IS MULTITASKING MORE EFFICIENT? SHIFTING MENTAL GEARS COSTS TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN SHIFTING TO LESS FAMILIAR TASKS!

http://www.apa.org/releases/multitasking.html This is an article that I found on Google off the Internet. It explains how multitasking works in the brain and how efficient it can be. In my project, I can use this for the "older generation" argument and then try to refute it which would make my argument much better. I also can throw in some scientific information about how multitasking works in the brain to give the audience an idea of what your body goes through when a person multitasks. This multitasking article seems to be a pretty reliable source.

The source was found off a Google website, but there seems to be some professional experts who produced the information for this article. The article is a ".org" which already hints that it is a more suitable source then say a ".com". The article also seems to come from a special organization of scientists who have run experiments and tested some results. The scientists seem to be psychologists and the article even states that the "APA" is pretty highly used organization that provides scientific research. it states:

"The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 155,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 53 divisions of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare."

This is very helpful support in judging if the article is reliable. If only a few scientists were apart of this organization or none at all, the article would not be nearly as reliable. Another point that helps support that the article has good information is the date it was put out.

The article was made on August 5, 2001, which is fairly recent. The article is only six years old which probably makes it still reliable. The information might be starting to get old and other ideas could have been proven by now, but it still pretty new and has a good possibility of being the same thing argued today. The older an article is, the less reliable it is. Data and ideas change throughout the years. People believe one thing at one point of time and something completely different five years later. It all depends on the knowledge people receive and how it is used to prove something. If an idea is not proven, it can not be a "true" idea. It is still a theory that could be completely wrong. either which way, the more new an article is, the better chance it is of being a reliable source.

All in all, I believe this source is pretty reliable. It does not help my paper to much, but it post strong points which are supported by professionals. The facts help my paper, but the downsides of multitasking hurts my paper. The opposing side could help my paper, though, if I can find some data that can oppose their views.