Also, when I took a look at the vision of the lab of the future I noticed that everyone is in an open office.
I’m convinced that the lab of the future will actually return to closed offices. Or maybe even better to spaces that can be configured to the psychological make up of the individuals in them (Bell Labs, at least the 1950s version, had reconfigurable rooms).
I’m convinced that scientific productivity is hampered (and the mental health crisis in science is due to) by at least three factors:
1. Too much career uncertainty/anxiety. You put your finger on this in the design of the Lovelace Institutes.
2. Computers: probably not a negative, but more like a net neutral or only slight positive in terms of productivity. You point to this here.
3. I think a big unacknowledged one is/are open plan labs. Especially ones where you do experiments and sit all day. They suck for thinking. Especially for introverts. My ability to get stuff done was in the toilet for 5 years when in a lab like this, and was doing the worst work of my career. It immediately rebounded, and I started doing some of the best, when I got a closed office.
My lab is designed so that we have separate small office (library quiet) and lab space (smelly, noisy, fun)1. I definitely think this has contributed to the quality of our work.
I personally find computers very unpleasant to use longer term (over hours) - days when I am away from electronics I think better, feel better, and move much more. Yet when I have access to them they suck my mind in.
Mixed open and closed spaces key. I too worked in a lab environment building fully open - even weirder everything was glass, even the walls - and it wasn't a pleasant environment in some ways, felt very edgy and the opposite of that cosy feeling I find I need in order to deeply ponder a problem for a sustained time.
> In is using the physical space as a computational system.
Nice.
Thanks for sharing this, I've been looking forward to updates for a while. Bret Victor's stuff is very cool and it's quite strange to me how few people seem to be aware of these ideas.
Hm, yeah... Is it because it looks scrappy compared to what we're used to? Asking people to bet on projectors and paper is hard when we're all used to the pixel density, low latency, and high contrast of modern screens.
I find this compelling purely from a hatred of how captivating screen-based stimuli has gotten (written much more eloquently here: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/exit-the-supersensorium) and how much it takes us away from living real lives in the real world.
Also, when I took a look at the vision of the lab of the future I noticed that everyone is in an open office.
I’m convinced that the lab of the future will actually return to closed offices. Or maybe even better to spaces that can be configured to the psychological make up of the individuals in them (Bell Labs, at least the 1950s version, had reconfigurable rooms).
I’m convinced that scientific productivity is hampered (and the mental health crisis in science is due to) by at least three factors:
1. Too much career uncertainty/anxiety. You put your finger on this in the design of the Lovelace Institutes.
2. Computers: probably not a negative, but more like a net neutral or only slight positive in terms of productivity. You point to this here.
3. I think a big unacknowledged one is/are open plan labs. Especially ones where you do experiments and sit all day. They suck for thinking. Especially for introverts. My ability to get stuff done was in the toilet for 5 years when in a lab like this, and was doing the worst work of my career. It immediately rebounded, and I started doing some of the best, when I got a closed office.
My lab is designed so that we have separate small office (library quiet) and lab space (smelly, noisy, fun)1. I definitely think this has contributed to the quality of our work.
Yep.
I personally find computers very unpleasant to use longer term (over hours) - days when I am away from electronics I think better, feel better, and move much more. Yet when I have access to them they suck my mind in.
Mixed open and closed spaces key. I too worked in a lab environment building fully open - even weirder everything was glass, even the walls - and it wasn't a pleasant environment in some ways, felt very edgy and the opposite of that cosy feeling I find I need in order to deeply ponder a problem for a sustained time.
> In is using the physical space as a computational system.
Nice.
Thanks for sharing this, I've been looking forward to updates for a while. Bret Victor's stuff is very cool and it's quite strange to me how few people seem to be aware of these ideas.
Yes and even stranger that the very people who so profited from what Kay, Licklider, Engelbart et al did wont fund research in this way!
Hm, yeah... Is it because it looks scrappy compared to what we're used to? Asking people to bet on projectors and paper is hard when we're all used to the pixel density, low latency, and high contrast of modern screens.
I find this compelling purely from a hatred of how captivating screen-based stimuli has gotten (written much more eloquently here: https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/exit-the-supersensorium) and how much it takes us away from living real lives in the real world.
Fascinating stuff!
Hi James, really glad to read this. Please keep pushing these ideas out there!