When people say "multitasking," I think they really mean "heavy context switching." It's important to re-frame the idea because actual multitasking is /extraordinarily/ difficult. It takes years or decades to master multitasking in even one, very specific arena (e.g. playing the drum set, or understanding two conversations simultaneously).

Heavy context switching, on the other had, is more readily doable by human beings, but still highly inefficient. It would be much better if people focused on prioritizing work more effectively, and then proceeded in a serial manner. Of course, prioritizing work is not easy, especially in complex systems, but the time freed up from constant context switching would help.

I do my work in the "interstices of [my] mind-wandering." That quote (see http://tinyurl.com/454tao) is going to stick with me for a while.

Context switching has a cost.

Mood also has a cost. Task-switching may improve your mood by either switching to something non-work related every half-hour for five minutes, or just by easing the feeling of droning away into bog details.

If you really don't want to task-switch into nonwork, a long-term planning/short-term work task-switch may improve mood and productiviy.

(Full disclaimer: I am bipolar. The kind you medicate. Sometimes work brings a heavier toil because I'm depressed; sometimes I won't be able to concentrate because hypomania (enough that I take Ritalin, which calms me down))

It's true, at least partly. I know from personal experience that trying to do too much at once can lead to nothing getting done at all.

Then again, there is evidence that focusing too hard can be just a strong a cause of brain blocks and burnout. Many famous discoveries were created when the discoverer wasn't thinking about the problem at all. (Eg. Elias Howe and the sewing machine)

I think that one needs to find a balance between focus and distraction and between single tasking and multitasking, preferably in favor of focus.

This article, via HN, sans irony?