« Rand vs. Marx on Google Search | Main | eBooks help the romance novel »
What groups talk about
Groups talk about what they already know:
A new meta-analysis (pdf) of 72 studies, involving 4,795 groups and over 17,000 individuals has shown that groups tend to spend most of their time discussing the information shared by members,
which is therefore redundant, rather than discussing information known
only to one or a minority of members. This is important because those
groups that do share unique information tend to make better decisions.
Another important factor is how much group members talk to each other. Ironically, Jessica Mesmer-Magnus and Leslie DeChurch found that groups that talked more tended to share less unique information.
Hey, Alex, demand curves slope downwards! Hey Robin, people signal! Hey, Bryan, etc.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 9, 2009 at 07:22 AM in Science | Permalink
Comments
I wonder whether the Internet increases or dampens this effect. There are blogospheres, but every now and then they at least get enraged at each other.
Posted by: david at Apr 9, 2009 7:59:53 AM
This cannot be good news for people who expect great things out of high frequency social networking sites like Twitter, can it? Let me look ... Nope.
Posted by: The Epicurean Dealmaker at Apr 9, 2009 8:01:57 AM
I'm pretty sure I saw this in a Dilbert Cartoon 10 years ago.
Posted by: Jerichohill at Apr 9, 2009 8:02:38 AM
I haven't read the paper, but isn't it possible that groups spend so much time discussing what they already know because, until this discussion happens, the individuals in the group don't know that the rest of the group knows the same things. I.e., "Is it just me, or do these chips taste stale?" We gain important information by determining whether our beliefs are "just us" or are shared by many others.
Posted by: JP at Apr 9, 2009 9:01:37 AM
That's why it is probably utility maximizing to have contrarians around. I live in Cambridge MA and I try to bring up non-liberal perspectives in conversations if I can.
I think in general groups spend a lot of time reinforcing their social ties, which means talking about what's common between them. My g/f is taking a "group dynamics" class and she said the same thing.
To talk about what is not common is an invitation to conflict, which people don't want. Instead they want to strengthen their social bonds and increase trust. It's always good to have people you know and trust.
Remember that social bonds and trust are very very important. If you want people to share more dissimilar ideas, this is not cost-free.
Posted by: mk at Apr 9, 2009 9:23:31 AM
The thing I've noticed recently is that anytime someone says they are going to say something provocative, they actually said it to the wrong crowd. Had they said the opposite, it might have sparked discussion, but they were among fellow believers.
Posted by: D. Watson at Apr 9, 2009 9:52:36 AM
One problem with this type of research is the lack of information specificity that makes the meta-analysis less useful. Several of the studies that were aggregated (some in this study are in my review piles-- I mean file system) make no attempt at categorizing information depth or type.
Sharing declarative information is most common in communication and it serves a useful purpose: "He was looking at the small margins of CDOs." Anyone reading this here in MR knows the declarative meaning of CDOs and margins. It's not ironic that active functional communication groups groups tend to share less unique information-- it's is because they share common language and information cues.
A better set of questions would revolve around how groups discuss procedural matters (it's harder and more complex because you must share understanding not only of declarative information but of order, magnitude, and methods); and how groups deal with contextual information (yet more difficult because of shared declarative, procedural, and contextual info details that must be shared).
Sharing information in groups means very little. What size of group they are, the type of information they are communicating, and at what quality of common understanding-- that's the really interesting question.
Posted by: The Other Eric at Apr 9, 2009 11:08:01 AM
Sorry for the lack of good copy editing in my post--
Posted by: The Other Eric at Apr 9, 2009 11:10:20 AM
Let the Russell's Paradox-structured jokes begin.
Posted by: Matthew at Apr 9, 2009 2:23:54 PM
1. We found pleasure remembering common information: our favorite shows, our common trips, etc.
2. We want to know what others think about a common subject: the actual crisis, this MR post, etc. In that way, we detect whom to talk later about an specific issue.
3. Private knowledge is usually hard to communicate, specially when there are people from different fields and they lack basic insights. Sometimes, it is also boring.
Posted by: Lisardo Bolaños at Apr 9, 2009 2:54:29 PM
A possibly useful function of talking about what we already know is overcoming the barrier between theoretical knowledge and knowledge that impacts practice. Members of the group would not know which of its values are core values if they did not talk about them repeatedly.
Posted by: Cyrus at Apr 9, 2009 11:28:50 PM
It depends on which kind of group you belong to. I don’t think that most of us just belong to one group. Well, I have noticed that in different groups, I can see different style.
Posted by: Razib Ahmed at Apr 10, 2009 6:59:45 PM
If I'm in a group and one person "knows" something no one else does I tend not to believe that person.
Posted by: mm at Apr 14, 2009 6:01:21 PM
