|
Dennis Pearce
Here's something I've been wondering about:
We know that techniques like "memory palace" have been around since the ancient Greeks as ways to improve memory, by associating ideas with locations. I know that when I've been physically present in a meeting it's not too hard to later remember what was said, who said it, and even people present in the meeting who didn't participate. This is because I can imagine the layout of the room and where the people were sitting, which act as triggers to recall the conversation.
But now all of our meetings take place in the same physical location every time, with all the participants showing up as little boxes on a screen. How is this impacting our ability to later recall what was said? Do we need to do more note-taking and recording in order to compensate? Anybody know if there are any research studies in this area?
|
|
|
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom --
Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
|
|
|
One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 
twitter: @plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
|
|
|
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record
of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P
Patrick Lambe
Partner
+65 62210383
<email
footer small.jpeg>
twitter:
@plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused
on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination.
Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without
someone feeling the need to jump in.
All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what.
At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years.
--
-Tom
--
Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
|
|
|
Aprill Allen <aprill@...>
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:41 am, Patrick Lambe < plambe@...> wrote: One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 
twitter: @plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
-- -- | 
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
|
|
|
Aprill Allen <aprill@...>
Patrick - do you mind if I reproduce & reference your tip in a presentation I'm giving to a bunch of IT service managers?
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consultant & KCS trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:41 am, Patrick Lambe < plambe@...> wrote: One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 
twitter: @plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
|
|
|
I don’t mind at all! Thanks for asking!
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 
twitter: @plambesg
On 15 Apr 2020, at 12:13 PM, Aprill Allen < aprill@...> wrote:
Patrick - do you mind if I reproduce & reference your tip in a presentation I'm giving to a bunch of IT service managers?
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consultant & KCS trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:41 am, Patrick Lambe < plambe@...> wrote: One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 <email footer small.jpeg>
twitter: @plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
|
|
|
Its interesting this - one option that I haven't tried yet but have downloaded to give it a try is a service called f ireflies.ai which effectively transcribes the meeting for you whilst you are in it. It works with MS teams and Zoom and transcribes the meeting for you, so that you can focus on the meeting without having to take notes and that these can be sent off. We've also tried the approach of asking people to post questions on the chat in Teams also and then used this as a pause so that the meeting organiser can feedback. I do recognise though that teams gives you the option to post as Anonymous. I don't recommend this as I was in a meeting outside of my current company where the facilitator wasn't keen on replying to anonymous, but I suspect that it was more someone getting use to Teams and the chat function than anything else.
|
|
|
Hi Dennis,
The "memory palace" technique is potentially explained by "contextual-binding theory", around which there's an emerging body of research that may offer some insights, as discussed in http://realkm.com/2019/11/03/heres-why-memories-come-flooding-back-when-you-visit-places-from-your-past/
Contextual-binding theory may also help to explain the effectiveness of the anecdote circle technique (https://www.anecdote.com/2006/02/anecdote-circles/). By asking anecdote circle participants to relate their experiences rather than opinions, e.g. through asking "Tell me about a time when..." questions, the contextual cues for memories may be more readily triggered, enriching the knowledge that is revealed.
Best regards,
Bruce bruceboyes.info
|
|
|
Dennis Thomas <dlthomas@...>
Hello Bruce,
This is Dennis T. There is a phrase that describes, at least in part, the phenomenon of memory you write about. It’s called an “ontological commitment.” The terms, I believe, was coined by Willard van Orman Quine, a 20th Century philosopher. Wikipedia states that, "An ontological commitment refers to a
relation between a language and certain objects postulated to be extant
by that language. The 'existence' referred to need not be 'real', but
exist only in a universe of discourse…” OK?
Putting this into “contextual binding theory” terms, here’s an example I use to explain the phenomenon. If I ask you to tell me all the knowledge that is in your brain, I doubt you could do it, you wouldn’t know where to start. If I asked you to tell me about the time you met a significant person in your life, the memory flood gates would open and every thought related to your first meeting with that person would declaratively surface, one concept at a time, with many interconnected concepts that are RELEVANT to the initial concept in waiting to be recalled. Since the brain/mind works declaratively, I believe we think along rational paths that provide us with n-dimensional comprehension and understanding. I don’t need a scientist to tell me this.
In this sense, just as a computer can grab 8 bits, then 16 bits, then 32 bits and now 64 bits of binary data at anyone time for processing (most computers), our brains have the capacity to grab substantially larger chunks of contextualized memory, or information, or knowledge.
It is my contention that Theory (especially applied theory), is the binding element of human thought. Neural scientist, of course, need empirical evidence to back this up, but if we can experience the phenomenon occurring in your own minds, does that make it less valid? I don’t think so. I’m comfortable with "ontological commitments,” “contextual-binding theory,” and Dennis P.’s “memory palace” terms.
Dennis T.
On April 19, 2020 at 10:00:32 AM, Bruce Boyes via groups.io ( bruceboyes@...) wrote: Hi Dennis,
The "memory palace" technique is potentially explained by "contextual-binding theory", around which there's an emerging body of research that may offer some insights, as discussed in http://realkm.com/2019/11/03/heres-why-memories-come-flooding-back-when-you-visit-places-from-your-past/
Contextual-binding theory may also help to explain the effectiveness of the anecdote circle technique (https://www.anecdote.com/2006/02/anecdote-circles/). By asking anecdote circle participants to relate their experiences rather than opinions, e.g. through asking "Tell me about a time when..." questions, the contextual cues for memories may be more readily triggered, enriching the knowledge that is revealed.
Best regards,
Bruce bruceboyes.info
|
|
|
Arthur Shelley
Yes Tom… AND … (connecting thoughts to lead to related concepts or a potential “New Normal”) If people watch/listen to a recording of a remote call, it triggers quite a different path of thinking. The “experience” of the interactive conversation when you are “in it” (like action research and life) is different from “observing it” later (more like an ethnographic study of life). We can’t re-live conversations, only replay them - if a digital recording exists… OR in retrospect, we can reflect on how we could have “played” it differently the first time round. This is the challenge in engaging in conversation and making decisions in real time (a reality of life). You make decisions and take actions on what is known at the time, but you are judged in retrospect, when much more is known and more time exists to contemplate the alternative options. Sometimes what we know, and the limitations of our comfort zones/experiences, can actually misinform us because they do not apply in the new context. People say “I couldn’t have known”, which is sometimes right and sometimes incorrect. The point is how did you react to not knowing and yet deciding. Making good decisions in uncertainty is a critical capability for knowledge informed leaders. We are in a moment when the knowledge profession can make a significant contribution to how society evolves from the CODID crisis. However, this opportunity will be short lived. People admit to not knowing what to do and are open for guidance (unlike their inward focus during “business as usual”). This disruption is a wakeup call and an opportunity to highlight that there are far bigger issues that require society to consider more deeply. Once people start “settling back into normal” our ability to influence the “Conversations That Matter” are very limited. A key way forward is influencing outside the KM community, so others can shift their mindsets from (the statement) “What IS” to more relevant question forming our collective futures - “What is POSSIBLE?”.
I discuss this more deeply in KNOWledge SUCCESSion and my some of my LinkedIn posts. Regards Arthur Shelley Producer: Creative Melbourne Author: KNOWledge SUCCESSion Sustained performance and capability growth through knowledge projects Earlier Books: The Organizational Zoo (2007) & Being a Successful Knowledge Leader (2009) Principal: www.IntelligentAnswers.com.au Founder: Organizational Zoo Ambassadors Network Mb. +61 413 047 408 Skype: Arthur.Shelley Twitter: @Metaphorage LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/arthurshelley/ Free behavioural profiles: www.organizationalzoo.com Blog: www.organizationalzoo.com/blog 
From: SIKM@groups.io <SIKM@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tom Short
Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2020 4:31 AM
To: SIKM@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SIKM] The effect of remote working on memory Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in.
All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what.
At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years.
--
-Tom
-- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
|
|
|
The chat in Zoom is not only a great "back channel" - augmenting the conversation, by perhaps inserting links or references, but it can be saved as a text file after the meeting is over.
| CATHERINE SHINNERS DIGITAL WORKPLACE for Business Transformation 650.704-3889 • mercedgroup.com • Silicon Valley USA catherineshinners@...  
digital workplace | communications | knowledge management | community management | Prosci certified change professional |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:12 PM Aprill Allen < aprill@...> wrote: Patrick - do you mind if I reproduce & reference your tip in a presentation I'm giving to a bunch of IT service managers?
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consultant & KCS trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:41 am, Patrick Lambe < plambe@...> wrote: One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 
twitter: @plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
|
|
|
Nancy White
You might find the evolving page of the Guide to Using Liberating Structures online that references the fundamental importance of chat interesting.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ChBwsQHWCiPxpLzsU8eMpZyrqFiEmj2-bfGwtz16_iE/edit?pli=1#heading=h.832z6zwcgk3w
Note that this is just evolving now with many hands contributing. We are essentially crowdsourcing documentation of the experience that the global LS community has had/led/created to move the repertoire online over the past six weeks. Talk about rapid advancement.
I also want to circle back to the initiating observation of this string -- how the virtual experience influences our memory of the meeting. I think this is a super interesting and fundamental question. My own personal experiments of turning off self-view of my camera in zoom already reduces zoom-fatigue. I can forget about the performative aspect/cognitive load of my self-preening-awareness!
The second is noticing how alternating between gallery view and speaker view - depending on the process in use in the meeting - changes the experience. Pile on top of that is looking at the video and noticing that zoom defaults to the speaker view (and the underlying practical issue of people not muting and thus grabbing the speaker view inadvertently when whispering to their kid/spouse/dog).
If a face to face meeting we literally swivel our heads to direct our visual attention to something. Zoom compresses that into a (small 12 inch for me) screen. Think about how the brain has to adjust to processing that.
Fascinating Nancy W
The chat in Zoom is not only a great "back channel" - augmenting the conversation, by perhaps inserting links or references, but it can be saved as a text file after the meeting is over.
![]()
| CATHERINE SHINNERS DIGITAL WORKPLACE for Business Transformation 650.704-3889 • mercedgroup.com • Silicon Valley USA catherineshinners@... ![]() ![]()
digital workplace | communications | knowledge management | community management | Prosci certified change professional |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:12 PM Aprill Allen < aprill@...> wrote: Patrick - do you mind if I reproduce & reference your tip in a presentation I'm giving to a bunch of IT service managers?
-- | ![]()
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consultant & KCS trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:41 am, Patrick Lambe < plambe@...> wrote: One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 
twitter: @plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
![]()
+1 415 300 7457
-- | ![]()
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
|
|
|
Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
Catherine,
I absolutely agree. Altho I do come across Chat Shaming.
“well, you seem be having a jolly good time in the chat section of this webinar but we really must be paying attention to the person talking right now so stop being so disrespectful” Matt Moore +61 423 784 504
On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:50 AM, Catherine Shinners <catherineshinners@...> wrote:
The chat in Zoom is not only a great "back channel" - augmenting the conversation, by perhaps inserting links or references, but it can be saved as a text file after the meeting is over.
| CATHERINE SHINNERS DIGITAL WORKPLACE for Business Transformation 650.704-3889 • mercedgroup.com • Silicon Valley USA catherineshinners@... digital workplace | communications | knowledge management | community management | Prosci certified change professional |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 9:12 PM Aprill Allen < aprill@...> wrote: Patrick - do you mind if I reproduce & reference your tip in a presentation I'm giving to a bunch of IT service managers?
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
Knowledge management consultant & KCS trainer
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:41 am, Patrick Lambe < plambe@...> wrote: One practice I have found useful in Zoom is to use the chat channel as (a) a pipeline for questions/observations (as someone is speaking, you post in the chat channel and wait your turn to be called by the facilitator) and this leads naturally to (b) as a record of the conversation, with key points being captured there, and replies being captured as you go.
P
Patrick Lambe Partner +65 62210383 <email footer small.jpeg>
twitter: @plambesg
Wow - interesting observation, Dennis. That's one I've not heard of before or experienced myself. I wonder if this has something to do with the type of meeting. Some meetings have a clear agenda and objective, which helps keep everyone focused on task. I would think these types of meetings would be easier to recall, at least in terms of what outcomes were created. Versus meetings aimed at sense making in service of decision making. For these, the journey is just as important as the destination. Who said what is important; and so is the overall vibe in the room. Attendee's reactions - verbal and non-verbal - are key. Level of attention everyone is paying. Tone and volume of a speaker's voice matters. Pregnant pauses that are allowed to float without someone feeling the need to jump in. All of these are difficult to monitor/gauge/enact in a Zoom meeting, and so it makes it more challenging to make the meeting productive. And probably also more difficult to recall the necessarily stilted dialogue and who said what. At least, that's been my experience of virtual/remote working over the years. -- -Tom -- Tom Short Consulting
TSC
+1 415 300 7457
-- |
Aprill Allen
Founder and Managing Director | Knowledge Bird
M: +61 400 101 961
knowledgebird.com |
|
|
|
Matt Moore <innotecture@...>
Hi,
We haven’t really evolved as a species to do online meetings. As Edmund Husserl said: “you and me, baby, we ain’t nothing but mammals”.
I am terribly forgetful anyway so I volunteer to do minute-taking. I tend to have the video off because I only have an ADSL connection. If it’s audio-only, I close my eyes and visually picture the other participants in my mind (and you’ll be relived to know that I imagine you dressed in expensive designer clothing and 10 years younger than you actually are). If I haven’t met you then I visualize you as a Star Trek character.
Having been an Australian employee at US companies working in global teams, all this is perfectly normal for me. Except that I don’t do 2am calls any more.
Meeting fatigue is an issue for many people. But that also implies to me that many of the meetings are badly run. I think we should be able to apply The Law of Two Feet to such meetings.
Regards, Matt Moore +61 423 784 504
On Apr 14, 2020, at 1:59 AM, Dennis Pearce <denpearce@...> wrote:
Here's something I've been wondering about:
We know that techniques like "memory palace" have been around since the ancient Greeks as ways to improve memory, by associating ideas with locations. I know that when I've been physically present in a meeting it's not too hard to later remember what was said, who said it, and even people present in the meeting who didn't participate. This is because I can imagine the layout of the room and where the people were sitting, which act as triggers to recall the conversation.
But now all of our meetings take place in the same physical location every time, with all the participants showing up as little boxes on a screen. How is this impacting our ability to later recall what was said? Do we need to do more note-taking and recording in order to compensate? Anybody know if there are any research studies in this area?
|
|
|
