4 ms·

This conversation was in the context of OP > I wish people would stop posting articles that imply that remote working is somehow objectively better > we can j

This conversation was in the context of OP > I wish people would stop posting articles that imply that remote working is somehow objectively better > we can just as easily make up the idea that people are less happy working remotely. We can make up the idea that the sun is blue, but I think you missed my point. Please note I talk about productivity. In the context of people claiming remote/in-person work is more productive and asking each other for proof, discussing about burden of proof, why not simply assume that remote is exactly as productive as in-person? Unless some undeniable proof is presented. I find it an elegant way to diffuse this proof-of-burden. Personally I decided a long time ago which one I prefer.

paulcole 4y ago
> I find it an elegant way to diffuse this proof-of-burden. I can see why. OK, let’s assume you’re right and they’re equally productive. But who actually cares about productivity? Many individuals and individuals who speak for organizations say they do but their actions don’t match that. And OK, let’s say people actually care about productivity. Remote work isn’t automatically better because you guessed that the pollution savings are large. Now, you can just kind of handwave that away and say of course it’s large. But aren’t there other changes that result from remote work? How do you rank those vs. pollution and commuting time? It will be quite easy for you to win this argument when you assert that all your assumptions are correct.