3 ms·

just based on the strongly divergent opinions, maybe this falls into the category of "divisive yet inconsequential", like emacs vs vim or brace placement?

pjlegato 12y ago
That a question is controversial does not in itself imply that there is no right answer and it's all just a matter of personal preference. The controversy tells us mainly something about the people holding the divergent opinions, such as the extent to which they embrace or reject the scientific method, and the extent to which they are aware of what scientific research exists. Science evolved precisely as a way to avoid this social noise and find the true status of the subject, through the use of empirical observation and repeatable experiments that test specific hypotheses. Could there be errors in these studies? Sure, and science has a process for dealing with that possibility, too: create another experiment that empirically falsifies one of their conclusions. The whole point of the article is that the differences are not inconsequential at all. Numerous academic studies have objectively measured many differences in many different specific environments, and show that the open office is worse in almost all ways related to running a successful business.
- mkehrt 12y ago
  To hell with running a successful business. I'm interested in my happiness as an employee, and an open plan office is a thousand times better for that. Edit since I'm getting downvotes: All the articles I've seen about the pros and cons of open plan offices mostly focus on productivity. But, as an employee, I'm much more interested in my happiness than my productivity, above a reasonable minimum. These sorts of articles tend to ignore that tradeoff. This article does discuss happiness somewhat, but the results are less clear than those for productivity. I think it's pretty clearly something people disagree on, but this fact tends to get swept under the rug by authors who focus on the productivity losses.
  - pjlegato 12y ago
    Er. According to the article, all of the studies also found that happiness as an employee suffers on almost all metrics in open plan offices. Having happy employees is a key aspect of running a successful business.
- the_cat_kittles 12y ago
  there is lots of subjectivity in what you chose as your "objective" measure. why are explaining how science works?
  - pjlegato 12y ago
    I explained how science works because the original post says that "strongly divergent opinions" is, in and of itself, probable evidence that the matter is "divisive but inconsequential." This proposition can only follow from an unscientific epistemology and worldview where anecdotal polls of opinion alone can be taken as the decisive factor in deciding whether a factual proposition is likely to be consequential or not. Objective metrics are, by definition, those without subjectivity involved. Naturally there can be disputes over the details, or mistakes made, and through an iterative process errors are identified and corrected, moving arbitrarily close to the objective truth of the situation. Over time, this remedies the problem of individual mistakes and subjectivity being involved in the process. At this stage, hundreds of studies have been done, so we are well along that path and any remaining errors in the thesis are likely to be minor and non-material. If this is not true, everyone is welcome to come up with an experiment to falsify them all.

pjlegato 12y ago

That a question is controversial does not in itself imply that there is no right answer and it's all just a matter of personal preference. The controversy tells us mainly something about the people holding the divergent opinions, such as the extent to which they embrace or reject the scientific method, and the extent to which they are aware of what scientific research exists. Science evolved precisely as a way to avoid this social noise and find the true status of the subject, through the use of empirical observation and repeatable experiments that test specific hypotheses. Could there be errors in these studies? Sure, and science has a process for dealing with that possibility, too: create another experiment that empirically falsifies one of their conclusions. The whole point of the article is that the differences are not inconsequential at all. Numerous academic studies have objectively measured many differences in many different specific environments, and show that the open office is worse in almost all ways related to running a successful business.

mkehrt 12y ago
To hell with running a successful business. I'm interested in my happiness as an employee, and an open plan office is a thousand times better for that. Edit since I'm getting downvotes: All the articles I've seen about the pros and cons of open plan offices mostly focus on productivity. But, as an employee, I'm much more interested in my happiness than my productivity, above a reasonable minimum. These sorts of articles tend to ignore that tradeoff. This article does discuss happiness somewhat, but the results are less clear than those for productivity. I think it's pretty clearly something people disagree on, but this fact tends to get swept under the rug by authors who focus on the productivity losses.
- pjlegato 12y ago
  Er. According to the article, all of the studies also found that happiness as an employee suffers on almost all metrics in open plan offices. Having happy employees is a key aspect of running a successful business.
the_cat_kittles 12y ago
there is lots of subjectivity in what you chose as your "objective" measure. why are explaining how science works?
- pjlegato 12y ago
  I explained how science works because the original post says that "strongly divergent opinions" is, in and of itself, probable evidence that the matter is "divisive but inconsequential." This proposition can only follow from an unscientific epistemology and worldview where anecdotal polls of opinion alone can be taken as the decisive factor in deciding whether a factual proposition is likely to be consequential or not. Objective metrics are, by definition, those without subjectivity involved. Naturally there can be disputes over the details, or mistakes made, and through an iterative process errors are identified and corrected, moving arbitrarily close to the objective truth of the situation. Over time, this remedies the problem of individual mistakes and subjectivity being involved in the process. At this stage, hundreds of studies have been done, so we are well along that path and any remaining errors in the thesis are likely to be minor and non-material. If this is not true, everyone is welcome to come up with an experiment to falsify them all.