6 ms·

Edit: this whole theory seems to come from some internet forum comment! I know a lot of people here are seduced (I was a bit too) but basing your social interac

by jraph 9mo ago

Edit: this whole theory seems to come from some internet forum comment! I know a lot of people here are seduced (I was a bit too) but basing your social interactions and how you see others and yourself on this stuff might not be the best thing to do! Original comment below for posterity and because there are answers. ---- I'm not sure this stuff is really that helpful. You might be tempted to put people into these categories, but you might have a somewhat caricatural and also wrong image of both which could worsen interactions. By the way, that article doesn't cite any studies! It's probably helpful to know people are more or less at ease asking direct questions or saying no or receiving a no, but it's all scales and subtleties. It could also depend on the mood, or even who one interacts with or on the specific topic). The article touches this a bit (the "not black and white" paragraph). We human beings love categories but categories of people are often traps. It's even more tempting when it's easy to identity to one of the depicted groups! I wonder if this asker-guesser thing is in the same pseudoscience territory as the MBTI. In the end, I suppose there's no good way around getting to know someone and paying attention for good interactions.

happytoexplain 9mo ago
>By the way, that article doesn't cite any studies! That's fine. I think we need to get away a little bit from the implication that any thought not connected to studies or statistics makes it borderline worthless. We need to lean a little bit more toward humanism ("we" as in ostensibly thoughtful people - the average person definitely needs to lean a little bit more toward studies/statistics).
- jraph 9mo ago
  Humanity / humanism and science aren't opposed. Wrong social models can have bad human implications. It seems to me that being careful with these models and requiring rigor is the humanist thing to do. Go ahead and present hypotheses, that can be very interesting, just don't present them as facts. (Now maybe this asker-guesser thing is indeed studied, I don't know)
  - pseudalopex 9mo ago
    > Go ahead and present hypotheses, that can be very interesting, just don't present them as facts. The article called it a provocative opinion described in a comment which became a meme.
    - jraph 9mo ago
      Indeed! I didn't remember this (yes, I had already read that article a long time ago, I only scanned it quickly this time). At least the article is honest with its source. Thanks for emphasizing this.
- technothrasher 9mo ago
  > ("we" as in ostensibly thoughtful people - the average person definitely needs to lean a little bit more toward studies/statistics). I'm not sure what you're getting at here by suggesting an elite class of people above the "average person" who do not require objective evidence. That's not really aligned with the core tenets of humanism.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  Thought not well grounded in objective evidence has a place, both on matters that are not subject to empirical inquiry and in preliminary speculation about matters that are. But it also runs the risk of building palaces of elaborate BS with no relation to reality and pure garbage filler content, like article presenting three different non-evidence-based ideas of how a dichotomy itself not grounded in evidence supposedly plays out in reality, with no effort to do look at any evidence or do any analysis as to whether any of them or the underlying dichotomy is connected to reality.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
jackbravo 9mo ago
Not that helpful? Yes, it is not a black or white thing, more a spectrum. But for many people, including me, just naming the categories is very clarifying, even eye opening, akin to beginning to know an alien civilization. It allows you to consider a different point of view, a way of interacting, taking decisions and actions very different to what you are used to.
Paracompact 9mo ago
The closest, actually academically studied concept that I know of is that of high versus low context cultures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c...
- jraph 9mo ago
  > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation. Damnit, that seemed interesting! Thanks for sharing though, I'll still read about this.
  - Paracompact 9mo ago
    Indeed, I personally take all this stuff not as scientifically merited theory, but just as some sort of artistic social commentary that at least has enough truthiness to be interesting/helpful. Sometimes the illusion of control and understanding is all you need in order to feel more secure in your social interactions, benefiting everyone as long as you don't fly off the handle with pseudoscience.
    - caminante 9mo ago
      Not to spam, but the 2023 HN discussion brought up the excerpt from the first paragraph on Wikipedia: > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation. The dichotomy feels true enough even if the data is fuzzy.
      - jraph 9mo ago
        It feels true indeed, which is why this is a trap. Later in that Wikipedia article: > A 2008 meta-analysis concluded that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped". Difficult to beat a meta analysis (assuming it was well done of course). To be clear, "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped" is scientific speak for "bullshit".
caminante 9mo ago
This was discussed on HN in 2023 . The whole "high context v. low context" model doesn't have scientific backing.[0] > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures#History_of_differing_context_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c...
- mx7zysuj4xew 9mo ago
  I was going to make the same comment. The correct term is high context vs low context culture, not "askers" and "guessers"
  - caminante 9mo ago
    IMHO, Askers v. Guessers is more memorable and straight forward. "High and low" labels trip up my quick word association with the types.
Pooge 9mo ago
> but basing your social interactions and how you see others and yourself on this stuff might not be the best thing to do! Why not? Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful especially when interacting with people. I was a guesser until maybe 2 of 3 years ago until I talked about it with friends and family and I learned just today that it was called "asker" and "guesser". If you spend time with people from different cultures, there clearly is a stark divide in behavior. Even inside said culture there might be situations in which someone becomes an asker. Therefore this framework is good to understand how people think socially and have a better understanding towards one another. Some people may think you are rude to ask–or an idiot not to–and you will probably lose relationships if you don't realize it.
- jraph 9mo ago
  > Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful We agree. People have different ways of thinking and interacting. Maybe that asker-vs-guesser thing made you / others realize that (and that's good! Possibly it made me realize that too, although having a flatmate years before had already done the trick tbh), but we didn't need it to know this. > there clearly is a stark divide in behavior How are you sure it's not confirmation bias [1]? When you have a hammer, everything looks like nails. When you have an asker-guesser theory, everybody look like askers and guessers, including yourself. Odds are it is most likely, in fact, confirmation bias, since that theory was found to be unsubstantiated and underdeveloped, and since this is a sexy topic, it's hard to believe nobody tried to validate it rigorously (and the way scientific publishing is currently organized sadly doesn't encourage publishing negative results). > Why not? Because apparently, from what we actually know (robust, established knowledge), there's no good reason to think the following is actually true, even if it strongly feels like it for a host of reasons, which is my whole concern: > this framework is good to understand how people think socially and have a better understanding towards one another It's too easy to pick two half convincing categories that feel somewhat opposite and have the feeling that these two categories provide insight on how people work. Such theories are sugar for the brain. I'd be most happy to be proven wrong in the future though! In the meantime, I'll pick cautiousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

by jraph 9mo ago

happytoexplain 9mo ago

>By the way, that article doesn't cite any studies! That's fine. I think we need to get away a little bit from the implication that any thought not connected to studies or statistics makes it borderline worthless. We need to lean a little bit more toward humanism ("we" as in ostensibly thoughtful people - the average person definitely needs to lean a little bit more toward studies/statistics).

jraph 9mo ago
Humanity / humanism and science aren't opposed. Wrong social models can have bad human implications. It seems to me that being careful with these models and requiring rigor is the humanist thing to do. Go ahead and present hypotheses, that can be very interesting, just don't present them as facts. (Now maybe this asker-guesser thing is indeed studied, I don't know)
- pseudalopex 9mo ago
  > Go ahead and present hypotheses, that can be very interesting, just don't present them as facts. The article called it a provocative opinion described in a comment which became a meme.
  - jraph 9mo ago
    Indeed! I didn't remember this (yes, I had already read that article a long time ago, I only scanned it quickly this time). At least the article is honest with its source. Thanks for emphasizing this.
technothrasher 9mo ago
> ("we" as in ostensibly thoughtful people - the average person definitely needs to lean a little bit more toward studies/statistics). I'm not sure what you're getting at here by suggesting an elite class of people above the "average person" who do not require objective evidence. That's not really aligned with the core tenets of humanism.
dragonwriter 9mo ago
Thought not well grounded in objective evidence has a place, both on matters that are not subject to empirical inquiry and in preliminary speculation about matters that are. But it also runs the risk of building palaces of elaborate BS with no relation to reality and pure garbage filler content, like article presenting three different non-evidence-based ideas of how a dichotomy itself not grounded in evidence supposedly plays out in reality, with no effort to do look at any evidence or do any analysis as to whether any of them or the underlying dichotomy is connected to reality.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

jackbravo 9mo ago

Not that helpful? Yes, it is not a black or white thing, more a spectrum. But for many people, including me, just naming the categories is very clarifying, even eye opening, akin to beginning to know an alien civilization. It allows you to consider a different point of view, a way of interacting, taking decisions and actions very different to what you are used to.

Paracompact 9mo ago

The closest, actually academically studied concept that I know of is that of high versus low context cultures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c...

jraph 9mo ago
> The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation. Damnit, that seemed interesting! Thanks for sharing though, I'll still read about this.
- Paracompact 9mo ago
  Indeed, I personally take all this stuff not as scientifically merited theory, but just as some sort of artistic social commentary that at least has enough truthiness to be interesting/helpful. Sometimes the illusion of control and understanding is all you need in order to feel more secure in your social interactions, benefiting everyone as long as you don't fly off the handle with pseudoscience.
  - caminante 9mo ago
    Not to spam, but the 2023 HN discussion brought up the excerpt from the first paragraph on Wikipedia: > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation. The dichotomy feels true enough even if the data is fuzzy.
    - jraph 9mo ago
      It feels true indeed, which is why this is a trap. Later in that Wikipedia article: > A 2008 meta-analysis concluded that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped". Difficult to beat a meta analysis (assuming it was well done of course). To be clear, "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped" is scientific speak for "bullshit".

caminante 9mo ago

This was discussed on HN in 2023 . The whole "high context v. low context" model doesn't have scientific backing.[0] > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures#History_of_differing_context_cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c...

mx7zysuj4xew 9mo ago
I was going to make the same comment. The correct term is high context vs low context culture, not "askers" and "guessers"
- caminante 9mo ago
  IMHO, Askers v. Guessers is more memorable and straight forward. "High and low" labels trip up my quick word association with the types.

Pooge 9mo ago

> but basing your social interactions and how you see others and yourself on this stuff might not be the best thing to do! Why not? Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful especially when interacting with people. I was a guesser until maybe 2 of 3 years ago until I talked about it with friends and family and I learned just today that it was called "asker" and "guesser". If you spend time with people from different cultures, there clearly is a stark divide in behavior. Even inside said culture there might be situations in which someone becomes an asker. Therefore this framework is good to understand how people think socially and have a better understanding towards one another. Some people may think you are rude to ask–or an idiot not to–and you will probably lose relationships if you don't realize it.

jraph 9mo ago
> Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful We agree. People have different ways of thinking and interacting. Maybe that asker-vs-guesser thing made you / others realize that (and that's good! Possibly it made me realize that too, although having a flatmate years before had already done the trick tbh), but we didn't need it to know this. > there clearly is a stark divide in behavior How are you sure it's not confirmation bias [1]? When you have a hammer, everything looks like nails. When you have an asker-guesser theory, everybody look like askers and guessers, including yourself. Odds are it is most likely, in fact, confirmation bias, since that theory was found to be unsubstantiated and underdeveloped, and since this is a sexy topic, it's hard to believe nobody tried to validate it rigorously (and the way scientific publishing is currently organized sadly doesn't encourage publishing negative results). > Why not? Because apparently, from what we actually know (robust, established knowledge), there's no good reason to think the following is actually true, even if it strongly feels like it for a host of reasons, which is my whole concern: > this framework is good to understand how people think socially and have a better understanding towards one another It's too easy to pick two half convincing categories that feel somewhat opposite and have the feeling that these two categories provide insight on how people work. Such theories are sugar for the brain. I'd be most happy to be proven wrong in the future though! In the meantime, I'll pick cautiousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias