3 ms·

>Your reference of it is another example of the uncritical waving of references that Bossavit talks about in his book. He says, while uncritically waving a sin

>Your reference of it is another example of the uncritical waving of references that Bossavit talks about in his book. He says, while uncritically waving a single reference that has no backing evidence. You seriously don't see your hypocrisy here? >Peopleware isn't a scientific study Duh? That is why it contains citations, to the studies the authors conducted. You sure did a poor job of reading it if you are actually that ignorant. >In that discussion, it specifically says that differences in productivity (which were less than 10x) were likely due to workplace factors, not individual productivity. No, they were 10x. That is precisely what it says. And why do you suggest workplace factors being part of the difference makes the difference not exist? I don't even understand how you can say something that absurd and not realize it. >There could well be a 10x difference in productivity, but gut feel and testosterone-fueled claims aren't the same as science. Ok, I'll just take your ignorance-fueled gut feel claim as proof that all the scientific evidence doesn't exist.

gruseom 14y ago
Whoa there. You are being way too rude and aggressive about this. Please help keep HN civil; that's much more important than any argument. Peopleware is a classic, or at least many software professionals regard it that way, but it is a classic of folklore rather than science. Here is an example that I asked one of the authors about years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=1995716 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=1995716. The research literature itself on these matters is extremely flimsy. There is not even any empirical evidence for the stuff we all agree on, such as that version control is good (http://www.neverworkintheory.org/?p=451 http://www.neverworkintheory.org/?p=451) let alone on the controversial points such as productivity. Incidentally, how do you measure productivity? I'd be happy to be wrong about this, though. Perhaps you could cite a study or two that really does hold up to scrutiny?
- papsosouid 14y ago
  Perhaps if you don't like the dozens of studies, you could offer a critical response to them rather than ignoring their existence no matter how often they are pointed to?

gruseom 14y ago

Whoa there. You are being way too rude and aggressive about this. Please help keep HN civil; that's much more important than any argument. Peopleware is a classic, or at least many software professionals regard it that way, but it is a classic of folklore rather than science. Here is an example that I asked one of the authors about years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=1995716 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=1995716. The research literature itself on these matters is extremely flimsy. There is not even any empirical evidence for the stuff we all agree on, such as that version control is good (http://www.neverworkintheory.org/?p=451 http://www.neverworkintheory.org/?p=451) let alone on the controversial points such as productivity. Incidentally, how do you measure productivity? I'd be happy to be wrong about this, though. Perhaps you could cite a study or two that really does hold up to scrutiny?

papsosouid 14y ago
Perhaps if you don't like the dozens of studies, you could offer a critical response to them rather than ignoring their existence no matter how often they are pointed to?