
How intermittent breaks in interaction improve collective intelligence - mpweiher
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/09/1802407115
======
bunderbunder
I'd be careful about trying to extrapolate this to everyday work situations.

They were performing a very specific task (solving a traveling salesman
problem) that had a clearly-defined optimum solution and little room for a lot
of the kinds of thinking that are needed in business scenarios, such as
challenging the business case and lateral thinking.

I didn't notice them stating a overall duration for the experiment (admittedly
I did skim), but it sounds like it took place over the course of, at most,
hours - not the weeks, months or years that would be relevant to someone
trying to optimize a product development process. That means that their
"intermittent communication" case probably still involved communication at a
frequency that would be downright unsustainable in a business setting, and
would certainly be something most of us would think of as "constant". For
example, assuming the experiment took place over 2 hours, then the
intermittent communication group would be taking a look at each other's work
about every 20 minutes.

(edit: I checked again, and caught it - looks like I was being generous in my
time assumptions. An entire trial lasted no longer than 14 minutes. The
"constant" group was checking in with each other at least every 50 seconds,
and the "intermittent" group at least every 2.5 minutes.)

It's still an interesting result, mind. But it's not going to support anyone's
position on the value of daily stand-up meetings.

------
denzil_correa
Key takeaway from the paper

> Instead of supporting more transparency, the results imply that technologies
> and organizations should be redesigned to intermittently isolate people from
> each other’s work for best collective performance in solving complex
> problems.

In addition, Jesse C. Shore, the author posted a Twitter thread summary about
this research [0, 1].

> when people interact intermittently (as opposed to constantly or not at all
> as in previous work), they explore on their own AND learn from each other.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/jessecshore/status/1029124892439072768](https://twitter.com/jessecshore/status/1029124892439072768)

[1]
[https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029124892439072768.html](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1029124892439072768.html)

~~~
nerdponx
_redesigned to intermittently isolate people from each other’s work_

Why does the organization need to be redesigned? How about we just stop trying
to micro-engineer interactions, give knowledge private, quiet work space, and
let them do their thing.

This is what most knowledge workers do that I've seen, when left to their own
devices: first they put their head down and try to work on a problem, come up
with some promising solutions and/or find some sticking points, talk it over
with colleagues, then go back to work on it solo some more. Repeat until
convergence or deadline arrives.

------
ismail
Wow just at a time I was considering this. So currently in a workshop doing an
evaluation with a group of people and the amount of group think that starts to
occur is unbelievable. You notice it when people start ignoring relevant
information. So wrote the problem down and came up with a solution of doing a
split between: 1-formulate your own ideas. 2. Then meet and discuss.

Based on this maybe ideal maybe 1. Formulate own ideas 2. Meet 3. Forumulate
own ideas 3. Meet

------
asv23c
Seems like an interesting parallel to this US Army discovery:
[https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2018/04/army-...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2018/04/army-researchers-find-the-best-cyber-teams-are-antisocial-
cyber-teams/)

Over communicating may increase velocity, but it seems it decreases overall
quality.

------
whitepoplar
On a related note, I've often wondered how the normalization of knowledge-
seeking via Google affects collective and peak intelligence across a
population.

My naive guess is that fast, normalized access to information increases mean
intelligence, but decreases peak intelligence. I have a hunch that the
production of positive outliers requires input volatility.

------
naasking
Good result and makes sense. Sometimes people need to step away to have time
to consider and integrate the new facts and perspectives they've been
presented so they can attack the problem from a different perspective. Forcing
continued debate can cause people to dig in on their view of the problem.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
> Forcing continued debate can cause people to dig in on their view of the
> problem.

Yes, I've seen it. It's refreshing when people quit talking and build their
debate position as in Napster[0], the RFCs[1], and even the Nail Cabinet [2]

[0]
[https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98865&page=1](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98865&page=1)

[1] [https://tools.ietf.org/html/](https://tools.ietf.org/html/)

[2] [https://craftcouncil.org/post/garry-knox-bennetts-
notorious-...](https://craftcouncil.org/post/garry-knox-bennetts-notorious-
nail-cabinet)

------
miket
Interesting parallel between this result and the technique of "dropout" which
is a key technique used today in training neural networks that has found to
prevent the network from overfitting to a locally optimal solution by randomly
disconnecting nodes.

------
Ibethewalrus
Good, so it is in line with open offices being bad because of the constant
interaction and interruptions

------
phakding
So pair programming is a bad idea?

~~~
weeksie
Shocks me that you're getting downvoted for this because that's _exactly_ what
the results would imply. Of course that's in regard to the Extreme Programming
always on, constant pair programming approach. Pair programming isn't totally
bad of course, and has its place, but yeah the results would seem to imply
that consultancy-style (I'm looking at you, Pivotal) pair programming is a
good way to produce reliably mediocre code with a body shop.

~~~
phakding
Ha! Field of software programmers act like a hive mind. People latch on to
something and then it becomes their religion. Any criticism causes hurt
feelings.

I've been programming for long time and have seen these trends come and go.
Right from xml being the best thing since invention of wheel to micro services
being elixir to all programming woes.

