I was not aware of any memories of how it had been assembled the last time
Pretty big implicit assumption there. I am amazed at how much easier it is to do something the second time, with or without conscious memories. Frequently, when rereading a book that I have only read once before, years previously, I find that I can complete a sentence from memory before turning a page, even though I may not actually feel as if I "know what happens next".
Maybe the most important way this applies here: you had already familiarized yourself with the format of the instruction sheet, what each picture represented, etc.
I'm not saying there's no "too many cooks" effect, but I think the "seen before" effect is equally interesting, and perhaps even larger.
There was even an experiment on people with total (declarative) amnesia where they would teach them games, they'd forget having ever seeing the game, then they'd play it well.
From the top of the Wikipedia article on procedural memory:
Procedural memory is memory for how to do things. Procedural memory guides the processes we perform and most frequently resides below the level of conscious awareness.
Pretty big implicit assumption there.
There is no implicit assumption there. There is an explicit acknowledgement that that could have been an effect, and reasons why I don't think the effect was large.
I'm not saying there's no "too many cooks" effect, but I think the "seen before" effect is equally interesting, and perhaps even larger.
Could be. For instance, I did have the advantage this time of knowing that the instruction sheet proceeded from bottom to top rather than from top to bottom. But I still think this particular task would be solved quicker by one person, because most of the group's time was spent communicating and debating and persuading and interfering with each other and asking who had what piece, and only a small amount of its time was spent actually moving pieces.
There is no implicit assumption there. There is an explicit acknowledgement that that could have been an effect, and reasons why I don't think the effect was large.
I meant the assumption packed inside your "reasons why I don't think the effect was large", that unconscious memories would not have a large effect. In my experience, they very often do. Watching old episodes of DS9 (ones I don't "remember"), I can almost always call out plot twists before my husband sees them. Am I just way better at spotting plot twists? Well, it's possible, but I also watched the show a lot more when it was new.
But I still think this particular task would be solved quicker by one person, because most of the group's time was spent communicating and debating and persuading and interfering with each other and asking who had what piece, and only a small amount of its time was spent actually moving pieces.
Yeah, you're probably right. Anything that involves taking things in your hand and moving them around is just awful to do in a group. I can never watch someone trying to untie a knot without feeling like I could do it better, have you noticed this?
BTW, the parent comment (currently at +9) is getting more karma than it "deserves" because it offers an obvious criticism of the post and many people are going to upvote to signal agreement, and also because it was submitted while the post was still pretty new. If that kind of thing bothers you, feel free to downvote it until it's at a more reasonable total. In particular, PhilGoetz should not take the karma total of the parent at face value if that makes him feel bad.
Edit: I am really pretty confused that this comment is now at -3 and the parent continues to accumulate more karma. Are you guys mad that I'm suggesting karma is influenced by anything but comment quality? Do I seem patronizing? Do people just not realize the same person wrote both comments?
Eh...whatever.
Where's the source of confusion? You make a useful, meaningful and relevant comment, and it's upvoted because people like that sort of comment. You then make a useless and wanky comment obsessing about how other people use their votes, and we downvote it, because people don't like that sort of comment.
Where's the confusion? Two different comments, of different quality, receive different kind of votes.
I have in the past had exchanges that could have been a lot more useful without the karma, which leads to needless status posturing when people disagree. I was trying to kind of defuse that dynamic. Also, highly-upvoted critical comments hurt people's feelings, and I don't like hurt feelings. Sorry if I came off as wanky or obsessive.
I think probably the actual reason was that people like pedanterrific were using my self-reply as karma balance, though.
Once again, to make it crystal clear: Not everyone downvoted the second comment for "karma balance". I downvoted it, even though I had NOT upvoted the first comment, and I did so explicitly NOT for karma balance. I downvoted the second comment in order to express my disapproval for the second comment, taken alone, by itself, independently, and I chose to do that without interest in or consideration of the karma points in any other comment, by you or anyone else.
And since I don't accept instruction from people on how to vote for them, your suggestion to downvote the first comment, were also summarily ignored. I downvoted the comment I wanted to downvote, because I disapproved of it, not the one you were instructing me to downvote -- and which I didn't disapprove of.
I, uh... yeah, you've made that perfectly clear.
I'm not sure whether I accomplished what I was trying to accomplish or not. I mean, the "Here, take some of my status" part obviously worked, just not quite how I was planning. Getting downvoted when I ask to get downvoted doesn't exactly break my heart, either, of course. I seem to have provoked some hostility from a few people, which is rarely a goal I pursue, but I’d rather people be mad because I’m “telling them how to vote” than because a substantive disagreement is going poorly. I guess next time I’ll look for a less annoying way of doing it.
By the way, feel free to downvote or upvote this, and all my other comments, according to your judgment of their merits, or any other algorithm you wish to employ, including but not limited to: upvoting comments you agree with, downvoting comments you disagree with, downvoting all my comments, upvoting all my comments, alternately downvoting and upvoting my comments, upvoting only comments you disagree with in an interesting way, downvoting comments that give you the megrims, upvoting comments that use silly words, and changing the sign of all your votes at random intervals. The part of me I identify with cares about karma only to the degree it makes discourse better or worse, and tries to say worthwhile things regardless of point value. The rest of me can stand a good smacking around.
By the way, feel free to downvote or upvote this, and all my other comments, according to your judgment of their merits, or any other algorithm you wish to employ, including but not limited to: upvoting comments you agree with, downvoting comments you disagree with, downvoting all my comments, upvoting all my comments, alternately downvoting and upvoting my comments, upvoting only comments you disagree with in an interesting way, downvoting comments that give you the megrims, upvoting comments that use silly words, and changing the sign of all your votes at random intervals.
oh nooo, now I can't do any of those things because I am sooo contrarian
One of those downvotes is mine - I agreed with the grandparent, but wasn't going to upvote it until I read this one. I thought it would even out if I did both.
Welcome to the world of LessWrong karma.
It doesn't make me feel bad, just cynical. 16 points is a lot for repeating a point that the post already addressed in a way that makes it sound like the post didn't address it.
As long as we are trading anecdotes, let me share a story that happened to me.
A couple of years ago I was trying to solve a question for a collaborative take-home exam in a set-theory course. I spent an hour or so thinking about it and jotting in a notebook. I then tried to jog my brain by taking an hour-long walk while musing on the problem. At the end of this process I had made one or two relevant observations but was nowhere near solving it; my estimate at the time was that I had it about one-third solved.
The next day I met up with a classmate, we exchanged some easy observations, and solved it straight away. It took only a couple of minutes, and neither of us had to think particularly hard.
Of course the observations we had made individually helped, but we made up many of the ideas on the spot. At the time I was very impressed by how much more efficient we were when working together.
I wouldn't consider this hard evidence, but it could be worth further analysis. It'd be very interesting to see experiments on this: n persons form a group and try to solve a problem together, n persons try to do the same problem themselves. Ideally this would be done with a few different problems of different problem classes while each problem class has a few problems of the same type.
Probably, someone has done this before. What's the technical term for this phenomenon?
This sounds similar to Brooks's Law, but there are some differences. Do you think that was the term you're looking for?
This was my thought as well, essentially its the cost of communication.
I also wonder had he expressed all his thoughts about how to do it aloud in English while he did it himself, if it would take significantly more time. It seems there could be some lossy translation between visual/spatial functions and language functions, even in a single brain.
Sounds like a related concept. Also, Quantity trumps Quality could under certain circumstances hold for the case of n persons working simultaneously on the same problem vs. working together.
I was in a game last weekend where, at one point, the players needed to solve an in-game problem. The mechanics for "solving" the problem were for us to assemble a 3D "jigsaw" puzzle. (One of those geometric shapes made by getting a lot of little shapes to fit together in just the right way.)
Three of us sat down to solve the puzzle together. Looking at the pieces, looking at the picture of the assembled figure, we made observations about what constraints we saw, what piece on the table might correspond to something in the picture, convinced whoever was holding the piece in question to put it in a particular place, and gradually assembled the puzzle cooperatively. We had an instruction sheet with pictures of the puzzle at 3 different stages of completion. It took us something under 10 minutes. (Several of those were taken up mutually deciding in which order to follow the pictures, as one person had started using the picture showing the first stage, one had started with the picture showing the last stage and was disassembling the semi-assembled first stage for parts, and one had no clear strategy.)
A few hours later, after the game ended, I sat at the table with the disassembled puzzle pieces, and put it together by myself, following the pictures from first stage to last. I was not aware of any memories of how it had been assembled the last time; and anyway, the instruction sheet was much more valuable than any memories I had. (It wasn't one of those symmetric 3D puzzles where there's a pattern or trick to it; it was a collection of oddly-shaped unique pieces assembled in three layers.) It took less than a minute.