Okay, I can see that, but it's related in my opinion because even in low-context cultures, the average person is "medium context", using social interactions and

Okay, I can see that, but it's related in my opinion because even in low-context cultures, the average person is "medium context", using social interactions and concerns as their primary way to communicate and coordinate. Us "logic-striving" (LS) people are really the low-context people in that we wish to clarify and debate assumptions and choices instead of let "the flow of the group" determine that organically and/or socially. Medium context people may make a passing suggestion, but won't challenge it further if the boss says "no". Us LS-ers are more likely to ask for specifics regardless of rank. We believe the merit of an idea should trump rank. High-context: don't challenge authority, except via subtle hints. Medium-context: lightly challenge authority, and quickly back down if counter-challenged. High-context: authority is secondary to idea merit. I do realize a group can waste too much time debating, but even important/common issues often get flattened by social concerns in a typical US office.