Comments on: Is Multi-tasking really evil?

By: shahkalpesh

shahkalpesh — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:08:03 +0000

Tasks which don't interfere with other can be done independently.

Multi-tasking is a wrong word. Its like doing 2 things at once without losing focus of each of the task & without context switching (just like multi-threading)

While doing more than 1 thing, either there is context switch or there is robotic process which doesn't require attention (using brain).

Thinking/talking while breathing - is it multitasking? OR is there 1 automatic process which doesn't require attention?

By: shahkalpesh

shahkalpesh — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:08:03 +0000

By: Naresh Jain

Naresh Jain — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:39:57 +0000

Good point Jayadeep. I'm certainly not recommending we do more multi-tasking. What I'm trying to highlight is that certain tasks (residing in our long-term memory) can be multi-tasked without significant loss of efficiency. (assuming they are necessary.) If we can avoid them or there is a better solution, I'm all for it.

By: Jayadeep Purushothaman

Jayadeep Purushothaman — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:04:56 +0000

It sure is evil in the way people use it to be more “productive”, but I agree there may be things that you could multitask without loosing effectiveness. But in most scenarios, people don't think of other solutions other than multi tastk. Nitpicking on your examples, you may want to ask the question why am I driving so much in such crazy traffic – may be moving closer to work would give a lot of time to talk to others and be with family. Or are you spending too much of time brushing that you need entertainment along with it ? The problem I see is that people seem to use multitasking blindly and doesn't look at other options to solve the problem at hand.