WEBVTT - Multitasking: Working slower with worse results 0:00:01.480 --> 0:00:10.400 Welcome to Stuff you Should Know, a production of iHeartRadio. 0:00:11.320 --> 0:00:14.280 Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, there's Chuck, 0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:18.159 and we're doing this on our own, flying high like 0:00:18.200 --> 0:00:23.880 an eagle to the seat. No, no, no, and this 0:00:23.920 --> 0:00:26.040 is stuff you should know. No, no, no. 0:00:26.239 --> 0:00:27.360 I'm so annoyed at this. 0:00:28.440 --> 0:00:32.400 The episode from twenty eleven that we somehow recorded in 0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:33.360 twenty twenty four. 0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:36.279 It feels that way a little bit, doesn't it. 0:00:36.479 --> 0:00:38.160 Yes, it does, it really does. 0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:40.400 I think I was annoyed because and I put this 0:00:40.400 --> 0:00:43.440 one together, so it's my fault, but like I feel 0:00:43.479 --> 0:00:45.360 like it was just like, well, this study says this 0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:48.200 about multitasking, and this study says this, and this study 0:00:48.200 --> 0:00:48.599 says this. 0:00:48.960 --> 0:00:50.919 I think you feel that way because that's exactly what 0:00:51.000 --> 0:00:51.360 it does. 0:00:52.159 --> 0:00:54.560 There's just no good story here. I think that's my problem. 0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:57.040 There is there is. I think the story is is 0:00:57.080 --> 0:01:00.520 that we're going to like flip everybody's wig because it 0:01:00.560 --> 0:01:05.000 turns out that multitasking is a myth, a fraud. You 0:01:05.120 --> 0:01:07.800 shouldn't even try to do it because not only is 0:01:07.880 --> 0:01:12.320 multitasking impossible for you to do puny human, it actually 0:01:12.400 --> 0:01:14.240 makes you worse at what you are doing. 0:01:15.240 --> 0:01:18.520 Yeah, I think there are people plenty of people who 0:01:18.520 --> 0:01:23.960 think they're great multitaskers. Yeah, they may be among the 0:01:24.080 --> 0:01:27.920 very small small percentage of people who are super taskers, 0:01:27.959 --> 0:01:32.000 which we'll talk about, but more than likely they probably 0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:35.920 just think they're getting a lot more done by switching 0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:38.360 back and forth between a bunch of different things. Yeah, 0:01:38.880 --> 0:01:41.560 when they're really really not. And that's really what we're 0:01:41.560 --> 0:01:46.200 talking about. Multitasking isn't even really multitasking, it's just it's 0:01:46.280 --> 0:01:48.520 task switching very fast. 0:01:48.680 --> 0:01:51.400 That's a much much better description of a task switching, 0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:53.680 because when you're trying to do multiple things at once, 0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:58.320 even something as simple as say like baking a cake, 0:01:58.480 --> 0:02:01.560 like stirring like the batter while you're talking on the phone, 0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:05.040 you're not actually doing those two things at the same 0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:09.240 time as far as your brain is concerned. It's basically 0:02:09.280 --> 0:02:12.320 flipping back and forth to make sure you're doing them 0:02:12.360 --> 0:02:17.120 both adequately. And we actually can do something as simple 0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:20.720 as that fairly well. But the more complex the tasks get, 0:02:21.040 --> 0:02:25.040 and the more numerous the tasks get, everything just starts 0:02:25.040 --> 0:02:28.200 the short circuit and you sit there and wake up 0:02:28.240 --> 0:02:30.680 every morning and wonder why you're still so tired and 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:33.240 stressed out all the time. It's multitasking. 0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:37.000 Yeah, since you said short circuit, we should mention the 0:02:37.000 --> 0:02:40.519 origin of the term is from a computer ad in 0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:45.600 nineteen sixty five IBM report basically talking about their new 0:02:45.720 --> 0:02:49.760 IBM system three sixty and talking about a computer's ability 0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:54.400 to multitask or process tasks at the same time. And 0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:58.400 since then, since the nineteen sixties, that really took hold 0:02:58.440 --> 0:03:03.240 as far as a catchphrase, and psychologists have gone wild 0:03:03.720 --> 0:03:07.240 with doing studies and experiments to see what are the 0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:09.480 limits of the human brain as far as taking on 0:03:09.840 --> 0:03:14.239 multiple things at once, which again, is it exactly at once, 0:03:14.320 --> 0:03:18.080 Like you can do things like at the same time, 0:03:18.200 --> 0:03:21.840 like bake air, stirring batter and talking on the phone. 0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:25.280 But I think generally when people are talking about multitasking today, 0:03:25.800 --> 0:03:28.760 they think more about I'm sitting at my computer and 0:03:28.880 --> 0:03:31.680 I've got like five different tabs that are sort of 0:03:32.040 --> 0:03:34.880 doing different things, and I'm also emailing and I'm researching this, 0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:36.520 and I'm doing that at the same time. 0:03:36.360 --> 0:03:41.480 And somebody's texting me and I'm getting push notifications. Yeah, 0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:44.000 it's a thing for sure. That's one reason why it's 0:03:44.000 --> 0:03:49.720 worth talking about, because if it's not actually effective and productive. 0:03:49.760 --> 0:03:52.560 People should know that because it's becoming such a huge 0:03:52.600 --> 0:03:54.080 part of our modern world. 0:03:55.000 --> 0:03:58.440 Yeah, for sure, So let's talk about it today. 0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:01.680 Okay, So, sadly you already hit on the fact of 0:04:01.680 --> 0:04:06.080 the podcast that multitasking comes from an IBM AD, but 0:04:07.160 --> 0:04:10.480 you said that psychologists had gone I thought that joke 0:04:10.520 --> 0:04:13.120 would have gone over better. You said that psychologists had 0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:17.919 gone wild like trying to figure out the computational processing 0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:21.200 power of humans, And I think that's actually one of 0:04:21.240 --> 0:04:24.919 the first problems that IBM AD kind of set it 0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:27.520 up for us to view the human brain as a computer, 0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:31.919 and that's not an exact analogy, which is why I 0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:34.440 think we thought we could multitask for a while, because 0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:37.599 we even thought computers could. But it wasn't until the 0:04:37.680 --> 0:04:42.760 advent of multi core processors that computers themselves could actually 0:04:42.800 --> 0:04:46.720 process more than one thing at the same time. At 0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:50.320 the outset, including for the IBM System three sixty, the 0:04:50.360 --> 0:04:54.560 computer with a single CPU was not actually multitasking. It 0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:56.520 was doing the same thing that our brains do. It 0:04:56.560 --> 0:04:59.520 was jumping back and forth between tasks really fast to 0:04:59.600 --> 0:05:05.240 make sure it was doing them both adequately. So when 0:05:05.279 --> 0:05:07.880 we kind of figured out that there was a problem 0:05:08.839 --> 0:05:13.000 with processing, that there were limits to it. We established 0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:17.600 very quickly something called a processing bottleneck. That, yeah, there is. 0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:22.880 It's documented humans do not multitask to begin with, and 0:05:22.880 --> 0:05:26.000 when we try to multitask, the results are terrible. And 0:05:26.080 --> 0:05:28.960 it seems to be because there's like too much stuff 0:05:29.040 --> 0:05:31.880 is trying to get through too narrow a passageway. 0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:36.599 Yeah, and some people think that, you know, this bottleneck 0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:41.960 happens most severely when you're trying to plan like an 0:05:42.000 --> 0:05:44.599 action that you're going to do at the same time 0:05:44.720 --> 0:05:48.360 as you're trying to retrieve something from your memory bank. 0:05:49.080 --> 0:05:51.560 Memory plays a big part in all of this. And 0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:55.559 what we're doing, like we said, we're task switching. We're 0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:59.520 performing things in sequence. So you're switching back and forth 0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:02.200 very quick, you think, But there is something called a 0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:07.120 switching cost. So every time that you're like you and 0:06:07.200 --> 0:06:09.000 I are researching or something and we're like, oh wait, 0:06:09.000 --> 0:06:12.200 I forgot we need to email Jerry about something, and 0:06:12.279 --> 0:06:14.880 so I'll stop real quick and email Jerry and it 0:06:14.880 --> 0:06:17.279 seems very seamless and then I go back to my work. 0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:20.640 But there is a cost to that switch there where 0:06:20.800 --> 0:06:23.960 it takes. It takes a second or two for your 0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:26.039 brain to kind of ramp back up into what you 0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:28.520 were on previously. May not seem like a lot, but 0:06:28.560 --> 0:06:30.960 when you add that up over a lifetime of work, 0:06:31.400 --> 0:06:33.160 there's a lot of inefficiencies going on. 0:06:33.600 --> 0:06:37.039 Yeah, for sure. So the switching costs is just a 0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:41.280 time lag, a loss of productivity when you go from 0:06:41.360 --> 0:06:45.200 one task to another, right, and especially if we're trying 0:06:45.240 --> 0:06:49.440 to do two tasks at the same time, which we can't, 0:06:49.440 --> 0:06:51.479 but we're switching back and forth over and over again, 0:06:51.920 --> 0:06:55.000 that switching cost becomes more and more dramatic. And so 0:06:55.040 --> 0:06:58.240 those two tasks, neither one of them gets done very well. 0:06:59.360 --> 0:07:03.080 And there's theories about what's going on here. There's some 0:07:03.240 --> 0:07:06.480 rival ones. The first one that was established, I think 0:07:06.520 --> 0:07:09.640 as far back as the sixties. It's called the psychological 0:07:09.720 --> 0:07:15.000 refractory period effect. And the psychological refractory period paradigm basically 0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:19.360 says that when we're presented with two tasks that are 0:07:19.520 --> 0:07:24.680 presented in quick secession, the response to task two is delayed. Right, 0:07:24.800 --> 0:07:28.280 that's documented, we know that. But here's why they're saying that. 0:07:28.320 --> 0:07:31.680 It's because the brain is still processing the response to 0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:36.800 the first stimulus task one. So response to the response 0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:40.120 to task two has to wait. And so the difference 0:07:40.160 --> 0:07:44.680 in time between task two when that when we're presented 0:07:44.720 --> 0:07:48.520 with that task and response one when we're complete the 0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:52.840 first task. That period is called that refractory period, and 0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:56.760 then it's followed by response too. So there's a there's 0:07:56.760 --> 0:08:00.400 a gap, there's a chunk of time where we just 0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:04.080 can't do anything for task two because our brains are 0:08:04.120 --> 0:08:07.040 still working on task one, and then finally when we 0:08:07.080 --> 0:08:09.640 complete task one, we can start on task two. And 0:08:09.680 --> 0:08:12.640 that time in between that's the refractory period, and that's 0:08:12.680 --> 0:08:17.520 what counts for that delay in response time, because our 0:08:17.560 --> 0:08:21.520 response to task one is typically shorter than our response 0:08:21.560 --> 0:08:24.880 to task two. So task two is completed in a 0:08:24.920 --> 0:08:28.720 longer amount of time than task one was because it 0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:31.280 was it was given to us while we were still 0:08:31.320 --> 0:08:33.040 trying to complete task one. 0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:36.200 Right. Uh, that's a good way to put it. Like, 0:08:36.240 --> 0:08:39.160 there's no progress being made that in that downtime. 0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:41.560 Right, No, not at least on task two from what 0:08:41.640 --> 0:08:42.120 I can tell. 0:08:42.880 --> 0:08:45.280 Yeah, And I don't even think you're I mean, I 0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:47.000 think guess you're putting to bed task one. I don't 0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:49.319 think there's real progress being made at all. 0:08:49.600 --> 0:08:53.160 Yeah, that's why some people. That's so that's a new version, 0:08:53.200 --> 0:08:56.080 that's part of the rival interpretation. They're like, no, this 0:08:56.559 --> 0:09:00.320 actually seems like you're not still completing task one during 0:09:00.320 --> 0:09:03.160 that refractory period while you're waiting on tests two. There 0:09:03.160 --> 0:09:05.439 seems to be a blank spot where you're not able 0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:07.960 to do anything when you're switching from one to the other. 0:09:08.440 --> 0:09:09.440 Oh okay, I gotcha. 0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:11.160 Yeah, so that's the new interpretation. 0:09:11.840 --> 0:09:15.079 Well, what they're talking about though, is the brain. And 0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:16.480 when you look at the parts of the brain, the 0:09:16.480 --> 0:09:20.280 prefrontal cortex is the one that is you know, if 0:09:20.320 --> 0:09:23.320 you're doing something, you're paying attention to something, it's your 0:09:23.400 --> 0:09:27.840 prefrontal cortex that is at work and it spans, as 0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:30.040 we know, the left and right sides of the brain, 0:09:30.800 --> 0:09:34.199 and it's coordinating with each other when you're doing one 0:09:34.200 --> 0:09:36.200 thing at a time. If all of a sudden you 0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:38.839 have two things, then the left side of your brain 0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:41.040 is doing something, the right side of the brain is 0:09:41.080 --> 0:09:43.959 doing something, and it's split up and that's where that 0:09:44.000 --> 0:09:45.920 inefficiency really kicks in, right. 0:09:46.240 --> 0:09:50.480 Yeah, that's based on a French fMRI study from twenty ten. 0:09:51.080 --> 0:09:52.600 Back in the ear where we used to call the 0:09:52.800 --> 0:09:55.640 MRI the Wonder Machine. You remember that, right, So this 0:09:55.679 --> 0:09:59.120 is like prime vintage Wonder Machine type study where they 0:09:59.200 --> 0:10:03.240 found that you can still do a couple of tasks 0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:05.360 that it does seem like there's a certain amount of 0:10:05.360 --> 0:10:08.959 parallel processing the brain can do when it splits the 0:10:09.360 --> 0:10:13.400 two lobes, the two frontal lobes up and says, here, 0:10:13.440 --> 0:10:15.640 you do this, and you do this. We can still 0:10:15.720 --> 0:10:18.000 kind of do it, but neither one is as good 0:10:18.480 --> 0:10:20.440 or as fast as if we just did one after 0:10:20.480 --> 0:10:25.440 the other. That's the big joke for multitasking. But if 0:10:25.440 --> 0:10:28.520 you add a third one, the brain just goes hey, 0:10:28.520 --> 0:10:30.559 wires just completely goes kaputz. 0:10:31.160 --> 0:10:35.920 Yeah, like two one is ideal two as possible, and 0:10:35.960 --> 0:10:38.280 again we're not talking about supertaskers, which we'll get to. 0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:41.560 And three is just don't even try. What are you doing? 0:10:41.559 --> 0:10:42.720 What have you been trying to do that for? 0:10:43.120 --> 0:10:46.480 Or as the French researcher said, forget about it? Right? 0:10:50.000 --> 0:10:51.880 Oh man, that got me. I thought you were about 0:10:51.880 --> 0:10:55.240 to hit me with a good French phrase. No, I 0:10:55.280 --> 0:10:59.920 love it. There was another study conducted at Vanderbilt Universe 0:11:01.400 --> 0:11:03.840 Go commodores, right. 0:11:03.920 --> 0:11:07.120 Yeah, yeah, they're easy like Sunday morning. 0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:10.320 They are, Oh boy, you're on a roll where they 0:11:10.320 --> 0:11:13.680 talk about the brain exhibiting what's called a response selection bottleneck. 0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:17.160 Another bottleneck, but this one's a little different. If you're 0:11:17.200 --> 0:11:20.600 tasked with doing several things at one time, the brain 0:11:20.960 --> 0:11:26.880 says what's more important, and so it sort of chooses 0:11:26.920 --> 0:11:30.120 for you. But I also saw some other studies that 0:11:30.160 --> 0:11:34.840 said that what also might be going on is you are, 0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:38.400 maybe subconsciously, if you're trying to juggle two things, the 0:11:38.440 --> 0:11:40.800 one that you're really paying the most attention to is 0:11:40.800 --> 0:11:42.960 either the one that gives you the most pleasure or 0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:46.880 the one that maybe can be completed as like a 0:11:47.000 --> 0:11:47.520 sub goal. 0:11:48.160 --> 0:11:51.280 Yes, so that's kind of a different interpretation too. So 0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:55.160 these are kind of rivals to the refractory period paradigm, 0:11:55.480 --> 0:11:59.360 and they're basically saying, like, our brains actually require a 0:11:59.480 --> 0:12:03.040 moment switch and like we've kind of established in that 0:12:03.200 --> 0:12:07.720 moment we're not actually doing anything. But these two different 0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:10.840 ones that these two kind of interpretations that you just mentioned, 0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:14.720 they strike me as kind of tomato tomato because they're 0:12:14.800 --> 0:12:18.040 essentially saying the same thing. One is that you know, 0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:21.480 the brain has to decide which activity is important, and 0:12:21.520 --> 0:12:25.760 that it takes more time. The other one from David Meyer, 0:12:25.960 --> 0:12:28.760 University of Michigan is saying, well, the brain has this 0:12:28.800 --> 0:12:32.880 thing called adaptive executive control that says this priority is 0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:34.679 more important than this priority, So I need to work 0:12:34.679 --> 0:12:37.679 on this one first. It's it's the same thing. Like 0:12:37.720 --> 0:12:41.200 I genuinely could not find what the distinction is. And 0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:43.720 there's even some bad reporting on some of this stuff 0:12:44.040 --> 0:12:48.160 where I saw David Meyer and his study from University 0:12:48.160 --> 0:12:52.560 of Michigan was essentially described to suggest that that it's 0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:56.880 showing like, oh, yeah, we can, we can do multitasking, 0:12:56.920 --> 0:12:59.960 we can process in parallel, and that's not at all correct, 0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:02.040 like he's saying like you can't do that at all. 0:13:02.800 --> 0:13:04.920 I don't know how it got all kind of messed 0:13:04.960 --> 0:13:07.599 up like that, But there doesn't seem to be anybody 0:13:07.679 --> 0:13:12.160 who says, no, we actually can. Everyone every single study 0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:16.240 is it shows that we can't. The difference between the 0:13:16.240 --> 0:13:19.360 studies is trying to interpret the results in different ways 0:13:19.400 --> 0:13:22.839 to explain why we can't or what happens when we try. 0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:26.480 All right, so we're going to multitask. Now take a break, 0:13:26.920 --> 0:13:29.280 I read a couple of ads, and we'll be right back. 0:13:55.120 --> 0:13:58.760 All right. So we're back with multitasking. I mentioned early 0:13:58.840 --> 0:14:02.960 on that memory, memory recall, when you're trying to do 0:14:03.000 --> 0:14:05.960 something else can really suffer, and so we should talk 0:14:05.960 --> 0:14:08.240 about memory a little bit. There's a guy named George 0:14:08.280 --> 0:14:13.080 Miller who was a psychologist at Harvard who basically says 0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:18.000 the human brain, as far as recall goes, is centered 0:14:18.040 --> 0:14:21.680 around the number seven, with a little variation up and 0:14:21.760 --> 0:14:25.240 down by two. So he's done studies where they basically 0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:29.120 just say, hey, repeat these numbers after me. And what 0:14:29.160 --> 0:14:33.360 they found is the average number of numbers that someone 0:14:33.400 --> 0:14:38.160 can repeat back to somebody is seven, and again it 0:14:38.200 --> 0:14:40.600 goes up and down a little bit. Some people are 0:14:40.600 --> 0:14:42.520 inherently just going to be much better at that and 0:14:42.520 --> 0:14:45.600 maybe can rattle off fifteen, but the average came down 0:14:46.040 --> 0:14:49.520 to seven. So what people do when they're trying to 0:14:49.840 --> 0:14:53.840 learn things or make something memorable is parse things out 0:14:53.880 --> 0:14:56.560 and separate them into smaller bits for storage. 0:14:56.760 --> 0:14:59.320 Yeah, and so we do that with telephone numbers, social 0:14:59.320 --> 0:15:04.520 security numbers, any string of ten numbers. We almost always 0:15:04.520 --> 0:15:08.840 put hyphens or dots or something together. Dates. It's just 0:15:08.920 --> 0:15:11.720 almost like an inherent thing that we do, an intuitive thing. 0:15:12.000 --> 0:15:14.240 But we do that to make it easier on our 0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:18.600 working memory. Remembering three sets of three numbers is easier 0:15:18.600 --> 0:15:21.280 for our brains to keep in our working memory than 0:15:21.400 --> 0:15:23.320 one long set of nine numbers. 0:15:24.080 --> 0:15:26.040 Yeah, I mean, I guess there's no reason a social 0:15:26.080 --> 0:15:28.040 security number should have those dashes, right. 0:15:28.680 --> 0:15:30.560 I think that's exactly why it has dashes. 0:15:30.920 --> 0:15:32.960 Yeah, so you can so you can remember, so I 0:15:33.000 --> 0:15:35.720 can just rattle out two eight seven nine six nine 0:15:35.720 --> 0:15:36.400 four seven three. 0:15:36.840 --> 0:15:38.400 Oh man, I hope that's not legit? 0:15:39.240 --> 0:15:41.760 What so like, what could someone do with that? 0:15:42.240 --> 0:15:46.680 Are you the LifeLock guy? Now, of course that's not. 0:15:46.720 --> 0:15:49.480 I'm surprised I was able to even do that successfully 0:15:49.520 --> 0:15:51.440 without saying my real social security number. 0:15:51.520 --> 0:15:54.280 It was really impressive. Actually, how is it a bunch 0:15:54.280 --> 0:15:56.640 of numbers? So just kind of as a side note, 0:15:56.720 --> 0:15:59.560 we've been talking a lot about working memory, and that's 0:15:59.600 --> 0:16:03.440 a huge part of multitasking, because when you multitask, you 0:16:03.520 --> 0:16:07.760 are you're not You're by definition, not completing one thing 0:16:07.800 --> 0:16:11.080 before moving on to the other. You're stopping mid task 0:16:11.520 --> 0:16:14.400 to move on to something else, which you probably stop 0:16:14.520 --> 0:16:16.320 mid tasks to go back to the first one or 0:16:16.360 --> 0:16:19.760 go to a third thing. That's what multitasking is like. 0:16:19.800 --> 0:16:23.880 There's no, if you do it sequentially rather than at 0:16:23.880 --> 0:16:27.960 the same time concurrently, then you're not multitasking. So it 0:16:28.080 --> 0:16:32.720 requires working memory, it requires attention, it requires self regulation, 0:16:33.200 --> 0:16:37.240 It requires an ability to keep goals directed in the 0:16:37.280 --> 0:16:39.080 back of your head and also to be able to 0:16:39.080 --> 0:16:41.320 place those goals on pause while you move on to 0:16:41.360 --> 0:16:47.680 another goal. And if you have ADHD, you are you 0:16:47.760 --> 0:16:52.800 have a challenge with every single one of those things. Memory, attention, 0:16:53.000 --> 0:16:58.320 self regulation, goal direction. So it's Multitasking is really really 0:16:58.400 --> 0:17:03.800 hard for people with AIDHD because it requires a lot 0:17:03.840 --> 0:17:07.280 of functions that a lot of people with ADHD struggle with. 0:17:08.600 --> 0:17:10.560 The big difference is in a lot of I think 0:17:10.600 --> 0:17:12.399 I read at least one study it's like, well, if 0:17:12.440 --> 0:17:15.479 you have ADHD, you know you're just completely distracted all 0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:17.520 the time. You should be really good at multitasking because 0:17:17.560 --> 0:17:20.879 in that what multitasking is. And it's like, absolutely not, 0:17:21.320 --> 0:17:24.160 that's just not at all. So I mean you, yes, 0:17:24.240 --> 0:17:29.080 you're more distracted. But people with ADHD, they they're slightly 0:17:29.119 --> 0:17:32.800 deficient in a really important ability in multitasking, which is 0:17:33.320 --> 0:17:39.240 quickly diminishing the size of that switching cost right where 0:17:39.280 --> 0:17:42.920 you go from one task to the other, you're you're 0:17:43.280 --> 0:17:47.840 if you're if you don't have ADHD, you're a lot 0:17:47.920 --> 0:17:51.320 better at picking up that second task. That that gap 0:17:51.400 --> 0:17:55.760 between switching is shorter with ADHD, it's longer. And then 0:17:55.800 --> 0:18:00.800 the other problem with multitasking in ADHD is that if 0:18:00.880 --> 0:18:04.919 you become hyper aroused when you multitask, and hyper arousal 0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:07.400 leads to much more elevated levels of stress and people 0:18:07.440 --> 0:18:10.879 with ADHD, which makes them even more prone to error 0:18:11.680 --> 0:18:14.600 and to frustration and all sorts of stuff. That makes 0:18:14.680 --> 0:18:16.119 multitasking that much harder. 0:18:16.960 --> 0:18:21.840 Yeah, and good setup for our eventual hopefully coming soon 0:18:21.880 --> 0:18:27.119 ash ADHD episode. We've already got the stuff kind of culled, 0:18:27.119 --> 0:18:31.760 but it's a lot, it's a big episode. Yeah, So 0:18:32.359 --> 0:18:33.720 I know people have been asking for it for a 0:18:33.760 --> 0:18:35.640 long time. So anyway, that's that's coming down the pike. 0:18:36.400 --> 0:18:39.280 But one thing that we have roundly seen in study 0:18:39.280 --> 0:18:43.119 after study is when you try to multitask or task 0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:47.159 switch back and forth, is that your work suffers. Not 0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:49.520 only are you taking longer to get things done than 0:18:49.560 --> 0:18:52.159 you would if you did it sequentially, and by sequentially 0:18:52.200 --> 0:18:55.040 we mean completing a task and then moving on to 0:18:55.080 --> 0:18:59.399 the next. That not only are you taking more time 0:18:59.600 --> 0:19:02.080 when you think you're not. You think you're actually being 0:19:02.080 --> 0:19:07.040 more efficient maybe if you're you know, living a lie 0:19:08.200 --> 0:19:11.119 like most of us are, but you're actually doing less 0:19:11.800 --> 0:19:13.840 the work is less good and you're making more mistakes 0:19:13.840 --> 0:19:14.640 along the way as well. 0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:18.679 Yeah, did you say that it can take up to 0:19:18.800 --> 0:19:22.680 double the time or more? No. Yeah, when you try 0:19:22.720 --> 0:19:25.720 to multitask. If let's say you're doing your test with 0:19:26.359 --> 0:19:30.320 making a paper airplane and then shaving a bunny, if 0:19:30.320 --> 0:19:32.160 you try to do those two things at the same time, 0:19:32.600 --> 0:19:36.600 it will actually take sometimes twice as long when you 0:19:36.680 --> 0:19:38.600 try to do them at the same time. Then it 0:19:38.640 --> 0:19:40.960 will if you make the paper airplane and then shave 0:19:41.040 --> 0:19:43.439 the bunny, try to do them at the same time 0:19:44.200 --> 0:19:46.600 twice as long, and then you're probably gonna give the 0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:49.080 bunny a bad haircut, and your paper airplane's gonna have 0:19:49.400 --> 0:19:51.680 a wonky wing and it's not gonna fly. 0:19:53.920 --> 0:19:56.760 Sorry, shaving the bunny sounds like a very dirty euphemism. 0:19:56.960 --> 0:19:59.480 If that didn't even occur to me, you're a dirty 0:19:59.480 --> 0:20:00.400 old man, he says. 0:20:00.440 --> 0:20:03.640 You know, man, Hey, I'm just a regular guy likes 0:20:03.640 --> 0:20:04.760 to shave the bunny, you know what I mean? 0:20:04.800 --> 0:20:11.240 Oh my god, Oh god, see it's dirty, right, Yeah, 0:20:11.280 --> 0:20:13.160 I feel like I'm blessing right now. 0:20:13.040 --> 0:20:14.600 When when I put it that way. 0:20:14.800 --> 0:20:18.080 Yeah. So in addition to it taking longer, didn't you 0:20:18.119 --> 0:20:22.720 also say that the work suffers as well. Yeah. 0:20:22.760 --> 0:20:26.920 They've shown on in work studies and stuff like that 0:20:26.920 --> 0:20:28.879 that you know, you can have up to a forty 0:20:28.880 --> 0:20:32.520 percent loss in productivity if you're at your computer at 0:20:32.520 --> 0:20:35.080 work and you're checking social media and you're doing quick 0:20:35.119 --> 0:20:38.399 email checks and a quick browse to look up where 0:20:38.600 --> 0:20:42.760 you know Tom Petty was what high school he went to? Like, 0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:45.199 all that stuff takes a couple of seconds, but it 0:20:45.280 --> 0:20:47.800 compounds throughout the day and you end up like forty 0:20:47.840 --> 0:20:51.320 percent less efficient. And those are just things that can 0:20:51.359 --> 0:20:54.000 happen at work, Like there are actual real dangers when 0:20:54.080 --> 0:20:56.200 you start putting people in automobiles. 0:20:56.440 --> 0:20:59.960 Let's say, right, and Tom Petty went to Gainesville Heigh 0:21:00.000 --> 0:21:02.280 School in Gainesville, Florida. 0:21:02.480 --> 0:21:03.280 Was it Gainesville High? 0:21:03.400 --> 0:21:03.640 Yeah? 0:21:04.000 --> 0:21:05.640 Okay, I knew he grew up there. I just didn't 0:21:05.640 --> 0:21:09.240 know if it was, you know, the actual Gainsville High School? Yeah, 0:21:09.280 --> 0:21:11.280 the one or a rival school. 0:21:11.400 --> 0:21:15.560 Nope. So driving a car is just dangerous enough, just 0:21:15.600 --> 0:21:19.520 even if you're doing it right but since the advent 0:21:19.600 --> 0:21:24.560 of smartphones, the ubiquity of smartphones, people have gotten really 0:21:26.440 --> 0:21:31.439 really careless. Yeah. Dangerous, Yeah, I mean like there's nothing 0:21:31.480 --> 0:21:34.800 more shocking and angering to me. And driving past somebody 0:21:34.840 --> 0:21:37.199 who's just staring at their phone like they're they're not 0:21:37.280 --> 0:21:39.480 even like like looking up every once in a while, 0:21:39.480 --> 0:21:41.880 they're just watching a video on their phone. It drives 0:21:41.920 --> 0:21:44.600 me crazy, and so I'm like, of course crashes have 0:21:44.680 --> 0:21:49.040 gone up at a million percent. There's no actual good 0:21:49.080 --> 0:21:54.480 studies or data on how many crashes are caused by 0:21:54.640 --> 0:21:58.439 people distracted by their phones. The best I could find 0:21:58.680 --> 0:22:01.840 was a study from twenty twenty two, and it estimated 0:22:01.880 --> 0:22:04.720 that only two point there's only been a two point 0:22:04.800 --> 0:22:09.320 seven percent increase since the advent of smartphones in crashes, 0:22:09.359 --> 0:22:12.040 an extra thirty five hundred crashes each year. None of 0:22:12.040 --> 0:22:16.600 those thirty five hundred is justified or something to sneeze at, 0:22:16.680 --> 0:22:19.360 but I would have guessed it was way more than that. 0:22:20.119 --> 0:22:25.359 And apparently there are more dangerous things you could do 0:22:25.440 --> 0:22:28.000 than be distracted by your phone, some of which we've 0:22:28.000 --> 0:22:31.320 been doing ever since we started driving, like eating while driving. 0:22:31.680 --> 0:22:34.560 Yeah, or writing a letter long hand, or reading. 0:22:34.359 --> 0:22:37.080 The newspaper, shaving a bunny. 0:22:40.520 --> 0:22:43.440 Yeah, of course, eating while driving is very dangerous. There's 0:22:43.480 --> 0:22:46.679 a study in twenty twenty one where fifty percent of 0:22:46.760 --> 0:22:48.720 drivers say they eat while they drive. And I think 0:22:48.720 --> 0:22:51.080 a lot of people eat and drink while they drive 0:22:51.119 --> 0:22:52.720 and they think, well, that's not really that big of 0:22:52.760 --> 0:22:58.199 a deal. But the NHTSA says it sixty five percent 0:22:58.200 --> 0:23:01.960 of near miss accidents are due to eating and drinking 0:23:02.080 --> 0:23:04.679 behind the wheel. And if you're doing that, if you're 0:23:04.680 --> 0:23:06.960