Research suggests that poor audio quality during video calls can negatively impact how others perceive us. A study found that "tinny" or distorted audio leads to participants being judged as less competent, less influential, and less likeable, regardless of the actual quality of their contributions. This "zoom bias" stems from our brains associating poor sound with lower status, mirroring how we perceive voices in the natural world. This effect can have significant consequences in professional settings, potentially hindering career advancement and impacting team dynamics.
This 1975 essay by Gerald Weinberg explores the delicate balance between honesty and kindness when delivering potentially painful truths. Weinberg argues that truth-telling isn't simply about stating facts, but also considering the impact of those facts on the recipient. He introduces the concept of "egoless programming" and extends it to general communication, emphasizing the importance of separating one's ego from the message. The essay provides a framework for delivering criticism constructively, focusing on observable behaviors rather than character judgments, and offering suggestions for improvement instead of mere complaints. Ultimately, Weinberg suggests that truly helpful truth-telling requires empathy, careful phrasing, and a genuine desire to help the other person grow.
HN commenters largely discuss the difficulty of delivering hard truths, particularly in professional settings. Some highlight the importance of framing, suggesting that focusing on shared goals and the benefits of honesty can make criticism more palatable. Others emphasize empathy and tact, recommending a focus on observable behaviors rather than character judgments. Several commenters note the importance of building trust beforehand, as criticism from a trusted source is more readily accepted. The power dynamics inherent in delivering criticism are also explored, with some arguing that managers have a responsibility to create a safe space for feedback. Finally, several users note the timeless nature of the advice in the original article, observing that these challenges remain relevant today.
Robin Hanson describes his experience with various "status circles," groups where he feels varying degrees of status and comfort. He outlines how status within a group influences his behavior, causing him to act differently in circles where he's central and respected compared to those where he's peripheral or unknown. This affects his willingness to speak up, share personal information, and even how much fun he has. Hanson ultimately argues that having many diverse status circles, including some where one holds high status, is key to a rich and fulfilling life. He emphasizes that pursuing only high status in all circles can lead to anxiety and missed opportunities to learn and grow from less prestigious groups.
HN users generally agree with the author's premise of having multiple status circles and seeking different kinds of status within them. Some commenters pointed out the inherent human drive for social comparison and the inevitable hierarchies that form, regardless of intention. Others discussed the trade-offs between broad vs. niche circles, and how the internet has facilitated the pursuit of niche status. A few questioned the negativity associated with "status seeking" and suggested reframing it as a natural desire for belonging and recognition. One compelling comment highlighted the difference between status seeking and status earning, arguing that genuine contribution, rather than manipulation, leads to more fulfilling status. Another interesting observation was the cyclical nature of status, with people often moving between different circles as their priorities and values change.
Summary of Comments ( 105 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43495465
HN users discuss various aspects of audio quality affecting perceived competence in video calls. Several point out that poor audio makes it harder to understand speech, thus impacting the listener's perception of the speaker's intelligence. Some commenters highlight the class disparity exacerbated by differing audio quality, with those lacking high-end equipment at a disadvantage. Others suggest the issue isn't solely audio, but also includes video quality and internet stability. A few propose solutions, like better noise-cancellation algorithms and emphasizing good meeting etiquette. Finally, some note that pre-recorded, edited content further skews perceptions of "professionalism" compared to the realities of live communication.
The Hacker News post titled "Zoom bias: The social costs of having a 'tinny' sound during video conferences" has a moderate number of comments discussing the linked article's findings. Several compelling threads of conversation emerge.
Some users corroborate the study's findings with their own anecdotal experiences. One commenter mentions that they consciously try to make their audio sound better for important meetings, acknowledging the perceived link between audio quality and perceived competence. Others describe situations where poor audio quality has led to miscommunication, frustration, and a diminished perception of the speaker. These personal accounts lend credence to the study's claims, highlighting the real-world impact of "tinny" audio.
Another line of discussion revolves around the technical reasons behind poor audio quality and potential solutions. Commenters discuss the limitations of built-in laptop microphones and the benefits of using external microphones, headsets, and noise-cancelling software. Some also point out the role of internet bandwidth and connection stability in affecting audio quality. This technical discussion offers practical advice for mitigating the issues raised in the article.
A few commenters express skepticism about the study's methodology and generalizability. They question whether the specific audio manipulations used in the study accurately reflect real-world scenarios and if the results can be extrapolated to broader populations. This critical perspective adds nuance to the discussion, encouraging a more cautious interpretation of the study's conclusions.
Finally, some comments touch on the broader implications of the study's findings, connecting them to existing biases related to accents, speech impediments, and technological access. This broader perspective highlights the potential for audio quality to exacerbate existing inequalities and emphasizes the importance of addressing these issues in a thoughtful and equitable manner. The conversation also touches upon the increasing importance of audio quality in the modern workplace and the need for employers to provide adequate resources to ensure clear communication.