Live data from Hacker News

Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

cbc.ca

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#41

My bet is a big part of the issue is webcams not being embedded in the screens. It's literally impossible to have eye contact because either you are looking at the webcam and not seeing other people, or you are looking at your screen. Many animals are very good at recognizing direct vs indirect eye contact and so I would assume the same is true for humans too.

Agree. The importance of eye contact cannot be overstated.

I have a 43" screen. I bought a very small but generic UVC camera on AliExpress. With this I can lower the camera down on the screen without be too obtrusive while dangling on the wire. This gives a really great result even if the change is just on my end. People seems much more "present". I can only imagine how "real" it would feel if done on both ends.

Before this I was using an Elagato CamLink with a Canon EOS RP. While it gave a great quality image the offset position was not worth it. Furthermore it seems that most common video chat programs downsamples as noone saw a difference between this and a crappy 720 webcam even though it looked glorious on my end.

So have a go with a cheap small FHD UVC camera. It made wonders for me.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#42
post #18
post #5

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…

My experience is that after you have met someone once (for more than a few minutes) then video calls work a lot better than with people you have never met. I guess you develop some degree of trust (and a stronger mental model) during a meeting that persists afterwards.

Definitely. You only really need to meet once and the trust can be maintained for many months, or even years. There is just something about meeting in person that sets it up in a way that video calls can't easily match.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#43
post #18
post #5

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…

My experience is that after you have met someone once (for more than a few minutes) then video calls work a lot better than with people you have never met. I guess you develop some degree of trust (and a stronger mental model) during a meeting that persists afterwards.

My own feelings echo this.

I've been working remotely for several years. I changed jobs in March, right at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic really impacting daily life. As a result I've never met any of my colleagues in person. I often feel like I don't have a good feeling for how they feel about a given topic and spend far too much time and energy trying to manage those relationships.

I'm looking forward to being able to travel again so I can meet at least some of them. In the past, I've participated in "team building" events where the entire (small) engineering group rents out a beach house somewhere for a week. That time is spent split approximately evenly between regular work, brainstorming/planning for the future, and social engagement. I didn't see the value of it before experiencing it, but now I'm 100% in favor of it.

If I ever get to the point where I'm leading an engineering group at a funded startup, semi-annual engineering retreats will definitely be a priority for me. They don't have to be "rent a beach house for two weeks in the Outer Banks", either. I live in rural Arkansas, and there are large cabins on the Buffalo River and White River that go for ~$200 / night or less during the offseason and can comfortably sleep 35 people.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#44
Before this article influences more discussion, I want to point out that it provides no research relevant to the claim that "video chats short circuit a brain function essential for trust."

The only research cited show that face-to-face contact is more effective at soliciting donations than email [1], that non-verbal cues are important for feeling trust [2], something about sunglasses affecting theory of mind, and (ironically) that credibility assessments are stronger without visual cues [3]. The only sentence that actually applies to video chat is Frances Westley's complaint that "the quality...and satisfaction of the interaction...is diminished."

1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221...

2: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761244879...

3: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcrim/2013/164546/

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#45
post #8

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.....

When the "Zoom bombing" trend hit the news, I expected that would be the beginning of the end for the company. They were having security issues due to an integral part of their platform's implementation at the same time that they were seeing an unprecedented increase in usage. Scaling and essentially rearchitecting at the same time, under load, is a huge challenge.

I'm very impressed that they've pulled through. If anything, Zoom has improved during the transition. That's not to say that I find it to be the best solution - I've had several videoconferencing/telepresence solutions work well for me in the past - but it's certainly "good enough" and they're in an enviable market position at this point.

In a few months, I'd love to see some retrospectives come out about how they did it from both the engineering and management perspectives.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#46

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…

this is slightly different from the problem of not seeing someone, but the fact that video chat software demands a walkie-talkie style "you talk, then I talk, then you talk" style of conversation is very difficult. Normal human conversation includes a lot of natural (and sometimes productive) cross-talk.

Agreed! I was part of a product team that build Sococo Teamspace, including a video chat that allowed interruption. Everybody could talk at once, and still hear everyone else. It made an amazing difference.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#47

I wonder how much of this is 2D/3D and a feeling of “presence.” Anecdotally, I’ve been playing various games in VR with friends & family and it just feels so much more like I’m there. I’d be interested to see research on building trust in virtual 3D environments vs. 2D video chat. Also, the email vs. in-person donation research didn’t make sense to me. Of course someone that asks you for a donation in-person will get…

My instinct is that stereoscopic vision is a big part of facial awareness. Simply moving it to 3D with virtual avatars wouldn't be enough, though - I think it's probably more about consciously imperceptible social cues.

If those cues could be identified, maybe you could point a high-res camera pointed at the person to capture them and then reproduce them on their VR avatar. I doubt the science is there, though.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#48

My bet is a big part of the issue is webcams not being embedded in the screens. It's literally impossible to have eye contact because either you are looking at the webcam and not seeing other people, or you are looking at your screen. Many animals are very good at recognizing direct vs indirect eye contact and so I would assume the same is true for humans too.

I think some(?) smartphones adjust your eyes via post processing to create the illusion of eye-contact when taking selfies, I wonder if this is fast enough to also do it with built-in webcams in laptops.

Yes - Apple put this in to newer ARKit phones. They demoed it for Facetime during beta, but I haven't seen more on it since. Not sure if it will work with other apps like zoom.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#49
Thoughts on personalizing multi-group interactions.

A few years back, I worked at a big4 consulting firm. I would often fly into some 'what city is it today?' to meet with a company's team and often up to CxO in F500. Usually brought in because first few efforts internally failed hard. You can imagine meetings with engineering teams, with me starting out at 'below trust' bc it was top down. This means that even though I am CompSci by nature, our success hinged on personal interactions.

Here is what I highly suggest, and has worked wonders for me.

- Learn to talk. Get on calls early, do research on the attendants to try to find some common interests quickly. Think like a salesperson, trying to close the 'people' by being human, friendly. Edit: A good add on to this, is to find their 'pivot person' - a person on the call the team trusts (often a few people down the 'food chain').

- Make self-deprecating fun of yourself. I try to poke fun at myself very quickly to show humbling comedy - and I do it loudly. People like when you make them laugh. By making them laugh at me, no one's feelings are hurt. It gives their team a feeling of superiority, so you must be able to back it up with real firepower later to control.

- Try to take 'their team' side as often as possible. Assume every decision they've made is intelligent, and in good faith. You'd ask for the same.

- See how you can foster individual relationships. For their lead developer, "Hey I saw this about your stack/what we're doing/etc - and thought of you".

- Only 'do other things' on your computer during that meeting immediately related, and very short in duration.

- Don't argue with 'that argumentative, defensive engineer' around the other groups. "That's a really great point - can I call you after this?"

Hope it helps.

Re: Video chats short-circuit a brain function essential for trust?

#50

Before this article influences more discussion, I want to point out that it provides no research relevant to the claim that "video chats short circuit a brain function essential for trust." The only research cited show that face-to-face contact is more effective at soliciting donations than email [1], that non-verbal cues are important for feeling trust [2], something about sunglasses affecting theory of mind, and (i…

Yeah...there might be something to this idea but this article doesn't back it's claims with any evidence.
Post reply on HN