[Wilem82]

Your statement implies that arguing is something bad. Arguing is presenting arguments that attempt to show (prove) why something is true or false. It's the most important tool (convincing each other) in the progress of civilization. If you don't try to convince each other, the only alternative, in the end, is just shoot whoever you disagree with.

And it also diminishes your value as a team member. If you can't convince others, means the reasons you present are weak and nobody would be interested in listening to you and therefore there's not much reason in having you around.

[eecc]

> And it also diminishes your value as a team member. If you can't convince others, means the reasons you present are weak and nobody would be interested in listening to you and therefore there's not much reason in having you around

Jeez, you extrapolated a personal observation all the way to a character assassination and firing letter paragraph.

Standups and 1on1 with you must be a blessing... a joy

[Wilem82]

If you think what I said is wrong, you're welcome to explain why. Personal attacks are neither productive nor interesting.

My reasoning is the following:

People would only listen to you if you can prove what you say is right, because nobody is interested in hearing wrong things or unexplained things, they just aren't helpful.

"We should use nodejs!" "Why?" "I don't want to argue, we just should." Is that helpful?

If you don't have the reasoning skills to convince others, you can't present constructive ideas and back them up with an explanation.

If you can't do that, literally, what is your value to the team? Blindly and quietly execute the will of other team members? That would take too much energy from those people, to direct you on every step of the way.

When you hire engineers, you expect them to give more than they take, otherwise they're a drain on the team resources.

Collective problem solving is impossible without arguing. Arguing is trying to improve something, identify mistakes, logical contradictions, basically you're doing the work of a compiler that checks your program for correctness. Would you want a compiler that always agreed with you, whatever you fed into it? Don't think so. Same thing with engineers working together to reach a common goal. You're checking and improving each other's ideas.

Edit: moreover, if you lack reasoning skills to convince others, means you lack reasoning skills themselves. How are you going to solve problems in the first place?

[eecc]

Can you please stop attacking me.

Please.

Thankfully we’ll never work together so can we just continue our existences as we did before, blissfully unaware of each other?

[divbzero]

Presenting arguments isn’t bad if it’s about something important, but I think by “Hey, I’ve argued about shit all my life!” the GP takes issue more with the “shit” than the arguing.

[Wilem82]

It's explicitly stated in their comment:

> arguing about slight variations of the same mundanities: XML, XSD, IDL, ASN.1, Avro, JSON... Emacs vs. Vim, Weakly vs. Strongly typed, and so on...

There could be a lot of valid and important arguments around these things. Except maybe vim and emacs, who gives a shit about that.