[danaris]

[Citation needed]?

I've not heard of any research that shows that it's impossible to have meaningful conversations on these platforms.

And please note the distinction between "it is impossible to have such conversations" and "some people (especially less tech-savvy people) have a harder time having such conversations" on these platforms.

Teams/Slack/Discord/etc is just another communication medium. Once our society has, collectively, had more of a chance to get used to them, and once we're no longer dealing with an entire generation who were bad managers before the personal computer even existed (</hyperbole>), I wager you'll see a lot less complaining about the medium itself.

[lazide]

[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9771703/]

[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35648039/]

And overview [https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-brain-body-con...]

[danaris]

OK: all three of those are specifically about "Zoom fatigue".

None of them in any way address the issue at hand, which is the ability to engage in meaningful conversations over online platforms such as Teams and Slack.

[lazide]

You’re moving the goalposts quite a bit.

I said they weren’t the same as in person.

The reason for zoom fatigue, as the papers call out, is because zoom or similar is fundamentally different than actual in person conversations.

They are missing something important. Several things which are important, actually.

Just like twinkies vs ‘real food’.

[danaris]

Your post that I originally responded to:

> Except you don’t actually talk (as in have a real conversation) with anyone on Teams.

That is the specific argument that I am refuting: that your experience of not being able to "have a real conversation" on Teams, etc, is universal, rather than just being your experience, which cannot be extrapolated from without gathering significant extra data.

"People get Zoom fatigue from having too many video meetings (especially in the first 2 years of regularly using video meetings after never using them before)" is not the same thing, and does not prove that these technologies are impossible to use as a replacement for in-person meetings on a wide scale.

[lazide]

Did you read the papers? That is literally not what they are saying.

If I have one twinkie, that isn’t a problem - because I have other ‘real food’ to compensate. Same with someone doing zoom periodically.

If all I have is twinkies, that is a real problem, because I don’t have enough real food to compensate. I’m missing some essential vitamins, minerals, and macros that will eventually hurt me a lot. Plus a lot of sugar that causes a lot of load in my body we really don’t handle well.

‘Zoom fatigue’ is exactly because people aren’t having enough real in-person interactions anymore and it’s causing numerous real psychological issues in people because of it.

Because there are actual necessary things in real in person interactions that are not present in video conferencing. And real effects of doing video conferencing our minds don’t handle well.

The insistence on ‘but it’s not impossible!’ is tangential to the fact that it isn’t a good idea to do long term or exclusively.

And depending on the individuals environment or makeup, it could be an immediate major problem, or it could be a slow burn. Everyone will have a different tipping point.

I’m sure there are some 1-in-a-million outliers out there that could stay pretty functional literally eating just twinkies for a decade (somehow).

But either way, having the social interaction equivalent of an all-Twinkie diet is a bad idea.

Near as we can tell.

But ‘this is America!’, with an ongoing obesity crisis, so not like I expect people to just listen.