2 ms·

<< poorly communicated anecdote You do have a point. I feel vaguely attacked. See article[1]. Original title that you can still see in search engines, because

<< poorly communicated anecdote You do have a point. I feel vaguely attacked. See article[1]. Original title that you can still see in search engines, because it was only changed after pushback: >>You need to detach and 'psychologically recover' from work, professors say. The solution: commuting<< What I appear to be getting from your post is: 'No one is to blame. No one could be held liable for their actions. It is all sophistry.' Which is funny, because I am willing to agree the system has perverse incentives to mess with things at numerous checkpoints, but you cannot realistically claim this, because researchers ( and indeed all humans ) like their jobs easy as well. [1]https://fortune.com/2023/02/02/remote-work-why-do-i-miss-commuting-psychological-detach-recovery-liminal-space-management-study/ https://fortune.com/2023/02/02/remote-work-why-do-i-miss-com...

llm_nerd 3y ago
That Fortune article was written by the authors of the study itself that they're quoting. The "study" itself was that some people find commutes meditative. I personally do. I'd rather work from home, but it's possible for both things to be true. I am quite specifically hanging the blame on researchers who are perpetrating junk science. Most observation / survey based science is junk science. Most "study of studies" research is junk science. It's lazy science to get media attention, and the more salacious or contrarian the outcome, the more appealing it is for some subset of researchers. This isn't an attack on science or scientists in the whole, clearly. But when you see some breathless article exclaiming that eating an olive pit twice weekly makes you live twenty years longer, blaming the columnists seems foolish. In almost every case they're simply repeating the claims of bad science.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  << Most observation / survey based science is junk science. Most "study of studies" research is junk science. I am not automatically disagreeing, but that is a pretty strong claim. I am relatively certain that a well chosen survey participants ( that are not mturk or local body of students unless actually applicable to the study ) could make for a decent study. I can't really opine of observation, but on the surface it strikes me as a very strong claim as well. << But when you see some breathless article exclaiming that eating an olive pit twice weekly makes you live twenty years longer, blaming the columnists seems foolish. In almost every case they're simply repeating the claims of bad science. And this is where it gets tricky. Do editors/publishers merely parrot it or add media cycle friendly spin on it? << I am quite specifically hanging the blame on researchers who are perpetrating junk science. I think I am willing to mostly agree with that statement in a sense that they ultimately responsible. That said, it is hard for me to believe that editors/publishers would publish it if standards were a tad higher and not chasing attention.

llm_nerd 3y ago

That Fortune article was written by the authors of the study itself that they're quoting. The "study" itself was that some people find commutes meditative. I personally do. I'd rather work from home, but it's possible for both things to be true. I am quite specifically hanging the blame on researchers who are perpetrating junk science. Most observation / survey based science is junk science. Most "study of studies" research is junk science. It's lazy science to get media attention, and the more salacious or contrarian the outcome, the more appealing it is for some subset of researchers. This isn't an attack on science or scientists in the whole, clearly. But when you see some breathless article exclaiming that eating an olive pit twice weekly makes you live twenty years longer, blaming the columnists seems foolish. In almost every case they're simply repeating the claims of bad science.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
<< Most observation / survey based science is junk science. Most "study of studies" research is junk science. I am not automatically disagreeing, but that is a pretty strong claim. I am relatively certain that a well chosen survey participants ( that are not mturk or local body of students unless actually applicable to the study ) could make for a decent study. I can't really opine of observation, but on the surface it strikes me as a very strong claim as well. << But when you see some breathless article exclaiming that eating an olive pit twice weekly makes you live twenty years longer, blaming the columnists seems foolish. In almost every case they're simply repeating the claims of bad science. And this is where it gets tricky. Do editors/publishers merely parrot it or add media cycle friendly spin on it? << I am quite specifically hanging the blame on researchers who are perpetrating junk science. I think I am willing to mostly agree with that statement in a sense that they ultimately responsible. That said, it is hard for me to believe that editors/publishers would publish it if standards were a tad higher and not chasing attention.