61–70 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's directional. The calculation is 6x6 = 36. The simplest example is with two people. John is a different person from Mary, so both John and Mary have a relationship with each other. 1x2 = 2 relationships.
Shouldn't that be 6x5=30? Unless you count everyone's relationship with themselves.... [this also aligns with the 5+4+3+2+1 version, it's just n*(n-1)/2 ]
> Every audio/video communication in Discord is multiparty. Supporting large group channels (we have seen 1000 people taking turns speaking)
https://blog.discordapp.com/how-discord-handles-two-and-half...
I've always preferred groups of 2-6 people. Many board games are made for groups of this size. On one side, humans can mentally cope with 4-6 objects at most - as though we have 4-6 memory slots, which is reasonable given that we have 4 limbs. On another side, network effects of nodes on a grid become unmanageable above about 6 nodes - a group of 6 people will have 36 one-on-one interpersonal relationships to manage.
> On another side, network effects of nodes on a grid become unmanageable above about 6 nodes - a group of 6 people will have 36 one-on-one interpersonal relationships to manage. Network effects grow surprisingly fast. Between 2 people there's only 1 bidirectional edge. Between 3 it's 3 and between 4 it's 6. | people | edges | |--------|-------| | 2 | 1 | | 3 | 3 | | 4 | 6 | | 5 | 10 | Intuitively, this is important…
One way is to tune down your level of awareness of, or your psychological attachment to, how your message is being perceived; i.e. turn off the filter and just talk, public perception be damned.
The other way would be to improve your mental approximation of how people are perceiving and emotionally responding to your message, taking the integral of emotional response like some kind of social calculus. Perhaps this consists of bucketing people into groups, the way politicians do, only in more of a real time fashion? I'm not sure, but I do find it interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On another side, network effects of nodes on a grid become unmanageable above about 6 nodes - a group of 6 people will have 36 one-on-one interpersonal relationships to manage. Network effects grow surprisingly fast. Between 2 people there's only 1 bidirectional edge. Between 3 it's 3 and between 4 it's 6. | people | edges | |--------|-------| | 2 | 1 | | 3 | 3 | | 4 | 6 | | 5 | 10 | Intuitively, this is important…
It truly is a cognitive burden for people who care about how their words are perceived and understood. Logically, I see two ways to succeed in communicating to large groups. One way is to tune down your level of awareness of, or your psychological attachment to, how your message is being perceived; i.e. turn off the filter and just talk, public perception be damned. The other way would be to improve your mental appro…
It also helps to be aware that some parts of what you are saying will be entirely missed by some people and this not only isn't a problem, it can be a feature.
I've always preferred groups of 2-6 people. Many board games are made for groups of this size. On one side, humans can mentally cope with 4-6 objects at most - as though we have 4-6 memory slots, which is reasonable given that we have 4 limbs. On another side, network effects of nodes on a grid become unmanageable above about 6 nodes - a group of 6 people will have 36 one-on-one interpersonal relationships to manage.
Tangential, but I noticed the same thing with visual information when testing data visualizations: people have a hard time processing information beyond 4-5 variables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It truly is a cognitive burden for people who care about how their words are perceived and understood. Logically, I see two ways to succeed in communicating to large groups. One way is to tune down your level of awareness of, or your psychological attachment to, how your message is being perceived; i.e. turn off the filter and just talk, public perception be damned. The other way would be to improve your mental appro…
It helps to be aware that anyone could hear it and to account for that. It's not perfect, but it reduces problems. It also helps to be aware that some parts of what you are saying will be entirely missed by some people and this not only isn't a problem, it can be a feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It helps to be aware that anyone could hear it and to account for that. It's not perfect, but it reduces problems. It also helps to be aware that some parts of what you are saying will be entirely missed by some people and this not only isn't a problem, it can be a feature.
That is thought provoking. But it almost seems like accounting for everyone (infinite nodes) could make things even more complicated. I have noticed that, as I've gotten older, I've become more aware that people can break into conversation by overhearing something at almost any time. Sometimes it makes me just want to say less so avoid that possibility.
1. The intended audience, whether an individual or group.
2. Anyone who could generically presume you somehow meant them or were commenting on their life.
3. Actual people you personally know that you actually are speaking about or that might legitimately assume you meant them when you didn't.
Group 3 is probably the biggest source of trouble for most people. It's the one I make the most effort to account for.
My brother-in-law is (or was) a programmer. Though his hourly rate is certainly something I envy, he has a history of working part-time and intermittently and is more talented at spending money than at making it.
That strongly shapes my failure to live in awe of programmers and my failure to presume them to all be wealthy and powerful types. But I believe this is the first time I have said such on HN because it's challenging, at best, and potentially impossible to express that without sounding like I am putting him down. So I just never said anything about it. Most people didn't really need that information anyway, so not saying something potentially offensive to my sister, her husband and other relatives was the easy solution.
Basically, before you tell that cutesie anecdote about your own life, contemplate what it says about people connected to you and how they might feel if they heard you telling that story. Does it cast them in a bad light? Could it be construed as such, even if that wasn't your intention? Is there some means to tweak it to make it less problematic?
The other thing I worry a lot about are acquaintances that will think I meant them when I didn't. I try to not make comments that could be taken to mean I am talking about them when I'm actually not. This is often a matter of tweaking it slightly. It might be as simple as saying "a curly haired person I know" instead of "a blonde person I know" to make sure a blonde acquaintance with straight hair doesn't assume I mean them.
Group 2 is best addressed by finding a sympathetic framing and going ahead and giving some provisos. Don't assume that folks will just know that, of course, you would make allowances for X.
Your friends and relatives may know that, but other people won't. It helps to view it as simply an artifact of clear communication.
The mistake most people make is only thinking about the intended audience and stopping there. You do need to think about that. But you should also think about anyone you are "talking about" or could be construed as talking about.
Edit: To be perfectly clear, I'm not putting my brother-in-law down. His work history is due in part to supporting my sister's career, a thing she doesn't appreciate enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're claiming that people have enormous amounts of trouble reasoning formally about graphs with 3 or more dimensions. Anecdotally this is bourne out by my experience, where it's easy to read an X-Y plot and speak to how the X value influences the Y value(EG linear, cubic, quartic, grows to infinity in one direction, etc). Add a third or 4th dimension and I start to have a lot of trouble making general stat…
There’s a confound here between an extra “spatial dimension” (x, y, z) and an extra “feature dimension” (x vs y for plain and star-bellied sneeches). Very few people have trouble with the latter, but the former is tricky to plot and interpret.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you (and everyone else) does this implicitly. It makes sense for a survival perspective to be able to assess how people react to certain comments & actions in conversation. If other people support a comment it's a signal that you can reiterate the comment or build upon it.
There's a difference between observing how a comment was generally received and remembering exactly how each person reacted. I'm not saying nobody does the latter, but I don't.
I might pick up on something like "A seems to respond to B uniformly negatively" and make a note of that, but remembering one notable thing doesn't require me to "allocate" memory for all of the other non-memorable things. I'm not literally building and labeling a graph, like some commenters are implying. Or if you insist, it's a sparse data structure.