Which is better for a given deliberation? To meet in person or to meet remotely through telepresence?
I live in a household of 10 adults and 1 child, a 3-5 minute drive from our other community house with about 8 people living in it.
Our situation looks something like this:
When we have serious topics of grave concern, we meet entirely in person, no exceptions. For example, when Rachel announced her pregnancy to the community, this was done in-person.
We have a ban on using Slack to discuss emotionally charged topics. If there’s a serious disagreement, we’ll be talking about it FaceToFace?, which, thanks to Zoom and Discord and Skype and Google Hangout, no longer implies “meeting in person.”
See where I’m going with this? In the majority case, things are hybrid.
Incidentally – that one: “When you have a mirror or a camera on you, you think about yourself (rather than assimilate to the group identity)” – we have definitely felt that, and so when we are doing Forum with multiple cameras on the physical space, we block out the local-facing cameras on the screen by putting a blank notepad window in front of them..!
Side-note – Timur – Would you – … When you say, “Some, like TimurIsmagilov, disagree though,” would you instead actually specify your disagreement, and perhaps put it on a nested line underneath? Something like, “Timur holds a counter-view: x, y, z,” spelling out what it is. For myself, when I read “Some, like TimurIsmagilov, disagree though,” it feels like with-holding, with an implicit sort of, “Well, nobody asked me.” If it’s important enough to mention, my personal request, is that you describe some of the actual content of it. I’m genuinely curious what it is, and would like to see reference.
There is another – “face-to-face is the gold standard (some disagree with that assumption)” – (1.) It’s implicit when you say “there is an assumption,” that it is merely an assumption; Calling it an assumption expresses doubt, already. (2.) If there is disagreement, I want to know some of the content of the disagreement. A way to express that there is ambivalence, without opening up an unwanted discussion, would be to ask a question (“What are some of the reasons, for and against, viewing face-to-face interaction as the gold standard?”) That opens up space for discussion, and introduces the topic. Another way is to state something in the discussion part of the page, saying, “Hey, I know people think that f2f is the gold standard, but may I introduce some of my doubts?” Still another might be to simply make lists, like you did for telepresence: “What are the advantages of face-to-face?” “What are the disadvantages?”
In the majority case, things are hybrid.
would you instead actually specify your disagreement, and perhaps put it on a nested line underneath?
Sure, I’ve elaborated now, take a look.
Finally, because BeyondBeingThere? is paywalled, I would like it’s ideas of note to be summarized in a page, because I don’t want to pay to access it.
I might express the content as:
I am thinking, of course, in the first place of the extraordinary network of radio and television communications which, perhaps anticipating the direct inter-communication of brains through the mysterious power of telepathy, already link us all in a sort of ‘etherized’ universal consciousness. – TeilhardDeChardin, TheFutureOfMan
The modern human evolved across hundreds of thousands of years, in the context of actual encounters in natural ecologies. Myriad personal nervous systems – stretching not just within the individual, but also across the space of community and cross-community, include the neurology of empathy, of voice and listening, of attention, and of touch. Sex has always been an organizing element of society, and affection by touch has been one of the sacred dimensions of recognizing and relating personal interaction.
Some of the advantages of InPerson? include: