4 ms·

No it was about other persons. I remember one specific instance where a friend explained to me what a neighbor asked of us for a property we manage together and

by Iv 5y ago

No it was about other persons. I remember one specific instance where a friend explained to me what a neighbor asked of us for a property we manage together and I complain that these demands are really annoying especially after we had spent some money and time satisfying other demands that I personally did not find grounded. My friend then asked "why are you so angry at me?". "I am not! I am complaining!"

henearkr 5y ago
Wow I had the same "backfire" experience saying that the neighbor/neighborhood ("kinjo") was forcing stupid behavior on them and that they were not compelled to obey them nor to fear them. To me it seemed like the kinjo is too hot an issue to criticize. OR maybe, obeying to the kinjo is virtue signaling, and criticizing their decision to obey is denying their virtue. It did not occcur to me that it could be a more deep cultural difference, let alone a linguistic one.
- skhr0680 5y ago
  > To me it seemed like the kinjo is too hot an issue to criticize. OR maybe, obeying to the kinjo is virtue signaling, and criticizing their decision to obey is denying their virtue. I think the third option is that are just as frustrated about the rules as you, but what are they going to do about them? From their perspective, it’s easier to suck it up and be free to get on with their lives as opposed to rocking the boat and attracting the ire of the neighborhood Karen, who inevitably has unlimited rage, time, and energy.
  - MathYouF 5y ago
    You've both just completely missed the real underlying thing going on in that situation. To the Japanese person, the main question on their mind is is the thing the village council is telling them to do in the best interests of the community and their neighbors. To question of if the village has the legal authority to make them do something, and implying that if they don't then the Japanese person has no more problems, misses the fact their their real struggle is deciding how to be a good neighbor and citizen. Obeying the village government isn't the virtue they're "signaling", caring about being a good neighbor or member of society is the virtue they actually have and maybe the cost of being one is really the issue, or lamenting over if it's necessary to do what was asked to be a good citizen.
    - henearkr 5y ago
      The "good" neighbor/citizen is the one able to explain how to improve on a flawed rule. The avoidance of conflict extends to an avoidance of even merely justifying oneself, or of any "rational" (rikei) discussion. Almost each time I start a rational discussion with somebody in Japan, except in an engineering context, I get a very negative reaction and I'm seen as a trouble-maker. I don't think it is very sane to have rules that virtually nobody dares to refine or fix.
    - skhr0680 5y ago
      > To the Japanese person, the main question on their mind is is the thing the village council is telling them to do in the best interests of the community and their neighbors. I don't think so. I'd say 90% of the time they don't know who set the rules or why they are that way. They just follow them to avoid attracting the attention of the local busybody, there's always one. That extends to many situations in Japanese society too, it's why you rarely see people confronting, eg troublemakers and bullies in public, or until somewhat recently, at work. They'd rather ignore them and get on with their day than become a target.
      - MathYouF 5y ago
        Any time I encountered a rule that seemed strange I would ask my closest Japanese friends (girlfriend, her parents, friends) and they always gave a reasonable answer that almost always was related to the rule upholding collectice civility, safety, or productivity. And they happily acknowledged the possible drawbacks and were willing to consider if the law was actually good. Another thing they value is to not make change until one is certain it is actually an improvement, and they assume existing rules were made with the same care. The above can be very frustrating because there's some changes that are obviously for the better and some rules not made with the best intent or carefulest consideration. But the idea that Japanese are all cowards dismisses that the demure personality comes from a collective cultural agreement that requested change must be thoroughly considered, and that it is in some way implying the previous makers of a rule were unwise or lacked consideration. So to propose a change without being what they'd consider a brute or idiot would take maybe more energy than that person is willing to give for the issue.

by Iv 5y ago

henearkr 5y ago

Wow I had the same "backfire" experience saying that the neighbor/neighborhood ("kinjo") was forcing stupid behavior on them and that they were not compelled to obey them nor to fear them. To me it seemed like the kinjo is too hot an issue to criticize. OR maybe, obeying to the kinjo is virtue signaling, and criticizing their decision to obey is denying their virtue. It did not occcur to me that it could be a more deep cultural difference, let alone a linguistic one.

skhr0680 5y ago
> To me it seemed like the kinjo is too hot an issue to criticize. OR maybe, obeying to the kinjo is virtue signaling, and criticizing their decision to obey is denying their virtue. I think the third option is that are just as frustrated about the rules as you, but what are they going to do about them? From their perspective, it’s easier to suck it up and be free to get on with their lives as opposed to rocking the boat and attracting the ire of the neighborhood Karen, who inevitably has unlimited rage, time, and energy.
- MathYouF 5y ago
  You've both just completely missed the real underlying thing going on in that situation. To the Japanese person, the main question on their mind is is the thing the village council is telling them to do in the best interests of the community and their neighbors. To question of if the village has the legal authority to make them do something, and implying that if they don't then the Japanese person has no more problems, misses the fact their their real struggle is deciding how to be a good neighbor and citizen. Obeying the village government isn't the virtue they're "signaling", caring about being a good neighbor or member of society is the virtue they actually have and maybe the cost of being one is really the issue, or lamenting over if it's necessary to do what was asked to be a good citizen.
  - henearkr 5y ago
    The "good" neighbor/citizen is the one able to explain how to improve on a flawed rule. The avoidance of conflict extends to an avoidance of even merely justifying oneself, or of any "rational" (rikei) discussion. Almost each time I start a rational discussion with somebody in Japan, except in an engineering context, I get a very negative reaction and I'm seen as a trouble-maker. I don't think it is very sane to have rules that virtually nobody dares to refine or fix.
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    > To the Japanese person, the main question on their mind is is the thing the village council is telling them to do in the best interests of the community and their neighbors. I don't think so. I'd say 90% of the time they don't know who set the rules or why they are that way. They just follow them to avoid attracting the attention of the local busybody, there's always one. That extends to many situations in Japanese society too, it's why you rarely see people confronting, eg troublemakers and bullies in public, or until somewhat recently, at work. They'd rather ignore them and get on with their day than become a target.
    - MathYouF 5y ago
      Any time I encountered a rule that seemed strange I would ask my closest Japanese friends (girlfriend, her parents, friends) and they always gave a reasonable answer that almost always was related to the rule upholding collectice civility, safety, or productivity. And they happily acknowledged the possible drawbacks and were willing to consider if the law was actually good. Another thing they value is to not make change until one is certain it is actually an improvement, and they assume existing rules were made with the same care. The above can be very frustrating because there's some changes that are obviously for the better and some rules not made with the best intent or carefulest consideration. But the idea that Japanese are all cowards dismisses that the demure personality comes from a collective cultural agreement that requested change must be thoroughly considered, and that it is in some way implying the previous makers of a rule were unwise or lacked consideration. So to propose a change without being what they'd consider a brute or idiot would take maybe more energy than that person is willing to give for the issue.