Misunderstanding Multitasking

Published: Oct 20, 2016 by Joe Larabell

I was listening to an interview with the authors of the new book The Distracted Mind on NPR this morning and they touched on a favorite pet peeve of mine that centers on a basic misunderstanding of the term multitasking. According to Wikipedia, the first published use of the term “multitask” appeared in an IBM paper describing the capabilities of the IBM System/360 in 1965. Is is only recently that the term has been used in the common vernacular to refer to the apparent ability of humans to “concentrate” on more than one task at a time.

One of the authors said something to the effect (and I’m paraphrasing here) that humans cannot multitask because the human brain is not capable of parallel processing. Hold on a second… Setting aside, for a moment, the fact that modern research has shown that information processing in the human brain is immensely parallel, those two terms do not even come close to describing the same thing. The IBM System/360 didn’t support parallel processing, either. There was only one CPU and it was capable of executing no more than one computation at any given time. The term “multitasking” refers to the process of dividing time into small chunks and spreading those small chunks among several tasks, thus apparently making progress on all the tasks at once. This is made possible, of course, by the fact that a computer processes data so quickly that we are unable to perceive the gaps in the processing of any given task and, therefore, observe all the tasks as happening at once.

This is exactly what humans do when they claim they are “multitasking”. It means they are spending small chunks of time on each task such that all tasks appear to be happening in unison while, in actual fact, each task is progressing in fits and starts. So it is incorrect to make a blanket statement about the human brain’s inability to multitask. Of course, anyone who has carried on a conversation with a friend while frying eggs and bacon would know that already.

For some tasks, however, human multitasking doesn’t quite work. The example they gave was trying to listen to the news on CNN while reading the scrolling captions on the bottom at the same time. I admit that if your goal was to parse and understand both threads, that wouldn’t work. But if you were to concentrate on parsing and understanding the scrolling captions while, at the same time, keeping your ears open for any mention of the name “Donald Trump” (or, even better, your own name… should you be unlucky enough to be mentioned on CNN), that should be a fairly simple assignment.

The problem with human multitasking isn’t in the processing power of the brain – the human brain has a huge number of parallel processes running continually from the time one is born until their last breath is drawn (and maybe for a few moments afterward). It’s also not quite a problem of context switching. Sure… humans probably don’t context switch as fast as computers do – but most of the tasks we perform are amazingly slow-moving compared to the speed of the neurons in our brain so while context switching will generally have a noticeable impact on the efficiency with which we manage multiple simultaneous tasks, as opposed to doing them one at a time, most of us are perfectly capable of keeping up with more than one productive (or non-productive) activity at a time.

The real problem is with the size of our short-term memory. The common estimation of human short-term memory is seven concepts, plus-or-minus two. How a “concept” is defined varies. The more data that gets packed into a single “chunk” of information, the more data we can remember short-term. Some tasks require a lot more short-term memory than others. Take, for example, the scrolling captions on CNN. In order to understand what is being conveyed, we have to first store individual words in short-term memory long enough for several of them to be parsed to form a phrase. Then we have to remember the various phrases long enough to combine them into sentences. Then, depending on the content, we may have to remember multiple sentences before we can reduce the content into an understandable concept. The audio feed from CNN is processed in the same way. Seven, plus-or-minus two, is not enough storage to remember all the bits and pieces necessary to simultaneously parse two threads of natural language input. It might be for someone who has practiced doing so for the majority of their lives. In fact, in short bursts (such as during an auction or a heated discussion) we can often manage to parse multiple inputs (though that may have more to do with the ability of our aural processing circuits to record input for a short time and play it back later when the brain has time to parse it). But it’s not something that comes easy to most people.

On the other hand, if most of the multiple tasks in which we’re engaged at any given time have little need for short-term memory, we seem to have no problem multitasking at all. For example, how much do you rely on short-term memory when cooking eggs and bacon? Probably not at all. For most people, that’s an activity that has long since been relegated to the part of our mind called “procedural memory” and we can pretty much do it in our sleep (though, in the literal case of cooking, I wouldn’t recommend it). So the human brain has no problem at all splitting its processing between the mostly-rote activity of frying eggs and bacon and the more short-term memory intensive process of parsing an ongoing conversation with a friend. When only one task requires the use of our relatively scarce short-term memory resources, multitasking isn’t nearly as impossible as popular media would have you believe.

PS: Please do not use this as an excuse for texting while driving. Routine driving can be, for the most part, a rote activity that requires little in the way of conscious processing. But the reason we require a human behind the wheel (at least for the time being) is to manage non-routine events that do require conscious processing and quick reflexes.

This post was originally published as: https://larabell.org/wordpress/misunderstanding-multitasking/

Comments:

The Disqus comments section is currently under evaluation. You should not have to be logged in to post a comment. If you have any trouble or see anything strange in this section, please let me know. Thanks.

Latest Posts

Effortless Magick

It’s funny how, every once in a while, if you listen to the subtle messages unfolding around you on a constant basis, you pick up on a pattern of small bits of information that seem to build into something substantial. That happened to me recently on the general topic of effortlessness. Like many would-be adepts, I have a number of daily practices that I fit into various parts of the day. Sometimes they pay off with feelings of increased awareness or energy but, if I were being totally honest, most of the time they feel like drudge-work… a part of the day that occurs more out of habit than anything else… with the basic idea being one of consistency rather than joy.

Out with the Old...

I was listening to the latest Sam Harris podcast today and ran across an interesting take on something that should be familiar to most Western Ceremonial Magicians. Eric Weinstein was talking about finding meaning in license plate numbers as he drives around (don’t we all do that when we first start on the Path?) and the way he explained it was:

"...it's important to notice what it feels like to discern meaning where there is no meaning... it's important to get in touch with the "as if madness" experience in order to guard against madness; so I'm hoping to suspend my insistence on Truth for periods of time..."

I’m not sure about the connection with madness, per-se… and I’m wondering if that wasn’t just a ploy designed to wrap up the thought before getting interrupted. I realized when he said that that another good reason for discerning meaning where there is none is to prevent intellectual ossification (my term… it didn’t appear in the podcast, as far as I know). The belief that one particular way of looking at things must serve as the filter through which we see everything else from that point forward seems to be common in most philosophies and pretty much all religions. Adherence to a strict theology makes us less able to evaluate contrary ideas on their own merit. On the other hand, by constantly playing fast and loose with one’s synaptic network, so to speak, one might stand a chance of maintaining enough mental flexibility to recognize a true Epiphany when it finally does come.

It’s ironic that avoiding intellectual ossification was one of the main points that Sam was trying to convey just moments earlier… that there’s no logical reason to use one or more points-of-view which happen to have been elaborated thousands of years ago over new points-of-view developed by one’s own reason in the present time. Of course, that’s easier said than done and when most people start on any sort of Philosophical or Spiritual Path, they’re usually not capable of the kind of deep reasoning that would discern the “true meaning” of the Universe at first glance… so we may need to use ancient philosophy and religion as a crutch for a while… in order to bootstrap our thinking to the point where we can reason with some depth on the Universe and our purpose within it. But I expect that we all have to eventually drop the rhetoric and design our own systems based on First Principles.

Misunderstanding Multitasking

I was listening to an interview with the authors of the new book The Distracted Mind on NPR this morning and they touched on a favorite pet peeve of mine that centers on a basic misunderstanding of the term multitasking. According to Wikipedia, the first published use of the term “multitask” appeared in an IBM paper describing the capabilities of the IBM System/360 in 1965. Is is only recently that the term has been used in the common vernacular to refer to the apparent ability of humans to “concentrate” on more than one task at a time.