4 ms·

The studies I have seen say the exact opposite. Non-verbal cues make up most of the info flow: https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/communication/how-much-

The studies I have seen say the exact opposite. Non-verbal cues make up most of the info flow: https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/communication/how-much-of-communication-is-nonverbal https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/communication/how-... If you feel your meetings don’t benefit from non-verbal cues, consider if you really need these meetings? Maybe it’s just a status call that could have also been solved via an online status tracker?

osigurdson 4y ago
The idea that we are communicating largely via body language and facial expressions is so absurd I had to look it up. The person who this is attributed to is Albert Mehrabian. According to wikipedia it is more related to the "liking" of the person who puts forth the same message delivered with various vocal tones with photographs of various facial expressions, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian
- microjim 4y ago
  Pointless to squabble over the idea that there is some fixed 'proportion' so let me offer this - Body langugage and facial expressions are entire, distinct channels that primarily communicate information around emotion and attitude towards objects of attention. How relevant this information in any given situation is one question. The impact of those channels not being there, and the ability (let alone willingness) of senders and receivers (read: people in an interaction) to send and interpret that information over another channel is a whole other matter.
kkfx 4y ago
Sorry for the rude tone, but is useful to get to the point: non-verbal communication works they well in person, we understand others from it. With a webcam it's just a visual overload that distract and disturb. We have gone through the very same error for the entire IT history: after the Xerox era all tried to mimic the real life in a virtual one, like many GNU/Linux newcomers try to mimic Windows paradigm and some criminals with a keyboard improperly named developers sometimes even try that path. All such moves were big failure. The virtual world have it's rules, not the same of the physical one. We do NEVER try to mimic one in the other but to elicit the maximum profit from any tools. Working distributed is not "a way to be together but with physical distance", oh we see many consider that, we see even infra designed for that with crappy VDIs hosted somewhere to have "the virtual managed office" around the world, even some in the metaverse to try mimicking real life conferences rooms. See in the past General Magick UIs and you'll understand why that can't work. WFH is not work in a virtual office, we need a paradigm for it, witch is totally different than the in-person one.
- thesumofall 4y ago
  So, just because it’s not perfect we don’t do it at all? Agree to the paradigm shift, but so far it hasn’t emerged [1] and telling people that it will never be a replacement for physical presence, would actually quite support the crowd asking for a 100% return to office fearing that innovation and team cohesion will suffer [1] At least nothing that we didn’t have so far. And nothing of what we have so far seems to have had any real breakthrough (actually, with the exception of video calls ;)
  - kkfx 4y ago
    > So, just because it’s not perfect we don’t do it at all? Just because is so far from perfection to a point of being just waste of bandwidth resources, a security risk [1] and an annoyance who force people a certain dress code, others with shows of decorated background and animations, others shows misery of their homes while some show their wealth status as a way to impress etc. > telling people that it will never be a replacement for physical presence, would actually quite support the crowd asking for a 100% return to office fearing that innovation and team cohesion will suffer Honestly, without much data but hearing climate in my circles and reading the press, those who want back in office are just middle managers and some old people who will retire in few years. So the crowd will be a very small one against a far bigger one who just say, as happen right now in various part of the world "if you want me back in the office I resign, go look for someone else"... You can't made soft paradigm changes, you can only change softly witch means for instance start pushing 99% remote work just to a series of jobs where people have enough money, interests and willingness to live cities and going full remote instead of pushing it worldwide "for the pandemic" and for all possibly remote jobs. For instance instead of pushing crappy proprietary platforms like Meet, Teams, Zoom developing a company infra on company iron, negotiating seriously with workers: "if you want full remote you need to offer us a spare room in your house at a given little monthly fee, like the same you get in office to eat, with possible sufficient connectivity to work, electricity and a closed door. We gives you all the needed furniture and gears, we pay the connection or we negotiate a compensation for them if you provide them and what you offer meet our demand" instead of giving craptops and craphones etc. When a first batch of humans, skilled, educated and wealthy enough to test the new model will finally arrive to a good stability than offering a similar paths to other workers also a bit at a time to make the migration possible, the softer possible, with enough experience already made to avoid making full-society-scale or full-company-scale disasters. You can't switch paradigm in small steps though, hybrid work does not work, mixed work in the same workforce does not work. It's a classic error common in countless situations, from the military where a general want a strategy another an almost totally different one and the chief finally choose a middle ground between the two making both a failure to the classic IT horror stories and anything in between. Consider a thing: there is no success without risk, you can mitigate the risk reducing the risk surface, like "hey we build masonry houses only, we want to try new materials like wood, so instead of change all houses a big risk surface, we build just some few houses to see how they work" but you can't get anything from "we start with a wood based floor and one masonry". [1] you know deepfakes need much data to be trained, the more you face/body is shown on-line the more data some model get to produce a realistic video of you stating terrorist intention or perhaps confessing a love betrayal etc realistic enough to be believed. In real life no one can hold good cam and grab data without you noticing, with modern platforms like Zoom, Teams, Meet, their owners harvest gazillions of data, and deepfakes aside what you think about holding a talk in a public place discussing works stuff? You normally want a private room, isn't it?

osigurdson 4y ago

The idea that we are communicating largely via body language and facial expressions is so absurd I had to look it up. The person who this is attributed to is Albert Mehrabian. According to wikipedia it is more related to the "liking" of the person who puts forth the same message delivered with various vocal tones with photographs of various facial expressions, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian

microjim 4y ago
Pointless to squabble over the idea that there is some fixed 'proportion' so let me offer this - Body langugage and facial expressions are entire, distinct channels that primarily communicate information around emotion and attitude towards objects of attention. How relevant this information in any given situation is one question. The impact of those channels not being there, and the ability (let alone willingness) of senders and receivers (read: people in an interaction) to send and interpret that information over another channel is a whole other matter.

kkfx 4y ago

Sorry for the rude tone, but is useful to get to the point: non-verbal communication works they well in person, we understand others from it. With a webcam it's just a visual overload that distract and disturb. We have gone through the very same error for the entire IT history: after the Xerox era all tried to mimic the real life in a virtual one, like many GNU/Linux newcomers try to mimic Windows paradigm and some criminals with a keyboard improperly named developers sometimes even try that path. All such moves were big failure. The virtual world have it's rules, not the same of the physical one. We do NEVER try to mimic one in the other but to elicit the maximum profit from any tools. Working distributed is not "a way to be together but with physical distance", oh we see many consider that, we see even infra designed for that with crappy VDIs hosted somewhere to have "the virtual managed office" around the world, even some in the metaverse to try mimicking real life conferences rooms. See in the past General Magick UIs and you'll understand why that can't work. WFH is not work in a virtual office, we need a paradigm for it, witch is totally different than the in-person one.

thesumofall 4y ago
So, just because it’s not perfect we don’t do it at all? Agree to the paradigm shift, but so far it hasn’t emerged [1] and telling people that it will never be a replacement for physical presence, would actually quite support the crowd asking for a 100% return to office fearing that innovation and team cohesion will suffer [1] At least nothing that we didn’t have so far. And nothing of what we have so far seems to have had any real breakthrough (actually, with the exception of video calls ;)
- kkfx 4y ago
  > So, just because it’s not perfect we don’t do it at all? Just because is so far from perfection to a point of being just waste of bandwidth resources, a security risk [1] and an annoyance who force people a certain dress code, others with shows of decorated background and animations, others shows misery of their homes while some show their wealth status as a way to impress etc. > telling people that it will never be a replacement for physical presence, would actually quite support the crowd asking for a 100% return to office fearing that innovation and team cohesion will suffer Honestly, without much data but hearing climate in my circles and reading the press, those who want back in office are just middle managers and some old people who will retire in few years. So the crowd will be a very small one against a far bigger one who just say, as happen right now in various part of the world "if you want me back in the office I resign, go look for someone else"... You can't made soft paradigm changes, you can only change softly witch means for instance start pushing 99% remote work just to a series of jobs where people have enough money, interests and willingness to live cities and going full remote instead of pushing it worldwide "for the pandemic" and for all possibly remote jobs. For instance instead of pushing crappy proprietary platforms like Meet, Teams, Zoom developing a company infra on company iron, negotiating seriously with workers: "if you want full remote you need to offer us a spare room in your house at a given little monthly fee, like the same you get in office to eat, with possible sufficient connectivity to work, electricity and a closed door. We gives you all the needed furniture and gears, we pay the connection or we negotiate a compensation for them if you provide them and what you offer meet our demand" instead of giving craptops and craphones etc. When a first batch of humans, skilled, educated and wealthy enough to test the new model will finally arrive to a good stability than offering a similar paths to other workers also a bit at a time to make the migration possible, the softer possible, with enough experience already made to avoid making full-society-scale or full-company-scale disasters. You can't switch paradigm in small steps though, hybrid work does not work, mixed work in the same workforce does not work. It's a classic error common in countless situations, from the military where a general want a strategy another an almost totally different one and the chief finally choose a middle ground between the two making both a failure to the classic IT horror stories and anything in between. Consider a thing: there is no success without risk, you can mitigate the risk reducing the risk surface, like "hey we build masonry houses only, we want to try new materials like wood, so instead of change all houses a big risk surface, we build just some few houses to see how they work" but you can't get anything from "we start with a wood based floor and one masonry". [1] you know deepfakes need much data to be trained, the more you face/body is shown on-line the more data some model get to produce a realistic video of you stating terrorist intention or perhaps confessing a love betrayal etc realistic enough to be believed. In real life no one can hold good cam and grab data without you noticing, with modern platforms like Zoom, Teams, Meet, their owners harvest gazillions of data, and deepfakes aside what you think about holding a talk in a public place discussing works stuff? You normally want a private room, isn't it?