[greggman2]

Since remote work seems to be the topic this article on async communication spawned I wanted to throw this out there for reactions.

First off let me acknowledge that some people prefer remote work and also say up front I do not.

I recent YouAreNotSoSmart podcast interviewed Laurie Santos from Yale and if I understood her research basically claims we often both individually and as a society choose things we think will make us happy but actually don't. Examples seemed to include anything that takes you away from people. One example was the ATM machine. It's more convenient than a bank teller but interacting with the teller adds to your quota of needed interaction for happiness. Things like the fact that you can order a Starbucks coffee on your phone and pick it up with no interaction as another tiny example. I'm sure those were minor examples but she was basically claiming we're often inadvertently choosing things that actually make us less happy.

For me I prefer in office work because I want to be around other people. I want them to interrupt me too. Not 100% of the time but I enjoy the camaraderie, the conversations, going over solutions together, etc...

So in that context, is it possible the push for remote work fits in that line? We think it will make us happy but it for many people it will have the unintended consequence of isolating them and actually make them less happy.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be given the choice. Maybe you are different. Maybe you have special needs (someone you need to take care of for example) or maybe you're remote location has family or friends around. But, if Laurie Santos is correct then maybe a large percent of people are actually making a bad choice?

PS: I don't know if I trust her research. I'm only passing on my interpretation what I though she said in the interview.

[danShumway]

I'm sympathetic to this line of thought. I don't think remote work is for everyone.

However, I see fewer people on net because I work in-office. Basically just my coworkers, no one else. The vast majority of public interactions I have going into work are fleeting and poor (driving next to someone, ignoring someone on the train with headphones). At work, I talk to the same people every single day. Then because of my commute time, I get home late enough that I can't go out or do anything after work. On weekends, I usually have chores to do that I can't do during the week because of how busy I am.

In comparison, back when I was working from home, I would go running and pass people on trails. I would go to meetups at my local church after I got out of work, or take trips into the city to attend conferences on weekends. If you're spending 2 hours or above commuting to work every day (which is not that unusual), you're going to be pushed towards human interactions that are very brief and inconsequential, because you literally will not have time to do anything more significant.

Quality vs quantity matters a lot here. I think people occasionally hype up inter-office relationships too much. I like the people I work with, but I would much rather spend my limited "interaction time" on family members or friends that I've known for years, instead of on coworkers and commuters on the train. I make casual conversation with my coworkers, I don't talk to them about intimate struggles or goals in my life.

Not everyone wants to work remotely because they're antisocial -- sometimes it's literally the opposite motivation.

[chrisweekly]

Good points. As someone who's had the option to work remotely for most of my ~21 year career, I find the sweet spot is a mix. For writing code / solving hard problems / doing "Deep Work", I am much more effective when I can control my environment and eliminate not just time and stress of commute but rule out whole categories of distraction and interruption. OTOH, there is no substitute for human connection; in terms of team dynamics, personal energy / motivation, and effectiveness in driving change, my most impactful moments and projects have all benefited hugely (if not outright depended on) my physical presence. Of course YMMV. So much depends on your personality, your role, your team and manager and company... but IMHO / IME, a mix of remote and onsite is ideal.

[starvingbear]

I think it's absolutely true that most people will prefer an office or at least a community to work in most the time in person. I've done both and normally prefer an office. However most offices nowadays are very badly run and promote open layout and daily scrums etc. If offices weren't effectively sabotaged this way they would be much better. Every office critique in the OP article was made as well by my father in convo. He isn't in tech but ran a small biz his whole life. Not unique problems to tech we just have a weird culture atm. So my thought is the breakout companies that are learning how to respect engineering and get away from the hokey practices of current middle management will be the only ones attracting senior talent. Things will shift eventually and the office can maybe make a comeback.

[bitL]

I didn't like most of my colleagues in the office and beyond work we had not much to talk about; almost no "office friendships" survived when I moved jobs. OTOH I throw parties at home where I invite people I consider interesting. Remote work is perfect for that, do your 100% at work, then just forget about it and live your life for the rest of the day.

[jschwartzi]

Here's an anecdote for you. I work remote and normally make time for activities or groups at least a few times a week. Once, after something upset me I decided to spend a couple weeks not going out. I rapidly went toasty. By the end of the first week I couldn't concentrate on anything. I was restless, anxious, and desperately unhappy. So yes, I need some social interaction to feel normal. But it doesn't come from my co-workers.

[WarDores]

I think this is the key. I'm not sure "forced interaction" is the answer for everyone. I work remotely and spent yesterday morning for 2 hours just chatting with some folks at a coffee shop I regularly work out of over some common interests. That filled my "meaningful interaction" bucket more than 2 or 3 days of office work in my previous office'd life. My 2 cents as well.

[msla]

I'm much happier not interacting with people like tellers, clerks, cashiers, and the like, because I have a speech impediment and I'd much rather not have to devote the mental and physical effort to talking. I also live in an area where travel can become treacherous and I don't own a car. Do those things apply to everyone? No. But they apply to me. I actively dislike people who think "the study says it's a good thing so I'm going to force it on you... you're welcome" is a valid mindset.

Similarly, I've noticed that being open to being disturbed means being open to having random tasks dumped on you outside the ticketing system, which takes time away from what they're actually tracking your time on. Email and Slack can do the same thing, but seeing someone right there sitting all alone and lonely without my task to keep them occupied seems to be a powerful incentive for some people to air-drop random work.

[nscalf]

This is interesting, and reflecting a bit, it show to me why I like remote work. I train a few times a week in a gym setting that is very social, I have 3 roommates, I call my coworkers quickly if I need something, I'm pretty outgoing and friendly when I go to a coffee shop or market. Overall, I feel like I have other paths to get my social interactions from, so the ability to isolate myself for hard work gives me a lot of relief from the negative parts of work, without feeling like I miss a lot of the positive ones.

[myspy]

I have a family, wife, kids, and I prefer my remote job, because I can focus on them, not on the relationships with co-workers. The commute is another problem.

To fill up the social meter without a family I think I would prefer one or two days in an office, but similar results could be achieved at a co-working space or taking the time to make friendships locally and spend time with them in the evening.

[0xcde4c3db]

A problem with most theories like this is that they treat interaction as though it can only ever add up to a positive impact. Too much unwanted interaction can burn somebody out just as much as not enough wanted interaction. That's one of the reasons that we talk about "emotional labor".

[JDiculous]

I feel like someone always chimes in to say this, but the underlying assumption here is that a significant portion of one's social fulfillment should come from their office workers, which I think is ludicrous.

Let's be real here, what percentage of people - especially engineers - really find that their social needs are being satisfied through their office jobs? After you or your co-worker leaves their job, how many ex-coworkers do you actually still remain in contact with?

I've always found office relationships to be fairly boring. Because they're you're co-workers, you have to keep a certain level of professionalism and political-correctness so as to avoid offending people. This basically confines the realm of acceptable dialogue to banal things like the weather and small-talk. If you want to say anything interesting about anything interesting like say politics, you basically have to first probe them to make sure they're not going to get offended and passive aggressively retaliate. Anything you do outside of work like a cool side project or that band you're in can't be seen as threatening to your dedication to your job, so it's safer not to bring it up.

And I'm prob going to get a lot of flack for this, but I think most office workers are fairly boring - going to work, going home to their significant others/kids, and waiting to retire. Or maybe they're really interesting but don't feel comfortable talking about interesting things at the office for the reasons I mentioned above.

Ultimately I think it's better to find social fulfillment on your own and not expect it in the office, otherwise you're bound to be disappointed. But I get that it's unfortunately hard to make friends after school. I think there are a lot of reasons for that, but that would require another long post that's outside the scope of this comment.

EDIT: Just after I posted this I see this on the front page https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21274511#21274909 Kind of supports my thesis.

[greggman2]

Interesting. I feel the exact opposite. Many of my x-coworkers are life long friends. I will attend the wedding of one that's been a friend for 25 years and other x-coworker friends will likely be there.

It seems waste to spend so much time with co-workers and not be friends. It also seems a waste to spend so much time "working" and not have it be fun and pleasant and social.

But, thinking about it more maybe I was spoiled making video games. It was something I wanted to do, my co-workers wanted to do it to, we did it together sharing the struggles and feeling proud of our product. I'm guessing there are plenty of jobs that if I had to do I'd just want to put in the time as quick as possible and then get back to something I enjoy.

I have a close friend that upon graduation wanted to make video games. He applied, was rejected, ended up in finance, made more money but at least for him it's clear his job is just something he does to get paid.

[twoquestions]

I find interacting with people who are forced to be there (like fast food workers/coworkers/bank tellers) doesn't really count for in-person interaction.

Personally, I'd rather interact with people who are honestly there, and aren't economically forced to submit to me or me to them.

EDIT: Wait, are you a manager referring to your subordinates? If so, you may have forgotten how stressful it is to constantly be submissive to everyone around you. If you're the same rank or above everyone else I can understand wanting interaction, but if you're on the receiving end then any interaction is an implicit demand you cut more flesh off yourself to please them.

[diminoten]

Just because someone is your boss doesn't mean you have to be submissive to them.

[twoquestions]

In what universe is that true?

The very essence of being a boss is having the means to force you subordinates to submit to you, and at most companies I've worked with that's an explicit primary benefit to the rank!

[diminoten]

Jesus Christ; firstly no, it's not a benefit whatsoever to be able to force someone to do something. Secondly, a boss who has to force people to do things rather than provide convincing reasons to do them is a terrible boss, and should be fired by his/her boss immediately.

The "very essence" of being a boss is knocking out obstacles for the people under you. That is what a boss actually does, not tell people what to do. Sure, a boss translates vague prioritization from above to meaningful and actionable items for his/her team to work through, but the only "power" a boss has is the ability to absorb shit so the people under him/her don't have to.

The boss also has a boss, who has a boss, and so on and so on, up to the CEO, who has a boss (the board and/or shareholders). No one gets to "force subordinates to submit" to anyone, at least not for very long.

[ldh]

> Jesus Christ; firstly no, it's not a benefit whatsoever to be able to force someone to do something. Secondly, a boss who has to force people to do things rather than provide convincing reasons to do them is a terrible boss, and should be fired by his/her boss immediately.

> The "very essence" of being a boss is knocking out obstacles for the people under you. That is what a boss actually does, not tell people what to do.

Those types of managers/bosses are great, and are some of my favorite people because they simply allow me to do what needs doing while shielding me from bullshit. But by no stretch of the imagination (or certainly the experience of workers as a whole) do they represent every manager/boss. If you've been lucky or sheltered enough to avoid the kind that aren't like that, you should reflect on that as a fortuitous outcome and maybe consider that your experience isn't everyone's experience.

[diminoten]

Nothing lucky about it, you are not a passenger in your life, you get to decide how people treat you.

[chimi]

What do you do with a boss, who, when you aren't submissive responds with, "You like your job here, right?"

[diminoten]

The same thing I do in other hypothetical where nowhere near enough context or information is given: nothing.

I am not a helpless passenger in my life, so I don't get "stuck" with bosses who treat me like cattle. I anticipate problems like this and preemptively deal with them, and you should too.

[potta_coffee]

Socializing is important, but commuting, sitting in an open office with bright lights, loud co-workers etc doesn't balance against my social needs very well. I work on a small team, me and my co-workers see each other usually twice a week, once in the office and once at the coffee shop. Along with my other social activities, I get plenty of interaction and I still don't have a daily commute. The social aspect of work only becomes super important when work is your whole life and you've got nothing else going on.

[jekrb]

Was there any mention about how virtual interactions might add to the quota?

I'm curious if daily social video calls with your remote co-workers would be helpful in that regard.

[MikeSchurman]

If anyone is interested its episode 163: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2019/10/08/yanss-163-why-pursui...

[MadWombat]

"but interacting with the teller adds to your quota of needed interaction for happiness"

Is there some evidence that mundane interactions with total strangers actually make everyone happier? I know some people who thrive on social interactions, but for many of us it is a chore rather than an opportunity. A rather taxing chore at that.

[greggman2]

The podcast brought both the teller and the starbucks examples up but didn't go in to research details. I agree with you it sounds sketchy and I don't know how they'd prove it one way or other really. I'm only inferring from the podcast that Laurie Santos has research to back up her claims that even these little ways of removing human interaction from our lives affect our (most people's?) happiness negatively.

[mLuby]

I accept there's some daily "human interaction" quota for optimal happiness, but reject that ordering a big mac in person moves that needle at all. At a store where the salesperson walks you through options for a few minutes, sure, but not for purely transactional interactions.