I often think of this when people claim it is impossible to conceive of any advanced thought in an open office or noisy environment. In fact, it is just a personal preference and one environment isn't necessarily any better than another.
Just because a study finds that some cause, on average, has some effect, I don’t think it is correct to start believing that that cause and effect will hold for you or any else in particular.
I’m convinced that for you noise is distracting, and that it is probably the case for most people, but I also totally believe that for some people it can work the other way around. I don’t think you can use the aggregate result of a study to argue against somebody else’s personal experience.
Where did I say this at all? This is a straw man. The original comment stated, without any evidence at all, that noisy, chaotic environments aren't necessarily worse. I stated, with evidence, that it has been shown to have a negative effect on average. No where does this preclude that it may help some people or have no effect on some people.
[1] - https://medium.com/s/how-to-design-creative-workspaces/how-n...
First, the difference between the television blaring and my office talking is that in office chatter I'm constantly picking up bits of sound that make my brain think I should be paying attention to them. The sounds of a Simpsons rerun I've seen 90 times don't distract my brain in the same way.
Second, we're talking about what works for MOST people, Peopleware has actual data to back this up, the majority of people need quiet private space to do deep work.
Agree. I found that hearing my boss on one side of a phone call where they referenced me or my work in some way was very distracting. What had happened? What was going to happen? What was I potentially being committed to?
The environment is still under his control. Not at all like an open office.