3 ms·

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 hacka

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
  > 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. But human beings aren’t robots, and we value a ton of things other than pure efficiency and productivity. And I’m the OP here, fwiw, I think the hybrid approach where people go to office 1-2 times a week will be the most universally accepted.

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
> 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. But human beings aren’t robots, and we value a ton of things other than pure efficiency and productivity. And I’m the OP here, fwiw, I think the hybrid approach where people go to office 1-2 times a week will be the most universally accepted.