For example, I'm completely convinced types add significant productivity increase to any team of more than two programmers. Likewise types are a net productivity improvement to software that has to be added to multiple times in a year. If it's a one-off write and throw away, or tiny team, it probably doesn't help as much. Also if it's a big team, but with highly siloed developers, likely doesn't add as much value. I think fighting with types FEELS slower than it is, like how dealing with a car that doesn't start immediately or a street with a lot of stop signs feels slower than just getting out and walking, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary.
However, these beliefs of mine are BACKED BY ZERO EVIDENCE. Just let that sink in. We all are arguing about a topic that inherently cannot be measured. We should be trying to tackle the measurement issue first, rather than just keep yelling about chocolate vs vanilla forever.
When all we have to go on is feelings, we get people arguing which is better: cars or bicycles, without any discussion or facts about top speed or total distance. The cyclist is always going to talk about wind in their hair feeling like they are going so fast, or how it slows them down to look for gas stations and just stand there pumping gas when they could be making progress pedaling. And to stretch the metaphor even further, there are plenty of environments when a sedan is slower than a mountain bike, and plenty where they are the same. I suspect all this is true with types, yet we have absolutely no way to know. For all we know, the "collective wisdom" of types might be exactly backwards, because basing engineering decisions on feelings rarely correlates to empirical results.