Employees want a little privacy and most of the want a quiet are. It's not the same as a want of private offices.

> If the science pointed towards sitting next to the loud sales guy

"If". Show me the data ;)

> Most people can't work remotely, even if they say they want to.

That depends on the equipment you need to use. If it's a phone, a laptop, and an internet connection, you can, end of story.

If you need specialized equipment it gets problematic indeed.

EDIT: typo.

You are ignoring the point; That popularity is biased by personal preference.

Also, I see plenty of comments on these threads from people who do like working in open offices.

The "selection bias" you experience is likely just related to the fact that open offices are what is very much in vogue right now, and mostly people who doesn't like it chime in. Likewise if single offices where in vogue we would hear from the people who do like to work in open offices currently.

You are arguing about whether X, when X was an irrelevant example to make another point.

More explicitly, the argument is of the form:

"If the science pointed towards X; where 'X' is an idea that is not popular among developers."

In this scenario, it is irrelevant if X is true because it is a hypothetical.

An example: If the science pointed towards NFL players performing better in 6 inch heels, would NFL players promote such a study?

It's an entirely pointless hypothetical if you entertain the notion that their preference _IS_ the primary factor for their productivity.

Or more likely, their productivity is the major factor for their preference.

No, I get your point; but it is a counter-point to a point not made.

> If the science pointed towards NFL players performing better in 6 inch heels, would NFL players promote such a study?

I expect not, probably due to their stake in the situation, i.e. their bias towards factors other than performance. that was the point of the hypothetical, and the sole point that was being communicated - to illuminate the concept of that bias existing, qualitatively. The quantitative matter of if it is actually a relevant factor is a different matter, and not raised by that hypothetical.

> It's an entirely pointless hypothetical if you entertain the notion that their preference _IS_ the primary factor for their productivity.

Not if you got the point of the hypothetical. whether you 'entertain' the notion or not is irrelevant, since the truth of the statement is unimportant.

If up was down, up would be down... But why is that point made? Sure, the statement based on the false premise is true, but there's nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever, because it is never the case.

I accept the 2 step logic. I don't accept that it conveys any relevant information, because it is based on a premise that will never be true.

So why is "the point" made?

The statement is not a logical falsehood like 1 + 1 == 3, it's epistemological possible i.e. it's possible given you are not omniscient.

It's also not the case that 'nothing to be gleaned from it whatsoever' because:

A) there are other categorically similar statements (the category being "things developers would dislike") that are 'true'. The structure is still valid, ie: If "X, and X->Y then Y" is useful despite the fact that the second clause is irrelevant for "-X", because the same logical form is valid for other 'X's. It is presumed that the original, given example isn't supposed to represent a general falsehood.

put another way, the category of the statement is "changes developers would dislike, whether productive an non-productive" not "changes developers would dislike, that are also non-productive"

B) The given example ('X') is offered as one (of potentially many) influencing factors. I some cases, developer bias will be more, or less relevant, according to many factors. Its not possible to generalise by stating it is a falsehood; in some cases it will be true that developer bias is relevant. Again, the argument is qualitative, not quantitative (which would be difficult anyway).

The point is this: developer preference can influence their judgments. that is all.

saying "NFL players would be likely agree that sports cars helped their performance", is a similar way of saying the same thing, this time using NFL players and sports cars as a proxy for the same point.

If you can't give a single example supporting your claim, without instead resorting to confused mental gymnastics, there will be no merit to your case, however much you want it.

Share an example of where developer preference is orthogonal to developer productivity.

> saying "NFL players would be likely agree that sports cars helped their performance", is a similar way of saying the same thing, this time using NFL players and sports cars as a proxy for the same point.

Sure, and this is what a bonus is. People are given bonuses, in all fields. They wouldn't be if it didn't work.

Creationists claim the same thing.

I've explained well enough, it should be explicitly clear by now. If not, I find it unlikely you'll get it from further discussion.

Have you tried to hire anyone to do remote work, even freelance work? Most people fail miserably if you don't give them structure(and being on-site is a type of structure).

You can work around it by selecting for the small percentage of people who can work independently, but most people aren't in that small percentage. So success by being vigilant in selection would reinforce that it doesn't work on average.

If this site was "Manager News" and everybody here was a manager, I'd be more likely to believe discussion praising allowing remote workers. As it is, I'm skeptical that people aren't believing what they want to hear.

Personally, I find it quite plausible that the loud sales guy is hurting everyone's productivity. But lots of things are plausible, and it seems undisciplined to believe all the resulting discussion.

Have you tried to hire anyone at all? Recruitment is hard. Period.

Failure to track production/results is completely unrelated to where your employee works, as well as failure to produce is only related to the employee. If he/she does not know where he/she best produces, the recruitment is bad to begin with.

When I worked remote I had meetings to attend every week and consistent schedules to deliver to.

Plausible is such a weak word given the amount of evidence we have.

In study after study we can see loud consistent distractions significantly reduce our ability to perform complex tasks.

It could be that loud sales people are the special kind of distraction that improves productivity but it's doubtful.

Anyone that works in a reasonably friendly place, with decent motivators and a good boss, both your goals are aligned, because you want to get shit done as much as your boss does. At that point giving the employee what he/she wants is what you as a boss wants.

I'm lucky in that I'm my own boss, even if clients can sometimes have specific demands. Thankfully they generally only hire me because they trust that our goals are aligned, meaning:

I get paid for results, they get results from me choosing my optimal environment. Win-win.

That's a very sweeping statement. I don't want a private office, and I'm an employee. I can (and do) work remotely on occasion, but I'd still rather be in my office 90% of the time.

There has been quite a lot of material written about the behaviour instigated by the knowledge of being observed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

It seems to me to be a bit more complicated matter than just slackers suddenly jumping into attention.

"Most people can't work remotely, even if they say they want to."

Actual data would be nice to back that up. Cognitive bias is a constant hindrance when trying to figure out things like these based just on anecdotes and personal experience.