How can you be bad at multitasking if it's not real?

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of people claim that aspies are bad at multitasking. It seems like those same people claim multitasking doesn't exist. How can someone be bad at something that supposedly doesn't exist?

I think multitasking does exist because my brain doesn't like it.

It doesn't exist? I seem to see people doing them all the time. Nearly everyone can do two things at once, many people can do three or more. It helps a bit if the things you do don't use the same part of your brains.

I think it exists. It just seems like some people don't believe it exists. I can often doodle or check for new messages while still paying attention in class. It might not be my full attention, but I can't give them my full attention anyways. The only time I'm bad at multitasking is if I'm asked to do two things I'm bad at.

A lot of the time when people say multitasking doesn't exist, they are referring to the fact that your brain can't focus on two things simultaneously, but instead it rapidly switches back and forth between them, giving the appearance of simultaneous attention.

I think most people's brains can focus on two things at once if they are dissimilar enough.

i think the kind of multitasking i would be bad would be working a fast food drive thru. i'd have listen to someone while putting the order together and transacting the purchase. when it comes to doing 2 or 3 of my own projects/hobbies at the same time, that's not a problem.

Plenty of NTs are bad at multitasking. My sister is a prime example of one. Despite this, she never seems to stop trying. The consequences of it are a.) She's a complete slob, b.) gets in multiple at fault car accidents, c.) is always redculously late for everything.

I might not be great a multitasking, but I don't test my limits.

......So maybe it doesn't entirely exist. People just think it does.

I think the studies show that this is not true. You can DO two or more things at once, but you can really only focus on one. Even people who are supposed to be very good at multitasking show a huge performance hit when they do it versus when they actually focus on tasks sequentially. You also see it in drivers and pilots statistics--when pilots have to do a lot of communications and instrument monitoring, they have more accidents. The idiots who try to talk on their cellphones while driving pay a heavy price and do incredible damage to others--the ones who text are much worse.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... ltitasking

The people who seem to be more effective at multitasking are better at switching tasks rapidly. Many who think they are good at this actually do it very badly. Some are worse at task switching and those people will seem to be worse at multitasking. A bad multitasker may be better at serial focus than a someone who thinks they are a good multitasker but has trouble focusing for any length of time.

I am not good at multi-tasking. As my working memory is impaired.

For me, socializing requires too much multi-tasking. As you need to take in a lot of disparate information (words, tone, facial expression, body language, emotion, etc.) all at once while trying to formulate something to say. All in a split second.

What I mean by multitasking is doing stuff like doodling while listening to someone talk. I don't think that involves task switching.

I don't consider doodling while listening multi-tasking.


Perhaps we need a solid definition of multi-tasking.

I am guessing that if you are drawing an intricate picture + listening simultaneously, that would like be considered multi-tasking. But, if you are simply doodling, that is probably more a stim.


I would think any definition would need to include executive functioning (which includes working memory).

How about something like reading two books at once without using both eyes for either?

There are times when I am aware my brain is processing something in ther background and will eventually give me an answer or solution even while I am doing something completely different, but I do not consider that to be multi-tasking since I must remain a "passive participant" or whatever unless I am willing to risk both things getting messed up.

That's what I think it means. It's another example of NT terminology that doesn't make sense because it's not literal.

I agree that we need a better definition of multitasking. It's hard to prove or disprove something exists if there's no clear definition of it. Would you consider checking messages on your phone while walking multi-tasking?