Multitasking is great, when taken in moderation

I don't mean the multitasking that computers do, I mean the multitasking that we humans do (or at least try to do).

A recent study seems to indicate that we can really only perform two complicated tasks at once. The evidence is actually very interesting:

When the volunteers completed one task, sections of the frontal cortex
on both sides of the brain lit up. However, when they were asked to
temporarily stop one task and start another, the activity in the
regions on the left lobe corresponded to the first task and the
activity on the right lobe corresponded to the second task. This
suggests that when we try to do two complex things at once, our brain
divides, with each half devoting itself to one task.

Because we have two hemisphere to our brain, they can sort of act like "cores" to a processor. They work together to accomplish our task, but when needed, can work independently of each other (to some extent) and double up. Apparently, when more tasks are added, it breaks down.

The end of that article talks about the actus contra bonos mores de die, so to speak: texting and driving. It's pretty obvious that texting increases your likelihood of being in an accident quite a bit. One study suggested that the odds are 23 times more likely.

So we have a study that says that two complicated tasks are fine, and other studies that give very specific examples of tasks (driving and
texting) that shouldn't be done together. What gives?

Just to muddy the waters a little more, one recent study from the University of Utah has determined that 2.5% of the general population
consist of, what the researchers have dubbed, Supertaskers. That is, people who are fully capable of multitasking where others
fail. The interesting part of that study is, if you read down to pages 6-7, you get the procedure:

participants were asked to remember a series of 2-5 words
that were interspersed with math verification problem

The researchers would ask them a simple math problem (is 3/1 - 1 = 2?), and the subject would answer yes or no, then they would be given a word, such as "cat", to remember. Then another math problem, another word, and so on.

The results were fairly conclusive.

At the group level, dual-task performance was inferior to single-task
performance for brake reaction time, following distance, OSPAN
(operation span) memory performance, and OSPAN math performance.

However, out of their group of 200 students, five (three males, two females) exhibited superior multitasking skills, "...showing no performance decline from single-task to dual-task across all the dependent measures". Interesting, yes?

In any event, the majority of us are, statistically speaking, unlikely to benefit from being supertaskers. Even if you feel like you're a supertasker, you probably aren't. So how can we leverage this knowledge into better performance?

By being frank with ourselves, and admitting that too much multitasking is bad for our performance. We load ourselves with responsibilities, then struggle to accomplish even one of the tasks, let alone all of them. The next time you are offered or given more responsibilities, remember these studies, and divide your time as necessary to ensure that you queue your tasks, rather than tackle them all at once. Divide and conquer your problems, devoting a sufficient time to each of them.

Tom Limoncelli, in his excellent book, Time Management for System Administrators, advocates an ABC methodology for ranking tasks, and then devoting yourself entirely to one at a time. Sometimes, that's not entirely possible, but with the knowledge of the so-called "hard limits" of our current physiology, we can at least limit ourselves intelligently.

Food for thought as you work through your busy week.