When something is communicated one-on-one, the cost is effectively doubled because it consumes the sender’s time. I think is roughly offset by a factor of 2 efficiency bonus for tailored/interactive talk relative to static public talk. Even aside from the efficiency of tailored talk, a factor of 2 isn’t very big compared to the other costs and benefits.
This feels to me like a strange model to apply here. I can see the logic of what you’re saying—if every “explanation event” requires time from an explainer and a receiver, then centralizing the explanations cuts the cost by only a factor of 2.
But it feels a bit to me like saying, “Everyone should write their own software. Each software use event requires time from a programmer and a user, so writing the programs once only cuts the cost by a factor of 2.”
Maybe the software analogy is unfair because any given user will use the same piece of software many times. But you could replace software with books, or movies or any other information product.
Broadcasting is good for transferring information from people with more valuable time to people with less valuable time—in those cases “using up the explainer’s time” much more than doubles the cost.
Maybe the way I would put it is: “Some people have much better things to say than others.”
If I have to get everything from one-on-one conversation, then I only have access to the thoughts of the people I can get access to in person.
So then, whether it’s worth it to do broadcasting would depend on:
1) How much does information content degrade if it’s passed around by word of mouth?
2) How much better are the best ideas in our community than median ideas?
3) How valuable is it for the median person to hear the best ideas?
In my envisioned world, the listener compensates the talker in some other way (if the talker is not sufficiently motivated by helping/influencing the listener). It won’t usually be the case that the talker can be compensated by taking a turn as the listener, unless the desired exchange of information happens to line up perfectly that day.
“How much does information content degrade if it’s passed around by word of mouth?” matters for the particular alternative strategy where you try to do a bucket brigade from people with more valuable time to people with less valuable time.
In custom-made-for-you software case, the programmer spends radically more time than the user, so rewriting the software for each user much more than doubles the cost.
In the custom-made-for-you talk case, the talker spends the same amount of time as the listener and so the effect is doubling.
Sometimes a static explanation is radically better than a tailored one-on-one interaction, instead of slightly worse. In that case I think broadcasting is very useful, just like for software. I think that’s unusual (for example, I expect that reading this comment is worse for you than covering this topic in a one-on-one discussion). Even in cases where a large amount of up-front investment can improve communication radically, I think the more likely optimal strategy is to spend a bunch of time creating an artifact that explains something well, and then to additionally discuss the issue one-on-one as a complement.
This feels to me like a strange model to apply here. I can see the logic of what you’re saying—if every “explanation event” requires time from an explainer and a receiver, then centralizing the explanations cuts the cost by only a factor of 2.
But it feels a bit to me like saying, “Everyone should write their own software. Each software use event requires time from a programmer and a user, so writing the programs once only cuts the cost by a factor of 2.”
Maybe the software analogy is unfair because any given user will use the same piece of software many times. But you could replace software with books, or movies or any other information product.
I think something like this is a crux for me:
Maybe the way I would put it is: “Some people have much better things to say than others.”
If I have to get everything from one-on-one conversation, then I only have access to the thoughts of the people I can get access to in person.
So then, whether it’s worth it to do broadcasting would depend on:
1) How much does information content degrade if it’s passed around by word of mouth?
2) How much better are the best ideas in our community than median ideas?
3) How valuable is it for the median person to hear the best ideas?
In my envisioned world, the listener compensates the talker in some other way (if the talker is not sufficiently motivated by helping/influencing the listener). It won’t usually be the case that the talker can be compensated by taking a turn as the listener, unless the desired exchange of information happens to line up perfectly that day.
“How much does information content degrade if it’s passed around by word of mouth?” matters for the particular alternative strategy where you try to do a bucket brigade from people with more valuable time to people with less valuable time.
In custom-made-for-you software case, the programmer spends radically more time than the user, so rewriting the software for each user much more than doubles the cost.
In the custom-made-for-you talk case, the talker spends the same amount of time as the listener and so the effect is doubling.
Sometimes a static explanation is radically better than a tailored one-on-one interaction, instead of slightly worse. In that case I think broadcasting is very useful, just like for software. I think that’s unusual (for example, I expect that reading this comment is worse for you than covering this topic in a one-on-one discussion). Even in cases where a large amount of up-front investment can improve communication radically, I think the more likely optimal strategy is to spend a bunch of time creating an artifact that explains something well, and then to additionally discuss the issue one-on-one as a complement.
Yes, but in part that’s because being in your company is such a joy. ;-)