I&#x27;m really tired of the trope that &quot;Multitasking is not scientifically possible, and anyone that claims they are more productive doing it is lying to themselves.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s paternalistic and condescending and always written by those that don&#x27;t like to multitask already to make themselves feel better about the multitaskers around them.<p>And it completely ignores those of us with various forms of Attention Deficit (I would venture a much larger component of millennials and software engineers have this compared to previous generations) who know what works for us and what doesn&#x27;t.<p>If you give me 3 1-hour-long tasks and tell me I have to work on them sequentially with no switching, I will get bored in the middle of each one, get distracted by something shiny, or stare into space if you try to keep me from doing anything else. I&#x27;ll need to take a break between each one because my brain is so strained from having to focus on one thing.<p>In all, I expect each one to take me 1.5-2 hours plus another 30 mins for breaks between, so maybe 5 hours total at a minimum.<p>On the other hand, if I can alternate and context switch between all 3 as soon as my brain gets bored, I&#x27;ll be able to keep engaged and work continuously. Sure each one may take me 1.25 hours, but I  won&#x27;t need a break. And the whole thing will get done in 3.75 hours, not 5.<p>(Numbers completely fabricated, obviously)<p>The same applies to meetings. I&#x27;m not defending coding or working on a challenging problem while listening to a presentation. That will certainly occupy my mind and I won&#x27;t hear the presenter. But checking some non-complicated emails? Organizing some files or documents? ANYTHING menial is perfect because it allows my brain to stay engaged while also paying attention to the presenter. Without this minor distraction, if I am forced to listen to a boring presentation with my full focus, I will unquestionably lose the focus and find myself drifting off and wondering how much I&#x27;ve missed.