The deadlock
Why the argument does not close
Five years, no movement, and nobody arguing in bad faith. The mechanism is simpler and more annoying than either side thinks.
Claims this part is about, and what each was answered with
Being trusted to choose is part of being treated as an adult
Value≠A studyInnovation happens in unplanned conversations
Empirical≠A principleAnswered with a conviction about how innovation works
Flexibility is what the last five years were for
Value≠A studyCollaboration tools have replaced what the office used to do
Empirical≠A principlefour claims · two empirical and two value · four were answered with the wrong kind of answer
Four crossed answers, two in each direction.
Five years, and nobody moved
More evidence every year, the same argument in the same words, and no convergence. The usual explanations do not fit.
Talking past each other, in full
Four exchanges from the record, printed as they happened, with what each party heard. None of them is anybody behaving badly.
The argument that cannot close
Some disagreements are open because the evidence is not in. This one has a part that no evidence could close, and saying so is the first step to resolving the rest.
Neither side is arguing in bad faith
The most popular explanation for the deadlock, why it is mostly wrong, and what the evidence of the record actually supports.
Why more evidence does not help
Five years of studies, both sides better armed every year, and no convergence. The reason is not that the evidence is bad.
The escalation that follows
Crossed answers do not leave a discussion where they found it. Four stages, each a reasonable response to the one before, ending somewhere nobody wanted.
What a closed argument would look like
Not agreement. Four other endings, three of which are available here, and what each one requires.
The two questions underneath
Strip the argument down and two quite different questions are tangled in it. Separating them does more than any amount of evidence.