5 ms·

This is one of those things where there is huge cultural variation, but everyone subconsciously assumes their culture's point on the continuum is the "correct"

This is one of those things where there is huge cultural variation, but everyone subconsciously assumes their culture's point on the continuum is the "correct" one and gives advice based on that. Some cultures lean towards people being expected to take the stage in a conversation and interruption is a valid and accepted way of communicating "I have something of value now". Other lean towards people being expected to give the stage and silence is a valid and accepted way of communicating "Do you have something of value now?" Either style is fine, but you gotta read the room and adjust your style to fit the other people in your conversation.

de_nied 4y ago
This is a very simple, but not obvious, statement. I think your comment clicked something for me. I always noticed the two types of conversations you pointed out, but for some reason I never made the connection to categorize it like this. Many of my awkward conversations are strictly because this distinction wasn't respected. Thanks for teaching me something new.
rerdavies 4y ago
Speaking of huge cultural variation... an experience I had working with Russian contractors: they didn't realize that we disagreed with their plan because we hadn't yelled at them. No idea whether that's a general Russian cultural principle or not, but we did get better at disagreeing, when necessary, after that. I suspect that a large part of the problem was that Canadians tend to disagree rather obliquely.
- fredrikholm 4y ago
  Having worked with a lot of Russians/former Sovjets, I can see this happening. They're often serious in most endeavours ("work hard play hard", "smiling is for leisure time" etc), and this extends to disagreements IME. There was one incident where two (white collar adults) had a fist fight over a seemingly minor issue. I was mortified (Swede), but they were fine? As in the fight settled it, and they were now pals again. Alcohol was included.
  - schipplock 4y ago
    > Alcohol was included. needless to say :D *scnr
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - a_c 4y ago
    I admire their style. Explicit in feeling, resolve conflict right away, hold no grudges. Reminds me of the genuine interaction among children or chimpanzee politics [1], where upon resolving conflicts, everyone are friends again (chimpanzees are more nuanced but still). Of course, alcohol too. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/389530.Chimpanzee_Politics https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/389530.Chimpanzee_Politi...
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      I do not understand the purpose of the fist fight. Was the “minor conflict” resolved by one of the people acquiescing due to not wanting to risk further damage?
      - fredrikholm 4y ago
        I interpreted it as 'you went there and won, so you must really believe in your proposition'. I also suspect that there were more than one reason for the fight, but you'd never know by asking.
AngriestLettuce 4y ago
I don't care to be in rooms I am not welcomed in. Blurting things out when I have something to say is part of my character. If other people have so much of an issue with me having this characteristic, then they are perfectly free to ask me to leave. Until then, I feel perfectly free to speak my mind, and I do not accept strangers socially policing me. Why should I? They're the ones who have an issue, not me. Both styles are acceptable, but don't let others tell you what the room reads. You are an adult, and perfectly capable of choosing for yourself what is appropriate communication. Whether you're someone who is naturally withdrawn or not makes no difference, you should always be able to feel comfortable being yourself. If you can't, your number one goal should be to permanently remove yourself from whichever situations restricts you from that, whatever way you can while maintaining your integrity. Don't let others scare you into thinking you'll never make it work, cause you absolutely will. Where there's a will there's a way, and I don't know a single person who moved out of home, for example, then regretted it but ended up homeless because they cut ties. I'm sure you can find me an example or two, but in the vast majority of cases, the people who are the worst off in society are those who relied on someone who was toxic for them, not those who cut ties and failed to adequately provide for themselves. Your body is capable of more than you know, and will even naturally prioritise things for you in the way they should be. Modern society allows you to be an individual at the cost of the community we used to have. That sucks, but as a hacker, you should accept things as they are, and take advantage of what you can in the broken systems that surround us. Even in your own life. Things are what they are, and you can feel about them however you want to. The only way to make them different is to use what's in front of you.
- bittercynic 4y ago
  I appreciate the "This is how I am, take it or leave it." attitude, and vaguely recall a Buddhist teaching relating to cultivating a self that can be consistent across different situations. I like it. However, your version seems a little extreme. The article may seem to articulate the other extreme - like you should always contort yourself into the shape that others want, but I don't think the author was suggesting that. Seemed to me they were just pointing out that conversations are most fun when both/all parties take an interest in each other, and it's nice when someone takes a genuine interest in what you're talking about, so let's do that for each other.
optymizer 4y ago
This is absolutely true. When moving to the US, it took me years to transition from interruption-based conversations to patiently waiting for the stage to be free. Needless to say, I wasn't making a lot of friends. The other cultural conversation difference is in empathizing with the speaker by sharing your own experience, which in the US is often interpreted as making the conversation about yourself and triggers a negative reaction, whereas in other cultures people take turns in sharing related experiences to move the conversation along. This comment is itself an example of the above. Some people in the US can converse in this style, but most will feel like the spotlight was stolen from them and that the stage was not given back via a question, so they disengage by saying 'cool' or a polite "that's fascinating", and the overall sentiment they get from such interactions is negative. If you're like me, you want to stop interrupting, remember what point you were going to make, wait for the person to finish speaking, then IF the topic is still relevant, bring up that point in the form of a question; if the point is no longer relevant because the topic has been changed, just drop it and move on with the conversation, otherwise you can bring it up but realize that you will indirectly assign importance to it by bringing the conversation back to that point. Focus less on what you can say in a conversation, and more on the content you heard. If this were a verbal conversation, notice that even if I give the stage back at this point to the 'parent', I already 1) talked about myself, 2) changed topics by mentioning a related, but different topic and 3) failed to ask any questions about the actual content that was presented to me. The conversation is pretty much dead/mildly frustrating for them. The fact that I started by expressing agreement is OK, but at this point will most likely feel superficial to the listener. If you don't ask a question to give the stage back, you will leave them confused, and if you do ask a question - what is it going to be about? Probably about your own story ("e.g. do you agree? Have you experienced that?") or if you circle back to their content it will highlight how badly you've derailed the conversation ("so anyway, which cultures in your experience expect you to take the stage?"). This style can work with some folks in the US, but I'd say it's best to be very aware of it if you decide to go down this path. Generally, listening and asking questions, until they ask you a question, is the more familiar conversation style.
- vlod 4y ago
  These games sounds complex and exhausting. As a Brit in the US, maybe this explains a lot. Having lived in the middle (Chicago), East coast (NYC) and West coast (SF Bay area), I'm curious if this explanation is generally consistent across them.

de_nied 4y ago

This is a very simple, but not obvious, statement. I think your comment clicked something for me. I always noticed the two types of conversations you pointed out, but for some reason I never made the connection to categorize it like this. Many of my awkward conversations are strictly because this distinction wasn't respected. Thanks for teaching me something new.

rerdavies 4y ago

Speaking of huge cultural variation... an experience I had working with Russian contractors: they didn't realize that we disagreed with their plan because we hadn't yelled at them. No idea whether that's a general Russian cultural principle or not, but we did get better at disagreeing, when necessary, after that. I suspect that a large part of the problem was that Canadians tend to disagree rather obliquely.

fredrikholm 4y ago
Having worked with a lot of Russians/former Sovjets, I can see this happening. They're often serious in most endeavours ("work hard play hard", "smiling is for leisure time" etc), and this extends to disagreements IME. There was one incident where two (white collar adults) had a fist fight over a seemingly minor issue. I was mortified (Swede), but they were fine? As in the fight settled it, and they were now pals again. Alcohol was included.
- schipplock 4y ago
  > Alcohol was included. needless to say :D *scnr
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- a_c 4y ago
  I admire their style. Explicit in feeling, resolve conflict right away, hold no grudges. Reminds me of the genuine interaction among children or chimpanzee politics [1], where upon resolving conflicts, everyone are friends again (chimpanzees are more nuanced but still). Of course, alcohol too. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/389530.Chimpanzee_Politics https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/389530.Chimpanzee_Politi...
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I do not understand the purpose of the fist fight. Was the “minor conflict” resolved by one of the people acquiescing due to not wanting to risk further damage?
    - fredrikholm 4y ago
      I interpreted it as 'you went there and won, so you must really believe in your proposition'. I also suspect that there were more than one reason for the fight, but you'd never know by asking.

AngriestLettuce 4y ago

I don't care to be in rooms I am not welcomed in. Blurting things out when I have something to say is part of my character. If other people have so much of an issue with me having this characteristic, then they are perfectly free to ask me to leave. Until then, I feel perfectly free to speak my mind, and I do not accept strangers socially policing me. Why should I? They're the ones who have an issue, not me. Both styles are acceptable, but don't let others tell you what the room reads. You are an adult, and perfectly capable of choosing for yourself what is appropriate communication. Whether you're someone who is naturally withdrawn or not makes no difference, you should always be able to feel comfortable being yourself. If you can't, your number one goal should be to permanently remove yourself from whichever situations restricts you from that, whatever way you can while maintaining your integrity. Don't let others scare you into thinking you'll never make it work, cause you absolutely will. Where there's a will there's a way, and I don't know a single person who moved out of home, for example, then regretted it but ended up homeless because they cut ties. I'm sure you can find me an example or two, but in the vast majority of cases, the people who are the worst off in society are those who relied on someone who was toxic for them, not those who cut ties and failed to adequately provide for themselves. Your body is capable of more than you know, and will even naturally prioritise things for you in the way they should be. Modern society allows you to be an individual at the cost of the community we used to have. That sucks, but as a hacker, you should accept things as they are, and take advantage of what you can in the broken systems that surround us. Even in your own life. Things are what they are, and you can feel about them however you want to. The only way to make them different is to use what's in front of you.

bittercynic 4y ago
I appreciate the "This is how I am, take it or leave it." attitude, and vaguely recall a Buddhist teaching relating to cultivating a self that can be consistent across different situations. I like it. However, your version seems a little extreme. The article may seem to articulate the other extreme - like you should always contort yourself into the shape that others want, but I don't think the author was suggesting that. Seemed to me they were just pointing out that conversations are most fun when both/all parties take an interest in each other, and it's nice when someone takes a genuine interest in what you're talking about, so let's do that for each other.

optymizer 4y ago

This is absolutely true. When moving to the US, it took me years to transition from interruption-based conversations to patiently waiting for the stage to be free. Needless to say, I wasn't making a lot of friends. The other cultural conversation difference is in empathizing with the speaker by sharing your own experience, which in the US is often interpreted as making the conversation about yourself and triggers a negative reaction, whereas in other cultures people take turns in sharing related experiences to move the conversation along. This comment is itself an example of the above. Some people in the US can converse in this style, but most will feel like the spotlight was stolen from them and that the stage was not given back via a question, so they disengage by saying 'cool' or a polite "that's fascinating", and the overall sentiment they get from such interactions is negative. If you're like me, you want to stop interrupting, remember what point you were going to make, wait for the person to finish speaking, then IF the topic is still relevant, bring up that point in the form of a question; if the point is no longer relevant because the topic has been changed, just drop it and move on with the conversation, otherwise you can bring it up but realize that you will indirectly assign importance to it by bringing the conversation back to that point. Focus less on what you can say in a conversation, and more on the content you heard. If this were a verbal conversation, notice that even if I give the stage back at this point to the 'parent', I already 1) talked about myself, 2) changed topics by mentioning a related, but different topic and 3) failed to ask any questions about the actual content that was presented to me. The conversation is pretty much dead/mildly frustrating for them. The fact that I started by expressing agreement is OK, but at this point will most likely feel superficial to the listener. If you don't ask a question to give the stage back, you will leave them confused, and if you do ask a question - what is it going to be about? Probably about your own story ("e.g. do you agree? Have you experienced that?") or if you circle back to their content it will highlight how badly you've derailed the conversation ("so anyway, which cultures in your experience expect you to take the stage?"). This style can work with some folks in the US, but I'd say it's best to be very aware of it if you decide to go down this path. Generally, listening and asking questions, until they ask you a question, is the more familiar conversation style.

vlod 4y ago
These games sounds complex and exhausting. As a Brit in the US, maybe this explains a lot. Having lived in the middle (Chicago), East coast (NYC) and West coast (SF Bay area), I'm curious if this explanation is generally consistent across them.