, from this new generation that is always multi-tasking (on the smartphone, talking to multiple people, etc)? You honestly believe they need a metaphor like "single thread versus multi-thread" to grasp the idea of what doing multiple things at the same time means, practically? If you do, ok then. Who am I to disagree? I still think none of this makes sense, and the metaphor sucks.
        deafpolygon 8mo ago