Comment by lsh123 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lsh123 | Hacker News Reader

To say the least, the post is a worst possible example of "science":

1) Bad generalization: "Multitaskers actually become bad at multitasking, by multitasking". Reading the referenced article, we can find out that it talks not about generic multitasking but only "media consumption multitasking".

2) Incorrect conclusions: "Students who browse Facebook and instant messaging while doing homework on average achieve lower grades in school". Really? Don't you think that students who browse FB instead of doing homework are probably bound to do worse in class not because of multitasking but because they are just not interested in learning?

3) Just complete BS. "For instance, when driving and talking in cell phone, our brain assigns a higher priority to responding to our the phone conversation than focusing on the road." Really? The referenced article doesn't even have the word "brain" in it. I would be very curious to find out the source. And BTW, you should probably never fly in an airplane if you believe this BS since pilots constantly listen and talk on the radio while flying planes and navigating in the same time.

Yes, multitasking is not a "native" human skill. You have to learn how to do it and some are better in doing it than others. Also, it is absolutely correct that context switch has a price. However, you can learn how to do it effectively. As the result, while you productivity in each individual task will be impacted, the overall results will be better. And of course, one of the skills is to learn the priorities of different tasks to make sure that cell phone conversation is secondary to driving the car.

The empirical evidence presented by OP's blog post is far heavier than your objections to it. You have some valid points, but so does he. All other things equal, he has cited scientific studies and you haven't.

I am biased, because my reading has predisposed me to agree with OP that multitasking is the antithesis of productivity, but that's just my .02.

If you read my comment, then you might see that my objections are about citing "scientific studies" incorrectly.

Well, not really. Lets take objection #2 as an example. You wrote:

""" 2) Incorrect conclusions: "Students who browse Facebook and instant messaging while doing homework on average achieve lower grades in school". """

Which is a reasonable objection on the grounds that correlation does not imply causation. But keep that in mind: does not imply. The fact that something does not imply, does not mean it is necessarily false, or that the study was useless! In fact, the study gives us a lot more information than we had otherwise. So, it's better to draw an inference that's based on results, than none at all.

You go on to say:

""" Really? Don't you think that students who browse FB instead of doing homework are probably bound to do worse in class not because of multitasking but because they are just not interested in learning? """

Which is a hypothesis completely untested! Perhaps you should do a study.

"And BTW, you should probably never fly in an airplane if you believe this BS since pilots constantly listen and talk on the radio while flying planes and navigating in the same time."

To be fair, airplanes are not comparable to automobiles. Flying an airplane does not actually require nearly the amount of attention driving a car does. The sky is mostly empty, and planes will generally continue to fly straight ahead even if you let go of the control yoke. If you look away from the sky while flying, you're highly unlikely to swerve out of your air lane into another plane, rear-end a plane in front of you that braked suddenly, T-bone another plane at an intersection, or fly into a pedestrian using a crosswalk.

"...and planes will generally continue to fly straight ahead even if you let go of the control yoke."

Not really. P-factor, difference in the wings surface, etc. will create a force that will turn the plane.

As an IFR certified pilot I can tell you that during the approach (w/o autopilot) the pure "flying" workload is much higher than the workload of driving a car on a freeway (even in traffic).

During the approach, sure, there's a lot going on, but it's also highly regulated. You're dividing attention between the controls and the radio, but 1) you have another person to help you, and 2) the people you're talking to on the radio are there specifically to make sure you don't hit anyone. In IFR conditions, as you've obviously experienced yourself, paying attention to the radio is probably more important than looking out the window. In a car, on the other hand, the phone is pulling your attention away from the road, detracting from the navigation process rather than aiding it.

> pilots constantly listen and talk on the radio while flying planes and navigating in the same time.

As a pilot, you should know than that talking and listening to the tower and navigating are part of piloting, and something you've trained to do.

Multitasking isn't just about doing more than one thing at a time. It's about doing multiple, un-related things at the same time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com