Consequences and Efficiency of Multitasking - Essay Example

Module Multitasking Multitasking means the ability of a computer system to perform tasks simultaneously, as opposed to subsequently. However, in reality, no computer system can do that in its literal meaning; microprocessors have the ability to switch rapidly between tasks such that they seem to occur simultaneously. Computers with more than one processor can work on many process threads at the same time as each processor can handle a process at a time. Nowadays, multitasking has broadened to include human multitasking. Many people, especially in this information age believe that a person’s brain can multitask. Studies indicate that many people consider themselves efficient in multitasking (Moran 2). From doing ordinary tasks like listening to music while drinking coffee and having a conversation with a second person in the room, to talking on the phone while driving are all examples of scenarios where people multitask. Though the functioning of the human brain is not fully understood, there are studies to show that it does not have the ability to process two or more tasks simultaneously, especially if the tasks utilize the same part of the brain. On the contrary, all it does is switch rapidly to cover all the tasks just like a computer processor. This switching between tasks reduces the efficiency of the brain in two ways. First, the brain needs time to adapt to the new task every time after switching. Second, the time lost between tasks almost doubles the time required to complete the tasks if done subsequently. Consequently, tasks are completed less efficiently when done simultaneously as compared to doing one task first, then picking on another and doing it to completion (Rosen 56). Consequences of Multitasking: Multitasking is not a forte for many people. Therefore, attempting to accomplish many tasks at once impedes people’s ability to perform some basic tasks that sustain and hold communities together. A good example of this is texting on the phone or tapping away at a blackberry while speaking to a friend. As people work on their technological gizmo, they miss ancient but crucial concepts of communication like body language that help to convey the parts of conversation that cannot be expressed using words. The absence of eye contact among other components makes the friend feel neglected. It appears to them that either the conversation is boring, or their friend is uninterested in the topic of discussion. What is understandable is the fact that one cannot handle two simultaneous conversations and to avoid risking ones social life, one has to end one conversation, push the other one through to completion before moving on to the next one. It is common to get a wrong or irrelevant response during a conversation as the other party is busy writing an email or chatting online (Junco & Cotton 375). Learning is also significantly impaired by multitasking. As one attempts to absorb the immense information available these days at once, one tends to skim over materials picking only what they perceive as beneficial. They then try to recreate the whole picture using any scant background information they may have. The media adapted to this new method of reading by including abstracts before all their articles, as the era where people enjoyed in-depth reading of long prose is no more. Many are contented with reading a few lines in a book review or news summary as there is no enough time to read it all. This reading culture’s main downside is the fact that it is impossible to learn anything new if one does not venture into uncharted territory of well-articulated prose. The major contributor to this reading culture where details are no longer relevant is the internet. Search engines have been optimized such that research that once took weeks of research, reading numerous books at the library takes only a few clicks, so long as one has a computer and internet connection (Carr 3). Finally, the switching that happens between tasks when multitasking does not allow the brain time to concentrate fully on individual tasks. Consequences of this loss of concentration are referred to as human errors. They range from poor grades in school to loss of friendship and at times, loss of life. The latter is evident where satellite navigation systems, car stereos, communication devices and other electronics have been blamed for the rise in car accident-related fatalities. As studies have shown, vehicles with the most electronic gizmos are more likely to be involved in road accidents compared to their less technologically advanced models. Multitasking Efficiency: Many scientists agree that human multitasking is less efficient compared to working on one thing at a time. However, the degree of inefficiency is influenced by various factors. These factors make some people better at multitasking than others with women being classified in the former group and men in the latter. This difference is brought about by the difference in the time that one takes to adapt from one task and get used to the other before switching again. One is considered more efficient in multitasking if these short breaks between tasks are minimized. Unfortunately, there is no way of fully eliminating these short breaks and, therefore, the efficiency of simultaneous execution will never parallel that of subsequent execution (Gorlick 22). The efficiency of switching between tasks is also dependent on the tasks themselves. If the tasks are related and do not compete for brain resources, then they can be accomplished more efficiently than if they were totally unrelated or used the same brain resources. For instance, chatting online while conversing verbally either on the phone or locally is not a bright idea as both activities use the communication centers of the brain. One has to receive the message in both cases, interpret it and think of a response that is then sent to the other party as a reply (Digital Nation, The Documentary). CONCLUSION More research is in progress, in this field, although many assumptions are not conclusive. For example, the working of the brain has not been clearly understood, and most of the data in use is based on the products of brain activity and not the workings of the brain itself. However, these indirect studies point to the fact that the human brain is an inefficient multitasking processor. Suggestions that the human brain can multitask if trained are yet to be verified. Before detailed studies can prove otherwise, it is safe to conclude that multitasking is inefficient and people should cut down on the things they do simultaneously. This can be through reducing the number of active tabs open in their browsers to postponing a serious call to a later time when one is not driving. Works Cited Carr, Nicholas. Is Google making us stupid? Roughtype Press. 2011. Web. 12 Nov. 2011. Digital Nation, The Documentary. 2011. Web. 12Nov. 2011. Gorlick, Adam. Media Multitaskers Pay Mental Price, Stanford Study Shows. Stanford Report. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2011. Greenblatt, Alan. Impact of the Internet on Thinking. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2011. Junco, R. and Cotten, S. Perceived Academic Effects of Instant Messaging Use. Computers & Education. 56(2), 370-378. 2010. Web. 12 Nov 2011. Moran, Melanie. "Training Can Improve Multitasking Ability." Physorg News. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2011. Rosen, Christine. "The Myth of Multitasking." The New Atlantis. 2008.Web. 12 Nov. 2011. Read More