Archive for category Communication
Diabolical werewolves test trust in team
Posted by mark in Communication, leadership on August 1, 2023
Tonight, there’s a full moon. Then on August 30 comes the second full one of the month—a rare blue moon. Thus, it’s especially appropriate to consider werewolves and, in particular, an online game where these lycanthropes (secretly designated) undermine trust and security within a group.
I played Werewolf a few times but never got very far due to the cutthroat “kill the newbie” strategy deployed by more experienced (and vicious!) players. My interest in the Werewolf game stems from it providing a good laboratory for studying social dynamics and teamwork. See, for example, this blog by a relationship expert about What Werewolf teaches us about Trust & Security. For scientists studying such interactions, the Idiap Wolf Corpus (sounds creepy!) offers a wealth of data in the form of audio-visual recordings of 15 games played by 4 groups of people.
A newly published study by a trio of industrial engineers* delves into the impact of playing Werewolf at a distance and what this revealed about teamwork when members participate only on a virtual basis. The researchers divided 30 students into 3 teams of ten comprised of two werewolves, seven villagers, and one seer. Their experiment varied the groups by leadership experience.
The sample size of this study was far too small to support any conclusions, in my opinion. I just thought it would be fun to put teams, such as a group of researchers tasked with developing a new product, to the test of Werewolf.
Devious!
Cue the howls as the full moon rises…
PS I do wonder how well teams do at a distance versus in person. My feeling based on a lot of experience as a chemical engineer leading plant-process-improvement projects is that it pays to get together in one room every several meetings. It would be interesting to see well-designed research on all virtual, all in-person or a mix of the two.
*Vera Setyanitami, Hilya Mudrika Arini and Nurul Lathifah, People’s Trust in a Virtual Project Team: Results of a Game Experiment, Jurnal Teknik Industri, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2023.
Selecting the most readable font for maximum impact
Posted by mark in Communication, Graphics on July 7, 2023
It’s Comic Sans Day today. If not so widely mocked, this font would be favored for its legibility across all ages and abilities, according to my daughter Emily—an expert in graphic design.
My early knowledge of writing options consisted of printing or cursive. As I progressed through college my preference became printing, which though slower to produce than cursive, resulted in a far more legible output and appealed to my engineering sensibilities.
I kept on handwriting through my early career—relying on secretaries to do the typing. However, it wasn’t long before I went DIY by becoming an early adopter of computers—a Radio Shack TRS-80. Its word processing capabilities made it far easier to write—a huge breakthrough by enabling editing.
Eventually, after a lot of hunting and pecking, I upgraded to MS-DOS (Microsoft’s disk operating system) and invested in Maven Beacon Teaches Typing to gain the ‘touch’ of my keyboard.
Things got really interesting with the advent of graphical user interfaces and widely available True Type fonts. After some wild and wacky times making bad blends of too many fonts, I settled in on the Microsoft Word defaults of the classic (invented 1931) Times New Roman (serif—featuring tails and feet) for text and more modern (1982) Arial (sans serif) for headlines. A big issue then, but far less so now that “e” rules, was whether a document would be read in print or electronically (on screen).
Around these times, Stat-Ease shifted its training materials from transparencies for ‘overheads’ to Powerpoint for projection from a personal computer (PC). Unfortunately, projectors in those early days put out a very weak light. However, being well equipped with Stat-Ease software, I rose to the challenge by deploying an experiment design in-class to maximize screen readability via adjustments to fonts and other factors.
Nowadays, figuring that nearly all my writing will be read on screen, I go exclusively with the current Word default of Calibri—a font that being san serif provides a “small, but significant, advantage in response times” according to this study in the Journal of Cognitive Psychology.
It turns out that, not surprisingly, studies now show different fonts increase reading speed for different individuals.
Participants’ reading speeds (measured in words-per-minute (WPM)) increased by 35% when comparing fastest and slowest fonts without affecting reading comprehension.
Adobe scientists and others who authored “Towards Individuated Reading Experience”, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, Volume 29, Issue 431, March 2022, Article No.: 38, pp 1–56.
Therefore, I envision that, aided by developments in artificial intelligence, our devices will keep track of how fast we read and adapt the fonts accordingly. Watch out: Like it or not, you may be subjected to Comic Sans.
PS Calibri fared well overall on average in Adobe’s experiment so that remains my favored font.
Eschew surplusage
Posted by mark in Communication, Uncategorized on October 8, 2022
This is Mark Twain’s humorous advice for jargon-prone writers who fail to “employ a simple and straightforward style.”* In case you’re wondering, “surplusage” means “unnecessary or irrelevant language.” This obscure term is mainly used by the legal profession. Isn’t that ironic?
Here are some promising developments for citizens in English-speaking countries who suffer from surplusage at the hands of their lawyer-riddled governments:
- The Plain Language bill now coming to a final vote by the New Zealand Parliament may make simple-English training mandatory for their public servants.**
- Twelve years ago this month, the USA enacted the Plain Writing Act of 2010 establishing that Government documents issued to the public must be written clearly.
- A recent Labradorian-commissioned comparative study of “ordinary” versus “plain” English showed significant improvements in reading speed, understanding, retention and appreciation.**
- The 2022 Ig Nobel Prize for Literature was awarded to the authors (Martinez, et al) of Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language (not at all ignoble—lawyers should be held accountable for incomprehensible contracts).
“Contracts contain “startlingly” high proportions of difficult-to-process (“complex psycholinguistic) features including low frequency jargon, centre-embedded clauses, passive voice structures, and non-standard capitalisation.”
Eric Martinez and Edward Gibson at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Francis Mollica at the University of Edinburgh
Poor writing is not confined to government or legal communications. Those of us who work in the scientific arena must work mightily to decipher reports intended to provide “accessibly erudite progressive rigor” (the first phrase that came up for me at this Academic B.S. Generator). I found some hope from these studies:
- A randomized, controlled study on thousands of subjects “indicating the detrimental effects of providing too many details on statistical concepts.”***
- A call**** by statistician Karen Grace-Martin to work on reducing four major sources of confusion for terminology rising to a level of “absurdity”:
- “Single terms with multiple meanings,” e.g., alpha and beta used for linear-model coefficients as well as to symbolize risk versus power.
- “Terms with colloquial meanings in English and technical definitions in statistics,” e.g., “error” (supposedly early statisticians got so much criticism from managers about too many errors that they started calling these “residuals).
- “Similar terms with nuanced meanings,” e.g., General Linear Model and Generalized Linear Model (being an engineer-only, I have trouble with this distinction).
- “Multiple terms with one basic meaning,” e.g., a long list of synonyms for “mixed models”.
Down with bureaucratic language, legalese and technical jargon!
*See rules #14 #18 (speaking plainly) in Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses
**The Effectiveness of Plain Language Proven by Data, 2020
***Kerwer, et al, How to Put It Plainly? , 2021.
Studies reveal downsides of not meeting in person
Posted by mark in Communication on June 16, 2022
At the onset of the pandemic-driven quarantine in March of 2020, Stat-Ease closed its office and never looked back. We all began working out of our homes and Stat-Ease training shifted from traditional classroom to distance-based presentation.
Being on a relaxed work schedule (60% time) at my ‘highly experienced’ career stage, this worked out wonderfully for me. Though I really miss the vibrancy of in-person meetings and teaches, this is far outweighed by the convenience of working at my summer or winter homes, or anywhere in between.
Earlier this month Elon Musk bluntly told his employees to return to office or ‘pretend to work’ elsewhere. In more diplomatic fashion, many other employers have already done the same. Aside from the obvious control issues, they may be on to something. According to recent experiments, collaboration at a distance cannot achieve the same results as a traditional in-person work environment.
“Remote work is no longer acceptable… If you don’t show up, we will assume you have resigned.”
– Elon Musk in an emailed pronouncement to Tesla employees.
For example, on April 27th Nature published findings that Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Researchers from the Columbia Business School paired up hundreds of engineers in five different countries in two different groups, randomly assigning half of the pairs to work together in person and the other half to work together in separate, identical rooms using videoconferencing. The teams of two were then tasked with brainstorming—one group (300) coming up with creative ways to manipulate a Frisbee and the other (334) working out alternative uses for bubble wrap. Ultimately, pairs who met in person came up with about 17 percent more ideas than those meeting remotely (Zoom).
Another experiment reported in April by found that Emails and texts in lieu of conversation could negatively affect performance on higher-level job tasks. Study participants who teamed up with a partner in person produced 19 percent fewer errors on a work task than those who could only communicate by text.
Furthermore, a survey of nearly 2000 office workers conducted in early 2021 (when most remained at home due to the pandemic) revealed that 70% experienced some form of mixed-up messaging from their colleagues due to having to do so at a distance. Managers fared the worst (which explains why so many have mandated a return to the office!). For statistical details, see The Digital Communication Crisis.
Given all these issues dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic on office work, I am very happy with my pivot back to a purely technical role after many years as the chief Stat-Ease business administrator. Having no supervisory responsibility for existing or new hires (tricky trying to train at a distance!), I am fine with the array of digital communication tools at my fingertips—Teams, Zoom, Slack, Outlook and all.
Just a bit lonely…
PS An ongoing attempt to work around being physically present makes use of ever developing tools for the metaverse. Based on reports of being Lost and Confused in the Virtual, Immersive World, I am skeptical that this will provide any added value anytime soon. More interesting to me is the advent of holographic meetings a la the WebEx service reviewed on June 1 here. This holds promise as an antidote to Zoom fatigue.