Joe's Jottings
Jottings Number 63, Reply A, by Nancy Levitt, David Straker, and Mike Short
From: JOE_PODOLSKY@HP-PaloAlto-om4.om.hp.com
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 17:02:53 -0700
>>What systems can you tell us about that move us closer to full sensory communication? How do you feel about the need to "be there"?<< Interesting that this should come out today. In this mornings "solo brainstorming session" (otherwise known as the morning shower) I was thinking about transportation issues. After sitting in hours of meetings this week on BART (billions of dollars), highway 101 improvements (more billions), and CMAQ (air quality and more billions) I was frustrated with the "no solution" solutions being offered .. spend $40billion to see a 12% maximum reduction in traffic on 101, etc. Telecommuting doesn't work the majority of the time for the majority of us because of the need to "be there." I came up with a radical thought. What we REALLY need is MORE cars on the freeway! No, I am NOT kidding. Look at 101 - four lanes and an average of 200 cars per hour in three of the four lanes - the fourth lane, of course, is for TWO people per car and averages approximately 90 cards per hour. If we had 4 lanes of cars with one person per car that would be 800 people. With the invention of the car pool lane, the highway carries FEWER people per hour ((3 x 200) + (1x90x2)) is 780 people. Okay, I admit, once in a while I see MORE than 2 people in the car pool lane .. but not often .. and I frankly resent the almost empty car pool lane during commute hours. So, what we need is MORE cars per hour with one person per car. And, we cannot add lanes so the obvious solution is "commute cars" that would use a 1/2 size lane for 1/2 size electric cars for one. Radical? Yes. But if you could design the freeways/cars from scratch, what would they look like? Nancy Levitt (Nancy works in HP's University Grants department and is currently mayor of Belmont, California.)
Hi Joe, Thanks for yet another thought provoker! >voice, and only 7% comes from the actual words being sent. He Although I take the point, I think this is probably a near-worst-case figure. For example, I am sure that I understand more than 7% of what you mean in Joe's Jottings. 7% probably applies more to the 'task force' expert meeting, where difficult and tough issues are discussed. >land of words and graphics and, sometimes, sound. But >cyberspace is only a 7% solution. We know the smell of a ..and cyberspace has invented things like smileys to compensate. I wonder how much that changes things. 10%? 12%? (or sometimes 3%?? :@). >leader must be physically present for certain responsibilities >and can not delegate them: a crisis, deciding policy that >affects organizational culture, tough personnel decisions, and >symbolic acts. These are all situations that require credible >caring (see Texas Bix Bender's quote above). Leader-meetings like this, it seems, are rites of passage, as opposed to the everyday ritual of reporting meetings. Deep stuff. >our perceptions of time are relative. Time flies when we're >having fun, but drags when we're bored; years are long when Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. :-) >What systems can you tell us about that move us closer to full >sensory communication? How do you feel about the need to "be >there"? The need to be there and the need to know come from one of our most basic drivers -- the need for a sense of control. When we are designated experts in various fields or even have a limited interest, we feel we should know all that there is to know and influence decisions in the area. I recognise this in myself, even as I read and reply to Joe's Jottings! On this morning's radio was a report of how psychologists are beginning to recognise information overload as a distinct medical condition. As a part of our communication strategy, perhaps we should learn to focus for less, and higher quality, information. (Yes, Jottings is in there for me! ;-). Eyeballing, I find, is a key strategy. Thus having met Joe a couple of times, I find it easier to understand the Jottings. Cheers, Dave Straker
Joe, Your concept of the senses is a good one. There are two professors at UC Santa Cruz who have studied this subject extensively and break down most of our communication into Visual, Auditory, and kinesthetic(touch). They have observed that we each 'think' visually, auditorially, and kinesthetically but that we tend to favor one method over the others. This preferred thinking pattern is reflected in the predicates we use, our eye movement, our speaking tones, and our body language (including things like a change in skin color -- i.e. blushing). A more detailed description of this is available in a number of books by Richard Bandler, John Grinder, and yes even some by Anthony Robbins. I believe that the inexpensive availability of video teleconferencing should over come many of the 'input' problems we have with other forms of communication. We have not yet begun to explore the possibilities for consulting via the web/teleconferencing, and other service delivery because we believe that we must adhere to the 55% is communicated non-verbally rule. I would be interested to explore how this percentage changes with the use of video teleconferencing. Regards, Mike Short 567-8594