It's because they make up a minority whose needs have gone uncared for during their entire working life.
Not everyone is like you. Some just want to go to work and finish their own tickets because the company's culture actively disincentivizes collaboration. Some have ADHD and lose their focus to every little movement in the room. Some are introverts who become much more mentally exhausted from such an environment than their extroverted colleagues. Some have a life besides work that sufficiently fulfills their social needs. Some are utterly disinterested in hearing about Bob's ongoing kitchen renovation or Netflix preferences. Some are employed at a place with poor camaraderie. Some have a position that makes the supposed collaborative benefits of open offices a moot point (work in a distributed team? On a single person project?). But always, they have a people-person manager who thinks everyone should work in-office because water cooler conversations are just so creative and open offices are so dynamic and vibrant. The office is dominated by extroverted people who love these ideas, and they tend to be the ones having their voices heard. Meanwhile, the little man or woman who just wants to work in peace resorts to Hacker News or a personal blog.
And you effectively propose that these people should be filtered out because a few have grown tired of it to such a degree that they misdirect their frustration at colleagues or use toxic language.
The west, especially the US, is so obsessed with diversity but only of the superficial skin color kind. Not diversity of the mind. Imagine if someone had grown cynical and tired of the lack of inclusivity for <insert-race-here> and someone suggested the lack of inclusivity is good because the people with bad attitudes would be filtered out.
I don't think "they" are the minority, but rather the GP who you're responding to. That may be one of the very, very few times there's been a comment that's been stridently pro-open plan. I suspect most people are at best, indifferent towards open plans, though would probably prefer individual or at least team-only offices, or even cubicles. Very few individual contributors actually prefer open plans.
Yes, I do want people who "misdirect their frustration at colleagues or use toxic language" filtered out of my working environment, and I make no apologies for that. I haven't criticised people who prefer greater separation from their colleagues. I've explicitly said I have no problem with that at all. I've only criticised those who hold their colleagues in "active disdain", and I only criticised them in about the mildest possible way: saying I don't want to work with then.
I don't want to work with people like the one in this post that likened their colleagues to toddlers for asking questions, or the one that said people who try to have conversations with them should "get a life". I certainly don't want to work with the one that thought the fact that I enjoy interacting with my colleagues was evidence I engage in office politics and don't contribute economically.
I work in a field that requires many people with different skills and personalities to collaborate in realtime to do something an individual simply cannot do alone. That's why open plan offices are near universal in this job, and if it also discourages people with the attitudes described in the previous paragraph that's a plus for me, personally. I hope those people find a place they can "contribute economically" without being bothered by "toddlers" and "office politics" but it's not my job to provide it.
The most amusing thing is the assumption in these responses that I'm an extravert, which couldn't be further from the truth. I find solitude restful and company hard work, the characteristics of an introvert (look it up). But being an introvert doesn't imply being a misanthrope or being unable to enjoy company. Collaboration is an essential part of my job, i.e. literally work, which I enjoy, just as much as I enjoy restful solitude away from it.
I'm not a manager, either, or any other sort of professional "people person", and I'm certainly not somebody who will ever be in a position to force anyone into any working arrangement they're not comfortable with. I'm a programmer who has made a point over a >20yr career never to move away from coal-face programming and never to have line management responsibilities. I've had the good fortune to work with many excellent managers over that time, though, and contrary to the cynicism you frequently read on HN (presumably in some cases from people stuck in incredibly toxic working environments and in others from people who maybe, just maybe, are themselves assholes) I recognise that they do something real, needed and highly skilled. Something I know I would be extremely bad at, hence my career choices.
We were taught these things at the Bachelor's program in CS I went to in Sweden. At my first job I then slipped on a banana peel into a de facto tech lead position within a year, and I don't think it was due to my inherent greatness but rather that I was taught software engineering and the other colleagues at my level had not.
Ironically, the software engineering courses were the only ones I disliked while a student. An entire course in design patterns where strict adherence to UML was enforced felt a bit archaic. We had a course in software QA which mostly consisted of learning TDD and the standard tooling in the Java ecosystem, with some cursory walkthroughs of other types of QA like static analysis, fuzzing and performance testing. At the time it felt so boring, I liked to actually build stuff! A couple of years later I joined a team with very competent, CS-educated developers tasked to set up a workflow and all the tooling for testing software with high security requirements. They were dumbfounded when I knew what all the stuff they were tasked to do was!
Not everyone is like you. Some just want to go to work and finish their own tickets because the company's culture actively disincentivizes collaboration. Some have ADHD and lose their focus to every little movement in the room. Some are introverts who become much more mentally exhausted from such an environment than their extroverted colleagues. Some have a life besides work that sufficiently fulfills their social needs. Some are utterly disinterested in hearing about Bob's ongoing kitchen renovation or Netflix preferences. Some are employed at a place with poor camaraderie. Some have a position that makes the supposed collaborative benefits of open offices a moot point (work in a distributed team? On a single person project?). But always, they have a people-person manager who thinks everyone should work in-office because water cooler conversations are just so creative and open offices are so dynamic and vibrant. The office is dominated by extroverted people who love these ideas, and they tend to be the ones having their voices heard. Meanwhile, the little man or woman who just wants to work in peace resorts to Hacker News or a personal blog.
And you effectively propose that these people should be filtered out because a few have grown tired of it to such a degree that they misdirect their frustration at colleagues or use toxic language.
The west, especially the US, is so obsessed with diversity but only of the superficial skin color kind. Not diversity of the mind. Imagine if someone had grown cynical and tired of the lack of inclusivity for <insert-race-here> and someone suggested the lack of inclusivity is good because the people with bad attitudes would be filtered out.
Have a good day.