My team and I have had a different experience. Working from home has allowed us the time and space to have the quiet reflection needed to come up with innovative ideas without the “hallway conversations” or cooler talk which lower productivity. We still meet in the office one day a week for staff meetings or 1:1 meetings but we have had tremendous creativity working remotely. Our people have lower stress from not commuting, they’re able to more easily take care of things in their home while still being productive. We also have a lot less sick or family sick time being used because of working from home. It’s a win-win.
Being less focused to be more creative fits at least to my approach to creative writing or creating diagrams on PowerPoint. I always turn up the music and sit in front of my window to look around and enjoy the nature. It very much makes it more "effortlessly" to think of something new or different than sitting in a window-less room with no music in contrast^^
The problem is the same problem people experience leaving a voice message, or dictating to a voice-to-text system. The information exchange is too structured and your brain becomes focused on providing the one correct answer rather than being allowed to follow its more creative flow. A solution is to provide the meeting topics ahead of time, with the expectation that people can think about them offline before being "put on the spot" on a video call. Probably the worst thing to do is spring a new topic on people at the meeting and expect them to provide creative input right then. Ultimately people have to feel comfortable making mistakes in order to be creative, and having a camera literally pointing at you the entire time creates mental pressure to always be "on your game". That's why turning off the camera probably would also be beneficial in brain storming. That would allow people to disengage briefly from the meeting to think more about the task at hand. A good test of this theory would be to see if people perform creatively differently in person with people staring directly at them the entire time vs looking elsewhere.
Good points, much in the same vein as the contemporary educational philosophy now widely utilized of "flipping the classroom," that is providing all of the material to be covered beforehand to students, and now they are prepared to come to class at a higher level of engagement resulting in more meaningful depth of discussion and teacher-student conversation, collaboration and of clarification of the ideas and material.
2:11 "16 or 17 [in-person] ideas" vs "between 13 and 15 [video call]" There is no mention of the number of studies, statistical significance, or the quality of the ideas (admittedly difficult to measure). There is also no mention of the "type" of creativity --- solution-oriented or alternatives-oriented?
The order of they are doing this test can bring different results, because of mental tiredness. It looks like they are trying to prove their own thoughts about virtual and in-person meetings.
@@biggabigga The germane point, though, is that a large number of studies would be required to demonstrate statistical significance between "16 or 17" versus "13 and 15".
This isnt good science, its incomplete and subjective. The people had to come into a location and then go onto a video call. This affects the mindset already. What kind of work amd people? The "Ideas" were not examined for good or bad. Social connections may breed ideas that others want to hear and you get them from social queues. You are not going to get "repeatable tests".
Certainly! 1. Internal Validity: Advantages: Laboratory experiments often establish causal relationships as researchers can control and manipulate variables, eliminating confounding factors. This allows researchers to identify the impact of specific factors on behavior or psychological processes. Disadvantages: Lab conditions may be too artificial, differing from real-world situations, potentially impacting the external validity of the research. Additionally, participants might exhibit behavior in the lab setting that differs from their real-world behavior, known as the "lab effect." 2. External Validity: Advantages: Some well-designed lab experiments are sufficiently generalized, providing insights into broader populations and contexts. By using random sampling and representative samples, researchers can enhance the generalizability of study findings. Disadvantages: Lab experiments are often overly controlled and may not fully reflect the complexity of the real world. Consequently, results may have limitations when applied to natural environments or different cultural backgrounds. In summary, laboratory experiments in psychology are strong in establishing causal relationships (internal validity) but require careful consideration when it comes to generalizing findings to diverse real-world settings and populations (external validity). Balancing these aspects is crucial in experiment design to ensure that research results are both internally valid and can be reasonably generalized to various contexts and populations.
I think they're extrapolating too much between two individuals and how this might change in a group dynamic when less is at stake and there's not as much demand on each individual. I would change the title of this video as it's misleading.
The title is misleading if idea curation is slightly better via Zoom and Idea generation is slightly worse. The most important benefit of virtual over physical is obvious in teams ( not one on one) where the rules of communication favor the introspect to also express themselves. That leads to increased diversity.
I don't really understand the fuss. Brainstorming is a debatable subject and there's no single way of doing it. Can't people just use their intuition and adapt - horses for courses!!
This is all very interesting and relevant. I'm curious if one would find any differences between video conferencing apps. Some might offer better user experience and productivity in certain activities like brainstorming than others.
Really? CDC says it's fine to go indoors without a mask in most areas now. Also, an interesting effect to examine would be how the comfort of your own home affects productivity/creativity.
Sometimes it's better to collide with that one idea while young and worry away at the thing in private for half a century. Too bad you can't even get a Student's "T" for your paper out of one data point ;-)
Creativity refers to the ability to generate novel and valuable ideas, solutions, or products. It involves thinking beyond conventional boundaries, making connections between seemingly unrelated concepts, and producing original and meaningful outcomes. The three main components commonly used to measure creativity are: Fluency: Fluency refers to the ability to generate a large quantity of ideas. In creative thinking, the more ideas, the better, as it increases the likelihood of finding unique and innovative solutions. Flexibility: Flexibility involves the capacity to shift thinking between different categories or perspectives. Creative individuals can adapt their thinking to approach a problem from various angles, breaking away from rigid thought patterns. Originality: Originality measures how unique and uncommon an idea is. It assesses whether a solution or idea is different from what is already known or widely accepted. Originality is a key indicator of creative thinking. These three components collectively provide a framework for evaluating and understanding the multifaceted nature of creativity.
no..... im sorry, but terms... 1. virtual... 2. focus..... ok yeas, fucosing into a box, which not only occludes the evniroment, but also occludes your view of the person. all you can see is their 2d flat face within that small frame ........ and you you are the alone, and different in all ways from that perspectvie. you are a 3d being, in your 3d world, while everyone else and eveything in their worlds are not. and of non longer feel part of the group. you have, propreoception, steroevision, depth persceitopm ...... and expect to relay those abilities back and forth ..... to interact, to be human. basically, it all comes down to BODY LANGUAGE i beleieve it talks first, loudest, longest and and is the last to speak for us. it is what it means not only to be human, but mammilian. and if we can use that to connect and to empathize with other mammals, we're not connecting. this is why ive devoted my time, to leveraging the web and VR , or augmetned technology building my or platform dedicated to open, see through ar, full 3d body scanning cp;aberation. i believe its not just important for creativity but for the adnvancment of human society we cannot contniue to use a 2d internet to attempt human connections in and way doing so will only shorten our attentoin our happiness our expectations and even our life expectancies
This study is so myopic and silly, it’s hard to state how stupid it is. It doesn’t even address the collaboration software that’s used over Zoom - just people talking over Zoom. And two or three fewer ideas being generated? Oh no… Everyone who’s participated in a brainstorm knows that the amount of ideas generated isn’t the focus, but rather the quality. I think the researchers are going to need to spend another two or three years developing study protocols that actually reflect reality and inputs/outputs that actually matter in a brainstorm. The researcher who glibly stated “Everything is worse over Zoom” needs to move past such simplistic thinking and understand what phenomena make Zoom better. In the meantime, clueless CEOs are going to jump all over this research to justify forcing people back into the office so they can get fatty tax breaks.
My team and I have had a different experience. Working from home has allowed us the time and space to have the quiet reflection needed to come up with innovative ideas without the “hallway conversations” or cooler talk which lower productivity. We still meet in the office one day a week for staff meetings or 1:1 meetings but we have had tremendous creativity working remotely. Our people have lower stress from not commuting, they’re able to more easily take care of things in their home while still being productive. We also have a lot less sick or family sick time being used because of working from home. It’s a win-win.
yeah but id rather hang out with someone physically
I wonder why they only considered the number of ideas generated and neglected their quality. In practice, what matters is the number of good ideas.
Being less focused to be more creative fits at least to my approach to creative writing or creating diagrams on PowerPoint. I always turn up the music and sit in front of my window to look around and enjoy the nature. It very much makes it more "effortlessly" to think of something new or different than sitting in a window-less room with no music in contrast^^
Our agency has been remote since 2008 and we never use cameras for conference calls. It really does allow you to think more freely.
The problem is the same problem people experience leaving a voice message, or dictating to a voice-to-text system. The information exchange is too structured and your brain becomes focused on providing the one correct answer rather than being allowed to follow its more creative flow. A solution is to provide the meeting topics ahead of time, with the expectation that people can think about them offline before being "put on the spot" on a video call. Probably the worst thing to do is spring a new topic on people at the meeting and expect them to provide creative input right then.
Ultimately people have to feel comfortable making mistakes in order to be creative, and having a camera literally pointing at you the entire time creates mental pressure to always be "on your game". That's why turning off the camera probably would also be beneficial in brain storming. That would allow people to disengage briefly from the meeting to think more about the task at hand.
A good test of this theory would be to see if people perform creatively differently in person with people staring directly at them the entire time vs looking elsewhere.
Thoughtful and interesting comment
Good points, much in the same vein as the contemporary educational philosophy now widely utilized of "flipping the classroom," that is providing all of the material to be covered beforehand to students, and now they are prepared to come to class at a higher level of engagement resulting in more meaningful depth of discussion and teacher-student conversation, collaboration and of clarification of the ideas and material.
having normal a call without the video as a control would have been good!
2:11 "16 or 17 [in-person] ideas" vs "between 13 and 15 [video call]" There is no mention of the number of studies, statistical significance, or the quality of the ideas (admittedly difficult to measure). There is also no mention of the "type" of creativity --- solution-oriented or alternatives-oriented?
Excellent distinctive very important points, that by glossing over by observational ellipsis, destroys the validity of the even tentative conclusions.
@@eemann007 It struck me as clickbait meme-level material. Even if an effect exists, I'm unconvinced that the study revealed useful findings.
You will find answers to all those quesrions in their research paper
The order of they are doing this test can bring different results, because of mental tiredness. It looks like they are trying to prove their own thoughts about virtual and in-person meetings.
@@biggabigga The germane point, though, is that a large number of studies would be required to demonstrate statistical significance between "16 or 17" versus "13 and 15".
This isnt good science, its incomplete and subjective.
The people had to come into a location and then go onto a video call. This affects the mindset already.
What kind of work amd people?
The "Ideas" were not examined for good or bad.
Social connections may breed ideas that others want to hear and you get them from social queues.
You are not going to get "repeatable tests".
Certainly!
1. Internal Validity:
Advantages: Laboratory experiments often establish causal relationships as researchers can control and manipulate variables, eliminating confounding factors. This allows researchers to identify the impact of specific factors on behavior or psychological processes.
Disadvantages: Lab conditions may be too artificial, differing from real-world situations, potentially impacting the external validity of the research. Additionally, participants might exhibit behavior in the lab setting that differs from their real-world behavior, known as the "lab effect."
2. External Validity:
Advantages: Some well-designed lab experiments are sufficiently generalized, providing insights into broader populations and contexts. By using random sampling and representative samples, researchers can enhance the generalizability of study findings.
Disadvantages: Lab experiments are often overly controlled and may not fully reflect the complexity of the real world. Consequently, results may have limitations when applied to natural environments or different cultural backgrounds.
In summary, laboratory experiments in psychology are strong in establishing causal relationships (internal validity) but require careful consideration when it comes to generalizing findings to diverse real-world settings and populations (external validity). Balancing these aspects is crucial in experiment design to ensure that research results are both internally valid and can be reasonably generalized to various contexts and populations.
Learn to give.
When we let others gain first,
then we can truly benefit.
16+-2.5 doesn't seem very statistically significant. What's the sample size?
I think they're extrapolating too much between two individuals and how this might change in a group dynamic when less is at stake and there's not as much demand on each individual. I would change the title of this video as it's misleading.
The title is misleading if idea curation is slightly better via Zoom and Idea generation is slightly worse. The most important benefit of virtual over physical is obvious in teams ( not one on one) where the rules of communication favor the introspect to also express themselves. That leads to increased diversity.
I don't really understand the fuss. Brainstorming is a debatable subject and there's no single way of doing it. Can't people just use their intuition and adapt - horses for courses!!
This is all very interesting and relevant. I'm curious if one would find any differences between video conferencing apps. Some might offer better user experience and productivity in certain activities like brainstorming than others.
Really? CDC says it's fine to go indoors without a mask in most areas now. Also, an interesting effect to examine would be how the comfort of your own home affects productivity/creativity.
I wonder where meetings in virtual reality fit into this
Sometimes it's better to collide with that one idea while young and worry away at the thing in private for half a century. Too bad you can't even get a Student's "T" for your paper out of one data point ;-)
On camera or off, what’s your solution to the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, & Ethiopia?
so,
more ideas = more creative?
based on what
Creativity refers to the ability to generate novel and valuable ideas, solutions, or products. It involves thinking beyond conventional boundaries, making connections between seemingly unrelated concepts, and producing original and meaningful outcomes.
The three main components commonly used to measure creativity are:
Fluency: Fluency refers to the ability to generate a large quantity of ideas. In creative thinking, the more ideas, the better, as it increases the likelihood of finding unique and innovative solutions.
Flexibility: Flexibility involves the capacity to shift thinking between different categories or perspectives. Creative individuals can adapt their thinking to approach a problem from various angles, breaking away from rigid thought patterns.
Originality: Originality measures how unique and uncommon an idea is. It assesses whether a solution or idea is different from what is already known or widely accepted. Originality is a key indicator of creative thinking.
These three components collectively provide a framework for evaluating and understanding the multifaceted nature of creativity.
If your hypothesis is true then Meetings in a virtual shared environmnet should improve creativity compared to Zoom video calls :)
This research somehow feels like it's carrying a lot of confirmation bias imo.
I wonder how the results compare with other types of virtual environments like multiplayer videogames and VR apps...
5:21 Turn off the camera, per your theory. Old folks call that a phone call.
Yes. You are so clever!
no..... im sorry, but terms...
1. virtual...
2. focus.....
ok yeas, fucosing into a box, which not only occludes the evniroment, but also occludes your view of the person. all you can see is their 2d flat face within that small frame ........ and you
you are the alone, and different in all ways from that perspectvie.
you are a 3d being, in your 3d world, while everyone else and eveything in their worlds are not.
and of non longer feel part of the group.
you have, propreoception, steroevision, depth persceitopm ......
and expect to relay those abilities back and forth ..... to interact, to be human.
basically,
it all comes down to BODY LANGUAGE
i beleieve it talks first, loudest, longest and and is the last to speak for us.
it is what it means not only to be human, but mammilian.
and if we can use that to connect and to empathize with other mammals, we're
not connecting.
this is why ive devoted my time, to leveraging the web and VR , or augmetned technology
building my or platform dedicated to open, see through ar, full 3d body scanning cp;aberation.
i believe its not just important for creativity but for the adnvancment of human society
we cannot contniue to use a 2d internet to attempt human connections
in and way
doing so will only shorten our attentoin
our happiness
our expectations
and even
our life expectancies
This study is so myopic and silly, it’s hard to state how stupid it is. It doesn’t even address the collaboration software that’s used over Zoom - just people talking over Zoom. And two or three fewer ideas being generated? Oh no… Everyone who’s participated in a brainstorm knows that the amount of ideas generated isn’t the focus, but rather the quality. I think the researchers are going to need to spend another two or three years developing study protocols that actually reflect reality and inputs/outputs that actually matter in a brainstorm. The researcher who glibly stated “Everything is worse over Zoom” needs to move past such simplistic thinking and understand what phenomena make Zoom better. In the meantime, clueless CEOs are going to jump all over this research to justify forcing people back into the office so they can get fatty tax breaks.
I'm so sick of Zoom meetings... 😑
first world problems?
This is referred to as Zoom fatigue.
@@stevevokhe Yup 😆
This is really a new information for us which helps in our lifestyle ❤️
Please read the description text.