Comments on: Talk Is Not About Info

By: diogenes

diogenes — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:18:40 +0000

I’ll just echo MrHen — I think sharing non-redundant information can often increase the amount of work for a team — which is a significant down side, especially if that information may/may not lead to a significantly better decision.

Although at the same time — I think this is obviously the most useful type of information to share.

By: And

And — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:10:42 +0000

I tried to share some information on less wrong, but I was censored because it was from the wrong crazy fringe science. I’ve learned my lesson though, clearly only the crazy fringe sciences of yudkowsky and friends are legitimate and the others can eat a bucket of dicks.

By: Leo Petr

Leo Petr — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:04:07 +0000

Random,

How would you feel if I told you something you didn’t already know that was absolutely useless and boring to you?

Whenever I tell you something I think you are unlikely to know, I take the risk of telling you something you might find useless and boring. It is a more dangerous activity than rehashing old ground.

By: MrHen

MrHen — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:36:02 +0000

“My guess: people know they are respected and liked more by other team members when they say things others already agree with. Saying something new may help the team, but it puts you at risk.”

In addition, it may be possible that not every agrees or understands the last bit of information. Information can take a while to reach some people. In large groups, that may severely limit the amount of new information that can be processed.

If the group is focusing on making a decision, disagreement prevents consensus and dragging the dissenters into consensus takes time.

By: Paul Crowley

Paul Crowley — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:18:14 +0000

Bah to paywalls. Any good pointers to more information between the distinction between an “intellective task” and other tasks? What’s a good example of a non-intellective task that might be used in an experiment like this?

By: Random Girl

Random Girl — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:50:14 +0000

Depends on who your team is. I’d rather you told me something that I didn’t already known, but which would be useful to me, than something I already knew or something designed to flatter me. And if that information gives you a unique advantage, then I am even more impressed/indebted if you choose to share it with me.

But perhaps the cheese stands alone on that…

By: Doug S.

Doug S. — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:34:40 +0000

Talk is mostly for social bonding. I thought everyone knew that?

By: michael webster

michael webster — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 18:19:39 +0000

Isn’t this because we don’t have, yet, a procedure by which groups can a) appoint a devil’s advocate, and b) whoever is appointed still gets to remain part of the group?

By: Michael F. Martin

Michael F. Martin — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:11:58 +0000

I don’t think this would ruin your point, Robin, but I wonder how “information” was defined in the study. As Tyler has pointed out in his book somewhere, there’s a lot of things going on at most meetings than “information-exchange” narrowly conceived. And these functions are more easily accomplished, I should think, by relying upon common knowledge, which by definition permits more group members to participate.

Very useful research. Perhaps group meetings should be instituted with more explicit goals (is this information exchange or team bonding time?)