11–20 of 99 posts
Where is the research paper that found this "brain function short circuit"? The CBC article doesn't shed much light on the claim made in the title, and seems to link to a few different older papers.
I am a surgeon, hospitals are seizing the online video call as a new miracle cost saver. Whilst some consultations are OK for routine encounters eg organising tests, when it comes to discussing surgery most patients value seeing the surgeon.
I've noticed that it takes a different effort to communicate digitally than in-person. I can talk to a person in a car as I drive, no problem. But talk (even hands-free) over a phone and it takes a lot more attention. As accident statistics point out. Why is this? I think we're wired to interact in-person. When we try to talk to a person we can't sense directly, we have to build a brain model of them. That takes quit…
It's funny that the original title for this article on CBC was actually "Zoom chats short circuit a brain function essential for trust: Don Pittis | CBC News" and the article only mentioned Zoom. :) They changed the title and edited I guess after people pointed out that the research itself was not Zoom specific. I'm amazed how Zoom has become synonomous with "video conferencing" when there are so many other viable so…
I completely agree. I had never heard of Zoom before this outbreak. It was always some other small video conferencing solution or GotoMeeting if it was official business.
It's funny that the original title for this article on CBC was actually "Zoom chats short circuit a brain function essential for trust: Don Pittis | CBC News" and the article only mentioned Zoom. :) They changed the title and edited I guess after people pointed out that the research itself was not Zoom specific. I'm amazed how Zoom has become synonomous with "video conferencing" when there are so many other viable so…
I could see Zoom ending up like Kleenex or Jet Ski or Crock-Pot or Chapstick, where the brand name becomes the word for the thing itself. Edit because I googled it for more examples and couldn't help myself: Tupperware, Band-Aids, Post-It, Slip n Slide, Xerox, Velcro, Weed Eater, Scotch Tape, Q-Tips, Rollerblades, Jacuzzi, Bubble Wrap.....
Orthogonaly, I worked in an environment some years ago that had zoom sessions in %90 of all meetings, and the trust level between teams on zoom was low. There were company culture reasons for it, as arguably internecine conflict is necessarily a leadership gap, but the zoom medium itself advantaged misrepresentation in a way that email, slack and even conference calls did not. The difference between video and audio calls was that with just audio, someone cannot use their counterparty's isolation to lie because they can't be sure there is nobody else there. On ephemeral video, someone in an empty room is already atomized, and the power dynamic changes. I remember reading a bunch of critical theory about art from the 80's and 90's about the effect of framing, the gaze of the camera, the relationship between subjects and observers, and how people relate to images.
When you are on camera and seeing yourself reflected in a screen without a lot of fidelity, it creates a feeling of uncannyness, and you are made self-conscious, which has consequences to the power dynamic of the conversation. It can set up perfect storm conditions for people whose personalities are given to reflexive or defensive lies.
We behave differently when they are being observed or recorded. I used to always use the camera, but since the lockdown, I have been dialing in to conferences because the uncertainty of the audio connection is leveling. For personal acquaintences, I use the camera, but if there is a power difference, I use audio.
The uncanny effect of video causing self consciousness that brings out defensive traits, which cause mistrust in relationships could just be an "uncanny valley," effect, hence my initial question of whether stereoscopic cameras might change the effect, or maybe exacerbate it. It's also possible that offsetting your camera angle so that you both are being seen to view the same thing from different angles, as though you are discussing some third party object, might improve comfort levels instead of the dead-on positioning of laptop cameras. If I stared at my dog the way people look into their cameras, he'd eventually attack me or someone else, it's possible the camera positioning we use for video conferencing creates the same kind of confrontational/defensive frame.
A portrait photographer could have some insight into this I'm sure.
I don't think this is a surprise for many people who have been working with people in different offices for a while. I don't have any hard evidence but from my experience you can work with people in other offices for months, often getting the feeling that formality and lack of trust was getting in the way. But then I burn a ton of fossil fuels to fly over and spend a couple of days with them in person and the discuss…
I guess you develop some degree of trust (and a stronger mental model) during a meeting that persists afterwards.
Two thoughts: 1. In my experience, I worked with a group that was adversarial until we began to use video conferencing and could see each other. The relationship became better after that (it was an internal validation group that was in another location). We could see each other and no quality of work was impacted. We ceased to be each other's boogeyman. 2. Many folks experienced video conferencing the first time at t…
Regarding point 2 “Canadian research on "computer-mediated communication," begun long before the current lockdown, shows video chat is an inadequate substitute for real-life interaction. The real thing, dependant on non-verbal cues, is extraordinarily more effective in creating rapport and getting ideas across.”
I am a surgeon, hospitals are seizing the online video call as a new miracle cost saver. Whilst some consultations are OK for routine encounters eg organising tests, when it comes to discussing surgery most patients value seeing the surgeon.
My dad is a Physical Therapist, and believe it or not they are pushing for PTs to do telehealth. It kind of sounds like a pipe dream to me seeing as how hands-on the profession is. I mean a big part of the job is that you literally have to touch people and move their joints around for them.