[icotyl]

I had the opposite experience. I don't have Asperger's or ADD, but I'm shy and struggle with eye contact and small talk. I interviewed at about ten startups, and despite doing well on the technical questions, I got rejected every time. I began to suspect it was because of "culture fit" -- will this 35 year old introvert fit in at our frat house/office?

I was getting pretty depressed after all that rejection, but I got a random call from a recruiter at a big-N company, and figured why not give it a shot. The interview ended up being more professional, and at the same time the interviewers seemed friendlier and less antagonistic. And I ended up getting an offer.

In any case, I'm mentioning this because I went in expecting what you described -- that startups would be easier for me, as a socially-awkward person -- but that's not always the case.

[Leherenn]

I don't really understand this dismissing about "culture fit". You describe it yourself as a frat house, which, I assume from the rest of your post, is not what you want.

Work is not always only about output and skills, especially in a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues. It says nothing about your skills, just that both sides would probably be miserable in case you were hired, so it makes sense to find someone who would fit in the mold, even if less experienced/skillful.

[dominicr]

I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers.

If you want to hang out with your friends and wrestle to decide coding patterns, then that's all well and good. But the second that it becomes a company that employs people it should be more mature, equal and accepting. Work is indeed not always only about output and skills, it's also about respecting each other and collaborating with different people and their opinions & experience to produce the best outcome.

Anecdotally, I have worked at a company whose unofficial hiring mantra was "hire people you'd go drinking with". It did not go well! Luckily some adults got hired and the company started functioning better.

[repomies691]

> I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers.

Usually the founders/owners decide what a company is. Often it seems to me that there are plenty of other motivations to run a company. The founders hire people who they like to hang out with, maybe same hobbies etc.

However I personally have never came across a company that could be described as a "frat house" or even which would have that kind of hiring policy. However I find it entirely understandable that people do hiring decisions on various reasons which are not only about job throughput.

[dannypgh]

> Often it seems to me that there are plenty of other motivations to run a company. The founders hire people who they like to hang out with, maybe same hobbies etc.

There are laws against employment discrimination, and I suggest to you most people aiming for "people who they like to hang out with with" will result in an outcome, intentional or not, of illegal discrimination.

[BurritoAlPastor]

If you look at the set of all the people in the world you like to hang out with, and somehow, incidentally, nobody from a discrimination-protected group is in that set... I have some bad news for you about your personal biases.

[traderjane]

Does it mean they grew up in a different, more homogenous region than you? If you were never really exposed to black people, doesn’t that change a person? Shouldn’t we have sympathy for those who are underexperienced with blacks and other minorities?

[AdmiralAsshat]

>However I personally have never came across a company that could be described as a "frat house" or even which would have that kind of hiring policy.

Here's a recent example, if you need one:

https://kotaku.com/inside-the-culture-of-sexism-at-riot-game...

[jimbokun]

Culture fit in a nutshell:

> “There are all these generic terms used to find things wrong with women that aren’t specific,” she said. “When I hear ‘She’s emotional,’ I’d say, ‘Okay, why do you think she was being emotional?’ ‘Well she seemed to get intense and was pushing back on this thing.’ The other candidate did that and you liked that because you thought he had ‘grit.’ Why is that different? Is it because this person is a different gender?”

[PeterStuer]

If you don't mind a sidequestion:

I have worked with and met with probably close to 100 start/scale-up companies in the software domain. I have not yet met a 'brogammer' shop. Some hipster dens, and yes, when the founder is a twenty something you will be hard pressed to find anyone over 30.

So is this 'brogrammer frathouse' a regional thing? Or is it maybe a B2C thing as I mostly work with B2B companies?

[crtlaltdel]

every startup i’ve been involved with that is compromised of mostly first-time employees (either little work experience in general or no previous startup experience) has exhibited similar tendencies:

1. emphasis on drinking: “gotta have happy hour/get a keg”

2. off-site team building exercises that eat into personal/family time

3. disparaging competition, especially incumbents, often based on superficial things like the dated look of their UI or branding

4. periodic episodes where potential investors or current board members are brought to the office and the staff is expected to all be on-site and “look productive”

for context, i’ve been in large enterprises and a number of startups. the startups where the core staff had been through the process before lacked what often gets pegged as the “brogrammer fratdev shop” vibe.

also, almost every shop that got a keggerator or pingpong table ended up using those items to store things...

[note: edited for formatting]

[C1sc0cat]

Just a Keg Light weights - I recall our small core network team got through £400 of sake at a Christmas do and that was in the mid 80's

[lonelappde]

#2 #3 #4 are common at big companies that employ all genders.

[asdf21]

If I can't play some ping pong during my interview, I'm not interested.

[dominicr]

I'm no expert and I've mostly been in Europe with marginal time in the US, so I don't know the frequency of occurrence.

I think what's slightly more common is homogenous teams within companies that form an overwhelming culture, rather than entire company cultures. Teams do form their own ways of working and their own cultures, and this is fine: it's human and it can be positive. Healthy teams adapt to new members and vice versa.

But I have occasionally seen teams develop an impenetrable culture and reject anyone that wasn't a perfect fit for their existing culture. They also tend to reject any company-wide initiatives for change & improvement, not even engaging with the process or contributing to the discussion. Typically the way to solve such a team is to rebuild it by removing at least half of the members, after which everyone usually goes back to working normally.

[PeterStuer]

So is "frat house full of brogrammers" just a meme then? I have always wondered since I first heard the term, as it seems so remote from the reality I experience.

And yet, it gets punted around so much you wouldn't think that it would be hard to find a brogrammer shop. On the contrary, going by the 'reputation' you'd think they would be so numerous as to almost be hard to avoid.

[caseysoftware]

Yes, it's a meme. It's a quick and easy way to dismiss a of predominantly/exclusively white male team in a way that will get most people to say "Ugh, yuck!" without having any substantive criticism.

After 10 years hopping between Austin and San Francisco, hipsters with impressive beards and flannel seem at least 100x more common than brogrammers.

[dominicr]

I agree that this isn't common and the use of a memified word was not useful. I think the mental image of "brogrammers" is often literally coding jocks, which is inaccurate. It is often badly used to equate to a homogenous and closed culture within a team, often young and male. However same can indeed happen with other group of people. The example of alpha-maleness I can think of is Paypal: https://twitter.com/SaddestRobots/status/1184885797419401216

A better way of describing the problem from the original article is that infleixible & homogenous teams make it harder for people who don't fit a personality type to contribute to the work & work culture.

[marksweston]

Name a thing and you summon it into existence.

'Brogrammer' started as a witticism and has become a social phenomenon that people discuss as though it was based on rigorous observation and not just a joke.

[C1sc0cat]

It originally started as a Joke as far as I remember, it's now being used as short hand for certain aspects of SV life that are negative or are perceived as negative.

I would bet that 90% of developers are not the classic "jock" member of a frat (which is specific to America Univerities) - we are the ones that got bullied by those types at high school.

Lets be honest CS students are going to get invited to join the skull and bones (Harvard) or the Bullingdon club (Oxford)

[extra88]

> skull and bones (Harvard)

Skull and Bones is a secret society at Yale, not Harvard.

[C1sc0cat]

Oops my bad apologies to any Harvard Amumni

[silveroriole]

Did you mean are or aren’t? Bullingdon is for rich future Conservatives reading PPE, not for CS students.

[C1sc0cat]

Sorry aren't - that's the point nerds don't get invited to those sort of elite clubs we would get oil on the furniture don't you know

[pluma]

It's meant as a cultural shorthand for the kind of companies like early PayPal. They wouldn't hire classic "jock" people of course but they were very much about what nerds thought was cool.

The "bro" label is more about performative hypermasculinity than athletics.

What seems to surprise most about nerd culture is that for many nerds the problem with bullying wasn't that bullying was bad but that they were on the receiving end of it, resulting in a revenge fantasy (both against the actual bullies as well as outsiders in general) rather than simply a desire for equality. This is also reflected in the kinds of jokes you used to hear on IRC and later 4chan as well as gaming (even before it became "so mainstream").

For context: I say this as a recovering nerd myself.

[senderista]

whiteboard swirlies

[mywittyname]

I've worked at a few and what they had in common was that they were sales-driven and the technology portion of their products tended to be on the simple side.

[matwood]

I think it's just a shorthand way to criticize companies that turn people down for whatever reason. As I mentioned in another comment, a shop does not have to be a brogrammer shop for someone to fail the culture fit test.

To your point, there may be brogrammer only shops out there, but I've never seen one. And, as someone who has always played sports, power lifted, and now trains BJJ, I wouldn't want to work for a non-professional brogrammer type shop if I ever came across one. I've wondered before if I didn't fit a culture because I'm not the stereotypical software person.

[cr0sh]

> I've wondered before if I didn't fit a culture because I'm not the stereotypical software person.

Note the following isn't directed toward you specifically, but because you mentioned that you think you're not the "stereotypical software person" I wanted to write why I think that it is more likely - today - that you are...I think part of what we're seeing is the software development "culture" filtering out into "regular culture"? Those aren't probably the right words, but...

What I mean is that - when I started "programming", it was right in the middle of the "home microcomputer" era - mid-1980s. I was 10-11 years old, and I had my own home computer in my bedroom hooked up to my TV. I had always been "science inclined" - but that was where I really became a "nerd".

I didn't really like sports or anything like that, I didn't like much of what was considered "popular stuff" - except arcade games; couldn't get enough quarters. But all I really wanted to do was program.

That's where I started - and that's where a lot of people started (both older and younger than me at the time) - on home computers, typing in junk from magazines and books - and some of the older ones went on to turn that in a career in short order. But they all were "nerds" in their own manner.

Prior to the home computer, you either had to be an engineer or something working at a company with it's own computer or system(s) - or work for one of the computer companies of the era - to even come close to "touching" a computer in any manner. Or maybe have been lucky enough to teach or attend or otherwise finagle access to a university's system(s). There were also a few other very limited ways too (public terminals connected to dialup shared systems that you paid to use and other similar means). But really, only the really hard-core geeks and nerds were in that camp, and they tended to be few.

Prior to that - mathematicians and engineers, mostly.

But soon after when I started - in the early 1990s - computers started to become a tool (and entertainment) for everyone. It was no longer seen as nerdy to have a computer in the home. And then very soon after that - the internet was opened for the public to use (before, access was restricted to certain commercial entities for research, and to educational institutions, and the government - with little allowance for consumer access, and almost no allowance for commercial exploitation - with the exception of research, mostly).

That brought in people of all stripes - also, there was this change; difficult to pin down - but it seems that kids no longer (or far fewer of them) have an interest - or develop the interest - or have the means to develop the interest in front of them - for "software engineering".

When I was growing up with my computer - and this was most computers of the time - you turned it on, and on the screen (which was usually a television) you would get a short "message" of what version of BASIC was running, and a prompt blinking maybe - where you could type. If you wanted software, you had a few choices, in descending order of cost:

1. Purchase the software - on cartridge, tape, or floppy

2. Type the software in from a book or magazine

3. Write the software yourself - usually in BASIC

Many, many people turned to number 3 - usually with help from a manual included with their computer. Many also went the route of number 2 in conjunction with number 3. Some found they could sell the software from number 3 to magazines and books - or to publishers (number 1). That isn't to say nobody bought commercial software - tons of people did (but there was a lot of piracy back then, too). It was a large mixture, but mostly as a kid, you relied on number 3, and maybe number 2 if you had understanding parents who could afford to buy you the books and magazines.

But later - especially with the internet - those programming sources dried up - and today's computers (and phones and tablets, etc) don't start up to BASIC; you get an entire magical operating system, and any means to code software is fairly hidden away.

Even in the early 90s this was evident; Microsoft DOS used to come with at least some form of BASIC, but gradually this has fell away - today, out-of-the-box coding is limited to shell interpreters, javascript and such in the browser, and maybe other scripting interpreters built into some applications - plus maybe .NET stuff on Windows, but I'm not as sure on that last one.

Ultimately, the tools for some kind of "software engineering" - when they are included with a machine (operating system), they are kept fairly "hidden away" - there's nothing there to even entice a kid to "program"...

...hence the rise of "sandbox" style games, that allow a similar kind of "open ended" play. But this is stuff that has to be bought - it's just not "there" for kids like it was when I started.

And so you have a lot of kids who don't experience computing in the same manner, who don't get an "early bite" by the programming "bug" - and who (something else I have noticed) typically are forced in some manner into playing sports via organized team things parents shuttle their kids around too (I often wonder if there are parents out there who realize how lucky they are to have a "geek child" who has figured out the system to get a programming environment going on their machines - and doesn't go for such organized activities?)...

So they kinda grow up with sports or similar activities as "the thing to do" (and I understand why this kind of thing grew up - but I don't think it was completely organic, either - I think some parents became (overly?) concerned about "predators", and moved their kids into these supervised programs, and fewer are left in the neighborhood for other kids to play with, so to "play" kids had to join those teams and activities, etc - and the circle was complete). That is the "normal" thing - sitting at home programming on the computer isn't "normal" - or even really thought about at all.

...until university/college - and so you have a bunch of people, who have interests in things "non geeky" who find out later that they are good at programming, and that they like it. But they also like "normal things" - things that people like me, having been nerds and geeks from an earlier time - maybe don't enjoy as much, or at all?

I'm not saying anything of this is bad - I just think this is how things have turned out, and probably this is a better thing? Also, there is the growing thing of "STEM" and "STEAM" stuff going on in school (coupled with FRC/FIRST) - which helps to introduce kids earlier to these concepts, but it doesn't seem to extend as far back as grade school (or maybe it does?).

I think it's just all part of a balance; in my day as a kid, it was tilted way far in one direction - toward "nerds" - and today it is tilted past the middle point toward "non-nerds" - but ultimately it is shifting back toward the middle?

Well - that's my ramble - take it however...

[matwood]

Sounds like we're about the same age. I did #2 and #3 and was science inclined, etc... But, I also did sports and was outdoorsy. A single TV in my house meant no computer time if my dad was home, so I had to do other things.

I started undergrad as pre-med, and programming was just a fun hobby. I remember one night while studying for some insane biology test from an equally insane teacher that while I was interested in being a doctor, I loved programming/computers/technology. I pushed through that semester and switched majors.

Even today, I feel not nerdy enough in some situations though my wife would disagree (she thinks I'm very nerdy).

[PeterStuer]

"Home" computers in those days used to be creation devices by default for nerds. To turn them into something that provided consumer entertainment took real work and in-depth knowledge.

Personal computers today are entertainment consumption devices for the masses. You can still use most for creating, but only a tiny, tiny fraction will ever go there.

[Grustaf]

> I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers.

Don’t you think that this should be up to the founders to decide? I would personally much prefer a frat house atmosphere than the more common geeky introvert culture that most technology companies have, but I would not like there to be laws about it.

[sidlls]

No, I don't think it should be. Companies are afforded protections and benefits under the law. They owe society something in return for that. One of the things I think they owe is a responsibility to act in certain ways with respect to the general public, which includes their own employees.

[dageshi]

Unless it's written in law, no they don't.

There is no one size fits all "company" structure that works for everyone. If we can't have frat house brogrammers why can we have "remote only" companies? One person may hate said brogramming culture, others may love it, still others may hate remote only due to lack of physical interaction with their colleagues while others love it because they hate offices.

[gridlockd]

> Companies are afforded protections and benefits under the law. They owe society something in return for that.

I don't like this way of thinking. Individuals are also afforded unsolicited "protections and benefits". Therefore, individuals owe society? That's basically like the Mafia offering you protection, at a price.

[Grustaf]

Of course you owe something to society. Without it you would probably be sleeping naked under a tree in the forest. The system depends on people contributing back.

[Grustaf]

Of course companies have obligations to society but why the particular obligation not to have a loud, boisterous atmosphere? Why should they then be allowed to have geeky introvert cultures? That also alienates a lot of people, including probably a lot of women.

[acephal]

Hilarious you're getting downvoted to oblivion without a reply for a warranted opinion like this is reddit.

[scarejunba]

Well, if you're one of first five then it's practically like joining a band and the idea that you wouldn't discriminate in making your band is outrageous. Like if someone sued because they're a fine enough drummer but the band didn't really feel like jamming with them, they'd look kinda dumb.

[ZoomZoomZoom]

>>I think the point is that companies shouldn't be frat houses full of brogrammers.

Why not? If it's a private business, it can be whatever the owners want it to, unless illegal. I wouldn't have a tiniest inclination to work in such a company, but that's beside the point.

[kempbellt]

Companies should be comprised of whatever works best to build the product effectively that people want to buy.

Your argument could be used to ban beanbag chairs, nerf-guns, and kegs from the office because it doesn't meet your "maturity" standards. I've worked at places that have all of these and we made a productive and effective team.

If you don't like the company culture, complaining that they aren't "mature enough" is childish. It's their company...

Find a company that suits your temperament and everyone wins - which is what I believe OP was getting at.

[commandlinefan]

I think that what underlies this fear of apocryphal “brogrammers” is the fear that, if everybody is left alone to do as they please without being brought to heel, every company will grow into a place where they, personally, don’t feel they fit in. It says a lot more about the authoritarian mindset of people who use the term brogrammer than it says about programmers and nerd culture.

[Nasrudith]

Brogrammer is so amorphous it is basically a term for "I don't like them or their company so lets assign arbitrary sins to their strawmen as the other."

I have seen it used countless times as a term of economic envy in a "they shouldn't be allowed to do better than me" way.

[oarabbus_]

I mean... you don't think that BroBible.com (for example) has the right to hire a particular type of person for their front end engineer? I don't think they should be obligated to hire an artsy introvert type for that role.

[senderista]

GitHub?

[Fr0styMatt88]

The way I like to re-frame it is that picking someone to be on your team — to join your company — is very much like picking a housemate to live in your personal space. It’s a huge risk for the person or company hiring, so of course they’re going to trust their gut feeling.

If you had to pick a housemate, how impartial or emotionless would you be, honestly? (not referring to any particular ‘you’ in this conversation — it’s just the hypothetical question I’d ask to demonstrate the re-framing).

[BeetleB]

>It’s a huge risk for the person or company hiring, so of course they’re going to trust their gut feeling.

What makes SW so special?

This is as true for most small businesses that are just starting out (e.g. real estate work, etc). Yet I do not see an emphasis on culture fit there. They are very picky and will filter for one/two traits, but they're clear and up front about those traits. They don't not hire people because the person had differing hobbies, etc. Partners, maybe - but not employees.

[icotyl]

Some had frat house vibes, some didn't.

In any case, I think I'm pleasant and easy-going at work, and I do a good job, which makes other peoples' job easier. If someone would become "miserable" because I was hired... well, OK, but that might say more about their personality than mine.

[com]

Yes, absolutely it says more about their limitations or concerns than it does about your own!

Unfortunately a mismatch in expectations is probably a reasonable (but not good!) reason not to hire.

The hiring party gets to choose, and if their choices are for what they think are local maxima that you don’t fit, they get to own the consequences of not hiring you.

[mattlutze]

The demographics of start-up founders is generally biased toward young, affluent members of a community's ethnic majority. If you want to work for one of these companies, and "cultural fit" is high on the selection criteria, most start-ups will end up being staffed or run by the same sorts of people.

Working with diverse people that are interested in things that you're not is not predetermined to actually be a miserable experience. But it does require that you're open to integrating yourself with many other folks / cultures / etc.

[kls]

As a person who was a young developer in the .com boom and a middle-age programmer now, I think youth puts too much focus on this and lack experience in this area. I think there is a general opinion that the old guys will ruin everything and serious up the environment. When my experience has been the exact opposite, the old guys usually bring in some good practices the young guys find are good ideas but they really don't care about the culture or changing it. At my age now, I enjoy the antics and find them amusing, joke with my younger colleges and tend to get along well with them. I just don't hang at the bar with them until 3 in the morning. I think a lot of younger programmers would be surprised at how much older developers don't infringe on their culture, they may not be an active participant in all circumstances of said culture but a lot of them, lived it, and have a boys will be boys attitude about it. If anything I would say that many older programmers are a passive cultural fit for a youth oriented company.

[kitsunesoba]

Indeed it is not true that all older engineers will cause this culture clash, but when it happens it’s dramatic and I think that’s what prompts cautiousness when hiring these individuals.

It’s an anecdote so take it with a grain of salt, but I’ve had an experience like this with at least a couple of former colleagues on the higher end of the team’s age distribution — they were great people, but none of the younger team members knew how to relate with them which made day to day interactions a lot more awkward than they would have been otherwise.

Of course, it could be argued that the awkwardness could’ve been avoided had the company started off with a wider age range, but then you run into the issue of attracting older candidates, which can be difficult given the volatility and reduced concrete compensation associated with early stage startups.

[icotyl]

> "none of the younger team members knew how to relate with them which made day to day interactions a lot more awkward than they would have been otherwise."

If they're out of school and in the workforce, and they don't know how to interact with people older than themselves, that's honestly kind of pathetic.

[tsss]

To them not participating is the same as refusal. I have also been rejected from a startup like this for not being "enthusiastic" enough.

[kls]

If that is the case then consider rephrasing it in your mind from rejected to spared as that is the way I would see it, if they really are that focused on insignificant details, then the company as a whole is going to chase rabbits. That does not mean they won't be successful but they have already indicated to you that they are not focused on the important details, which is going to make the battle for success that much more difficult.

I guess it would bother me more if we competed in a constrained market but given that development talent, has historically been, is currently and will be in the future a under-supplied market. I tend to look at these entities as just shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to the competition for talent. They are doing more harm to themselves than to the prospects of the rejected candidate.

[jimbokun]

"Work is not always only about output and skills, especially in a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues. It says nothing about your skills, just that both sides would probably be miserable in case you were hired, so it makes sense to find someone who would fit in the mold, even if less experienced/skillful."

Right, so better not hire any married people, older people, people of the opposite gender of the founders, people of the wrong political party, people of the wrong religious persuasion, the wrong class, or any other characteristics that risk interrupting the frat party...I mean "work environment".

[traderjane]

If it’s a frathouse with 20 somethings who don’t have enough time except with each other, how does sexuality come into play? Not at all?

[flukus]

> especially in a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues

So you'd discriminate against introverts because the team are awful at socializing? Apart from how sad that sounds and how awful it is for people (you're whole life has single point of failure), it also sounds very self defeating.

> Work is not always only about output and skills

Treating it that way is basically the foundation of what's considered professional behavior. I hate when that gets taken too far, but the core idea is good.

[TeMPOraL]

> So you'd discriminate against introverts because the team are awful at socializing?

Aren't almost all companies?

> Apart from how sad that sounds and how awful it is for people (you're whole life has single point of failure)

It's not as much of a choice. Unless you've built and are above average good at maintaining a social network prior to work, workplace tends to become the primary part of the social life. It's a trend in the west.

[x220]

>you're whole life has single point of failure

wontfix, working as intended. The startup wants you dependent on them for everything and to spend nearly all your waking hours inside their office so they can coerce your loyalty.

[otakucode]

I don't know if it's to coerce loyalty. I would presume that the main motivation is that they know that you are what generates profit. So if they can exploit you as a profit-generating resource, and get away with it, they will do so. This isn't novel. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was common for entire families, children included, to work 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, and barely earn enough to survive. That was not done out of economic necessity. When the government stepped in and required companies to pay 1 person enough to raise a family for 40 hours of work in a week, that essentially amounted to requiring them to give a greater than 960% wage increase. (Going from getting 384hr of work out of a family of 4 in a week to getting 40hrs of work from that same family, just to keep that family at the same subsistence level would require paying 960% more for that 40 hours.) And they survived. In fact, they thrived, as did all of society when they were forced to do that. But, the type of people who created that situation in the first place are still being born. They're still running companies. And they will still attempt to wring every valuable moment out of the lives of human beings to take for themselves. If we let them.

[x220]

Yeah, that's one of the big problems with capitalism. The laws of microeconomics state that in a free market, the market will produce as many widgets as possible, using up all possible resources to do so. This isn't good for human happiness or for the environment. Who really wants to live in a world where we are buying and producing as much as possible?

[otakucode]

I do think there are certainly problems, but I don't agree what you describe is any rational conclusion of the principles of a free market. No one wants to live in a world where all resources are consumed to make widgets. Therefore, those people will not pay to buy that many widgets if they're informed enough to understand the true price of things. Most models of capitalism have weaknesses like this surrounding the need for information to be universally and equally available for their conclusions to hold, which can produce some incentives to obscure or hide information that makes exploitation easier. The issue with modern day overwork, though, isn't a lack of information but more a change in cultural values which needs to take place. Currently, the 'work hard and you will be rewarded' mindset which was productive (and often honest) in the factory-oriented past is being misapplied in modern environments where it is both counter-productive and false. 'Salary' doesn't mean 'paid for completing the work' as it was supposed to when legally created as a category, it means nothing more than 'required to perform large quantities of unpaid work'.

[romwell]

>I don't really understand this dismissing about "culture fit"

You should understand that what you wrote sounds like discrimination by age (and sex, "frat" means male), which is illegal - and for good reasons.

EDIT: specifically, the only way a 35-year-old is not a "culture fit" in "a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues" is if that company is discriminating by age. I don't have better words to explain that being 20 is not "culture".

[Smithalicious]

Is it? It's discrimination by things that correlate with age, sure, but many things do.

[romwell]

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

"I don't discriminate by age, only by gray hair!"

"I don't discriminate by sex, it's just that we have a no-birthing-kids culture!"

Um, no.

[astura]

"Disparate impact"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

[x220]

What if instead of discriminating by race, you don't hire people who live in mostly-black neighborhoods?

[imtringued]

You hire based on university "prestige" instead.

[pluma]

Codes of law aren't software. It's not a loophole, it's just an overly naive interpretation of what the law says based on your layperson understanding and applying programmer logic to non-software.

If you explicitly don't accept applicants only from select neightborhoods that all just "happen to" be almost all-black, you're still discriminating by race and it's still obvious and obviously illegal. You'll just waste more of everyone's time in court.

Just look at sovereign citizens and their inane shenanigans like "I'm not driving, I'm traveling by car and therefore don't need a driver's license and can ignore speed limits".

[romwell]

The comment you are responding to is highlighting the ridiculousness of the comment above it.

However, everything you wrote does apply to the level-up comment.

[otakucode]

Legally speaking, age discrimination can not exist if you are under 40. There is zero protection with respect to age discrimination prior to 40 years of age, and the younger you get, the more enthusiastically age discrimination is accepted. Get under 18 and discrimination based on age is fully supported and actively encouraged.

[leadingthenet]

Culture is something you have a certain amount of control over. Age/sex/w/e isn't.

[romwell]

Exactly, and the way the parent didn't seem to fit into the 'culture' was by being older.

"Frathouse culture" is an euphemism for "group of mostly white young male people who exclude people who aren't like them" - because this is what fraternities literally are.

(Recall: by definition, fraternities are young, male, exclusive - and statistically, white).

[nightcracker]

It's not (only) statistically white, it is racism inherent in the language we use. A black fraternity is called a gang instead.

[NoGravitas]

Black fraternities (well, historically black) do exist, both at HBCUs and at other colleges and universities. And one thing that's particularly notable is that historically black fraternities tend to be more public-service oriented than historically white fraternities, which are more purely social clubs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_frate...

[stallmanite]

Do some research there are plenty of black fraternities at any major university in the US.

[notyourday]

> specifically, the only way a 35-year-old is not a "culture fit" in "a small company run by 20-something whose only social life is their colleagues" is if that company is discriminating by age.

So you, as a 35 year old, want to work in a company that has a 14 hour days, including at least one weekend work culture which is what created a nearly forced socialization with one's coworkers who are in their early twenties?

If so, I'm pretty sure you would be accepted in the open arms if you

a) take their kind of salary ( i.e. take a pay cut )

b) work the 14 hour days (i.e. take another pay cut )

c) tolerate their social quirks -- those that do not socialize with others outside their tiny world for 14 hours a day 6-7 days a week are going to be rejected by the randos they meet in random places, repeating the cycle.

[romwell]

I am not the person who wrote the post, BUT they didn't mention anything of the unusual working hours or a pay cut (that they wouldn't take).

And in any case, this is something that's discussed outright (hours) and while extending an offer (salary).

Socialization outside of working hours is nobody's business, and reaches into illegal land (I don't care if one doesn't socialize with old/black/other gender people; but making hiring decisions based on that is illegal).

[notyourday]

Startups pay less money in fact significantly less than established companies. That is known.

Thirty five year olds rarely agree to work for the amount of money twenty year olds agree to work for. That is also known.

This means that a thirty five year old going to a startup of twenty year olds is going to take a paycut.

Startups push people to work more hours. Young people are OK with that because they do not have a social life apart from finding someone to have sex with and having sex with that person. That is also reasonably well known. That means their life is sleeping/working/having sex with people. Long hours at work by people who do not have anything else to do act as a filler. That's why startups that have lots of young people working in them tend to push long hours. If you are there just to get a paycheck then it would mean getting an effective pay cut.

> Socialization outside of working hours is nobody's business, and reaches into illegal land (I don't care if one doesn't socialize with old/black/other gender people; but making hiring decisions based on that is illegal).

If you are working 14 hour days with group of same people those are going to be people you would be socializing with. It is the case everywhere -- be that oil rigs, armed forces. It is a matter of proximity and logistics.

[romwell]

See, the parent applied for this job, and never wrote they they weren't ok with working in a startup.

That's all that matters, and everything else you wrote is an attempt to justify discrimination by age.

Please reconsider your views.

[stared]

To be fair, I don't think that its only big companies that discriminate (e.g. too many are agist, classist, or have a bias against parents). Though, small companies vary. And even if one is biased one way, it's likely that there are some (as in "any") that are not.

For social awkwardness - there are many kinds of that. For some corporate interview process may be not an issue. For others, a road blocker.

[matwood]

> I began to suspect it was because of "culture fit" -- will this 35 year old introvert fit in at our frat house/office?

The job does not have to be a frat house office in order for a candidate to fail the culture fit. Unfortunately many programmers think programming is 100% writing code, when often times it is more about communication and relationships. If you were missing a certain technical skill what would you do? Now apply that same mindset to being a little less socially awkward. No one is saying you have to learn to be Dale Carnegie himself, but even just a small amount of people skills goes a long way.

[electrograv]

But let’s imagine for the moment a candidate was actually rejected for being “too introverted”, as an example for the sake of this argument. Disclaimer: I’ve not seen anyone rejected for this reason explicitly, but I have heard an instance of a self-identifying extrovert reporting “organizational culture problems” to upper management which when asked for details became “while there was no bad or unwelcoming behavior of any kind (not even indirectly), the majority of engineers are too introverted and that makes me uncomfortable”.

In such a case, how is “too introverted” as a reason for rejection or even as a negative cultural connotation not overt discrimination to exclude neurodiversity?

I’d even be willing to concede that such personality-based discrimination may need to be made for customer-facing roles or roles if being charming or extroverted is explicitly part of the job description. But other than that, it seems odd to reject an engineering candidate for reasons like this.