In such a software development organization, at the end of each meeting, everyone immediately has a moment of mindfulness, then pops another pill, shotguns a Red Bull, crushes the empty can on their forehead, shouts "Yo! Bro!", and crashes through the loft meeting room window, down to the open-plan work tables below.

If you want to make a culture fit, you have to break a few eggs.

I think there are too many people just looking to "break a few eggs", because these things just don't happen in reality, or do they?

It's been some time since I was 22, but I am fairly certain a number of 22 year old men would find this practice to be bullshit.

Though I do agree that people will tolerate more stupid things from their employer when they are younger. If they are at such a transitional phase of life and people that surround them demonstrate that something is normal, it will be easier to accept.

What would the workplace resemble if they were hiring 22 year old females? Can you give an answer with a straight face that doesn't patronize 50+% of the world population?

Well, like 22 year old men have certain tendencies that will prevail (e.g. a bro office culture), the same way a company of 22 year old females will have other tendencies that will prevail.

People not understanding statistics doesn't mean there are not some dominant traits in each group, even if they are not shared by all members of the group -- nor that it is patronizing to mention them (as if someone making a general statement about a group outcome is patronizing if they don't describe exactly what each and every individual involved in that group would be like and do).

>the same way a company of 22 year old females will have other tendencies that will prevail.

... Such as?

Btw, the issue isn't really "the tendencies 22 year old men" so much as it is people hiring for friends and drinking buddies instead of hiring for employees and colleagues

>... Such as?

For one, a less competitive/macho culture, less booze friendly, less nerf guns, less nerdy references, -- on the other hand more agreeable collaboration, more petty antagonisms, etc.

Those are from empirical experiences working in a few XX and XY heavy environments.

But psychologists and social scientists have also long studied group dynamics in mens vs womens teams...

>Btw, the issue isn't really "the tendencies 22 year old men" so much as it is people hiring for friends and drinking buddies instead of hiring for employees and colleagues

Sure, but in startups and smaller companies in particular people also hire to match their idea of cool lifestyle, not just seeking employees and colleagues to maximize professional performance...

(Heck, they might even think that professional performance is secondary, and a 10x programmer that doesn't fit the culture will bring everybody down)

> psychologists and social scientists have also long studied group dynamics in mens vs womens teams...

If we are going down the researched stereotypical road, a group of 22 year old women has have more bullying, more social conflict, isolation tactics, and passive aggressiveness.

But do we really need to define group traits by gender if one is a few percent higher in competitiveness, other in bullying, and third in what kind of team building exercise that management think is suitable for their team? It all sound very stereotypical way of thinking about hiring procedures.

If we take a quick look at Sweden, there is this government department called Swedish Public Employment Service. A company sends in a list of requirements and they help to pick out suitable applicants. Seems like a good solution to the lifestyle hiring problem.

>But do we really need to define group traits by gender if one is a few percent higher in competitiveness, other in bullying

Yes, if those percents affect group dynamics, and push towards one or the other direction (which happens).

Spontaneous pink baby sock knitting sessions? Dude stop trying to provoke people into writing things you can pick apart to feel offended about.

I think its a legitimate criticism of reductive statements against an arbitrarily selected group of people.

It's an effective strategy to point out "don't say this about this selection of people if you aren't willing to start saying similarly about its opposite."

I.e. one might not realize a blanket statement about the habits of 22 year old men is incorrect/untenable until someone points asks one to do the same for women, at which case for whatever reason cultural training or mechanisms for avoiding prejudice kick in.

I don't see someone trying to be offended - I see someone challenging a baseless assumption about an arbitrarily defined group of humans. No matter how you draw those lines in your selection criteria, you're going to get it wrong for a not-insignificant group of that selection, so why bother? Just don't make such blanket statements.

>No matter how you draw those lines in your selection criteria, you're going to get it wrong for a not-insignificant group of that selection, so why bother?

Because group dynamics are not about getting it right for any member of a group -- in fact you can get predictions wrong for all members of the group and still be right in their overall behavior.

You can "get it wrong for a not-insignificant group of that selection" and still be right for the overall group behavior.

Likewise, you can get lifestyle/beliefs/etc wrong for "a not-insignificant group" of people in the bible belt, but you can still make accurate statements with predictive power for the area as a whole...

As a man I don't feel patronized by that comment and the women I know aren't so fragile as to need to believe women can't be criticized. Why manufacture outrage if you don't have to?

I'm not sure op is manufacturing outrage. I'm not outraged but I am mildly annoyed that someone would assume me and my buddies would turn an office into barracks because that's "just what young men do."

More likely we'd turn it into the ultimate LAN party environment or something.

Being annoyed is a choice, though. Why do it if you don't have to?

I am only saying something because someone else claimed there's no reason to be annoyed.

I'm allowed to react to external input however I choose, and allowed to voice my emotions regarding such input.

Why say a reductive statement about all young men if you don't have to? Being annoying is a choice.

It's a supply side issue. I guess we could take steps to start forcing people's career choices?

Your position patronizes young adults. Most 22 year olds, regardless of gender, would not accept this unless their job depending on it, in which case it’s your employer abusing you. You should work with more 22 year olds, they are actually adults, you know...?

Did you intend to reply to nickpeterson directly? Because you replied to llampx, who isn't the one who brought up that statement about 22 year olds.

You have to plank while speaking, in order to motivate people to speak succinctly. Obviously disadvantages people who aren’t physically fit as they literally don’t get to contribute as much!

Sorry, just to be clear.

Everyone stands around in a circle and one person drops down on the floor in a plank to talk? Maybe it's just me but I'd have a hard time taking this seriously.

This isn't a thing. It may have happened, especially if it's some fitness startup or something, but this seems like just a piece of outrage bait.

It’s not just you.

That sounds like a practice suitable for 13 year old boys, not professionals.

I did search twitter and found 3-5 year olds!

https://twitter.com/search?f=images&vertical=default&q=push%...

Actually I found a more recent tweet depicting the actual practice, which has since been deleted. For the record, it was the same photo that appears in https://medium.com/@william.liu/daily-plank-meeting-732456e6... , a post that advises (!) this practice.

Not physically fit OR disabled OR actually dressed for an office environment, not a gym (last one is especially relevant for females).

> Obviously disadvantages people who aren’t physically fit as they literally don’t get to contribute as much!

If I am quiet in a meeting when I have a contribution to make--and make no mistake, I'm not speaking up regardless of my fitness level--my employer suffers, not me. He suffers again when his messed up culture inevitably causes me to find another employer.

What does "plank" mean in this situation? Dict doesn't seem to help.

It's a sort of exercise where you hold yourself in a position as though you're going to do a push up, so supporting your body weight on your feet and either hands or your forearms while suspending your body a few inches off the floor. The aim is to just hold this position for as long as you can, normally.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plank_(exercise)

Good core exercise, probably inappropriate for meetings.

The plank exercise is very similar to a pushup exercise move. It comes from making your body straight as a board (plank of wood). The position is face-down on the ground, with all of your weight supported by your toes and forearms.

It is generally difficult to hold that position in proper form for long periods of time (or at least your muscles start to ache)