In response to your cellphone and driving example (and Tim’s comment prior), I’d like to point out a couple of things.

Firstly, while using a cellphone (i.e. dialing, holding it, etc) is a habitual, unconscious thing, the conversation itself is not. Conversations are always medium to high cognitive load. Even conversations where you’re not paying as much attention are still only medium load, because language and comprehension are rarely low load. So your example is correct, but not your assertion that both are thoughtless and hence not applicable to what you’re trying to prove.

Second, I agree that ultimately any task,even “thoughtless” ones, would be better done given more resources (ie full attention). What it comes down to is whether the quality of what you are doing requires it. It’s the whole “good enough versus great” debate. Those who knit while watching TV are in the good enough category as they know that a single less than ideal stitch won’t ruin the whole thing. Also, when “novelty crops up” (as Tim puts it), it’s ok to make a minute to figure out which stitch went wrong and the cost to fix it is not high.

This is where driving cars is different. WIth driving cars on auto-pilot, good enough versus great has to do with the the time to do the cognitive load reprioritising and the results is you don’t — and unfortunately here a difference of one second to reprioritise matters, combined with the potential consequences (rear-end someone, or something worse) make it a bad idea.

Of course, potential bas consequences are the 20 part of 80-20 rule in this case, which is why we tend to multi-task anyway…

I think several people have hit the right points in their comments already. Here’s my take:

1. Multi-tasking is possible but the word’s usage combines two different things: context switching and high/low cognitive loads in parallel. (See also Tom Streeter’s comment.)

2. Context switching type multi-tasking is good or bad depending on the effort of the switching versus the time spent on task. (See also Bevan Arps’s comment.)

In bad cases, you are doing a lot of mediocre work on multiple things, worst case being “thrashing”. In good cases, you are keeping multiple balls in the air or “in play”, ensuring nothing gets stuck.

Important to realise, we do this all the time anyway — all we’re really talking about is the frequency. After all, many people switch between 4 tasks in the course of a work day. Just because each context switch happened after 2 hours we don’t think it’s multi-tasking. Make the frequency every 10 minutes, and that’s closer to what we’re talking about. But neither is inherently better or worse. What’s important is the balance between switching load and time on each task and matching that with expected effort/intended outcome/potential consequences.

Ultimately intended outcome is important. Would you expect a firefighter going into a burning building to spend 30 minutes studying the structure and potential routes. No. Speed is important here, potential consequences are severe, so fast switching is what’s needed. One moment scanning the building, next moment radioing team outside, next moment using the hose, next moment dragging a survivor to their feet. That’s an extreme example, but there are lots of work environments where keeping multiple balls in the air is more important than getting one aspect perfect.

On the other hand, some tasks are about quality/accuracy and not speed and there you want to spend hours, maybe even an entire day on something and not switch to anything else. Some work environments actually have very low interruption quotients because of that.

3. High/low cognitive loads in parallel depend on how low the attention needed for the low task really is, and the good enough versus great aspect of the intended outcomes, as I explained above already.

Note that this is the type of multi-tasking that we are all already doing every single day, we just don’t call it that. When you go for a walk you are breathing, moving legs, swinging arms, looking at your path and around the area for obstacles, etc etc. We don’t call it multi-tasking since most bodily functions move on auto-pilot all the time anyway. But they follow the same model of low cognitive load “until crops up”. Legs moving is automatic until you trip or sense something amiss under your feet. Eyes scanning are automatic until you see that “woman in red” walking past. All systems are automatic until your peripheral vision catches a football hurtling directly at your body. Even breathing is automatic until you either become breathless or you start thinking about it. Reading this sentence probably made you conscious of your breath for anywhere from 1 second to 5 minutes, until you move your attention elsewhere.

Sorry, that perhaps became over-extended… was merely trying to point out that multi-tasking is normal, not new.

And good or bad, like all things, depends on choosing a way of doing it that is in tune with intended outcome/possible consequences.

Hope that helps.

Look forward to your book.

- JT

I try to multitask like everyone, TV on, surfing the net, playing online poker, talking to my wife about why our child is struggling in school… huh, what was that honey

I think we multitask (or not) like a computer, we are time slicing our attention, we really aren’t multitasking, unless you count breathing, and other bodily functions while we do whatever activities we do… Hey if I am chewing gum to does that count ; )

When I want to work on intensive ‘thinking’ type work, I can only concentrate on one task at a time.

Ted Kinzer
Twitter: @terribleted66

Even hands-free cell phone use with driving produces reaction times on par with being drunk.

Surely, both using a cell phone and driving are habitual, unconscious behaviors. Yet doing them both at once severely degrades the one that has cognitive load [driving].

The amazing thing is how unbelievably bad humans are at judging their own performance. And how ego-invested we are in the idea that we can multitask.

I suspect even tasks we consider “thoughtless” would be done better if we gave them our full attention.

EXERCISE: for one day, give every task your full, 100%, undivided attention as you do it. At the end of the task, jot down in a notebook if you notice any difference in your output or experience. Only do the jotting when you’re done with a task, of course, otherwise that itself would constitute multitasking.

I’ve found that this idea translates well from digital-space into meat-space.

I can effectively manage several co-existing tasks, provided that each is relatively simple – that the amount of context I need to reload when I return to a task is low.

Scanning twitter while I read blog entries and email is easy because the amount of context is low, and I only switch tasks when each is completed.

Tracing through a complex piece of software code to understand a subtle fault or edge condition – a task which might take two or three hours of extreme focus – isn’t something I can do with any distractions at all.

The proximity of the tasks is also relevant – I can switch between the different dishes of a meal I’m cooking pretty easily, even though each dish requires very different preparation and cooking, because all of the tasks are in the same place.

If I tried to cook, read email and drive at the same time, well that would be messy.

Another aspect is how ready you are to deal with interruptions. I really hate being interrupted when I’m deep into something complicated, because I know that it’s going to take me 15 or 30 minutes to get back to that point after dealing with the interruption. So, I turn off twitter, email and other distractions so I can concentrate. But, if Miss Six has had a nightmare and needs a cuddle, then that interrupt has to be honoured – because she’s more important.

So, to summarize – I don’t think it’s as simple as multi-task or not. The complexity and proximity of the tasks needs to be managed, interruptions have to be minimized or managed – and sometimes interruptions have to take priority.

Bevan
Wellington,
New Zealand.

In summary, let’s not get too rule-bound about multitasking, at the risk of looking silly. There’s a time and place. Breastfeeding and driving … not a good idea. Breastfeeding and working…not if you’re a bus driver. Breastfeeding and catching up on your professional journals? Do it!

There is an exception (isn’t there always) and that is listening to audio books or French Language lessons whilst driving.

It’s like a super hero stopping to chat with on lookers at an apartment fire versus saving the people IN the apartment fire. PR is important, but saving lives sits a little higher on the list. Today,our lives are ablaze with doing more and more stuff, and we’re the arsonist!

We robs ourselves of capacity to actually get important stuff done and instead lament our existance or chalk it up to “It’s society’s fault” or anything else, as we throw one more piece of kindling on our time fire.

Time is short, as a reminder to those who forget that one day we won’t have any at all. On that day, what will be said of you: This person did a lot with got things done or This person did enough, which meant a lot. Choose wisely – time is infinite, your stake in it is not.