In My Culture | Hacker News Reader

In My Culture

medium.com

> "This is part of why the diplomatic approach gives me cautious hope. It seems like a hammer in a world full of nails - the sort of thing that might actually make a difference both in the moment and in the aggregate."

In my culture, where any hammer:nail::solution:problem scenario more often than not exemplifies confirmation bias with a negative connotation, this seems a strange choice of words for what I think the author means.

> …and then they’ll go on to explain something that one might easily mistake for a rule, or a request, or the enforcement of a social norm, but which is actually (as far as I can tell) just a statement about the version of the world they carry around inside their head.

The way I understand it, not qualifying these sorts of statements with "in my culture..." is exactly how the cultures in question - as sets of common assumptions that are taken to be universal rules or as natural and invisible as breathable air - get forged to begin with. The moment someone says X is a rule and nobody is raises any eyebrows at the statement, it becomes functionally true (for the speaker and their listeners).

Relinquishing the claim to universality by framing them as personal hangups is probably good diplomacy and helps you to get along with coworkers and other relations from various backgrounds, but could it also amount to surrendering the possibility of ever building a shared culture with them?

i don't think it surrenders the possibility of creating a shared culture. in order to build a shared culture we must first understand each other, so explaining ones personal culture is useful for that.

also, very often the problem is not an act itself, but the interpretation of it.

if in my culture a thumbs up is a slightly obscene gesture, and i can explain why i feel perplexed every time you give me that sign, and likewise you explain your actual intention, then this enables us to discover that your actual intention in this case is actually welcome by me, and i was just not able to read it. we can then develop a way to communicate that intention that we are both comfortable with.

> In my culture we cut out the hearts of unbelievers like you to sacrifice to the gods for a good crop.

>> In my culture we discourage homicide, even for unbelievers, without their permission at least.

> May I have your permission?

>> No.

> I don't think you're getting with the program of negotiating between our cultural norms.

>> Well I would like to help. Would your gods be appeased by the heart of a chicken? They're $3/lb at the supermarket.

> That would insult the gods, the crops would fail and there would be great famine. You are being quite unreasonable. Can I have your liver?

>> This intercultural diplomacy stuff is hard.

I like the point of self examination, and not assuming you know others intentions, but I really dislike this sort of phrase reassignment. The one that really bothers me, is when people say "I feel like..." followed by something that is not a feeling. Changing the wording only works when everyone is on board with the reason for doing so.

I am the opposite. I hate when people pretend to talk objectively while actually talking about feelings. For example claiming the code is objectively bad when it is just that they have negative emotional reaction to some difference against how they would do it. Or trying to convince me to do something out of "objective" reasons when they are just stressed or afraid or panicking. Or talk with certainty when situation is not certain at all and they know it. Like, I am willing to accommodate your feelings to some extend, but not when you pretend it is all rational choices.

I feel like..." followed by something that is not a feeling usually just conveys uncertainty or awareness what follows is not fully proven. It is more honest, imo.

I understand what you mean, but in those situations i prefer "it might be better if" or "i think we should."

Anything that follows "I feel like" is going to be some passive aggressive garbage. This is why I always say "I think", "I strongly suggest", "I agree", "I disagree" instead. You have to recognize that some things are subjective but telling someone that they should do something because you "feel" it needs to be done comes across as incredibly flaky and self-involved.

One thing about this article that I find interesting is that it is not necessarily dealing with conflicts between different cultural values from cultures from different countries or ethnic groups. The point is even within groups of people that you'd think are similar, people interpret things in different ways. Some people will think that picking up a check for a group meal means you expect others to do the same next time. Others will think it means you are feeling financially secure and are informing others of this status. We all assume others understand our meaning but they often may not.

I like it! :D. It reminds me of the time when the Simpsons visited Australia.

That said, I belong to at least two cultures. In one of them being offensive is often punishable. In another, being offended is seen as a sign of weakness and immaturity.

When I was younger, I'd often get offended easily - I'd be endlessly frustrated by the things that people whom I considered close had said to me. As I've grown older, I've come to appreciate the latter culture.

in my culture i am taught to avoid doing anything that might offend others, but also to not take offense at anything that others are doing or saying.

for example, i don't use swearwords in my language, but i'll silently ignore if you use them. (and they don't even make me uncomfortable)

or in tech terms (paraphrased from the SMTP RFC i think): be strict in what you send out, but be tolerant in what you accept.

That practice in tech has given rise to endless variations of security vulnerabilities. In human terms, it especially accommodates cons.

Good fences make better neighbors.

It seems from the comments that this article rubs people the wrong way. This article might be getting grouped into a speech police category that is undeserved.

I think the intention of "in my culture" is to allay a fear in the listener. The speaker is worried that there is a strong expectation of change in the listener by stating something as an axiom. The speaker's hope is that the listener will see a possibility instead of a demand.

Some people think it should be obvious that what a person states should never be seen as a demand to conform. Some believe this is a necessary life skill, especially in business.

Some people are interested in finding ways of speaking in a more sensitive way in an era that seems to be embracing sensitivity.

Its interesting to me that both sides can see each other's ways of communicating as an affront, when it is likely not the intent on either side.

I believe, in my culture, this person would annoy me quite a lot.

Oddly, I think they would still be a very good friend.

Most of these rules were ultimately grounded in trying to be fair. Fairness, though, is something you bring to the world. It is not the result of natural laws, but of human effort.

Obviously, that is just an assertion of mine.

[deleted]

In my culture we say "whatever" a lot.

A person of color might be afraid to say something like this in case people take it as carte blanche to make their statement a generalization about a given ethnicity.

Why the asymmetry? Surely people of color are just as capable of making generalizations about various white ethnicities.

I imagine faitswulff was considering a scenario where someone is a racial minority in a situation where they are perceived as outsiders. Then the asymmetry is clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com