Skip to main content

On the Myth of Multitasking - Argument

My argument that multitasking (as I define it) is a myth, apart from being based on research by people who know a lot more than I do about the human brain and such, is not a watertight argument. It is merely an experiential argument.

I believe true multitasking is a myth because I have never observed it. Sure, I have heard many women (and men) claim that (usually) women are able to multitask but (usually) not men. But I have never observed it or heard an example from anyone else observing it, even in women. Circumstantial evidence never convinces me that even women can consciously carry out two or more tasks at the same time. Sure, certain women (or men) may be able to 1) have one or more tasks going on subconsciously or 2) quickly switch back and forth between two or more tasks that all require conscious attention. But I remain unconvinced (only due to lack of evidence) that anyone can consciously carry out more than one task at a time.

To explain myself a bit more, consider a common example: driving. One may be driving, talking on the cell phone, and putting on a seat belt/applying makeup/ all at the same time. This is very dangerous. Why? Because the brain is probably concentrating only on the cell phone conversation. Due to practice and habit, the body can subconsciously carry out other tasks such as driving, putting on a seat belt, and applying makeup at the same time. No conscious thought is necessary for this. That is not to say conscious thought should not be applied. In the case of driving, lack thereof can result in death. And I do have evidence of people, including women, dying because they could not multitask while driving.

No one can multitask. So don't try it. Especially when driving.

I rest my case. Do tell me if I am wrong.


Popular posts from this blog

Movie Review: A Better Life - Part 2

This is the second part of a two-part review of A Better Life. The first part dealt more with the background issue of illegal immigration, whereas this part focuses more on the movie itself.

In the movie, neither the illegal (representative of all illegals, but particularly those with upright motives) nor the police (representative of the legal system, including courts, prisons, and immigration) is entirely at fault. Both are stuck in an imperfect, human system.

The viewer is led to sympathize with the illegal man, an honest landscaper who wants nothing but to work hard so that his one son can have a better life. He's away from home; his wife left him when his son was little; he has next to nothing; when he does acquire something (a lawn business and pickup with equipment) it gets stolen from him. And yet, the movie does not excuse what he does wrong nor does it try to show him as a man victimized and ruined by the consequences of his actions.

Apart from the social issue of t…


Read this in English.





今週初めて黒澤明の『隠し砦の三悪人』という映画を見ました。この三悪人とは、だれですか? 三船敏郎が演じる真壁六郎太(まかべろくたろう)と二人の百姓です。この3人の登場人物の関係はとても面白くて、全ての人間の弱さも愛される性質も示します。