3 ms·

>> "That might mean being on a conference call and also >>responding to emails (I’m happy listening and writing >>at the same time)". >The people who I know di

by vtlynch 11y ago

>> "That might mean being on a conference call and also >>responding to emails (I’m happy listening and writing >>at the same time)". >The people who I know did this missed very important >details of meetings, and even has to be clued in that >someone was speaking to them. They constantly relied on >others around them to pay attention to the important >details of any meeting. Definitely led to confusion and >issues (and blaming). I have to agree. Certainly there are geniuses and other people out there who have "super-human abilities", but thats a very few people. Troy could very well be one of them. But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. As you said, Ive known people who do this. They simply ignore one task while doing the other. It seems a bit naive of Troy to suggest this as a valid strategy.

fao_ 11y ago
But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. As you said, Ive known people who do this. They simply ignore one task while doing the other. But that's all computers do. So using a definition of 'multi-tasking' that excludes that, you could say there is no thing as 'multi-tasking', unless you are able to juggle several tasks at once. Which brings up a (few) problem(s) with that definition of 'multi-tasking'. Does that defintion define 'multi-tasking' as 'Doing two things at the same time', or 'Paying attention and doing two things at the same time'? If you use the former, then everyone everywhere multitasks when they decide to eat and walk, think about something and walk, etc. If you decide to use the latter, then how do you define 'attention'? Is someone thinking about what to cook tonight while walking down the street really paying attention to where they're going? The dissonance over meanings can easily be stemmed if you consider the second definition of the word 'multi-tasking'. 2. The engaging in more than one activity at the same time or serially, switching one's attention back and forth from one activity to another. Which means that 'ignoring one task while doing the other' is a perfectly valid form of multi-tasking.
- vtlynch 11y ago
  I am not quite as interested in semantic accuracy as I am interested in the meaning of the advice itself. Accepting your definition of multi-tasking, I simply will reword my objection: Dont suggest mutli-tasking is some virtuous and amazing quality.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  in this definition, every single living being is probably multitasking... you, me, everybody
emodendroket 11y ago
> I have to agree. Certainly there are geniuses and other people out there who have "super-human abilities", but thats a very few people. > Troy could very well be one of them. But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. I honestly don't think this is true. Being bad at multitasking is simply part of being a human being. If you look into this you'll find people quite consistently overestimate their performance at multitasking and in fact do much more poorly at both tasks. They're just switching back and forth between the two, and the human brain does much more poorly with this context switch than computer processors do. I mean I agree with the thrust of your post; I just don't agree with the idea that there are some supergeniuses who are an exception.
- sheepmullet 11y ago
  I don't think any study has shown that multi-tasking is faster/more efficient than sequentially processing tasks. However, that is quite different from saying some people are better at multi-tasking than others. I remember reading a US air force study comparing fighter pilots to normal people and they found fighter pilots could multi-task much better than the average joe. I'll try and dig it up.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    I can accept that some people are better at multi-tasking than others, but I don't think that anyone is better at multi-tasking than working sequentially, and I think that ends up being more important. The best multitaskers are a bit like the dogs best at walking on their hind legs.

by vtlynch 11y ago

fao_ 11y ago

But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. As you said, Ive known people who do this. They simply ignore one task while doing the other. But that's all computers do. So using a definition of 'multi-tasking' that excludes that, you could say there is no thing as 'multi-tasking', unless you are able to juggle several tasks at once. Which brings up a (few) problem(s) with that definition of 'multi-tasking'. Does that defintion define 'multi-tasking' as 'Doing two things at the same time', or 'Paying attention and doing two things at the same time'? If you use the former, then everyone everywhere multitasks when they decide to eat and walk, think about something and walk, etc. If you decide to use the latter, then how do you define 'attention'? Is someone thinking about what to cook tonight while walking down the street really paying attention to where they're going? The dissonance over meanings can easily be stemmed if you consider the second definition of the word 'multi-tasking'. 2. The engaging in more than one activity at the same time or serially, switching one's attention back and forth from one activity to another. Which means that 'ignoring one task while doing the other' is a perfectly valid form of multi-tasking.

vtlynch 11y ago
I am not quite as interested in semantic accuracy as I am interested in the meaning of the advice itself. Accepting your definition of multi-tasking, I simply will reword my objection: Dont suggest mutli-tasking is some virtuous and amazing quality.
saiya-jin 11y ago
in this definition, every single living being is probably multitasking... you, me, everybody

emodendroket 11y ago

> I have to agree. Certainly there are geniuses and other people out there who have "super-human abilities", but thats a very few people. > Troy could very well be one of them. But suggesting that this is "multi-tasking" is hiding the truth for the majority of people. I honestly don't think this is true. Being bad at multitasking is simply part of being a human being. If you look into this you'll find people quite consistently overestimate their performance at multitasking and in fact do much more poorly at both tasks. They're just switching back and forth between the two, and the human brain does much more poorly with this context switch than computer processors do. I mean I agree with the thrust of your post; I just don't agree with the idea that there are some supergeniuses who are an exception.

sheepmullet 11y ago
I don't think any study has shown that multi-tasking is faster/more efficient than sequentially processing tasks. However, that is quite different from saying some people are better at multi-tasking than others. I remember reading a US air force study comparing fighter pilots to normal people and they found fighter pilots could multi-task much better than the average joe. I'll try and dig it up.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  I can accept that some people are better at multi-tasking than others, but I don't think that anyone is better at multi-tasking than working sequentially, and I think that ends up being more important. The best multitaskers are a bit like the dogs best at walking on their hind legs.