4 ms·

You're advocating for sterile, culture-less workplaces. You're free to do that, and companies are free to implement your proposed policies. Personally, I wouldn

You're advocating for sterile, culture-less workplaces. You're free to do that, and companies are free to implement your proposed policies. Personally, I wouldn't work for a company that prohibited my expressing nerd culture.

rayiner 11y ago
Yes, I am. I think work places should be neutral places where the focus is on work. I'm a professional--I don't need to bond with my teammates over unrelated bullshit in order to work effectively with them.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  I think sharing culture can create an esprit de corps, improving morale and group cohesion, especially in times of crisis.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Why can't the shared culture be a mutual commitment to high-quality work? Let me put it another way: do you want to spend all day hearing about my toddler? If not--well that's how I feel about everything you're interested in. So let's just all do our work and leave our personal lives at home.
    - wtbob 11y ago
      > Why can't the shared culture be a mutual commitment to high-quality work? Because that's not how human beings bond. We don't bond over a single facet of our lives; we bond as a community. The modern world, in which we live different places, believe different things and pursue different jobs, is poison for any sense of community.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        A group of middle-class white guys will bond more quickly and easily than a group that mixes white guys and low-income black women. So where do you draw the line? It's clearly not OK, even in the name of "cohesion", to encourage a culture that excludes people of different income levels or ethnicities.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's an argument that gets you a team of people who all like the same video games and all pick which beer to drink by maximizing IBUs. There's a point at which can safely say that this kind of studiously groomed, exclusionary "cohesion" is doing more harm than good. I mean, there's obviously that point: if you refused to hire someone because they were a woman, you'd get sued; if you refused to hire someone because they didn't drink, you'd (rightfully) be ostracized in the community.
    - rewqfdsa 11y ago
      Look at the other extreme: the idea that I might be discouraged (or disallowed) from bonding with my coworkers over shared interests sounds dystopian. You might argue that workplaces shouldn't endorse one particular subculture over another: that's fine. But unless you take stern measures to ban fraternization, you're going to get coworkers forming friendships based on shared interests, and we're lying to ourselves if we think that interests of software people tend not to cluster around what we think of as "geek" culture.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I don't see anyone arguing that people who like Star Wars shouldn't be allowed to wear Star Wars shirts.

rayiner 11y ago

Yes, I am. I think work places should be neutral places where the focus is on work. I'm a professional--I don't need to bond with my teammates over unrelated bullshit in order to work effectively with them.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
I think sharing culture can create an esprit de corps, improving morale and group cohesion, especially in times of crisis.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Why can't the shared culture be a mutual commitment to high-quality work? Let me put it another way: do you want to spend all day hearing about my toddler? If not--well that's how I feel about everything you're interested in. So let's just all do our work and leave our personal lives at home.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > Why can't the shared culture be a mutual commitment to high-quality work? Because that's not how human beings bond. We don't bond over a single facet of our lives; we bond as a community. The modern world, in which we live different places, believe different things and pursue different jobs, is poison for any sense of community.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      A group of middle-class white guys will bond more quickly and easily than a group that mixes white guys and low-income black women. So where do you draw the line? It's clearly not OK, even in the name of "cohesion", to encourage a culture that excludes people of different income levels or ethnicities.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's an argument that gets you a team of people who all like the same video games and all pick which beer to drink by maximizing IBUs. There's a point at which can safely say that this kind of studiously groomed, exclusionary "cohesion" is doing more harm than good. I mean, there's obviously that point: if you refused to hire someone because they were a woman, you'd get sued; if you refused to hire someone because they didn't drink, you'd (rightfully) be ostracized in the community.
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    Look at the other extreme: the idea that I might be discouraged (or disallowed) from bonding with my coworkers over shared interests sounds dystopian. You might argue that workplaces shouldn't endorse one particular subculture over another: that's fine. But unless you take stern measures to ban fraternization, you're going to get coworkers forming friendships based on shared interests, and we're lying to ourselves if we think that interests of software people tend not to cluster around what we think of as "geek" culture.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I don't see anyone arguing that people who like Star Wars shouldn't be allowed to wear Star Wars shirts.