Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making • Hacker News Board

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#51

Post by skybrian » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 12:21 AM UTC

hyperpape wrote: post #33

While interesting, their study has a weird relation to the headline claim. It’s not unrelated, but it’s not a demonstration of the claim (I don’t see that they measured the time teams spent discussing each statement), nor does it really a seem like a consequence of the claim. So while I appreciate some of the reminders about decision-making it’s an oddly structured article.

Assuming this is an effect we care about, it seems useful to researchers to have a simplified model of it. How much it generalizes is hard to say, though, if this is the first we’ve heard of it. Maybe someone familiar with the literature could say more?

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#52

Post by phreack » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 2:19 AM UTC

asimpletune wrote: post #9

I think this might be one reason why pair programming can be difficult at times. I’ve personally found success in pair programming, but it usually came after adopting an attitude of moving past the stuff we know and trying a more free, humble approach. This isn’t the best way to put it, but for lack of better words just starting with the mentality of admitting that it’s ok not to know what to do next and that we’re h…

My best experiences with pair programming have been with people that I trust a great deal, enough to know that we'll definitely still be cool after arguing code. I don't think it'd be of any use at all unless we were both comfortable enough with each other to be intellectually honest, and able to both criticize our opinions and agree with them when appropriate.

Some people are afraid of conflict and would rather agree when they really don't, some other people are just looking to "win" or always poke holes at everything but their own takes, both types aren't very useful in the end.

In my experience, when you find that sweet spot with someone who complements you, pairing up is just the best, definitely more than the sum of our parts.

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#53

Post by otteromkram » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 2:52 AM UTC

otoburb wrote: post #10

>> Deliberating in person isn't superior to online. According to research by Simon Lam and John Schaubroeck, virtual teams are more likely to overcome the common-knowledge effect compared to face-to-face teams, perhaps due to easier access to notes and materials. That was an interesting observation, although the study didn't mention that another confounder could have been non-verbal communication often being much mor…

People could have online meetings with cameras active in order to catch those nonverbal cues.

Didn't we just have some of the highest productive ever during COVID?

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#54

Post by esafak » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #24

It's ancient news that group decision making only helps if the group members don't influence each other. See "The Wisdom of Crowds"

Deliberation is bad? That doesn't sound right. I think it could only hold true in limited contexts.

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#55

Post by geraldhh » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 11:50 AM UTC

medstrom wrote: post #44

ttymck wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to elaborate

S/he probably means you should be able to point out weaknesses. But that's another thing from doing it in a scoring-points way.

yea, pointing out weakness cannot be discouraged or you create a race to the bottom in the name of being nice. the "scoring points" thing is subjective to the group and is mostly equivalent to "don't be a jerk".

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#56

Post by dkural » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

vanous wrote: post #20

dkural wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that the other people have incomplete knowledge, it is that they disregard it.

>It's not that the other people have incomplete knowledge, it is that they disregard it. From the article: "If each team member is provided with all project statements, then the team can match the decision-making effectiveness of an individual (which is about 80%)." So depending on who got which portion of which information is the critical part here, bringing communication and social skills into it. Human skills are…

You're right, I misunderstood initially.

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#57

Post by cma » Sun, Oct 22, 2023, 5:16 PM UTC

civilized wrote: post #48

otoburb wrote: post #10

>> Deliberating in person isn't superior to online. According to research by Simon Lam and John Schaubroeck, virtual teams are more likely to overcome the common-knowledge effect compared to face-to-face teams, perhaps due to easier access to notes and materials. That was an interesting observation, although the study didn't mention that another confounder could have been non-verbal communication often being much mor…

Is that a confounder? I think that's an essential difference between the online and in-person experience.

Unless smell and touch are important it can be done with VR. Probably not until Apple's is out with finally enough clarity for coding, though apparently still somewhat bad ergonomics.

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#58

Post by robertlagrant » Mon, Oct 23, 2023, 8:32 AM UTC

growingkittens wrote: post #42

robertlagrant wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something was missing for half of the population: cycle tracking Can a watch detect this? What does that add vs an app that a cycle is input into?

The watch doesn't necessarily detect cycles directly. Cycles can influence things a fitness watch traditionally tracks. There was no option for input in the OS.

Understood. What would inputting it do, then? What would you like to see?

Re: Common-knowledge effect: A bias in team decision making

#59

Post by growingkittens » Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 12:59 AM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #58

growingkittens wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The watch doesn't necessarily detect cycles directly. Cycles can influence things a fitness watch traditionally tracks. There was no option for input in the OS.

Understood. What would inputting it do, then? What would you like to see?

How cycles affect heart rate, sleep, and weight; cycle length; cycle prediction; unusual cycles; track cycle symptoms; account for cycles changing bodily status and mood; fertility/anti-fertility tracking including basal temperature.