The latest edition of Scientific American Mind (I picked it up from Mind Hacks but I will get my own copy when I get home) reports on some research on team learning strategies. The following quote is important:
These researchers trained college students to assemble transistor radios either alone or in groups of three. A week later the subjects were tested with their original group or, for people who received solo training, in newly formed groups. Members of groups that had trained together remembered more details, built better-quality radios and showed greater trust in fellow members' expertise. People in newly formed groups were less likely to have the right mix of skills to complete the task efficiently and knew less about one another's strengths.
Now we need to be careful here. Firstly there is a problem with laboratory research in human systems, in that the artificial environment can constrain or influence action. however this looks not to be the case here. Also we are dealing with a technical problem, but the sort where things are easily measured.
Now the day I picked this up I had to give a lecture on the future of education. It was to a virtual audience and I never find those easy. Chat responses are not the same thing as watching an audience and I had not been a part of the prior discussion so had no idea of the style. That emphasised, that while I am an enthusiast for blogs, wikis and the other tools of social computing I am concerned that we are in danger of damaging the cognitive development of humans and more particularly human society. My argument was that social interaction (and I mean by this physical as well as virtual) is critical to out development. While by no means conclusive the above research provides some support for this theory.
Yesterday I argued that there was nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a process management tool within context. I think the same is thing for questions of balance in human team formation and interaction. The virtual and the physical are different, they work in different ways and we privilege one at the expense of the other. The virtual worlds offer huge potential for linking and connecting without the constraints of geography, but we also have responsibility to our evolutionary heritage.
Comments (2)
Dave
(and others reading - I know this is long and rambling but I decided to post instead of emailing Dave in case someone read it and it sparked something in them)
Your words echo many of mine about our increasingly machine-esque world (came into your blog via another section and can't stop reading)...I keep coming back to my old social psychology lecturer 'humans are groupies' and I think through all I learn and share and work with communication - how important medium we choose is and how important social interaction is for people on a daily basis! I love virtual worlds for they connect me through the world and systems like skype allow me to speak to friends and colleagues and family across the seas and yet...there is a danger in using any tool or media too much...as with focusing on any area of specialisation without taking in other input...learning from nature: we need diversity to live, to be alive....colours seasons patterns opinions ideas...like everything on earth we need clean air soil water and sunlight...
in some ways our current tools help us make visible the invisible we have always believed existed: telepathy and esp - well the telephone and internet offer us a way to speak across air and hear and see the words of others in different place and times zones from us, in real time...
storytelling has always been a multimedia and now there are more media to play with (digital for instance).
That said, we are currently in a place in the world where we have a lot of tools emerging and many 'good' yet not much focus on appropriate use, or we have 6sigma and we don't focus on what ways humans best transfer knowledge (eg story) nor reward sharing behaviour in our organisation structures etc and create less and less space rather than more and more for reflection and genuine connection and interaction - this is not so much a criticism to the tools but the user -myself included...
...I am engaging with you across a virtual media and it is possible my ideas and yours would have never intersected otherwise and now something has the potential to emerge -
A challenge I see at the moment how to use all our tools (speaking can be seen as a tool too) in a way that is creative and generative and life-giving rather than draining destructure and...in a way that is healthy, and makes sense for humans - though I know from myself that humans will not take the healthy option if they feel they stand to gain something by taking an alternative.
My favourite media is indeed face-face - And in that respect I come back to a sentence uttered in conversation 'I can be human among other humans'...(http://natalieshell.com/2006/10/04/how-to-be-human/)
This is where I see story coming in as key - stories too are another world and in many ways we have an opportunity to connect back to our old and new selves through story...
There was a thread I wanted to share and I don't know where it went but another element I do think is key is context - to look at the context and ask what context is most appropriate - and that is the same question as asking which medium is most appropriate..in physical or virtual spaces, too often we defer to something without consideration as to what container/vessel is the most appropriate carrier...
I hope this made sense...
warmly, natalie
Posted by Natalie Shell | June 10, 2007 10:55 AM
Posted on June 10, 2007 10:55
It made sense natalie, keep them coming
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 10, 2007 11:20 AM
Posted on June 10, 2007 11:20