[vidarh]

> What a world.

A whole lot of unwillingness to make reasonable accommodations for people based on disabilities will open you up to lawsuits.

To imply reasonable accommodations for neuro-divergent people is simply a matter of "comfort" is indeed worth a "what a world" on the same level as refusing to make reasonable accommodations for those who are blind or hard of hearing or in a wheelchair.

[whynotminot]

> A whole lot of unwillingness to make reasonable accommodations for people based on disabilities will open you up to lawsuits.

I kind of take issue with your assumption that someone with (edit: meant Neurodivergent... NPD is something else) can't pair program.

If your assumption of an effective pair programmer is that they're always bubbly extroverts with politician-level shmoozing capability, I kind of doubt you've spent any length of time doing it.

There's a lot of people who struggle with more "normal" communication that are incredible pair programmers. I've worked with many of them. In many cases, the code and the keyboard becomes a communication medium they're effective at leveraging--more than other means. Actually doing pair programming challenged a lot of my misconceptions about what it takes to be good at it.

It's skill and like any other should be disconnected from stereotypes. I don't see why you can't hire for it like any other. Hopefully I don't run into you in the court room. ;-)

[vidarh]

> I kind of take issue with your assumption that someone with NPD can't pair program.

Many can. Many can't. I did not make the assumption you're arguing against here.

> If your assumption of an effective pair programmer is that they're always bubbly extroverts with politician-level shmoozing capability, I kind of doubt you've spent any length of time doing it.

That was not my assumption at all. You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions not at all supported by what I wrote.

> There's a lot of people who struggle with more "normal" communication that are incredible pair programmers.

That's fine, but it does not change the fact that many people struggle with it. Including people who manage to deal with "normal" communication just fine, but who find the intensity of a pairing unbearable. I can do it, but to me it is intensely uncomfortable to the point that as I've pointed out elsewhere I refuse to be pushed into it - for me it's not a problem, as my career has afforded me the luxury of picking and choosing positions where I get to decide what goes -, but I've met many brilliant developers over the years who just could not deal with situations like that at all.

> It's skill and like any other should be disconnected from stereotypes.

This dismissal of what to quite a few people is an inherent part of their neurological makeup as a "skill" comes across to me as incredibly offensive.

[whynotminot]

> That's fine, but it does not change the fact that many people struggle with it. Including people who manage to deal with "normal" communication just fine, but who find the intensity of a pairing unbearable. I can do it, but to me it is intensely uncomfortable to the point that as I've pointed out elsewhere I refuse to be pushed into it - for me it's not a problem, as my career has afforded me the luxury of picking and choosing positions where I get to decide what goes -, but I've met many brilliant developers over the years who just could not deal with situations like that at all.

I'm not disagreeing that some people don't find it enjoyable, and some people aren't good at it. Like anything else.

I don't see why you just wouldn't work at another company instead of demanding the company change its methodologies for you. I'd say the average dev shop leans more "lone wolf" anyway. Teams and especially companies that pair are the exception, not the norm. You're an experienced guy it seems like--I'm sure you've changed jobs many times in the past to find a culture and working conditions that suited you better.

> This dismissal of what to quite a few people is an inherent part of their neurological makeup as a "skill" comes across to me as incredibly offensive.

I'm sorry my view on this offensive to you. I don't mean to offend you, but simply stating you're offended doesn't change my perspective--I still view pair programming as a skill, and I don't think it's wrong to hire for skills.

[vidarh]

> I'm not disagreeing that some people don't find it enjoyable, and some people aren't good at it. Like anything else.

I'm not saying that some people don't find it enjoyable. I'm saying that some people can't do it without risking their health.

> I don't see why you just wouldn't work at another company instead of demanding the company change its methodologies for you.

Most people do, or end up unemployed. This is a widespread problem with the lack of protection of employment opportunities for differently abled, and a reason why I find it immoral to refuse to make reasonable accommodations based on it, the same way I'd rather walk from a job than e.g. refuse to hire someone just because they're blind or deaf. That a whole lot of companies do just fine without pair programming, to me is clear evidence that it's a reasonable accommodation.

> I'd say the average dev shop leans more "lone wolf" anyway.

Either we have very different ideas about what "lone wolf" implies, or I deeply disagree with this. But in terms of not mandating pair programming, sure. I don't see that as an indicator of people being "lone wolf" type programmers, however.

But the existence of less discriminatory environments is not a justification for accepting discrimination.

Note that I have no issue with companies choosing to prefer pair programming. It's their business, though I'd probably still not want to work there (and that's my business). What I do have an issue with are those who outright demand it of everyone and are unwilling to make adjustments.

[gregkerzhner]

Ultimately, I file (mandatory, full time) pairing in the same category as mandatory in-office work, meant to encourage brilliance from random water cooler interactions.

In a perfect world, is a fully engaged in-office employee better than a remote one? I’d say probably yes. In the real world, is a disgruntled, commute tired employee better than a happy remote one? Unknown.

Same with paring. If your team is full of perfectly interchangeable humans drinking the same cool aid, then pairing sounds great. But real humans don’t work like that, and for every person who is boosted by pairing there may be another who is held back by it.

In the end, it’s likely best to allow employees to self select the mode of work which works best for them (location, pairing amount, computer choice) so that they are happy and productive. Any kind of top down mandatory policy on those choices will inevitably be worse than each person’s preferred choice.

[whynotminot]

> Ultimately, I file (mandatory, full time) pairing in the same category as mandatory in-office work

I don’t really disagree with this categorization. And there’s a lot of companies that view it as core to their success and culture to have an in person work force.

I may disagree, and I may work elsewhere that suits me better!

That’s sort of why this digression on denying a company the ability to set their own development practices is strange to me. There’s a plethora of options for the work force. Go where you’re in alignment, don’t force bad alignment on the company!