I refilled the sippy cup, put the fish into the oven and the broccoli into the steamer, made a mental note to take the laundry out of the dryer, and removed a loaf of bakery bread from its package before realizing that Daughter 1 was waiting patiently for the next problem.

She could see I was getting a little frazzled, but it didn’t faze her. "Just ask me a math problem while you’re slicing that bread," she said matter-of-factly.

Later, I thought about how often, in a typical day, I do several things at once. And I realized that, for me, doing two or three tasks at the same time is not always more efficient than doing them one by one. When I am constantly doing several things at once, I’m more likely to feel stressed or make mistakes. I also feel less present in my life. Yet, like most people I know, I rely on multitasking to get things done, and the better I get at the juggling, the more balls I seem to think I can throw into the mix.

The word "multitasking" started out as a computer term, but it has evolved with the technological revolution. Wikipedia now gives it two definitions: "the apparent simultaneous performance of two or more tasks by a computer’s central processing unit" and "the colloquial term for a human being’s simultaneous handling of multiple tasks."

At work and at home, we’ve been programmed to think we have to do more to be more productive and, therefore, happier and more successful. In the workplace, the ability to multitask is a useful skill, if not a requirement. At home, it’s a necessity. The trend toward dual-income families means today’s couples spend fewer hours at home than their grandparents did – yet there are still the same number of hours in the day and at least as many household chores and family responsibilities. What to do but multitask?

The irony is that even in a society with more leisure time than ever, many people still feel they don’t have enough time to do the things they want.

We’re a nation of multitaskers, but where has it gotten us? We’re overweight and overworked; stressed out and sleep-deprived.

Somehow, we’ve been brainwashed to believe the watched pot never boils. But, at least in my case, the problem is not the time lost watching the pot, but rather, the time lost cleaning up the mess when the un-watched pot boils over.

Of course, not all multitasking is created equal. As an on-purpose distraction technique (planning the week’s dinners while jogging), multitasking can be very constructive. At the other extreme are the potentially destructive multitasks, such as snacking in front of the TV or talking on a cell phone while navigating a busy intersection. "Neutral" multitasks (making dinner while talking on the phone; balancing the checkbook while watching a DVD) can, in fact, save time – if you don’t make a mistake because you’re distracted.

Clearly, technology has played a large role in the evolution of multitasking. Without advances in technology, it wouldn’t be possible to wash dishes and clothes while cooking dinner while watching the news while talking on the phone while checking e-mail. Technology also makes it tempting to multitask, not because we have to, but because we can. (Are the college students talking on cell phones while they walk to class actually saving time or just making extra calls?)

Maybe this is just a passing phase. In the not-so-distant future, we might realize that multitasking is not as efficient as we thought — and delegate some of our tasks to robot maids, cooks and personal assistants.

Until then, I will try to live less like a juggler and more like my kids. They may not have as many responsibilities as I do, but they still accomplish plenty of things in a typical day, and they rarely do two things at once. Here’s hoping they’ll keep me on task.

———

Lisa Miller is a freelance writer who lives in Oneonta. She can be reached at lisamiller44@hotmail.com.