So you've self selected for people that thrive in noisy, distracting environments (and plenty of such people exist), then conclude that open offices are the rig

So you've self selected for people that thrive in noisy, distracting environments (and plenty of such people exist), then conclude that open offices are the right way to go? You conclude that because somebody likes something, in the absence of any study, (or in this case, contradictory to every study done!) that it is in fact better? No. We fool ourselves all the time. The classic mouse study comes to mind. Most programmers prefer typing to the mouse - "it's faster" we say. Except, it's not. It's just that typing engages our brains in a way that the mouse doesn't, so we don't perceive the passage of time as much when tab typing out a directory, and we do perceive it while navigating the mouse. Mouse is faster (generally), we think typing is faster. So, I don't take it for granted that just because somebody says they are more productive in an open office that they are. They might just perceive it that way because they are having so much fun hanging with the fellow brogrammers, or the constant interaction gives the illusion of progress, or.... I can't take continual noise - it drives me bonkers. And yes, to me headphones count as noise. So, I would not accept a job at that place, most likely, and thus they do not have the data point of someone going quietly mad in their midst. See, open plans are better! "Ignore these scientific studies, my selection bias says it's fine" is usually a pretty poor path to the truth.