>We might be getting a little esoteric here. If "Teams" is a concept then just from that name alone you can determine that it refers to an idea ( artificial construct ). And biology does not automatically wills teams into existence ( although it might happen to result in them as our environment seems to indicate ). Do you mean evolution?
No, team is a name for a concept that exist outside of just an idea. Animals display team like behavior in things we term as "herds" or "flocks". Team is simply a name for cooperation or group behavior.
It is a biological concept for two reasons. First it exists in animals. Animals tend not to have culture or learned behavior. Most animals form social groups (aka teams) naturally with minimal culture indicating that a "team" is not an idea but that it is hard wired behavior within their brains.
The second reason is that humans are heavily influenced by cultures and ideas. A huge portion of our behavior across continents and peoples is divergent and different indicating that the behavior is "learned" or "created" out of ideas. The thing with teams is that it is a quality that is universal across cultures and peoples. There is no divergence. There is no culture that doesn't understand the concept of cooperation or teams. This makes it highly highly likely that the concept of a "team" is biological. It is behavior hardwired into our brain in the same way that pain or hunger is hardwired into our brains. All humans form teams, all humans get hungry.
The one difference here is that hunger forms a somewhat distinct sensation separate from consciousness in our brains so we can easily tell that "hunger" is distinct. Team building and forming is however woven directly into our consciousness so it's harder to see the separation between "learned" and "inborn". The outside evidence, however, points to biology as the origin. All cultures form teams and cooperate. All cultures get hungry.
>So it is a requirement?
No it's not a requirement.
>I think that is a really bad argument. Slavery still exists ( sadly ) and I would not even dream of thinking considering recommending it.
For THAT specific comment I am saying that team bonding activities exist for a reason. A purpose. That is VALID supporting evidence for my point.
You are conflating that point with Morality which is completely separate. For example there's plenty of examples of wars and conflicts between people who didn't bond well. People have died because of failure of team bonding. Therefore team bonding should be a requirement. Is that valid? No. The truth is much more complex.
That being said Team bonding has it's place. There is reasoning for why it exists and conflating it with slavery is really taking it too far. We both know the importance of team bonding. If you're not bonding with your team at work, then you're focusing your time on a different team outside of work. You value team bonding. Likely it is your family. Should I conflate this with slavery? Is that a reasonable tangent? No.
>Yep, and now we evolved into something better. Could we move onto Team 2.0 so to speak?
I would say we didn't. We have no idea whether it's team 2.0 or a regression. You have no evidence for this either way. I would say that the current configuration of "professional teams" just fits your current work style and life. It works for you, so you like to think it's "team 2.0" when really we need data to know either way.
>I guess it depends. Some traditions are more upsetting than others. Would you advocate for a team that wants to continue a tradition of child sacrifice?
This is taking it too far. Let me reword this in a way that makes more sense and still conveys your point without being ludicrous. The restaurant Hooters exclusively hires employees based off the tradition of breast size and lacking a penis. Do I advocate that?
Yes I do. Each team has different requirements, short of child sacrifice I think a requirement like being similar to the team and enjoying team bonding activities is NOT unreasonable.
No, team is a name for a concept that exist outside of just an idea. Animals display team like behavior in things we term as "herds" or "flocks". Team is simply a name for cooperation or group behavior.
It is a biological concept for two reasons. First it exists in animals. Animals tend not to have culture or learned behavior. Most animals form social groups (aka teams) naturally with minimal culture indicating that a "team" is not an idea but that it is hard wired behavior within their brains.
The second reason is that humans are heavily influenced by cultures and ideas. A huge portion of our behavior across continents and peoples is divergent and different indicating that the behavior is "learned" or "created" out of ideas. The thing with teams is that it is a quality that is universal across cultures and peoples. There is no divergence. There is no culture that doesn't understand the concept of cooperation or teams. This makes it highly highly likely that the concept of a "team" is biological. It is behavior hardwired into our brain in the same way that pain or hunger is hardwired into our brains. All humans form teams, all humans get hungry.
The one difference here is that hunger forms a somewhat distinct sensation separate from consciousness in our brains so we can easily tell that "hunger" is distinct. Team building and forming is however woven directly into our consciousness so it's harder to see the separation between "learned" and "inborn". The outside evidence, however, points to biology as the origin. All cultures form teams and cooperate. All cultures get hungry.
>So it is a requirement?
No it's not a requirement.
>I think that is a really bad argument. Slavery still exists ( sadly ) and I would not even dream of thinking considering recommending it.
For THAT specific comment I am saying that team bonding activities exist for a reason. A purpose. That is VALID supporting evidence for my point.
You are conflating that point with Morality which is completely separate. For example there's plenty of examples of wars and conflicts between people who didn't bond well. People have died because of failure of team bonding. Therefore team bonding should be a requirement. Is that valid? No. The truth is much more complex.
That being said Team bonding has it's place. There is reasoning for why it exists and conflating it with slavery is really taking it too far. We both know the importance of team bonding. If you're not bonding with your team at work, then you're focusing your time on a different team outside of work. You value team bonding. Likely it is your family. Should I conflate this with slavery? Is that a reasonable tangent? No.
>Yep, and now we evolved into something better. Could we move onto Team 2.0 so to speak?
I would say we didn't. We have no idea whether it's team 2.0 or a regression. You have no evidence for this either way. I would say that the current configuration of "professional teams" just fits your current work style and life. It works for you, so you like to think it's "team 2.0" when really we need data to know either way.
>I guess it depends. Some traditions are more upsetting than others. Would you advocate for a team that wants to continue a tradition of child sacrifice?
This is taking it too far. Let me reword this in a way that makes more sense and still conveys your point without being ludicrous. The restaurant Hooters exclusively hires employees based off the tradition of breast size and lacking a penis. Do I advocate that?
Yes I do. Each team has different requirements, short of child sacrifice I think a requirement like being similar to the team and enjoying team bonding activities is NOT unreasonable.
IMO that is a valid metric to hire someone.