4 ms·

Couldn't this be an example of naturalist fallacy? Or also false dichotomy? Let alone that I'm not sure I agree that what you're defining as "human nature" is e

Couldn't this be an example of naturalist fallacy? Or also false dichotomy? Let alone that I'm not sure I agree that what you're defining as "human nature" is even "human nature," but perhaps just some aspect of the interaction of some kinds of people in some cultures. Taiwan's on a soft lockdown right now, and through g0v we've had a couple online hackathons via gather.town that went swell in my opinion, with lots of discussions and cool ideas popping around. And, a vibrant and highly active community across a huge volume of projects is maintained on the g0v slack. Off the top of my head, through online conversation only, the idea of scraping all Taiwanese hospital websites for vaccination registration information, through implementation of said app, was completed successfully. We also have the advantage of instantaneous response at nearly full capacity. That is to say, we don't need to wait until we can all get together physically to begin brainstorming and solution implementation around a given issue, such as when our COVID breakout happened and a lot of solutions arose quickly, such as translations of information, easy ways for businesses to register and print out QR code posters for our contact tracing system, and the sharing of COVID data. I wonder if that's because there's no physical interaction whatsoever. I admit that when teams are mixed physical/non-physical, there can be information shared between physical people that the non-physical miss out on, but as others are saying, while that might seem faster, I'm not sure the added sloppiness is necessarily an advantage. In any case it seems like a very difficult thing to measure, especially when right now companies are trying to measure their productivity changes due to shifts to remote during an immensely psychologically traumatic time for everyone on earth. Elsewhere I'm seeing further naturalist fallacy arguments, like we've "evolved" this way. I think that's a good counter to the "rugged individualistic" types that think humans would be better off living alone in the woods with a crate of beer and a shotgun or whatever, but in the far more complex social web of civilization, where you can still have social interaction but modulated to your needs, I don't think we can say "in person is better because we didn't have computers for the first 200,000 years of humanity. I'm sure one can see what else I can apply here: we also didn't have, I dunno, vaccines? Actually, better yet: we didn't have spoken language for a very, very long time, and we interacted "just fine" without it insomuch as our entire ancestral history for a couple hundred million years survived to the point where homo sapiens could finally branch off and eventually figure out complex language. Same goes for writing. So, that's kind of the problem with naturalist arguments.

Cookingboy 5y ago
It's interesting how you used Taiwan and hackathons as example. Despite their successes, I'll bet a decent amount of money that after Covid is over, many hackathons will resume to be in-person events. In fact, think of this the other way, would people in Taiwan be happy if they hear they will be locked down forever? Of course not right? So people obviously derive some value from human interaction. And that value, as little as it is for some people, will very often translate over to working relationship. >we didn't have spoken language for a very, very long time, and we interacted "just fine" without it insomuch as our entire ancestral history for a couple hundred million years survived to the point where homo sapiens could finally branch off and eventually figure out complex language. Same goes for writing. So, that's kind of the problem with naturalist arguments. A simple counter-argument to all your examples: when something new comes along, they rarely fully replace what's there before, but merely augmented it or expanding the horizon. We didn't replace gestures and body languages with spoken language, and we didn't replace spoken language with written text. Technology will no doubt expand our interaction paradigm with new methods, but it won't fully eliminate the benefit of old ones.
- komali2 5y ago
  > Despite their successes, I'll bet a decent amount of money that after Covid is over, many hackathons will resume to be in-person events. Of course this is true, but that isn't evidence that hackathons are inherently more productive if they're in person. In some ways, they're less productive in person. Digital hackathons allow for quick live-translation between English and Mandarin, for example. Communication is easier for many people during a digital hackathon. It also levels the playing field for people with various physical or cognitive disabilities. > n fact, think of this the other way, would people in Taiwan be happy if they hear they will be locked down forever? Of course not right? So people obviously derive some value from human interaction. Yes, I never challenged the idea that people derive value from human interaction. This doesn't mean that physical space interaction in the context of hackathons or work are more effective or productive. In fact, it again could be an argument against increased productivity, as I for example found the constant office chatter and distractions of the coffee machine very fun, but I admit that I get far more work done at home without those distractions, though I do have less fun here at home. Sometimes. Other times I spend my lunch break motorcycling, and those days I find working from home is a far more fun option ;) > A simple counter-argument to all your examples: when something new comes along, they rarely fully replace what's there before, but merely augmented it or expanding the horizon. Correct, and yet the false paradigm the OP seemed to me to be creating is that fully digital organizations are less effective than physical space ones. On the one hand, there's no reason an organization can't simply do both, and on the other, so what if slow augmentation was a method? Fully implemented language is more effective than no language, or primitive languages, so I'm not sure the nature of language's evolution is relevant here. I think we're stretching the metaphor here, though. It is worth wondering, along those lines, whether at-home work could be identical to at-work work if we all had fully immersive VR digital workplaces. At that point, surely there's no difference? So thinking along those lines I think it's worth sussing out what exactly we like, or believe is more efficient, about in-person work.

Cookingboy 5y ago

It's interesting how you used Taiwan and hackathons as example. Despite their successes, I'll bet a decent amount of money that after Covid is over, many hackathons will resume to be in-person events. In fact, think of this the other way, would people in Taiwan be happy if they hear they will be locked down forever? Of course not right? So people obviously derive some value from human interaction. And that value, as little as it is for some people, will very often translate over to working relationship. >we didn't have spoken language for a very, very long time, and we interacted "just fine" without it insomuch as our entire ancestral history for a couple hundred million years survived to the point where homo sapiens could finally branch off and eventually figure out complex language. Same goes for writing. So, that's kind of the problem with naturalist arguments. A simple counter-argument to all your examples: when something new comes along, they rarely fully replace what's there before, but merely augmented it or expanding the horizon. We didn't replace gestures and body languages with spoken language, and we didn't replace spoken language with written text. Technology will no doubt expand our interaction paradigm with new methods, but it won't fully eliminate the benefit of old ones.

komali2 5y ago
> Despite their successes, I'll bet a decent amount of money that after Covid is over, many hackathons will resume to be in-person events. Of course this is true, but that isn't evidence that hackathons are inherently more productive if they're in person. In some ways, they're less productive in person. Digital hackathons allow for quick live-translation between English and Mandarin, for example. Communication is easier for many people during a digital hackathon. It also levels the playing field for people with various physical or cognitive disabilities. > n fact, think of this the other way, would people in Taiwan be happy if they hear they will be locked down forever? Of course not right? So people obviously derive some value from human interaction. Yes, I never challenged the idea that people derive value from human interaction. This doesn't mean that physical space interaction in the context of hackathons or work are more effective or productive. In fact, it again could be an argument against increased productivity, as I for example found the constant office chatter and distractions of the coffee machine very fun, but I admit that I get far more work done at home without those distractions, though I do have less fun here at home. Sometimes. Other times I spend my lunch break motorcycling, and those days I find working from home is a far more fun option ;) > A simple counter-argument to all your examples: when something new comes along, they rarely fully replace what's there before, but merely augmented it or expanding the horizon. Correct, and yet the false paradigm the OP seemed to me to be creating is that fully digital organizations are less effective than physical space ones. On the one hand, there's no reason an organization can't simply do both, and on the other, so what if slow augmentation was a method? Fully implemented language is more effective than no language, or primitive languages, so I'm not sure the nature of language's evolution is relevant here. I think we're stretching the metaphor here, though. It is worth wondering, along those lines, whether at-home work could be identical to at-work work if we all had fully immersive VR digital workplaces. At that point, surely there's no difference? So thinking along those lines I think it's worth sussing out what exactly we like, or believe is more efficient, about in-person work.