[zepto]

> The problem with extraordinary claims like this, is that you’re much more likely to be estimating your own productivity incorrectly than you are to be correctly. There’s no doubt that most people would write more LoCs sitting a in quiet room undisturbed, but that’s likely a rather poor metric of your ability to productively provide value to your employer.

It’s not an extraordinarily claim. You are making assumptions you have no insight into.

> In my experience, people who make extraordinary estimates about how much more productive they’d be if left to work on problems alone are much more likely to be similar to that guy rather than the person you’re describing.

This is an extraordinary claim.

You are making the generalization that the large majority of people who have high productivity gains when working in a private office are poor communicators who don’t contribute usefully.

The extraordinary claim is that your experience has given you access to the large number of people, their productivity, and their work habits to understand this phenomenon objectively.

If you are a researcher who has done field work and published papers in this field, please feel free to link to one.

If not, what you are saying seems like bullshit.

[Veen]

But people are notoriously terrible at estimating their own productivity and how they spend their time. Almost everyone I know who has tried time tracking and life logging is shocked at how different reality is from their expectations (mostly that they do less and work less than they think).

[zepto]

> But people are notoriously terrible at estimating their own productivity and how they spend their time.

That’s true.

> Almost everyone I know who has tried time tracking and life logging is shocked at how different their expectations are from the reality (mostly that they do less and work less than they think).

Right, and time tracking and life logging are now widespread practices, so people who do these things can do a pretty good job of estimating their productivity. Also we have things like the Pomodoro method, commit histories, etc. to give indications.

I completely agree that guessing your own productivity difference without doing anything to measure it will not yield good data.

Now look at what the GP is doing - they are using an anecdote of one person’s productivity to make a claim about the productivity of a wide range of people.

My point is that their experience is very unlikely to give them the data and insight needed to make such a generalization because they aren’t measuring anyone’s productivity - they are just using an anecdote.

[cyphertruck]

True but irrelevant to the fact that this guy is rationalizing the reduction in performance (as independently measured by researchers) by ~%70 in favor of reducing costs %~%15.

And then he blames the victim and you fell for it.

[Veen]

I didn't fall for anything. And, quite frankly, I have only an academic interest in the topic. I haven't set foot in an office as an employee for twenty years. I work from home as a freelance contractor. I'd immediately quit any job that did try to make me work in an office.

[lucumo]

GP explicitly states that it is their experience. They do not need a peer reviewed paper to describe their experience. That's ridiculous.

[zepto]

> GP explicitly states that it is their experience.

GP states that their experience gives them enough insight into other people’s productivity to make a detailed assessment.

> They do not need a peer reviewed paper to describe their experience.

They aren’t describing their experience. That’s the point. They are adding the words ‘in my experience’ to a generalization that they almost certainly don’t have the experience to make.

What would make their claim plausible would be if they were a researcher.

> That's ridiculous.

No it isn’t.