Why do we believe in this concept of general multitasking?
If someone is "really good" at texting while driving (let's say top 1%), it doesn't mean that he is anymore than average at a different multitasking task, like solving math problems while remembering a string of letters!
For a computer any bunch of tasks can be considered equivalent, they are just calculations (yeah, even in this case we have to ignore a lot to say this but bare with me), but the human brain uses different physical subsystems to handle different tasks. So any multitasking performance depends specifically on the tasks being multitasked. Yes, there are things like general attention and interpresonal differences in it, but for the wetware in our skulls, the idea of "general multitasking" and being better or worse at it is bullshit imho.
>Why do we believe in this concept of general multitasking?
We? I certainly don't. Multitasking is a definite myth. Once you switch context your brain has a random OOM killer that will completely destroy your train of thought in other tasks. There is no swap. I suppose swap could be paper, or your computer...
But it's a very high latency swap, and the delay for getting back into flow... forget it.
This seems to miss the point of the study. (At least as portrayed by the article.)
The hypothesis was that more impulsive and easily distracted people were more likely to use a phone while driving. And that such folk would then claim to be better at multitasking to rationalize their behavior. The experiment was to test the first part of this.
It is a good question whether or not something as general as multitasking exists as a skill apart from a particular context.
I recently read an article here - http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2007/Crit_Thi... - which asks the same question abou critical thinking. It essentially argues that critical thinking skills cannot truly be taught apart from a particular context.
What makes you believe that humans can't multitask?
I can move both of my hands at the same time, or rub my belly and pat my head. Both of these examples are me performing 2 functions simultaneously. I can do these because basic motor skills have become a trivial task through my years of development.
Just like muscle memory, which can be highly developed in professional athletes, I think many tasks can be developed to the point of being able to multitask (like when someone says something becomes 2nd nature, or natural reaction).
As others have mentioned, I don't think multitasking is a proficiency in itself, but rather when you become proficient enough at a task your brain can internalize and multitask it.
Yeah, the "solving math problems while remembering a string of letters" it's a little bit out of context, while comparing it with another type of multitasking like answering email and talking on the phone.
If someone is "really good" at texting while driving (let's say top 1%), it doesn't mean that he is anymore than average at a different multitasking task, like solving math problems while remembering a string of letters!
For a computer any bunch of tasks can be considered equivalent, they are just calculations (yeah, even in this case we have to ignore a lot to say this but bare with me), but the human brain uses different physical subsystems to handle different tasks. So any multitasking performance depends specifically on the tasks being multitasked. Yes, there are things like general attention and interpresonal differences in it, but for the wetware in our skulls, the idea of "general multitasking" and being better or worse at it is bullshit imho.