Category: online facilitation

Comparing F2F and Online Idea Generation – broaden our focus!

Picture of a small person looking out of a blue car's window as seen through the side mirror, with fainter image of hands on camera taking picture through front passenger window.
How many perspectives? Foci?

Earlier this month on the KM4Dev email list, one of my colleagues pointed to a study comparing F2F and online idea generation in the journal Nature and concluding F2F produced better results.

Virtual communications curbs creative idea generation, by Melanie S. Brucks and Jonathan Levav was a fascinating read. The authors did more to test their hypothesis compared to other studies I’ve read which claim one environment or other is better for some function. I take them with the proverbial grain of salt. This one got me thinking more deeply. Here is a bit from their summary:

Departing from previous theories that focus on how oral and written technologies limit the synchronicity and extent of information exchanged4,5,6, we find that our effects are driven by differences in the physical nature of videoconferencing and in-person interactions. Specifically, using eye-gaze and recall measures, as well as latent semantic analysis, we demonstrate that videoconferencing hampers idea generation because it focuses communicators on a screen, which prompts a narrower cognitive focus. Our results suggest that virtual interaction comes with a cognitive cost for creative idea generation.

Brooks and Levav

Narrower cognitive focus! In the example studies, they talked about the power of objects around is in a physical room to help us get creative. We limit those options when we diligently focus on the screen online. Wait, we focus on the screen because that is what we have habituated as proper virtual behavior. “Focus on the screen! Avoid distractions! And then we lose a bit of ourselves. Have you ever had that experience at the end of a Zoom where you have to reground yourself in your physical space?

Broader cognitive focus! Our habits impact our participation and our results. What if it is our lack of imagination and attention to what full presence and participation means that hampers us? What if we invited ourselves to use our F2F external environment WHILE attending to the screen? What if stepping away from the screen was part of the idea generation practice which not only widened our visual cognitive focus, but reawakened our kinesthetic selves?

It is convenient to assume that environment trumps all. And thus we begin to bias our thinking about the issue of F2F vs online options and choices that are so top-of-mind these days.

Maybe we are asking the wrong questions. What if the question was “what kinds of focus most contribute to idea generation?” And THEN ask how that focus can play out across different environments. This might be a great area for experimentation!

Image of tree branches in foreground, looking across a bay to a row of factories in the pink/orange of dusk.
View from a hotel room in Cameroon

Franzen: Technology Provides an Alternative to Love

childs drawing of a network of hearts and the caption "love is powerful."

Jonathan Franzen wrote in a NYTimes piece back in January of this year something that keeps haunting me. This quote may be beyond what is appropriate – and yet, go read the whole thing. 

Let me toss out the idea that, as our markets discover and respond to what consumers most want, our technology has become extremely adept at creating products that correspond to our fantasy ideal of an erotic relationship, in which the beloved object asks for nothing and gives everything, instantly, and makes us feel all powerful, and doesn’t throw terrible scenes when it’s replaced by an even sexier object and is consigned to a drawer.

To speak more generally, the ultimate goal of technology, the telos of techne, is to replace a natural world that’s indifferent to our wishes — a world of hurricanes and hardships and breakable hearts, a world of resistance — with a world so responsive to our wishes as to be, effectively, a mere extension of the self.

Let me suggest, finally, that the world of techno-consumerism is therefore troubled by real love, and that it has no choice but to trouble love in turn.

Its first line of defense is to commodify its enemy. You can all supply your own favorite, most nauseating examples of the commodification of love. Mine include the wedding industry, TV ads that feature cute young children or the giving of automobiles as Christmas presents, and the particularly grotesque equation of diamond jewelry with everlasting devotion. The message, in each case, is that if you love somebody you should buy stuff.

A related phenomenon is the transformation, courtesy of Facebook, of the verb “to like” from a state of mind to an action that you perform with your computer mouse, from a feeling to an assertion of consumer choice. And liking, in general, is commercial culture’s substitute for loving. The striking thing about all consumer products — and none more so than electronic devices and applications — is that they’re designed to be immensely likable. This is, in fact, the definition of a consumer product, in contrast to the product that is simply itself and whose makers aren’t fixated on your liking it. (I’m thinking here of jet engines, laboratory equipment, serious art and literature.)

But if you consider this in human terms, and you imagine a person defined by a desperation to be liked, what do you see? You see a person without integrity, without a center. In more pathological cases, you see a narcissist — a person who can’t tolerate the tarnishing of his or her self-image that not being liked represents, and who therefore either withdraws from human contact or goes to extreme, integrity-sacrificing lengths to be likable.

via Technology Provides an Alternative to Love. – NYTimes.com.

From the Archives: Visual and Audio “Getting Into Online meetings” Ideas

Back in 2020 and 2021 some of my friends and colleagues refused to get stuck in the same-old, same-old of starting meetings online. Fisher Qua showed me a Music Labs experimental tool and playing with it (in this clip) opened possibilities of co-creating visually and aurally that could start a meeting in a way that immediately changed our participation and experience.

A bit wild, sure, but why do we seek so much to maintain the status quo? Why do we snap back to the safe, predictable, without even considering if it is still useful? Time for more creative destruction. Make space for something that is more useful. What meeting starting habits have you creatively destroyed? What new practices emerged from that space you created?

From the Archives: High-context communications in a low-context virtual world

Funny how things we knew in 2014 somehow surprised so many people when the pandemic hit and sent us all behind screens. This piece by starts off reminding us of the differences between high context and low context cultures, then explores the implications in an online world. While some of the tech references are dated, the rest of the piece still holds, as they say, water!

sketch with three circles, large, medium and small with arrows going up through the middle from lower levels of transactional trust to higher levels of relational trust.

High-context communications in a low-context virtual world.

From the Draft Archives: Google’s Death Manager

Image of a mother and her three adult children
Mom with her three kids

Death has continued to show up in our online interactions. It still seems prudent to consider how you not only manage your social media and online information while you are alive, but what happens to it after you die. Well, maybe all that free storage will disappear and this will only be an issue for those who host their own domain, and I suspect when payments stop, things will disappear. Maybe having our ephemera evaporate is a good thing… What do you think? Since the Forbes article linked below came out in 2013, I have had to manage the social media of my Mom, who passed away four + years ago. I realized I had a very mixed relationship with her social media. I saw all her emails, what kind of junk email she was targeted with, what ads Facebook served to her. I saw she did not know how to unsubscribe or block things that were irrelevant to her. I also saw how important social media was to a woman alone in her 80’s.

Close up of my Dad's face with a glass of wine in his hands.
My Dad

It reminded me of when my Dad died in 2010 and I would read his emails and feel both more loss, and feel closer. I got to read about his old-timey music community, see the last remnants of his and my mom’s RV and Miata adventure days. It took me about 2 years to stop reading and to unsubscribe and eventually let his account go. While cleaning the basement after a flood in January, I found his hard drives which I had held on to. They finally went to e-cycling a couple of weeks ago. I never looked at the content.

Mom’s Gmail, Yahoo and Facebook accounts are still active and I have all the passwords and permissions. I’ve turned off all alerts and don’t look very often. A couple of weeks ago I thought I was ready to delete the accounts, but I just couldn’t do it. What if one of her old friends didn’t know she had died and tried to get in touch?

Managing the social media of loved ones after death is not just a technical, mechanical set of practices. It is part of how we mourn and grieve these days, how we hold on or let go.

A question that used to come up when I facilitated many online communities was how to handle the death of a member. There are many layers to this which we struggled to navigate back in the good old early days of online communities. Since then, people have come up with many useful and thoughtful approaches. Now Google stands ready to help you with all your Google accounts — not to manage the human side, but how to deal with our digital detritus. Very interesting!
Will You Use Google’s Death Manager To Let Loved Ones Read Your Email When You Die? – Forbes.