5 ms·

This is irrelevant. The truth of whether open spaces or private offices or walled cubicles are better is irrelevant to my argument. Attention and selection bias

This is irrelevant. The truth of whether open spaces or private offices or walled cubicles are better is irrelevant to my argument. Attention and selection bias apply and have a negative effect, even when the target is factually correct.

croon 10y ago
If well being is a factor of productivity, then it is _by definition_ relevant. I don't see your point. Also, I see plenty of comments on these threads from people who do like working in open offices. The "selection bias" you experience is likely just related to the fact that open offices are what is very much in vogue right now, and mostly people who doesn't like it chime in. Likewise if single offices where in vogue we would hear from the people who do like to work in open offices currently.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  It's not relevant to the above point, it's a different point entirely. You are arguing about whether X, when X was an irrelevant example to make another point. More explicitly, the argument is of the form: "If the science pointed towards X; where 'X' is an idea that is not popular among developers." In this scenario, it is irrelevant if X is true because it is a hypothetical.
  - croon 10y ago
    No, you are missing the point. An example: If the science pointed towards NFL players performing better in 6 inch heels, would NFL players promote such a study? It's an entirely pointless hypothetical if you entertain the notion that their preference _IS_ the primary factor for their productivity. Or more likely, their productivity is the major factor for their preference.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > No, you are missing the point. No, I get your point; but it is a counter-point to a point not made. > If the science pointed towards NFL players performing better in 6 inch heels, would NFL players promote such a study? I expect not, probably due to their stake in the situation, i.e. their bias towards factors other than performance. that was the point of the hypothetical, and the sole point that was being communicated - to illuminate the concept of that bias existing, qualitatively. The quantitative matter of if it is actually a relevant factor is a different matter, and not raised by that hypothetical. > It's an entirely pointless hypothetical if you entertain the notion that their preference _IS_ the primary factor for their productivity. Not if you got the point of the hypothetical. whether you 'entertain' the notion or not is irrelevant, since the truth of the statement is unimportant.
      - croon 10y ago
        Fine, let's have it your way. If up was down, up would be down... But why is that point made? Sure, the statement based on the false premise is true, but there's nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever, because it is never the case. I accept the 2 step logic. I don't accept that it conveys any relevant information, because it is based on a premise that will never be true. So why is "the point" made?
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > because it is never the case The statement is not a logical falsehood like 1 + 1 == 3, it's epistemological possible i.e. it's possible given you are not omniscient. It's also not the case that 'nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever' because: A) there are other categorically similar statements (the category being "things developers would dislike") that are 'true'. The structure is still valid, ie: If "X, and X->Y then Y" is useful despite the fact that the second clause is irrelevant for "-X", because the same logical form is valid for other 'X's. It is presumed that the original, given example isn't supposed to represent a general falsehood. put another way, the category of the statement is "changes developers would dislike, whether productive an non-productive" not "changes developers would dislike, that are also non-productive" B) The given example ('X') is offered as one (of potentially many) influencing factors. I some cases, developer bias will be more, or less relevant, according to many factors. Its not possible to generalise by stating it is a falsehood; in some cases it will be true that developer bias is relevant. Again, the argument is qualitative, not quantitative (which would be difficult anyway). The point is this: developer preference can influence their judgments. that is all. saying "NFL players would be likely agree that sports cars helped their performance", is a similar way of saying the same thing, this time using NFL players and sports cars as a proxy for the same point.

croon 10y ago

If well being is a factor of productivity, then it is _by definition_ relevant. I don't see your point. Also, I see plenty of comments on these threads from people who do like working in open offices. The "selection bias" you experience is likely just related to the fact that open offices are what is very much in vogue right now, and mostly people who doesn't like it chime in. Likewise if single offices where in vogue we would hear from the people who do like to work in open offices currently.

Chris2048 10y ago
It's not relevant to the above point, it's a different point entirely. You are arguing about whether X, when X was an irrelevant example to make another point. More explicitly, the argument is of the form: "If the science pointed towards X; where 'X' is an idea that is not popular among developers." In this scenario, it is irrelevant if X is true because it is a hypothetical.
- croon 10y ago
  No, you are missing the point. An example: If the science pointed towards NFL players performing better in 6 inch heels, would NFL players promote such a study? It's an entirely pointless hypothetical if you entertain the notion that their preference _IS_ the primary factor for their productivity. Or more likely, their productivity is the major factor for their preference.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > No, you are missing the point. No, I get your point; but it is a counter-point to a point not made. > If the science pointed towards NFL players performing better in 6 inch heels, would NFL players promote such a study? I expect not, probably due to their stake in the situation, i.e. their bias towards factors other than performance. that was the point of the hypothetical, and the sole point that was being communicated - to illuminate the concept of that bias existing, qualitatively. The quantitative matter of if it is actually a relevant factor is a different matter, and not raised by that hypothetical. > It's an entirely pointless hypothetical if you entertain the notion that their preference _IS_ the primary factor for their productivity. Not if you got the point of the hypothetical. whether you 'entertain' the notion or not is irrelevant, since the truth of the statement is unimportant.
    - croon 10y ago
      Fine, let's have it your way. If up was down, up would be down... But why is that point made? Sure, the statement based on the false premise is true, but there's nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever, because it is never the case. I accept the 2 step logic. I don't accept that it conveys any relevant information, because it is based on a premise that will never be true. So why is "the point" made?
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > because it is never the case The statement is not a logical falsehood like 1 + 1 == 3, it's epistemological possible i.e. it's possible given you are not omniscient. It's also not the case that 'nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever' because: A) there are other categorically similar statements (the category being "things developers would dislike") that are 'true'. The structure is still valid, ie: If "X, and X->Y then Y" is useful despite the fact that the second clause is irrelevant for "-X", because the same logical form is valid for other 'X's. It is presumed that the original, given example isn't supposed to represent a general falsehood. put another way, the category of the statement is "changes developers would dislike, whether productive an non-productive" not "changes developers would dislike, that are also non-productive" B) The given example ('X') is offered as one (of potentially many) influencing factors. I some cases, developer bias will be more, or less relevant, according to many factors. Its not possible to generalise by stating it is a falsehood; in some cases it will be true that developer bias is relevant. Again, the argument is qualitative, not quantitative (which would be difficult anyway). The point is this: developer preference can influence their judgments. that is all. saying "NFL players would be likely agree that sports cars helped their performance", is a similar way of saying the same thing, this time using NFL players and sports cars as a proxy for the same point.