3 ms·

> We need to rid this idea that the tool is the problem. Do you have any scientific evidence (preferrably peer-reviewed) that the tool is not the problem? If n

> We need to rid this idea that the tool is the problem. Do you have any scientific evidence (preferrably peer-reviewed) that the tool is not the problem? If not, it would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to study. > Look at the experiment they are doing. The room is so boring and controlled. If I am reading the paper correctly, the rooms being used by remote and in-person participants were identical. While they may be boring, the point was to control for the effect of the room, not to study it. It sounds like you are wishing for a different study.

thenerdhead 4y ago
My comment was mocking scientific evidence as this study is pure science and not very practical from the human perspective. But yes there are plenty of studies and even studies on studies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3051058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3051058 Specifically look at: Table 5. Categories and characteristics of the PWE influencing creativity It's very similar to how the more nature you bring into your working environment, the more "life" you bring into your work. We're humans, we're not meant to just sit in boring rooms all day and expect to be creative.
- z2h-a6n 4y ago
  Except for this: > My comment was mocking scientific evidence as this study is pure science and not very practical from the human perspective. I generally agree with your idea that a natural work environment is better than a boring one. My point was about your assertion that we should get rid of the idea that the tool is the problem, followed by discussion of other factors in a work environment. If we want to know whether or not the tool is the problem, we need to study the tool. As you point out, and the paper you linked makes clear, there are many other factors involved in creativity in a work environment. The OP study is about one tool however, and it makes it fairly clear that the tool in this case can be a problem. Whether or not it is the main problem is another matter of course. More generally, the thought that we should even attempt, let alone need, to get rid of any idea without strong evidence to refute it strikes me as worryingly antiscientific. In the context of workplace optimization this may not be very important in the grand scheme of things, but in other matters (climate change comes to mind) it may well be of existential importance.
Foobar8568 4y ago
Most often than not, tools are rarely the problems. People always blame the tools because it's easy and you don't put responsibility onto the organization or people.

thenerdhead 4y ago

My comment was mocking scientific evidence as this study is pure science and not very practical from the human perspective. But yes there are plenty of studies and even studies on studies: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3051058 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3051058 Specifically look at: Table 5. Categories and characteristics of the PWE influencing creativity It's very similar to how the more nature you bring into your working environment, the more "life" you bring into your work. We're humans, we're not meant to just sit in boring rooms all day and expect to be creative.

z2h-a6n 4y ago
Except for this: > My comment was mocking scientific evidence as this study is pure science and not very practical from the human perspective. I generally agree with your idea that a natural work environment is better than a boring one. My point was about your assertion that we should get rid of the idea that the tool is the problem, followed by discussion of other factors in a work environment. If we want to know whether or not the tool is the problem, we need to study the tool. As you point out, and the paper you linked makes clear, there are many other factors involved in creativity in a work environment. The OP study is about one tool however, and it makes it fairly clear that the tool in this case can be a problem. Whether or not it is the main problem is another matter of course. More generally, the thought that we should even attempt, let alone need, to get rid of any idea without strong evidence to refute it strikes me as worryingly antiscientific. In the context of workplace optimization this may not be very important in the grand scheme of things, but in other matters (climate change comes to mind) it may well be of existential importance.

Foobar8568 4y ago

Most often than not, tools are rarely the problems. People always blame the tools because it's easy and you don't put responsibility onto the organization or people.