> Interacting in person and cooperating is something you start learning from a young age.
I'm not sure what your experiences were like in school, but during my early years, there were drastic differences between how much different classmates thrived or struggled in highly social environments. Just because everyone is forced to interact in a certain way doesn't mean that it works well for everyone equally.
> It doesn't come as naturally.
I'd argue that it doesn't come as naturally to a lot of people to work in largely dense social environments either. To your own point, this is something that people are actively conditioned for, not a naturally occurring phenomenon, and I'd argue that even despite that it still leads to a pretty wide variety of outcomes for people at an individual level not in small part because of how suitable an environment like that is for each of them.
To me, this seems like a pretty fundamental disagreement in how much uniformity should be imposed on a population based on how well that proposed norm fits with the members of the population. I imagine that to people who disagree with me, the idea that many people might work better in seclusion than in a larger shared environment probably seems radical, but I've yet to see a justification for it as the rule rather than the exception that doesn't end up coming from an assumption that people who don't prefer this are a small minority that aren't worth changing things for. I don't have any clue what the actual number of people who don't fit the assumed norm are, but I don't find it nearly as easy to accept that the threshold at which point it's worth reconsidering how we do things is comfortably higher based on any of the arguments I've seen presented. Maybe this is due to my perception of what a fair threshold would be being lower than average, but most of the disagreements I've encountered seem to already stem from an assumption that the number of people who prefer to work in an office-like environment is high enough to be the basis of how things get run in the first place, and then extrapolate the threshold from that fact.
I'm not sure what your experiences were like in school, but during my early years, there were drastic differences between how much different classmates thrived or struggled in highly social environments. Just because everyone is forced to interact in a certain way doesn't mean that it works well for everyone equally.
> It doesn't come as naturally.
I'd argue that it doesn't come as naturally to a lot of people to work in largely dense social environments either. To your own point, this is something that people are actively conditioned for, not a naturally occurring phenomenon, and I'd argue that even despite that it still leads to a pretty wide variety of outcomes for people at an individual level not in small part because of how suitable an environment like that is for each of them.
To me, this seems like a pretty fundamental disagreement in how much uniformity should be imposed on a population based on how well that proposed norm fits with the members of the population. I imagine that to people who disagree with me, the idea that many people might work better in seclusion than in a larger shared environment probably seems radical, but I've yet to see a justification for it as the rule rather than the exception that doesn't end up coming from an assumption that people who don't prefer this are a small minority that aren't worth changing things for. I don't have any clue what the actual number of people who don't fit the assumed norm are, but I don't find it nearly as easy to accept that the threshold at which point it's worth reconsidering how we do things is comfortably higher based on any of the arguments I've seen presented. Maybe this is due to my perception of what a fair threshold would be being lower than average, but most of the disagreements I've encountered seem to already stem from an assumption that the number of people who prefer to work in an office-like environment is high enough to be the basis of how things get run in the first place, and then extrapolate the threshold from that fact.