Think you're good at multitasking? Take this test. (2011 Version - See Description for new video!)

There is a NEW VERSION OF THIS VIDEO: • Try the Myth of Multit...
Please use the NEW version, as it clears up common misconceptions.
_____
FREE STUFF - davecrenshaw.com
LINKEDIN - / davecrenshaw
FACEBOOK - / davecrenshawauthor
TWITTER - / davecrenshaw

[@DaveCrenshaw]

There is a NEW VERSION OF THIS VIDEO: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5a0qpmfp91lfqM Please use the NEW version, as it clears up common misconceptions. Thanks!

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Some important definitions to clarify: Switchtasking - Attempting to perform multiple attention-requiring tasks at the same time. Always ineffective. Background tasking - Performing one attention-requiring task while something mindless, mundane or automatic occurs in the background. Can be time-saving. Multitasking is simply an incorrect word, because it does not describe what is actually occurring. By instead using the terms "switchtasking" or "background tasking" we reduce confusion.

[@hugejackedman7423]

I am watching this while playing Clash of Clans on my phone and cooking dinner.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Liam Neeson doesn't know you, Oliver, but he's coming for you.

[@vladimir66_]

1v1 me

[@carlb4295]

@@DaveCrenshaw get gud gamesense

[@RandomPunkChic07]

I actually did the second half of the test faster. I also have severe ADHD. You should do some experiments about how people with ADHD actually succeed better with multitasking. My brain has a very hard time focusing on just one thing. When I do two or more things at the same time, I actually get better results. For example, if I am watching a movie with my family and doing nothing else (literally just sitting and staring at the screen), I will miss details, forget what is going on, and not be able to follow the plot. However, if I watch that same movie while I also read a book, I will remember precise details from both medias. I used to think it was a curse, but I am constantly amazed, now, at what my ADHD brain can do.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Hi, Kayla. That's for the respectful comment. You would be an extremely rare. I also was diagnosed as "freaking off the charts ADHD." And I've performed this test with thousands, many of whom were diagnosed with ADHD, and personally never seen anyone do this faster, with less mistakes, and with less stress, the second time around. I can confidently say ADHD is NOT the real variable here. There's something else going on at a neurological level. In fact, I find people with ADHD are some of the worst at multitasking and incur the most switching cost. So, if that's the case, what's really going on in your brain? You may want to google "Supertasker University of Utah" to see studies into what you're experiencing. It's not something I cover, because if give someone the supertasker option, most will think THEY are unique and fall into this extremely rare category, when in fact, they don't. So I would rather disabuse them of than notion than bring up a rare subset of a subset and have lots of people say, well that's me! My job is to help the core, the main group, and for (almost) everyone, multitasking is a myth. P.S. In the future, please use my new version of this test, here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHTIeH6ur5iEbrM Thanks!

[@SoulSearcher247365]

That was intense!!! I got so much more stressed out, didn't write one of the letters, and my hand writing was horrible. That was tough. I just discovered this concept the other day and I've been thinking about it a lot. Thanks.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Hi Kira. Cooking is an example of "background tasking," a concept I discuss at length in my book. What I teach is very much grounded in real life.

[@artsylovelylady]

I didn't realize he wanted me to single task at first so I multitasked right from the beginning. I finished under 30 seconds. I think the exercise proved that I can multitask, but maybe I could have finished under 15 seconds had I single-tasked.

[@user-gv3kk4ts9b]

29 seconds, followed by 27 seconds. I sped up instead of slowed down? That can't be right... I will try the newer version of the video next.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

You're welcome, Shelda!

[@Boycott-Ai-NOW]

Aside from the anger, u make a valid point, but i think Dave's point is kind of "old school classroom". Simply that focus and time spent on any 'one' task will result in a better outcome which is true, but in today's world, there's so much to do that 'time' becomes the issue. In a given day, i find myself doing 5 things at once in the time it would normally take a single task (chore) to be done simply because I may only have an hour or two to get them all done. if the time-line is kept, ur good!

[@marivicesplana5630]

great job, sir! I used to believe i'm good a multi-tasking. I was pressured though because of the time. :)

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Thank you, Marivic! Now you have a tool you can use to explain how single-tasking is actually faster. Be sure to use the new version of the video at: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHTIeH6ur5iEbrM

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Of course I considered it. This is included in "switching cost" and this kind of physical cost can be seen in the everyday variety of switchtasking, as well...looking down at your phone...shuffling through papers...pushing the brakes when talking on the phone...texting while driving a bus. The analysis on the variable has already been done. We know it exists. We know it will be radically different from person to person. Instead, I'd recommend putting your effort into finding ways to AVOID it.

[@GarlandRentalsllc]

neat....took me 28 and 45 seconds. Stress level not what I consider high but I had NO stress with first task. No errors. However, I generally switch 3-4 tasks at a time....I can understand why I feel "stressed" generally. I will check out the book.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Thanks for sharing your results, Erik! If you share this exercise with others, check out the latest version of this test here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHTIeH6ur5iEbrM

[@HandballNinja]

A couple of problems here 1. Switching from writing a letter to a number isn't doing multiple tasks at once, writing a sentence with one hand and numbers with the other at the same time would be. Whilst difficult for most, certainly not impossible, and with practice, can be faster than writing with just one hand.

[@AthanasiosK]

@DaveCrenshawAuthor Actually the switching part of the process makes the processor cooler because only very small part of it is working the main body (ALU) is resting. Processors get hot when they do only one continuous task!

[@leahp3992]

Yeah.... in emergency dispatch you are expected to listen to the radio chatter, listen to others taking calls in the room, while on the phone trying to get useful call information from a frantic person on the end of the line, and realize everything that is happening from all three sources at once. I don't care if is relabeled as "speedy task-switching", the skill is still a job requirement.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Your example actually proves what I teach. :-) What they're doing is switchtasking and there's a switching cost involved. Their constant switches are a part of why they are so stressed at the end of the day. Unfortunately that's part of their job so it can't be avoided.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

What you are describing is what I call "background tasking." Background tasking - Performing one attention-requiring task while something mindless, mundane or automatic occurs in the background. Can be time-saving. However, you're playing Russian roulette if you think phones and driving is safe. Google "Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks". The University of Utah study found that talking on a cell phone, even on a hands-free device, dramatically increases your chance of an accident.

[@HandballNinja]

@DaveCrenshawAuthor My point is about time, and this is where I think we differ in terms of "efficiency". If I do two tasks simultaneously, so not just thinking about two separate tasks and switching between them like your example, but actually doing two tasks at the same time, at 51% efficiency of what I can do if I did them separately it would still be faster than doing one task at a time. I couldn't imagine having the time to hold only one task in mind at a time & still get everything done.

[@HandballNinja]

5. Your premise of people not being able to multitask is based on a competency assumption of what the average person can do subconsciously and what someone has to do consciously focus on. "Multifocusing" is on oxymoron and more likely the term you should use, "multitasking" is most definitely a reality. Have you heard of Henry Kahne? You should check out his multitasking literature. I also have a couple videos on my channel that highlights multitasking in a more athletic context Cheers!

[@gukonni]

All this is about is if you focus on something you do better. But this only applies if focusing on something improves work perfomrance. There're many examples where a task cannot be improved beyond a certain point. Once that point is reached then a person needs to find another task to fill the empty space. This happens when we empt ya wash machine and put the clothes into the drier and then put another load into the wash machine.

[@HandballNinja]

@DaveCrenshawAuthor I am sure most of the time you put 100% focus into one task you'll do better, or at least at the same level of proficiency, than if you were to do the same task with another one involved. The only examples that I can think of that this would not be the case is some people like listening to "background noise" ala tv or music. Or if doing a separate task like playing a beat in your head helps you relax and not stress and over-think your main task.

[@HandballNinja]

@DaveCrenshawAuthor So wouldn't the ideal be that people increase their proficiency to do tasks subconsciously so they can "background" them? "answering an email while talking on the phone" for one person might be as simple as "running on the treadmill and watching TV" to another My point is that while you recognize one's subconscious holds a broader capability than one's conscious faculty, you generalize what is mundane and what "REQUIREs attention" when it differs from person to person.

[@gukonni]

For example, if I start up my virus scanner and it's estimated to run for 30 minutes and I click "STart" then staring at the screen will not improve the performance. Rather, I need to schedule my time so that the next 30 minutes I will spend doing other tasks.

[@jonoikawa1124]

I personally think this is an unfair change in speed for the tasks. Going back and forth that fast is somewhat unrealistic for multitasking. I retried the task and instead of stopping mid word, I would finish the word and the write out the number of letters below. The first time I got 26 and the second I got 28, which is a much smaller change, because when I personally multitask, I only switch when there is a proper "stopping point".

[@origamimaster134]

That was intense 😛

[@HandballNinja]

4. Imagine if you lived your life entirely in a mono task mindset. Imagine you walking on the side walk with a friend, stopping to breathe, resuming, stopping to talk, resuming, stopping to listen, then stopping listening to breathe, then resume listening, cultivate your next thought, then resume walking, repeat...I believe you refer to simply done tasks as "background" task but that is relative.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Hi gukonni, Please see my comment about "Some important definitions to clarify" You're referring to "background tasking." Thanks for the comments!

[@cafersahin2458]

Only 4 seconds lost . Probably because of the greater range . Either I have multitask skills or the transition between two process is very fast ...

[@DaveCrenshaw]

The cost of time increases with the complexity of the task at hand. This was a very simplified example. Thanks, Cafer!

[@AthanasiosK]

Even computers (at least single core ones) switch fast between tasks to achieve multitasking so I believe that the term multitasking is somehow correct if the tasks that you perform can easily be switched.

[@frozen_tortus]

This is so true, I got little upset during this exercise since I made few mistakes :D

[@Boycott-Ai-NOW]

Good stuff... Couldn't 'multi-tasking' be simply, "the performance of more than one task within a given time period" when normally you would perform one task then the next task, etc???

[@DaveCrenshaw]

The real life is this: there are four positive results from reducing multitasking, and I see them every day in my company's coaching 1) People find more time - Usually about 20-40 hours per month 2) People make less mistakes 3) People feel less stress 4) The quality of relationships increase (search: crenshaw relationships) Rather than fighting to justify multitasking, test it yourself for a week. Do everything in your power to not multitask. Then come back and report what you found.

[@karlabanks4908]

What are we suppose to be doing???? lol I am slow as anything

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Multitasking makes us slower ;-)

[@c4keizerg354]

I can multitask really good if its something i know really good like if im making food and playing some game and i iknow what to do on both then if i hear a story i can remember 9/10 things of the story asked

[@c4keizerg354]

And at the same time i can talk to someone and remember 6/10 what thet said so yea but if im making food that idk i cant do all that so yea

[@c4keizerg354]

But i cant do this text becauce i dont know english good so i took 41sec to type multitasking is worse then a lie so yea and in the 1st test i got 58sec and second test i got 1min and 13sec but again im slow typing english

[@DaveCrenshaw]

When you are doing tasks that are done so often it's almost automatic, it falls under background tasking. Switch tasking is when you try to do more than one active task at a time that requires your full attention to complete. This would include a new recipe or game, for example. You can learn more about switch tasking and how to avoid it by reading my book found at DaveCrenshaw.com/myth. Thank you for your in depth comments.

[@joelwillis7241]

cool

[@DaveCrenshaw]

That may your logic, but it is not mine. My logic is that whenever you make switches, switching costs are incurred. These switching costs include things taking longer, people making mistakes, stress levels increasing and relationships being damaged. This is just a matter of math. Therefore, we should try our best to reduce switches as much as possible. Can we completely eliminate switches? No. But can we and should we take steps to reduce switches? Absolutely.

[@user-bo8qp1oy6e]

I want to use this experiment in my presentation.. Can I?

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Yes you can +‫سالم العلوي‬‎‬‎! I only ask that you let your audience know where you got this and maybe share the link to my website:davecrenshaw.com.

[@CanMetan]

Well..... single tasking took me 19, multi-tasking took me about 40-41. Thing is, switching tasks this rapidly of course takes more time. But if you are switching tasks like in 20 minutes or so, when you're exhausted from the previous task, just switching can enable you to take a "rest" from the other task and increase your productivity in total. I'm a software engineer. When I'm tired of writing an algorithm or something, I switch back to writing my reports for a while. This enables me to rest my "quantitative brain" and when I'm bored of reporting or if I think that's enough rest, I can switch back to coding.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Thanks for the comment, Kazathul. This argument makes a valid point. I agree: a switch, when used wisely, can sometimes give you more energy. I'd just clarify a couple of things: 1) This exercise is not designed to simulate long term "healthy" switches, but instead what is occurring when people think they are multitasking. They are making rapid micro-switches back and forth mentally and physically, which is always counterproductive. 2) I'd challenge the idea that switching every 20 minutes is productive. The average person "gets in the groove" around 20 minutes of activity, meaning they will perform best if they continue beyond that point for a while. Additionally, Microsoft did a study and found that it took the average programmer 15 minutes to RECOVER from an interruption. This means that if you worked 20 minutes and then switched you'd get very little real work done in an hour. My experience is that 60-90 minutes is a better target for most people.

[@CanMetan]

Dave Crenshaw Thanks for pointing it out. Actually I have been trying to do the "pomodoro technique" for a while now (which promotes single-tasking). I am currently using 2 pomodoros with 50 minute working intervals with a 5 minute short break in between. Plus I take a long break of 15 minutes at the end to start the cycle again (adds up to 2 hour periods) Though I find it difficult to execute steadily throughout the day and I tend to procrastinate before the intervals end. I personally think that the "tiredness" kicks in when you're doing a more difficult task when single-tasking. Especially when I'm dealing with a a complex situation, I tend to procrastinate earlier than I foresee. However if the task is repetitive or just not overwhelming, I don't feel tired at all and the interval feels short and I can multi-task during that "crunch time". Simply put, I just don't think there's an optimal interval for a single-tasking work, even for a specific person. However as you've suggested, pomodoro technique makes use of doing a single task at a time and forces you to work at least a fixed interval before you go wandering off to something else. Plus it prevents any tasks that interferes with it so essentially you never multi-task. It is better than nothing I suppose and it is nice to look at the clock and it'll hold you in place. I'm interested in hearing your opinions on this.

[@mmdurfee]

So the logic here is because this "evidence" that multi-tasking is "counterproductive" and sometimes "dangerous", problems will never arise more than one at a time, and multi-tasking should never be exercised.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Woah, don't know what happened to my previous comments. For some reason they got deleted!

[@DaveCrenshaw]

So by multitasking less you completed it faster? :-) I believe you proved the point.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Hi gukonni. You're describing what I call "background tasking." See my definition above.

[@HandballNinja]

2. You are generalizing all human beings based on the majority. Most are raised to think sequentially as opposed to holistically. Most people don't practice cultivating a multiple mentality which is why most struggle dealing with multiple stimuli, not because of some inherent inability for humans to do so.

[@KaiWarwick]

some things actually require multi tasking to work though so why would you not practise it... The message is obvious, doesn't need to be proved

[@mollyfidlow9278]

I was able to do it no mistakes in 39 seconds

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Great for you! Your switching cost is likely lower than then average person. There are two additional costs: stress, and the damage it does to relationships. watch?v=21V4Je5q7VQ

[@gioperez2366]

it's so hard 😣

[@BryanRed7]

arghh 25 seconds on first test, but 58 seconds on 2nd, messed up a lot xD was very hard for me, I guess I suck at multi-tasking :(

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Practicing getting better at being less efficient? Even when you get "better" at multitasking, you're still not as effective as if you do one thing at a time. What you believe requires multitasking may actually be what I call background tasking, which is very different than switchtasking. My job is not to convince people, but to help them change their behavior so they are less stressed, get more done and have better relationships.

[@betterthantheworst]

I always switch between two things at once. I have no issues and I'm not bored. I can just do one thing at a time but I end up staring at the wall waiting for other people because they're so slow. This test was irrelevant because no one switchtasks every second. And by then end of the sentence I was ten times faster than the start because my brain figured out how to flip back and forth faster and add a number in between so this doesn't prove anything to me. This whole idea that multitasking is useless isnt true for me. In fact I can list several ways I multitask with zero negative effects to my work stats. And twice as much gets done. It is challanging, so health wise maybe it kills you in the end but I sure as hell do it daily, and do it very well. I also take time to purposely not multitask when speaking to people I give my undivided attention. You can do both. You just need to know when and why you are doing it, to what end, and make sure results are positive.

[@ODominator17]

26 and 49 :P

[@cutietifftiff]

i took 30 seconds first time and 40 seconds second time :-D

[@HandballNinja]

3. Multitasking, like playing the piano, cooking, writing, etc is a skill that gets better with practice. Sadly, people like you advise people to refrain from putting in the effort to learn such a beneficial skill. Cultivating a multiple mentality broadens your perspective on the world, develops conceptual skills, and when used appropriately increases time management.

[@The80sKickAss]

lol why are you taking such offense to this? First off, the chef at a restaurant usually ass assistants. He will tell someone else to make your chips for you. Secondly, Yes to be a chef you have to be able to switch task well, being a chef is a very stressful job because of that. Most jobs don't require that kind of task management yet people still do it, which over-stresses them for no reason.

[@UtubeRoxMoreThanYou]

this is dumb dumb dumb and dumb….dumb. Our teacher won't allow us to listen to music while working on a project because she watched this video.

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Sounds like your teacher may have misunderstood this video. Listening to music while working can be--for many people, but not all--a productive form of background tasking. The new version of this test clears up these misconceptions: The Myth of Multitasking Test (NEW)

[@UtubeRoxMoreThanYou]

thank you, I'll tell her haha

[@DaveCrenshaw]

Sophia Trotter Great! Yeah for me, personally, listening to music is distracting and a form of switchtasking, but that's because I used to be a musician and I can't listen without analyzing everything I hear. Some people actually boost performance with music. The trick is, in a classroom with many different people, it may be great for some and horrible for others.

[@Coldretter]

i do not believe your test is a good representation of what multitasking actually is. obviously it is going to take longer the second way because you have to move your hand! what im thinking is that if you can, for example, type something while talking on the phone; or write something down while listening to somebody you are actually getting two things done at once, not switch tasking. my mother, who is a secretary does this all day at her job. unfortunately.. i am running out of room...

[@DaveCrenshaw]

You'd get it all done faster, with less mistakes, with less stress if you didn't try to do it all at once. It's neither old nor young. It's just math.

[@KaiWarwick]

Well i'd rather a chef cook my entire meal at the same time rather than have my steak come out cold and the chips freshly cooked. You're stuck in your mindset of trying to maximise potential when you're not thinking realistically. I agree certain things can be done faster by focusing on only one task but in a real life scenario it just doesnt happen.

[@kinghassy334]

The more you're brain multi tasks, the more the two tasks just become one task and you become more comfortable and efficient, multi tasking is only bad because you're not accustomed to doing those tasks simultaneously so you haven't built the neural networks required.

[@kinghassy334]

That's what this experiment proved for me

[@KaiWarwick]

There is no difference. The example of multitasking in this video is VERY exaggerated to make your point seem viable but when it comes down to how we operate IN REAL LIFE it doesn't have any meaning. I agree that in some cases multitasking is the less efficient option but in the majority it isn't. I really don't have to argue with someone who is narrow minded like yourself so please open your eyes before replying again. peace