Racha Salha ENGH-121 11/30/13 Summary Analysis: The Myth of Multitasking In her article " The Myth of Multitasking"

that she wrote for The New Atlantis, a scientific and technological journal, Christine Rosen describes the effect of multitasking on us. As a support, Rosen uses a lot of experts' testimony, arguments, and quotes. She also gives many relevant examples and cites different authors in order to get as many opinions as possible, thus making her article more pertinent and effective. In fact, the author's recourse to various sources shows that multitasking is a topical subject, which is still at the heart of discussions nowadays. The author waits until the end of the article to give her personal opinion, which is that there is a good and a bad side to multitasking. Indeed, she believes that even if multitasking may increase our knowledge, it definitely affects our wisdom. I think that Rosen is right: running after time doesn't make us smarter, but it surely makes us less reasonable. Personally, I have always criticized people who multitask. I deeply think that the only way to really enjoy what we are doing is to take our time doing it, whatever it is. First of all, Rosen talks about the effect of multitasking on our intelligence. She starts with a quotation by an English man named Lord Chesterfield who once said that "there is time enough for everything in the course of the day, if you do but one thing at once, but there is not time enough in the year, if you will do two things at a time." According to this introductory quotation, we are much more efficient by doing one thing at once than two things at a time. Even if these words are very old and lack credibility, since it's supposedly said by an English aristocrat in a letter to his son, it shows us that multitasking is an important and current subject, which has always been discussed.

As a transition to her first main idea, Rosen shows that humans have become so used to do many things in the same time that a word has been invented to describe this behavior, and this word is multitasking. Her explanations are relevant because she doesn't only define the word multitasking; she also explains precisely where it comes from and why it has been invented. On the other hand, she emphasizes the relation between multitasking and technology, by showing us how the notion of multitasking is evolving simultaneously with the technological progress, and how there is a sort of competition between both of them. After that, Rosen describes how the perception of multitasking has changed over time. The author reminds us that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, multitasking was considered as a good thing, and people felt even proud of it. In fact, they were so excited by all the new technologies that they viewed multitasking as a way to save time. Here again, the author uses a lot of effective examples proving that old perception of multitasking, and how it was actually considered as a "skill"(p.105). One example is when she mentions the New York Times article of 2001 that was about teaching people how to multitask (p.105). That example, as all the others, shows us how multitasking was actually perceived as a virtue. However, Rosen explains that this point of view didn't last long. Indeed, once the "exuberance" (p.105) was finished, or in other words, the excitement of the beginning, people realized that multitasking could be dangerous. As when we use the phone while driving for instance: this can be the cause of many serious accidents. In addition to the many examples she gives, Rosen uses statistics showing the effect of multitasking on our IQ too. She goes on to explain that that's how the beneficial concept of "single-tasking" appeared, and that experts became more and more worried about the continual excessive importance of multitasking. On another hand, she confirms that humans' brains are not supposed to manage so many things in the same time, by stating the words of a psychiatrist named Dr. Edward Hallowell who is specialized in the treatment of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and who has even

written a book on the subject. According to him, "never in history has the human brain been asked to track so many data points", and he insists on the fact "that limiting multitasking is essential" (p.106). Another bad consequence the author argues is that multitasking also affects economy. She uses effective numerical values by giving the exact amount of money ($650 billion) that the United States loses every year because of multitasking. Therefore, Rosen insists on the fact that "multitasking costs the US economy hundreds of billion dollars every year in lost productivity"(p.106), and that this is specifically because of the time workers lose when they use their cellphones for example. In fact, she explains that by texting, making phone calls, or even just by answering e-mails, workers lose concentration and their brains need time to refocus on work. On the other hand, Rosen reveals that multitasking does affect our brains, and that when we multitask, we force our brains to respond to "several stimuli at once" (p.107), and that is something beyond their capacity. However, Rosen gives the point of view of another expert, who is a psychologist named David Meyer and who thinks that multitasking has an advantage, and it is that it makes us learn to "task-switch" (p.107) more effectively. He calls that the "adaptive executive control" (p.107). In his opinion, if we only train enough, we can adapt our brain to multitasking and benefiting instead of suffering from it. By giving a different opinion and an optimistic one, Rosen shows us that there are many different points of view about multitasking, and that we should remain open on the question instead of taking one side or the other. But at the same time, Rosen goes on explaining that Meyer himself has found that multitasking causes the release of stress hormones and adrenaline, sometimes in excessive quantities, and this excess may be the cause of long-term health problems in addition to a loss of short-term memory. Once again, the author gives two very opposite ideas on multitasking, proving that no one can be totally right, and that we all should weight the

pros and th2e con before developing any final opinion about multitasking. Finally, it appears that even if multitasking may have some advantages, it definitely harms us and badly affects our health. Then, Rosen moves on to how multitasking influences our learning too. According to a recent study led by a psychologist named Russel Poldrack, it appears that there is a specific multitasking learning which is "less flexible and more specialized"(p.107). This learning is not particularly good for us since it is a short-term and limited learning that we cannot use more than one time. Once again, the idea that humans are not supposed to multitask appears from the words of Poldrack who says that "humans are built to focus"(p.108), and that even if we first feel like we're being more effective by multitasking, we are actually wrong: instead of learning of what we are doing and improving it, we only waste time because we don't focus on it. More important, Rosen recognizes that multitasking, particularly the media multitasking, is strongly affecting the new generation. Based on the report of a news channel called The Kaiser Report, Rosen insists on the impact of the media multitasking, explaining that it is a serious point because what is happening is that children are completely surrounded by technology, and becoming more and more dependent on it. Thus, they become impatient because they are used to have everything they need in reach. This causes what it's called "Attention Deficit Recession": which means that kids have more difficulty to pay attention. Rosen then moves on to other experts' points of view, and she quotes the words of a neurologist named Jordan Grafman who is convinced that media multitasking has a bad effect on children. Rosen gives the opinions of different experts in order to reinforce the idea that the media multitasking has a big impact on the new generation. The more evidence we have, the more credible the article will be. Even if there is still an optimistic point of view that considers that multitasking is the

main source of information, and that information represents the power, Rosen admits that there are some people who remain sceptical and worried about the effects of multitasking. Moreover, Rosen describes the relation between attention and multitasking. She reminds us that paying attention is "an art" (p.109), and that not everyone has the capacity to effectively pay attention to what he or she is doing. Thus, when a person multitasks, he has to pay attention much more than someone who only has to focus on doing one single thing. To support her assumptions, Rosen uses a quotation by Isaac Newton, a very famous scientist of the 17th century, by reminding us that he once said that patient attention helped him in his discoveries more than any other talent. This quotation, by one of the greatest man in the history of science, is very effective and makes the point Rosen is arguing even more credible. But Rosen doesn't stop there, she keeps arguing about the relation between multitasking and attention, by quoting the words of another expert named William James, an American considered as a great psychologist of the 19th, who described the tendency children have to lose concentration as an " extreme mobility of the attention" (p.109). Here again, we notice that Rosen tries to gather as many opinions as she can to support her point. Rosen bases her argument on James' words affirming that it is multitasking that causes "an extreme mobility of the attention"(p.109), because we can't completely focus on one single thing, and instead of that, we somehow have to divide our attention when we multitask. More important, the author stresses that we are becoming less and less willing to pay attention. Indeed, people think that the possibility of multitasking is an advantage, and most of them are not concerned at all about the inconvenience it may have. At the same time, Rosen bases on an article of the New York Times to show that technology is becoming more and more essential to us, and that we are literally becoming dependent on it. The author describes it as our support; something that we cannot live without, and it causes what James calls "acquired inattention" (p.110), since we are getting to a point where we have to literally force ourselves to stop doing many

things at the same time. That's why some people don't even do this effort anymore, and some of us actually don't care anymore about paying attention. Thus, it is like if we are sort of learning how to become more inattentive instead of worrying about being attentive. Rosen concludes by saying that even if multitasking may increase our knowledge, and so our culture, it definitely decreases our wisdom. In order to give her own opinion at the very end of the article, Rosen had to do a lot of research and to study all the possible points of view about multitasking, because as we notice when we read the article, experts have very different opinions on the subject, and multitasking is still a topical subject that is discussed everyday. We are reaping the consequences of multitasking today, especially with the new generation, and that may let us wonder how it will evolve over the years.

Work Cited Rosen, C. (2008). "The Myth of Multitasking." The New Atlantis.