Archive for June, 2022
Studies reveal downsides of not meeting in person
Posted by mark in Communication on June 16, 2022
At the onset of the pandemic-driven quarantine in March of 2020, Stat-Ease closed its office and never looked back. We all began working out of our homes and Stat-Ease training shifted from traditional classroom to distance-based presentation.
Being on a relaxed work schedule (60% time) at my ‘highly experienced’ career stage, this worked out wonderfully for me. Though I really miss the vibrancy of in-person meetings and teaches, this is far outweighed by the convenience of working at my summer or winter homes, or anywhere in between.
Earlier this month Elon Musk bluntly told his employees to return to office or ‘pretend to work’ elsewhere. In more diplomatic fashion, many other employers have already done the same. Aside from the obvious control issues, they may be on to something. According to recent experiments, collaboration at a distance cannot achieve the same results as a traditional in-person work environment.
“Remote work is no longer acceptable… If you don’t show up, we will assume you have resigned.”
– Elon Musk in an emailed pronouncement to Tesla employees.
For example, on April 27th Nature published findings that Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Researchers from the Columbia Business School paired up hundreds of engineers in five different countries in two different groups, randomly assigning half of the pairs to work together in person and the other half to work together in separate, identical rooms using videoconferencing. The teams of two were then tasked with brainstorming—one group (300) coming up with creative ways to manipulate a Frisbee and the other (334) working out alternative uses for bubble wrap. Ultimately, pairs who met in person came up with about 17 percent more ideas than those meeting remotely (Zoom).
Another experiment reported in April by found that Emails and texts in lieu of conversation could negatively affect performance on higher-level job tasks. Study participants who teamed up with a partner in person produced 19 percent fewer errors on a work task than those who could only communicate by text.
Furthermore, a survey of nearly 2000 office workers conducted in early 2021 (when most remained at home due to the pandemic) revealed that 70% experienced some form of mixed-up messaging from their colleagues due to having to do so at a distance. Managers fared the worst (which explains why so many have mandated a return to the office!). For statistical details, see The Digital Communication Crisis.
Given all these issues dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic on office work, I am very happy with my pivot back to a purely technical role after many years as the chief Stat-Ease business administrator. Having no supervisory responsibility for existing or new hires (tricky trying to train at a distance!), I am fine with the array of digital communication tools at my fingertips—Teams, Zoom, Slack, Outlook and all.
Just a bit lonely…
PS An ongoing attempt to work around being physically present makes use of ever developing tools for the metaverse. Based on reports of being Lost and Confused in the Virtual, Immersive World, I am skeptical that this will provide any added value anytime soon. More interesting to me is the advent of holographic meetings a la the WebEx service reviewed on June 1 here. This holds promise as an antidote to Zoom fatigue.
Going nerdle on Wordle
I am habituated to my daily Wordle, the addictive online word-puzzle. It hinges on the 5 letters you lay out at the start. It’s too boring to enter the same vowel-heavy word, such as “adieu” or “orate”, every time, so I go with a different one every day of the month, referring to my top-secret list garnered from Wordle experts. Every day I compete (not especially well) against 4 or my adult children—us all posting our play to the family WhatsApp.
Here’s my stats thus far (nicely maintained and bar-graphed by Wordle): 152 games with 0 in 1 word, 5 in 2, 51 in 3, 45 in 4, 40 in 5, 7 in 6. The other 4 times I failed to get the word worked out in the 6 tries allotted, thus ruining those 4 days for me. However, my success rate of 97.4% is not too shabby, I think. (Because it is so easy and tempting to cheat with online Wordle solvers, getting valid stats on players’ performance is problematic.)
The current issue (June) of the Royal Statistical Society’s Significance magazine features a breakdown of the “War of Wordlers” by Mary J. Kwasny—a Northwestern University professor. She collected results from 20 Facebook friends (including herself) to compare with the performance of computer-based Wordle solvers. After a plethora of nerdy statistics, step plots and simulation graphs, Kwasny concludes that the computer will probably win out over an expert player. But that will be no fun at all.
If you have more of an appetite for Wordle as well as statistics (I’ve had enough!), check out this blog by data scientist Esteban Moro on Playing (and winning) Wordle with R.
Finis! (By the way, this is a valid Wordle word according to this list.)
PS Two of our family—my wife Karen and a son-in-law Ryan—quit playing after they made Wordle’s in one. Ryan got his ace on his first try at Wordle. With roughly 13,000 words in the hopper, that was extremely ‘skillful’.
LEGO bricks used to build regression model
LEGOs are very popular around here in the Twin Cities of Minnesota. They keep our kids, such as my grandson Archer, occupied during the long winter when our cold weather limits outdoor activity. See his creative solar-powered banana-research station pictured. No wonder the local Mall of America features a LEGO Imagination Center!
Thus, naturally, this recent Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education publication on “Building a Multiple Linear Regression Model with LEGO Brick Data” caught my eye. The article lays out a fun class-project by two Iowa State University Statistics Department Associate Professors—Anna Peterson and Laura Ziegler. They developed an “innovative activity that uses data about LEGO sets to help students self-discover multiple linear regressions” that “explore the relationship between the Amazon price and the number of pieces per set for two sizes of bricks, small and large.” The students start with graphical displays, then progress to simple linear regression, and, finally, develop models that uncover interactions of factors.
Using the spreadsheets provided by Profs Peterson and Ziegler, I used the Import tools in Design-Expert® software (DX) to reproduce their results.
First off, Graph Columns revealed a strong correlation (r=0.986) between the total number of pieces and the number of unique pieces per LEGO set—this being a measure of the potential cost for individual molds. Seeing this I decided not to include both factors in my modeling—going forward only with the total number of pieces, as did Peterson and Ziegler.
Next, I did a Design Evaluation of a polynomial model with the main effects of size (A), theme (B) and number of pieces (C), plus their three two-factor interactions (AB, AC and BC), and the quadratic term for the number of pieces (C2). The results revealed an aliasing between size and theme—only the Duplo came in the large size. Thus, theme dropped out of my focus.
I then deployed DX to do a regression on the model A, C, AC and C2. Residual diagnostics revealed via the Box-Cox plot that a log transformation would do significantly better. The only catch in this metric is a high Cook’s Distance for the large-pieced Duplo Modular Playhouse set—not a problem, per se, but curiously influential.
In the end I reproduced the interaction shown in Figure 4 of the publication, but with a bit of flair for some curviness and the addition of confidence bands as seen below.
You can see that the effect on price by the number of LEGO pieces depends greatly on size of the bricks. My conclusion is that going for the small sized LEGOs is by far the most cost-effective way to keep kids busy, provided them being old enough to do so safely and with the exceptional focus needed to make something out of them.
PS While researching this blog, I noticed that in just the few years from when the costs got gathered by Peterson and Ziegler, LEGO prices went way up on Amazon. Given the recent performance of stocks and bonds, you might do well by investing in these toys per January’s Research in International Business and Finance. See the highlights (average long-term return of 11%–better than gold!) at LEGO: THE TOY OF SMART INVESTORS.