> My answer is to always batch. Depending on the task's size, batching may take the same amount of time as it will to complete the task. And on a few occasions, batching may take even more time than the actual work. But batching is also a skill that needs to be developed.
Absolutely no data is given to back up this assertion, and even if data were given in some research, it would be some kind of average value, selected from a sample size of, say, 20-25 year old, disproportionally male Californiamen, who all studied at the same university, and were all willing to donate their time for some undergraduate research and obtain 50 U.S.D. in return, and the data would already reveal immense spread and variability with clearly around 40% at least heavily increasing productivity by switching, but the article would stress that the average would not, and thus advocate that no man so “context switch”.
Yes, practicing batching will make one more efficient at it, but practicing context switching will also make one more efficient at it,and the true reason is that many tasks require one to wait for something else and do nothing.
The reason why I'm already washing many of the dishes I cooked with as I cooked is of course simple: there is nothing to do except stirring once in a while at a certain stage in cooking so I might as well use that time to do something else.
I also took various sips of my coffee writing this, not because I had nothing else to do, but because it tasted nice.
In my experience this is absolutely wrong. Context switching is one of those essentials that you cannot cheat or improve upon. It’s like assuming that if I walk to work often enough, eventually it won’t burn any calories because I got so good at it.
The issue of filling waiting time is understandable, but recognizing the cost of switching to various tasks can still be useful in determining how to fill your time. Something that doesn’t take you out of what you were already doing will always be better than something completely unrelated and possibly information-loaded.
> but practicing context switching will also make one more efficient at it
I'm interested in your experience here, have you found that you were able to switch context more effectively with practise?
My own experience is different: when I'm in an environment where I am being constantly switched, I find myself tending to tasks that require less mental effort in anticipation of the switch. It's a death spiral for me and not something I'd like to practise.
Of course I have; I've become increasingly proficient at managing multiple pots on the stove at the same time with experience.
An even better example would be the video game of StarCraft II that I once played frequently that is known for it's high demands of the multitasking ability of the player. If context switching and multitasking could not be trained, players could not become better at that game as they do.
That rings some bells. My observation is that I did not get better at switching, but once I’ve got used to timings of building/preparing something, it greatly reduced the anxiety for not getting things in sync, which in turn removed a decision paralysis (a bit), which kicks in even if I have a plenty of time to plan ahead. I still have trouble with remembering to adjust macro when apm has to be retained at high marks.
> I still have trouble with remembering to adjust macro when apm has to be.
“awareness”, as it is called in StarCraft II, is definitely a skill that improves with training.
Seasoned players remain aware of what other tasks must also be done while they are devoting attention to one and thus allocate their attention better.
I personally never had the panic freezes that some new players have in this game, but I did remember having them in StarCraft I at the initial stages, but as I improved I indeed became more aware.
Brain scans of StarCraft II players at high level also indicated that they actually play large parts of the game not with higher, cognitive function, but with lower brain functions which is another thing that improves with training that the article speaks of in terms of cognition, becoming better at it entails assimilating more and more actions into autonomous reactions allowing for better multi tasking, which certainly also reflects upon cooking and computer tasks when many of the actions become more autonomous.
I wouldn't think of different things in starcraft, or many sauce pans, as context switching.
Instead, if you were to play a different strategy game for 30 min, or prepare a speech for 30 min -- that'd be a more real & problematic context switch.
(I've played starcraft btw, and cook food with many sauce pans.)
It's totally different when you can plan for everything, like when things are deterministic like a game.
In real life, when you need to constantly switch to new problems to solve, it gets really time consumming, and saps motivation.
Absolutely no data is given to back up this assertion, and even if data were given in some research, it would be some kind of average value, selected from a sample size of, say, 20-25 year old, disproportionally male Californiamen, who all studied at the same university, and were all willing to donate their time for some undergraduate research and obtain 50 U.S.D. in return, and the data would already reveal immense spread and variability with clearly around 40% at least heavily increasing productivity by switching, but the article would stress that the average would not, and thus advocate that no man so “context switch”.
Yes, practicing batching will make one more efficient at it, but practicing context switching will also make one more efficient at it,and the true reason is that many tasks require one to wait for something else and do nothing.
The reason why I'm already washing many of the dishes I cooked with as I cooked is of course simple: there is nothing to do except stirring once in a while at a certain stage in cooking so I might as well use that time to do something else.
I also took various sips of my coffee writing this, not because I had nothing else to do, but because it tasted nice.