group decisionmaking

http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i15/15a01301.htm
"Learning From Digital Measurements of Face-to-Face Interactions"
by Jeffrey R. Young
The Chronicle of Higher Education
December 5, 2008

Young discusses recent research in which scientists predict the outcome of group deliberation based solely on tone of voice (and some other non-semantic indicators) with some accuracy (though they don't mention how much).

Now, one might find this very disheartening - shit, man, I guess people are totally irrational. But we do have to ask the question: is it perhaps something about their intelligence or competence that leads people to sound more excited and competent when discussing their projects? While it is probably not a perfect correlation, there is, I suspect, some connection. In other words, we have to take a closer look at the larger process, rather than getting disheartened by the appearance of totality.

Moreover: knowledge is power. What this enables us to do is say, ok, how we are going to take this fact into account? Are we going to change it - change the way we conduct our group deliberations? (Am I going to be sure to sound extra-excited and competent?) Or, how do we need to change people so that they're not susceptible to this hack (for that is, in a way, what it is) if we can't alter group discussions for the better (if necessary, as per the above discussion).

This exemplifies, I think, what I meant about science enabling us to figure out how to do things. It shows us that something may not be working as intended. And instead of sitting around feeling sorry about it, we need to ask: how do we make it work the way we want?