Unfiltered and unanalyzed, this is a bad metric because it essentially brings out the lowest-level mental evaluation of whether the person fits your tribe or not. It’s easily subtly biased against women, introverts, other ethnicities, etc. — not because you hate them but because your lizard-brain doesn’t automatically associate them with comfort.

Instead think about whether you’d want to hang out with the person, and then try to intellectually disregard that evaluation completely.

You see this happen a lot when (say) poor management look too much at cost or box-ticking over team morale and competence.

"Can they do the job?" and "can we get on with them?" are both important questions for a healthy team, but yes, it is important that those questions are asked in an open-minded spirit.

I recall when I was in a team that was super buddy-buddy and everyone would hang out and go drinking, everyone shared the same view, etc. When we had a major crisis in the office, things devolved into a shouting match in a manner that may be okay with buddies but not in a professional environment.

purely on this point, having two cases does seem quite unnecessary and burdensome

you have to learn the alphabet twice, for one thing

and in fact, much punctuation is also superfluous

just put each 'thought' on it's own line, for example

no need for fancy untypeable punctuation like the recently popular —

will implement