2 ms·
Try as you might to employ rhetoric and deceit, you haven't actually defined what social skills are "proper" and by implication which are "improper", which make
by uoaei 4y ago
Try as you might to employ rhetoric and deceit, you haven't actually defined what social skills are "proper" and by implication which are "improper", which makes your argument nothing more than unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable assertions of under-defined concepts.
I'm not debating you, just pointing out how little is said in so many words.
It's a telling sign of the times that even on "rationalist" communities such as this one, such obvious nothing-burgers are considered legitimate talking points.
- giantg2 4y agoRight... in the small chance you aren't trolling, Google is your friend. https://dictionary.apa.org/social-skills https://dictionary.apa.org/social-skills https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron-Buchko/publication/349012870_Here_comes_Generation_Z_Millennials_as_managers/links/6366ff262f4bca7fd036dc15/Here-comes-Generation-Z-Millennials-as-managers.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Aaron-Buchko/publicatio...
- uoaei 4y agoYou know as well as I do that social skills are culture- and context-dependent. I am merely pointing out the absurdity of defining "proper" social skills. For instance, some people value "checking in" and "empathetic speech" as regular, proper features of conversation, while for some that can be grating and wholly improper. Some see no issue with talking down to service industry employees, while some consider that a grave sin. That you've avoided answering what notion of "proper" you're interested in discussing this far into the comment thread is telling that you just want to assert your own viewpoint on this inherently subjective matter. It's intellectually dishonest which ultimately makes it irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Standards differ over time and between people.