BBC—Is multi-tasking a myth?

Posted by Kendall Harmon

....researchers at Stanford University found that regular multi-taskers are actually quite bad at it. In a series of tests that required switching attention from one task to another, heavy multi-task had slower response times than those who rarely multi tasked.

What that suggests, the researchers say, is that multi-task are more easily distracted by irrelevant information. The more we multi-task, the less we are able to focus properly on just one thing.

Damon Young thinks where media and communications are concerned, we're not made for multi-tasking.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Culture-WatchPsychologyScience & Technology

1 Comments
Posted August 21, 2010 at 9:00 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. DonGander wrote:

In a way I am not at all surprised to note that there is no differentiation between typical women and typical men in the article.

I’ll never forget the time that I delivered an important envelope to someone in a large insurance building. I walked up to the receptionist who was typing a letter. As I told her who I was looking for she was interupted by a phone call as a man walked by, who inquired of an expected contact and took a note from her (as she exchanged peasentries with him). She took another phone call before my intended contact called and instructed her to sign for my package. The entire time she was holding an intelligent conversation with me and never stopped typing except for the brief seconds her hands were otherwise busy. The entire episode took just two or three minutes. As I left I thanked her and said that she was paid too little.

For me it is a difficulty that borders on physical pain to switch taskes. I am thankful to God that He has created a helpmeet that can do what I can not do. Egalitarianism is a great lie.

Don

August 22, 8:58 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Dan Scheid—Baptism isn’t always by the ‘book’

Previous entry (below): Eden Martin (WSJ)—Unfunded Public Pensions—the Next Quagmire

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)