What do you prefer – the French or the Silicon Valley dinner?
medium.com
medium.com
Partly it's that he picks a very specific dinner experience in Paris and generalizes it to a French dinner. Idealizes it, even. And then on the Silicon Valley side, he describes a lifestyle. And then he compares the event in Paris to the lifestyle in San Francisco. Intimate hosted dinners for a small group of acquaintances happen all the time in Silicon Valley. Business meals happen all the time in Paris.
That alone is more of a weak comparison or flawed cultural commentary, but then this comes out:
> Why? Silicon Valley people get bored easily.
> They look around and assess who actually came to the dinner. If they do not see enough friends or if they do not see enough people they can do business with they will leave fast. Dinner invites typically say “from 6pm to 9pm” and that means you can arrive anytime in that time frame and leave anytime no-one will be offended. You can stay for 10 minutes and no-one will pay attention. You can either show up at 08h50 and just say hi then leave at 9. Everyone knows the “rule” and no-one shows before 6 and rarely stays after 9.
I get the impression from this description that the actual issue is that Parisians and San Franciscans use different language to set expectations, and that the author is actually describing a difference in how the two cultures express expectations around social gatherings. But that in no way implies that people in Silicon Valley get bored easily. It just means the two cultures communicate differently, which should surprise nobody in either location. Why try to make an ambiguous cultural generalization out of it that is neutral at best and insulting at worst?
The whole thing feels lazily written and uncharitable to the colorful variety of both Parisian and Silicon Valley culture. It makes me specifically think less of the author's startup that is advertised at the bottom of the post.
The difference between Manhattan and Paris is more interesting, to me, given the similar population densities.
In Paris it's kind of rude to not cook yourself. Not "very rude", not "I'll never see this person again rude", but a little désinvolte.
If you can't be bothered to buy the food and cook it yourself, why invite people to your place? We can all go to the restaurant and share the bill -- we do that too, of course.
But if it's at your place, the expectation is you gave some thought to the menu and the wines, etc. -- including, yes, the seating of the people, who should seat next to whom, etc.
Or it's a cocktail and there are 30+ people, then catering is fine.
Catering for 6, I can't imagine.
That point aside, I think his representation is also very narrow to the crowd that mostly combines business networking with socializing. That's a small minority. In my social circles (20's, middle class, highly educated tech workers), small dinner gatherings almost always follow one of three formats: the host cooks, the host asks everyone to contribute a dish, or we all go to a restaurant.
Restaurant delivery is usually reserved for large groups or when the food is a secondary consideration, such as when it's a board game night and we order a pizza.
Can we please get a reality check up in here?
edit: if anyone likes meat, potatoes, and whisky, get in touch.
Sounds like they were talking about work, just not the author's work.
A good way to see the difference between intro- and extraversion is as follows.
Introverts have a lot of inner tension. That starts when they are toddlers. They constantly have something to think about, thus they need more alone-time than others to sort themselves out and work with their inner life. Talking to others is fine and rewarding, but recovery time is needed afterwards, so they choose their communication carefully.
Extroverts have way more inner peace. They don't need much time for themselves, they often get bored being alone. So they seek out other people for stimulation. More often than not they seek out introverts, because those are especially interesting. Talking to others is refreshing for them, it refills their batteries.
So if you see yourself on the introverted side, don't worry about it. Just accept it and give yourself the peace you need. Invite more or different guests, so they can talk to each other, while you are busy with someone.
I can prefer reading or watching things quietly over interacting with other humans, without having thoughts stuck chasing rather around in my head.
I rather think that the best description of the difference is how you charge your batteries. An introvert prefers alone time to recharge and an extrovert prefers the company of other people to do the same. A social gathering with many people would drain an introvert and invigorate an extrovert. It has nothing to do with inner tension or peace.
I have seen Susan Cain in the book Quiet talk about introverts as highly sensitive, in the sense that they take in and process more information about the environment. An extrovert would love talking to their friends at a noisy bar, while the introvert would be bothered by the noise and prefer a calmer setting. Being alone is then a way of reducing sensory input to produce a sense of calm, it's not that an introvert would need to be alone to relieve any inner tension.
That is what I said. I guess my usage of the word "tension" is different.
> Being alone is then a way of reducing sensory input to produce a sense of calm, it's not that an introvert would need to be alone to relieve any inner tension.
Producing a sense of calm IS the work of relieving inner tensions. I think here lies our misunderstanding.
When I'm talking about inner "tension", I'm not talking about any form of visible or invisible stress. Just that there is something "going on". Thought, ideas, inner monologue, some kind of inner activity.
There are people who regularly experience prolonged periods without thoughts, idea, inner monologues etc. They are routinely able to access a state of mind which could be described as happily relaxed nothingness.
I've found the opposite. Introverts are happy to be by themselves not because they need to sort them selves out but because they are at peace with their own company. Extroverts on the other hand constantly seem to need to work something out about themselves or the world around them and can only do so by bouncing the ideas off others. Many times the other person isn't even necessary more than a prop. I've had many conversations with extroverts where all I've added was "aha" and "OK" for 30 minutes while they basically monologued, only to have the other person thank me for the insightful conversation and claiming I really helped them out.
I agree with you. This being at peace with your own company is a result of a tendency to work on your inside, and respond to emotions and "calls" from there immediately.
The other side are people who regularly experience a state of mind which could be described as happily relaxed nothingness. No thoughts, ideas, inner monologues etc. No urgency to work on their inner life.
That isn't better or worse. It brings advantages and disadvantages.
Don't worry about what interests you.. it's what interests them that matters. Assume you're boring, and they have no interests in your ideas.
Be curious. Ask questions. Get them to discuss the topic in depth. Learn from them.
And don't discount/minimize their interests. Make their most banal thoughts the absolutely the most interesting thing the world.
In the end, if they start to show interest in your ideas, then you have a match.
(To be sure the "public facing" food in France is great, but the daily, mundane stuff often disappoints).
The French do care about food, it's not a stereotype. I live in Germany and most people here don't really mind having a company restaurant that's "good enough", or don't mind not having a hot meal for dinner. The French (and a few other nationalities) really do, and put more effort and money into eating properly.
If you come to Paris as a tourist, of course you can also stumble into a lot of bad restaurants that are just looking to rip of tourists. Of course good stuff also exists.
When receiving a foreigner, I will ask for his taste before deciding the menu.
As for food, it really depend on the restaurants, or event where you happened to be, but I wouldn't call french food «bad», it's usually ok or above ok. Actually, I wouldn't call any country's food «bad», not to my taste maybe, or very different to what I'm used, but generalizing to bad a whole food culture, that's a bit harsh, and certainly unfair whatever the country.
Talking about food and wine all the time would quickly get boring to me, so I'd probably prefer the Sillicon Valley version in the long run.
I would say that having 40 minute discussion about cheese is no more obscure than having one about programming languages, of course context and setting plays a big role in suitability of both discussions.
Really? I'm in the UK and even wealthy people try to put effort into actually cooking for their guests, even if it's something as simple as a roast thrown in the oven for an hour. I definitely always cook for my guests, unless we're in mood for pizza, then it's takeaway.
I've definitely noticed that about some American homes though - massive kitchens with huge gas ranges, and they all look completely brand new, unused - is it that people cook less in general?
It feels like he is really pointing out that the mechanics of interaction are very different when no one present is rooted in the region, and you don't have shared history.
In what ways are the cultures similar? The article didn't mention that at all.
This all sounds quite cliché to me...