[NNagain] Virtual mtgs and conferences vs. in-person ones (was) Re: FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

Tue Nov 14 15:55:53 EST 2023

Also a recent Nature study - audio conversations are better at creative
brainstorms and ideation then audio+video (over whatever video platform of
choice). Aside from the empirical findings, the proposed reason why is
video has people's brains trying to make sense of a non-life sized images
of talking heads presented to us in ways that our historical evolutionary
experiences is going "WTF?" at the subconscious and unconscious levels.

There's even some evidence that 2D flat videos actually have the body in a
continuous state of alertness for a potential threat - again because our
brains are trying to figure out whether these non-life sized images of
talking heads are a threat or not? (Stay tuned if there's ever a lawsuit
against an employer for forcing employees to endure too many streaming
video meetings).

Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04643-y

*In a laboratory study and a field experiment across five countries (in
Europe, the Middle East and South Asia), we show that videoconferencing
inhibits the production of creative ideas. *

[But also]

*By contrast, when it comes to selecting which idea to pursue, we find no
evidence that videoconferencing groups are less effective (and preliminary
evidence that they may be more effective) than in-person groups. *

[And finally]

*Specifically, using eye-gaze and recall measures, as well as latent
semantic analysis, we demonstrate that videoconferencing hampers idea
generation because it focuses communicators on a screen, which prompts a
narrower cognitive focus. Our results suggest that virtual interaction
comes with a cognitive cost for creative idea generation.*

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:37 PM Dick Roy via Nnagain <
nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Stanford did a study a number of years ago on how information is conveyed
> between humans.  How much of the information conveyed is contained in the
> words that are spoken???    Answer ... less than 20%.  That alone explains
> why F2F is sooooooo important ...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
> David Lang via Nnagain
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 12:01 PM
> To: Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain
> Cc: David Lang
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards
>
> It's really hard to overhear a nearby conversation that catches your
> interest in
> a zoom environment compared to what happens at the 'hallway track' when
> you are
> in-person
>
> If all you are interested in is the session contents, then video
> recordings
> (possibly supplemented by the ability to ask questions) is all you need.
>
> but good conferences offer much more than just that.
>
> David Lang
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain wrote:
>
> > Hi Jack,
> >
> > My argument is this is not a hard or software problem, but a wetware
> problem, hard to shake off million years of evolution. And IIRC during
> covid, didn't the IETF do online only meetings?
> >
> > I am not saying video conferencing is doomed, it came a long way in the
> covid years and is 'here to stay', but it will only replace face to face
> meetings for some conditions, is all I am saying....
> >
> > On 14 November 2023 14:27:28 GMT-05:00, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org>
> wrote:
> >> In the beginning days of the Arpanet, circa early 1970s, ARPA made a
> policy decision about use of the Arpanet.  First, Arpa Program Managers,
> located on the East Coast of the US, were assigned computer accounts on
> USC-ISIA, located on the West Coast in LA. Thus to do their work,
> exchanging email, editting documents, and such, they had to *use* the
> Arpanet to connect their terminals in Washington to the PDP-10 in
> California - 3000 miles away.
> >>
> >> Second, ARPA began requiring all of their contractors (researchers at
> Universities etc.) to interact with Arpa using email and FTP. If your site
> was "on the Arpanet", you had to use the Arpanet.  If you wanted your
> proposal for next year's research to be funded, you had to submit your
> proposal using the net.
> >>
> >> This policy caused a profound attention, by everyone involved, to
> making the Arpanet work and be useful as a collaboration tool.
> >>
> >> JCR Licklider (aka Lick) was my advisor at MIT, and then my boss when I
> joined the Research Staff.   Lick had been at ARPA for a while, promoting
> his vision of a "Galactic Network" that resulted in the Arpanet as a first
> step.  At MIT, Lick still had need for lots of interactions with others.
>  My assignment was to build and operate the email system for Lick's group
> at MIT on our own PDP-10. Lick had a terminal in his office and was online
> a lot.   If email didn't work, I heard about it.   If the Arpanet didn't
> work, BBN heard about it.
> >>
> >> This pressure was part of Arpa policy.   Sometimes it's referred to as
> "eating your own dog food" -- i.e., making sure your "dog" will get the
> same kind of nutrition you enjoy.   IMHO, that pressure policy was
> important, perhaps crucial, to the success of the Arpanet.
> >>
> >> In the 70s, meetings still occurred, but a lot of progress was made
> through the use of the Arpanet.   You can only do so much with email and
> file interactions.  Today, the possibilities for far richer interactions
> are much more prevalent.   But IMHO they are held back, possibly because no
> one is feeling the pressure to "make it work". Gigabit throughputs are
> common, but why does my video and audio still break up...?
> >>
> >> It's important to have face-to-face meetings, but perhaps if the IETF
> scheduled a future meeting to be online only, whatever needs to happen to
> make it work would happen?  Perhaps...
> >>
> >> Even a "game" might drive progress.  At Interop '92, we resurrected the
> old "MazeWars" game using computers scattered across the show exhibit
> halls.  The engineers in the control room above the floor felt the pressure
> to make sure the Game continued to run.  At the time, the Internet itself
> was too slow for enjoyable gameplay at any distance.   Will the Internet 30
> years later work?
> >>
> >> Or perhaps the IETF, or ISOC, or someone could take on a highly visible
> demo involving non-techie end users.   An online meeting of the UN General
> Assembly?   Or some government bodies - US Congress, British Parliament,
> etc.
> >>
> >> Such an event would surface the issues, both technical and policy, to
> the engineers, corporations, policy-makers, and others who might have the
> ability and interest to "make it work".
> >>
> >> Jack
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/14/23 10:10, Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> >>> Hi Jack,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 14, 2023, at 13:02, Jack Haverty via Nnagain<
> nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If video conferencing worked well enough, they would not have to all
> get together in one place and would instead hold IETF meetings online ...?
> >>>     [SM] Turns out that humans are social creatures, and some things
> work better face-to-face and in the hallway (and if that is only building
> trust and sympathy) than over any remote technology.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Did anyone measure latency?   Does anyone measure throughput of
> "useful" traffic - e.g., excluding video/audio data that didn't arrive in
> time to be actually used on the screen or speaker?
> >>>     [SM] Utility is in the eye of the beholder, no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Jack Haverty
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/14/23 09:25, Vint Cerf via Nnagain wrote:
> >>>>> if they had not been all together they would have been consuming
> tons of video capacity doing video conference calls....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> :-))
> >>>>> v
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:46 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain<
> nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>  wrote:
> >>>>> On the subject of how much bandwidth does one household need, here's
> a fun stat for you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   At the IETF’s 118th meeting last week (Nov 4 – 10, 2023), there
> were over 1,000 engineers in attendance. At peak there were 870 devices
> connected to the WiFi network. Peak bandwidth usage:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   • Downstream peak ~750 Mbps
> >>>>>   • Upstream ~250 Mbps
> >>>>>    From my pre-meeting Twitter poll (
> https://twitter.com/jlivingood/status/1720060429311901873):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <image001.png>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >>>>> Vint Cerf
> >>>>> Google, LLC
> >>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >>>>> Reston, VA 20190
> >>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> until further notice
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20231114/12b8c000/attachment-0001.html>