Hooray for the Judeo-Christian bias in this article. You're a "loner" if you just want to sit by yourself and eat, or a "member" if you hang with a clique .. Sheesh.
Joel Spolsky: Lunch
191–200 of 210 posts
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s why when new people start work at the company, they’re not allowed to sit off by themselves in a corner. Sounds like pretty strong social pressure to me.
Trouble with words on a page is that you can't convey all that other stuff. When I read that I read it as jokey and also a camaraderie thing on the first day. It sounded good to me. Other people are reading it as a dictat. It sounded bad to them. But Joel just explained what he meant explicitly, you can't keep on challenging him after that.
Hmmm.... he said that people has misread the article. Yes, later he apologize if he hasn't made himself clear. I think that most of us that got infuriated by the article have had different experiences: bore or jerk coworkers, crowded offices, unhealthy food... the reasons that edw519 has enumerated.
Joel is a very influential person. And the perspective that some boss in a not-so-nice environment as Fog Creek understand the "policy" like we have and "copy" it is really really scary.
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#193I so wholeheartedly and completely agree with Joel. Things that really "make" a team: 1) Having lunch together 2) Having booze together 3) Going out together regularly
What about introverted people, who will do good work, but prefer their own company at lunch time?
> What about introverted people
People that have difficulties socializing will probably benefit as well from a more informal setting. Some other people are so introverted that they will not -- but then they probably are not going to be good team players for that reason, no?
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Synopsis: You hate your job, not your lunch. Quit your job and get a job that you love, and you'll inevitably end up loving the lunch you currently hate.
First of all, I do not have to LOVE my job. As everything in this world, most things have good and bad sides. Surprise! Applying the concept of love to something as mundane as a job is ridiculous. Just a couple of generations ago, a job was a job was a job? Why, because a job meant survival. You either work your ass off, or you and your family starve. Did all these people love the hard labor, getting up at 4am to ten…
Before I start I'll address the first point - yes, everything has good and bad sides, but that includes things/people you love. I doubt Beethoven always loved composing, or Einstein always loved doing science - it's a net thing, and when it involves something/somebody you love, the joy vastly exceeds the cost.
> Applying the concept of love to something as mundane as a job is ridiculous
Please, speak for yourself. You might find it ridiculous, you might not think it important to do something you love, and you'd be joining the 99.999% of people out there who live their lives treating the vast majority of their waking hours as being somehow irrelevant to happiness. But consider this - you might be wrong.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Russell
>Just a couple of generations ago, a job was a job was a job? Why, because a job meant survival. You either work your ass off, or you and your family starve. Did all these people love the hard labor, getting up at 4am to tend to a withering field? These generations were much more fatalistic about life and accepted bad things as an inevitable part of life."
Yes - some generations ago, work meant misery for the majority of people but - newsflash - we're not a couple of generations ago. We have experienced miraculous changes in the way the majority of people live, and it would be quite the insult to all those who have struggled to change things to say 'well it was misery generations ago, so why treat it any differently now?' - I can't think of a more retrograde or negative attitude. A few generations ago people died from simple infections - so why bother administering antibiotics? You could go on in that vein.
For some of us there is more to engaging in a certain activity than its ends, where the work itself transcends its purpose and becomes a pleasure in itself - a craftsman who really cares about his work sees the world very differently from a administrative functionary whose work is, by definition, mundane, repetitive and meaningless to them.
It's not all jobs, hell it's very few jobs out there, and certainly not for everybody - not everybody has it in them, or even the desire, to love their work but for those of us that do it is a very real possibility.
A lot of the problem I have with your attitude is that, for the minority who do see work as more than just a means-to-an-end, it is quite a struggle to fight against the prevailing attitude that you demonstrate and I really find it surprising that an HNer feels that way, and is especially frustrating for me as I am stuck in a job I emphatically am very unhappy in, fighting and struggling to get myself up to a level of ability where I can get a job in which I can practice my craft happily, and as a result I am considered fairly mad by a chunk of my friends + family.
pg puts it far more eloquently than I could [1]:-
"The test of whether people love what they do is whether they'd do it even if they weren't paid for it—even if they had to work at another job to make a living."
A few generations ago getting a job you love just wasn't possible for the vast majority. Now, and especially in software development, it is, and in fact as a result of the cheapness and ubiquity of computers + open source, etc. it is possible for somebody (at least in the west) to really pursue the craft regardless of circumstances. Please don't downplay that - it's nothing short of a damn miracle, really.
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#195Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, I do not have to LOVE my job. As everything in this world, most things have good and bad sides. Surprise! Applying the concept of love to something as mundane as a job is ridiculous. Just a couple of generations ago, a job was a job was a job? Why, because a job meant survival. You either work your ass off, or you and your family starve. Did all these people love the hard labor, getting up at 4am to ten…
Before I start I'll address the first point - yes, everything has good and bad sides, but that includes things/people you love. I doubt Beethoven always loved composing, or Einstein always loved doing science - it's a net thing, and when it involves something/somebody you love, the joy vastly exceeds the cost. > Applying the concept of love to something as mundane as a job is ridiculous Please, speak for yourself. Yo…
Downvoted on HN for extolling the joy of pursuing what you love even in the face of disagreement - a certain irony there, I think!! :-)
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#197I have always hated this and probably always will. I have rarely eaten lunch with my work mates. Just a few reasons why: 1. I don't want to talk about work at lunch. 2. I want to get out of the office and get some fresh air. 3. I often want to get away from the very people that Joel suggests spending time with on my break. 4. I'm a "food outlier". I hate pizza, deli, and fast food. I won't eat it away from work. Why…
This works a lot better if you're actually friends with most of your coworkers. Then it's pretty awesome.
I agree. I've been fortunate enough to work with mostly interesting people over the years where a few have become life long friends. I've also been to offices where lunch was dreaded because most people there you didn't want to have to interact with anymore than required.
I don't need to work with best friends, but if I hated spending any social time with my co-workers I would find another job.
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#198I have always hated this and probably always will. I have rarely eaten lunch with my work mates. Just a few reasons why: 1. I don't want to talk about work at lunch. 2. I want to get out of the office and get some fresh air. 3. I often want to get away from the very people that Joel suggests spending time with on my break. 4. I'm a "food outlier". I hate pizza, deli, and fast food. I won't eat it away from work. Why…
[deleted]
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#199Points 8 and 9 are a result of not communicating and acting assertively. Stop partaking in, allowing, and accepting aggressive, passive, and passive-aggressive behavior and communication. This is what the higher ups in a company need to foster. I highly suggest reading "Life Would Be Easy If It Weren't for Other People" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0803968655/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...
Re: Joel Spolsky: Lunch
#200Huh. I've never worked somewhere where people do anything other than grab some food and eat it at their desks. Who has time to actually go out for lunch?
One advantage of the open, trading-floor layout is that you can chat with the people around you, if you want.