Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] Re: pairing

Expand Messages
  • Chris Wheeler
    ... FWIW, I ve nothing against a just try it approach and approach many things that way. As I reflect on when I ve chosen to use that way of learning over a
    Message 1 of 68 , Sep 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM, davenicolette <dnicolet@...> wrote:

      >
      > What would it cost you (or me) to try 90 minute pair switches with a team
      > and learn empirically whether and how well it works? Would that result in
      > getting to a reasonable conclusion faster or slower than waiting for
      > academic studies to be published? Would it be a more pragmatic or less
      > pragmatic approach than questioning someone's experimental methods on an
      > abstract level?
      >
      >
      FWIW, I've nothing against a 'just try it' approach and approach many things
      that way. As I reflect on when I've chosen to use that way of learning over
      a data-driven way of learning, I tend to use 'just try it' when I have an
      intuition that the significant change in result can be detected quickly and
      with little cost. Like most, I don't weigh each scenario or technique and
      then decide on 'just try it' vs. 'show me some data'; more so, I just sort
      of intuit my way to one or the other.

      In this case, and others like it, I tend to think the cost is a little high
      to trust one data point. Suppose I take an empirical approach and try 90
      minute swaps. When should I see good results? After a day? A week? A month?
      If I post something that says, "Tried 90 min swaps for one week, I see a
      degradation in productivity", then what? Keep trying? Declare it a failure?

      Questioning experimental methods is not abstract. I asked some fairly
      pointed and concrete questions earlier in this thread about the experiment
      that was run. The reason I asked those questions is because, in order to
      replicate the results (which is what is wanted, yes?), we'd want to get as
      close to replicating the conditions. Oddly, no one has addressed the
      questions I asked, rather, posts in response have claimed that Arlo is a
      trustworthy source and have espoused a 'just try it' approach. Well,
      Fleischmann and Pons were good guys, too, but cold fusion could never be
      replicated...


      >
      > Keep the skepticism flowing, bro. And keep it healthy.
      >
      >
      I like agile, lots. I also like well-supported claims, lots.

      Chris.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Adam Sroka
      Hi Chris: I, for one, am more for trying it and seeing what results I get. Analyzing someone else s data is considerably less interesting to me. It is possible
      Message 68 of 68 , Sep 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Chris:

        I, for one, am more for trying it and seeing what results I get.
        Analyzing someone else's data is considerably less interesting to me.
        It is possible that mine is more representative of the views here, but
        I'm not sure that's true. In any case, I'm fairly sure you're not
        alone, you're just the most vocal representative of that view.

        On the other hand, if you can't get access to Arlo's data in a way
        that would make it possible for you to reliably verify it, you could
        always design your own experiment to prove the part of the problem
        that is interesting to you.

        On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Chris
        Wheeler<christopher.wheeler@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM, jeffgrigg63132
        > <jeffgrigg@...>wrote:
        >
        >>
        >> I think that the problem is that we are dealing with social issues: We're
        >> not trying to determine the trajectory of a missile through space, or the
        >> effect of a drug on (typical) patients. We're really trying to determine
        >> what environmental factors result in the most creative and effective work
        >> products produced by groups of human beings.
        >>
        >> I would certainly like there to be more rigorous scientific research. And
        >> I would like it if more people would measure and report what they're
        >> experiencing in real-world projects. But until someone magically makes
        >> those miracles happen, I find that I must continue to make decisions based
        >> only on the best information available at the time -- which, for this
        >> industry, has been mostly experience reports and personal experience.
        >>
        >
        > <sigh>
        >
        > I think this will be my last post on this matter - I doubt we are getting
        > further down any road. Here's what I was asking for:
        > 1) a more detailed description of the method that was used
        > 2) access to the data so that I could verify it.
        >
        > Previous posts describe why I wanted this information. I'm not looking for
        > double blind studies or formulation of a theoretical model. I am looking for
        > more information that would lead to the characterization of factors that are
        > significant in the experiment that Arlo conducted.
        >
        > It may be the case that I am the only person in this discussion group that
        > cares about this, and that is fine by me: I'm not going to attempt to
        > convince you that there is more that you could learn from Arlo's experiment.
        > On the other hand, I'm not going to budge from my own position just because
        > many of you eschew such an approach.
        >
        > To each his own, I suppose.
        >
        > Chris.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.