My take is that it's the same lesson we've already known. You need time alone to brainstorm independently, and you need to be more in-person to use those ideas as a team to be creative.

But the main takeaway is that everyone should consider every meeting. Is it necessary. Should it be virtual or in person. IS IT NECESSARY.

But, again, I feel like that's always been a thing.

I think what we learn from this study is that scientists are great at showing their hypotheses to be true, no matter what they may be. So if two groups have opposing hypotheses, both still get published, the differences only show up in the raw data, and the nuisances are then explained away in the discussion. If it has to do with something as flimsy as behavior, you should put very little trust in the conclusions.

There of course could be all sorts of clever statistical explanations for two experiments coming up with conflicting results, but a simpler explanation seems to be that these two hypotheses aren't in direct opposition.

The abstract of the first says:

> Our results suggest that virtual interaction comes with a cognitive cost for creative idea generation.

and the abstract of the second says

> Three experiments were designed to test the efficacy of ideation procedures that involved alternation of individual and group idea generation sessions (hybrid brainstorming) as compared to traditional individual and group ideation. [...] The results of the experiments support the original suggestion by Osborn (1953) that the most effective brainstorming process is one that involves a variation in individual and group ideation.

This all seems to fit what common sense would have us believe, right? A mix of alone and group time helps, virtual group time isn't a perfect replacement for in-person group time for some tasks.

Not only alone, but disconnected. My brain is seriously altered by the presence of an active and unlimited internet connection.

Virtual interactions are tied to screens. That's their weak point, because screens affect our vision, how we move and focus our eyes.

Our eyes are the only part of our brain exposed to light and air. It turns out that how we move and focus them affects the rest of brain function.

Andrew Huberman, a neuroscientist at Stanford, has researched and spoken about this deeply and at length. Here are three podcast episodes where he dives in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObtW353d5i0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqCEOJSvgwA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze2pc6NwsHQ

I think all three points in these comments can be right: 1) we need alone time; 2) sharing physical space can help creativity; 3) virtual meetings can hurt it.

But we have to isolate the variables. Shared physical space for creative sessions doesn't have to mean open offices, and it doesn't have to mean eliminating solitude. We should also allow for different people responding differently to virtual meetings, shared space, etc, and remember to consider this statistically, as the scientists do. That is, we should try to segment the subjects of the study. Some will prefer screens more, some shared space.

The tech industry remains willfully and obtusely ignorant of the costs of virtualizing human interaction, because people sitting in a room together don't need much software, and nobody's going to build a unicorn on that.

As with long covid, the true and persistent costs of these changes -- virtualizing everything -- will only become apparent in the years to come.

Virtual interactions aren't tied to screens. That's the first thing people need to stop associating.

Gamers have done this stuff without wasting screen estate for decades. It's the office culture which tries to push video both ways, which creates a vastly different dynamic. It's crazy how researchers largely ignore these subcultures doing just fine.

Those gamers are still tied to screens.

True. But the focus is entirely different. Gamers interact while engaged in a task: the task is the focus, and communication happens through speech or text. Playing a game and communicating via Discord is a pleasure. Contrast that with a meeting on Zoom or Teams, and the focus shifts. If the screen is filled with little videos of other people, it's mentally exhausting in a way gaming isn't.

I think online meetings I had 10 years ago, where we'd share a desktop but it was voice-only for all participants, were easier on everyone than the current Hollywood Squares presentation of most online meeting applications. Those are mentally and emotionally taxing in ways that gaming is not.

Our experience is that after 2+ years of working mostly remotely, that very few people use web cams in meetings, and then only for the initial introduction. Apart from giving ammunition to laugh at somebodies 5 day beard, it is completely unnecessary.

We do however spend many hours a day in audio chat, sharing screens discussing technical issues and possible solutions.

This is a vast contrast to how we used to collaborate before Covid, where we'd have long in person meetings, where most of the people in the room drifted off watching the birds out the window whilst a couple of egos would speak to what ever they through was important.

There seems to be an belief, especially in the VR world, that body language, even eye movement is what you have meetings for. This may be important in some domains, maybe sales, but for technical meetings, I don't need to see your eyes, I need to see your ideas... Lets face it, it's a meeting, not a date.

Glad you noticed. Now extrapolate to other activities which are not tied to screens, such as... virtual conversation. We've actually done this for decades too: telephones. Radio. Etc.

The joke here is, gamers are less tied to the screen than most video call participants feel or even are. That while one requires near-constant focus on the screen, and the other doesn't.

"I do basically no videoconferencing. Screensharing is great, and critical. But typically I find video distracting." – Stephen Wolfram (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/02/seeking-the-prod...)

Phone calls barely merit the name "virtual interactions."

But in any case, when people are working remotely, the vast majority are using audio while they look at a screen, which underscores my point.