> The human brain is not a state-of-the-art multi-core processor. It is closer to an old single-core chip from the 90s.
That is plain bullshit. Make your case, but don't mix biology with it.
> The human brain is not a state-of-the-art multi-core processor. It is closer to an old single-core chip from the 90s.
That is plain bullshit. Make your case, but don't mix biology with it.
Studies have shown again and again how detrimental "multitasking" is to our cognitive abilities, which is the author's point.
Yes - for a certain narrow definition of "task" - but the reality is much more nuanced and comparing brains to single core processors is oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy. A human brain has tons of "subsystems", and a given task might use some but not all of them. So some combinations of task are perfectly compatible and do not entail performance drop, while others are fairly impossible to do at the same time. Most people have no problem walking and talking at the same time - but talking and typing different things at the same time invariably results in crossed wires.
If I were to offer a tech analogy - the human brain is like an Amiga, with many specialized helper chips coordinated by a central executive which can sequentially multitask but offers no memory isolation between processes...
Yeah, I got that. It was subtle, but I managed.
Can you share those studies?
https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/
https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-mult...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/
https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf
1. https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking - Not a study. Focuses on productivity (not health, or perceived well-being, supports the idea that the brain have dedicated structures for multi-tasking.
2. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 - It's about media multitasking, like watching multiple videos at the same time. Irrelevant.
3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12710835/ - About driving. Driving itself is already a multitasking effort.
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4174517/ - Media multitasking again. Irrelevant.
5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12172848/ - Study itself admits that has limitations, did not adjust to participants practice levels.
6. https://otl.du.edu/plan-a-course/teaching-resources/the-mult... - Not a study. Reference links broken. Useless.
7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11543232/ - Editorial article, not a study.
8. https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/chi08-mark.pdf - About interruptions, only deals with unplanned multi-tasking (in which there are interruptions).
---
I am aware that there are cognitive loads on some kinds of multi-tasking. That does not translate to all kinds of multi-tasking though.
To say that "the brain is like a computer, single thread" is misleading. There are scenarios in which the brain exceeds in multi-tasking (playing instruments like drums, playing games, etc), and there is plenty of evidence that we're tuned for it in all kinds of ways (but not all of them).
Furthermore, I'm not defending we should multi-task. I just think the metaphor and the "brain is mono thread" idea is both wrong and dumb.
It's just a metaphor.
That's my point, this is a terrible metaphor.
It’s not a terrible metaphor when it’s the closest thing we have to explaining this issue to a layperson.
Ah, yes. The typical layperson that understands threading and processor architectures.
honestly, young people these days are smarter than you give them credit for. multi-core and threading is something that pretty much anyone on the internet “gets” conceptually, even if not on an engineering level.
So, let me get this straight then.
You believe the audience for a blog about being tired of multi-tasking is young people, from this new generation that is always multi-tasking (on the smartphone, talking to multiple people, etc)?
You honestly believe they need a metaphor like "single thread versus multi-thread" to grasp the idea of what doing multiple things at the same time means, practically?
If you do, ok then. Who am I to disagree?
I still think none of this makes sense, and the metaphor sucks.
i think everyone’s got the gist of that by now
I understand processor architectures and I would have preferred the use of the word "in-order" processor over "old single core from the 90s", since in-order CPUs are still being designed and manufactured today.
the closest thing we have to explaining the issue of focusing on something is "imagine a CPU from the 1990s"?
C'mon.