The concept of Teams are not a an artificial construct. They are part of biology both inside and outside of human biology. Other animals besides humans form teams as well. Professional teams are however artificial. The formalism between separating a personal life from a professional life does not exist anywhere in the animal kingdom and did not exist for most of human history.

>Why is it a requirement to join any team at all, which also happens to be an artificial construct?

It is not a requirement to join a team at all. You can join no team, and that is your choice. Likely though you will want to join a team to survive. In the past humans survived in groups. A human that is not part of a tribe likely had a low chance of survival.

Nowadays you need to join a team to get a salary. But nowadays you have an extra option. You can join something called a "professional" team which is a team that separates your personal life from your "professional" one. However the traditional concept of a "team" still exists and you can choose not to join such a team if choose not to.

I ask though that you have the wisdom to see why the concept of the "traditional team" still exists and why such teams are still effective in our society.

Think about it this way. Team bonding activities still exist. They exist for a reason and that reason is because the company that created that activity WANTS you to join it. The requirement is still there.

It is not unreasonable to see how some teams WANT these traditional bonding activities more then other teams. It all depends on the dynamics and for you to force the team to abide by your dynamics of "professionalism" is wrong. You have options, JOIN the team that works.

For the record, I don't think I completely disagree with you, but I think your argument is wrong.

<< The concept of Teams are not a an artificial construct. They are part of biology both inside and outside of human biology.

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?

<< Why is it a requirement to join any team at all, >> It is not a requirement to join a team at all. >> Nowadays you need to join a team to get a salary.

So it is a requirement?

<< Think about it this way. Team bonding activities still exist.

I think that is a really bad argument. Slavery still exists ( sadly ) and I would not even dream of thinking considering recommending it.

<< They exist for a reason and that reason

Yep, and now we evolved into something better. Could we move onto Team 2.0 so to speak?

<< It is not unreasonable to see how some teams WANT these traditional

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?

edit: removed specific god reference. it is not necessary for the argument to work

>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.

IMO that is a valid metric to hire someone.