Multitasking can be a brain trouble

There is the biggest impact, however, underpinned by the fact that brains, just like other entities, consider work that is mostly done in the same period time. You generate less energy to do two things at the same time, let alone three or five. Try it to see each task done worse than if it had your complete attention having done them one after the other.

Cal Newport, professor of computer science at Georgetown University, puts it, “It is very damaging, as multitasking.” Glancing at your inbox and coming right back can be equally damaging. When you looked at that email inbox for 15 seconds, you initiated a cascade of cognitive changes, he says. A quick switch from a current task to a different one is, he says, “productivity poison.”

The trouble with multitasking is most felting in the medical practice, since this is the area where attention to detail is a matter of life and death. A gripping example hails from a training session with George Washington University medical students, where a case study concerning an incident reported from another hospital came under our spotlight. Sharing the story during faculty development, I was informed that, for privacy purposes, specific details were withheld.

The story goes that during bedside rounds on a pediatric oncology unit, a text message distracted the resident physician, who was placing medical orders and charting electronically. She was a digital native; the text was about a party that a friend was having-nothing pressing considering the present context. The message caught her attention for long enough to clear her working memory. (When you are interrupted, you have little chance to clear your working memory; a fragment of attention is always left behind, engaged on the previous task. The larger this fragment is that you have to carry over, the higher the cost of switching will be.) The team at the bedside discussed changing the dose on an intravenous medication with the resident doctor; she never wrote it down. By the time the error was discovered, the four-year-old had developed renal failure and gone into shock.

Electronic medical reports have taken away the genuine connection between a doctor and patient, which we all experienced. Among the many unpleasant outcomes of being multitasking. In order to satisfy bureaucratic demands, doctors are compelled to look at multiple screens, write notes, and tick boxes instead of simply answering questions. The doctor could potentially direct the entire session to a computer screen. In essence, it doesn't matter if the doctor takes notes in hand or through an electronic device. It is unfortunate that the term "hearing" differs from "listening." While listening involves merely detecting sounds, it requires an active effort to understand and comprehend another person's perspective or message.

Electronic records consume so much physician time and internal memory banks that attentive listening is almost impossible. Computer screen is now the object of our immediate viewing. Patients' facial expressions and body language have become completely absent.

The training of doctors has always been to handle interruptions without this type of mix-up. The screens create different pathways for errors in situations that require attention due to their distractions. The spotlight's so-called focus seems to be supplanted by something powerful. It may be time to revive a familiar parent-child expression: "Look at me when I am speaking to you.".

The other day, I was waiting for the elevator when the doors opened and a group of twelve undergrads quickly left. The individuals who were constantly looking at their phones slammed into me without any indication of my presence, as the phone had already entered a dark spot through constant screen locking, which is referred to as "change blindness" or "inattentional blind.".

Inattentional blindness and agnosia, which means "not knowing," are both common brain damage conditions that patients may never experience. A lot of individuals seem to have walked through life while staring at screens but not being able to see with clear vision and clarity. Our focus is like a shining light, and nothing could be farther from our consciousness than the missed opportunities to learn in general or in thinking and remembering. They had already established habits that were causing harm to their learning, thinking, and memory.

Two-thirds of Americans and over a quarter of science educators believe that the 10 percent myth is incorrect, which undermines the idea that individuals can effectively handle multitasking and overcome distraction. This may not be true as well. Most American science teachers believe that enhancing their environment, such as watching videos of Albert Einstein or using iPads in car seats and potty trainer shoes, increases intelligence, but there is no evidence to support this claim. What's more alarming? Contrary to what some people believe, there is ample proof that implementing tech hinders the child's natural development, which would have had enough face-to-face interaction.

It is a fact that brain development is severely hindered by growing up in isolation and without any human interaction. It is not logical to assume that augmenting a child's normal environment with tech will result in improved cognitive development. Too much stimulation is just as bad as not having enough. Additionally, the social context is not the primary factor in determining stimulation. Our neural networks adjust, self-organize, and adapt to stimulation, experience, or context when exposed to a rich social environment.

Conclusion : Energy usage takes precedence over all other factors. Measuring the brain's energy usage makes it impossible to confirm our untapped reserves. The absence of a sluice gate means that there is no additional energy to multitask or think like king. Brain size and the amount of energy it needs to survive can help explain why this is so. The human brain grew at a much faster rate than the body during the last 2.5 million years. A mammal that weighs about nine times as much has a larger central nervous system. The cortex makes up 80 percent of the brain's size and its immense energy consumption led to the development of higher caloric requirements in meals and culinary techniques.