California is Borg. All will be assimilated.
This so much!
One thing about the UX of all conversational products, in stark contrast with real conversations, is that it forces you into a dynamic of "one question, one answer", "one message, one reply". I can imagine it could be pretty hard to break this paradigm, but for me it's like the equivalent of the uncanny valley in this context. No matter how good the replies are, if I'm forced into this dynamic, I just know that I'm talking to a robot.
One element of this I think is that California is highly individualistic. The people there ARE self-absorbed. It is a celebrated cultural value. It's the exact mirror of Tall Poppy Syndrome. No one cuts you down for talking about your own interests and uniqueness instead of collectivist and egalitarian topics like sports or the weather.
There's also a less intricate social code that comes from mixing together many people from different cultures. In a high-context, temporarily stable society, things get stratified and the litte social lubricants, expectations, and niceties get written into the socal contract and within the structure of the language itself (formal vs. informal forms). In a low-context and dynamic society, you are basically free to communicate without referencing the rulebook on what you should be saying or how you should be saying it and you bring less expectation that the other party will respond in some particularly scripted way.
In short, I don't think it's a California unique characteristic.
Interesting. My experience (Poland/EU) is pretty much the reverse. That is, I expect a richer person to take less about themselves, and more about the topic at hand. That is (generalizing), a rich person will say things like, "$Person is a great $X-maker, you should check them out", or "yeah, X is great, especially ${some refined form}", whereas a less well-off person will keep saying things like "yes, I love X", or "I hate X", or "I'm taking X classes", or "I know ${list of famous people doing X}". My provisional explanation is that the rich person doesn't feel the need to prove anything to you, or to themselves, so they can just talk about the topic itself, instead of trying to position themselves within it.
Sure, you will find people that are a bit more self absorbed and would just pong about themselves.
But there are so many conversational constraints- asking “why” is aggressive, direct feedback is discouraged, slipping pronouns or other identity traits is a minefield, etc. You should not follow up when others say something because they were being polite and you’re putting them in evidence…
If you get to engaged in a conversation people can feel weirded out, like you’re supposed to go through the motions but that’s it.
Not talking also can get you in trouble.
Talking about yourself is probably the safest thing to do.
People talk about themselves because conversations can be intimate - they're a two way street where both parties are sharing and relating.
Because all involved parties basically look and sound the same, they judge one another according to their own local standards, instead of recognizing that they are actually interacting with a different culture.
Edit: for an additional existence proof of this midwest/coastal clash, see this comment which I had not yet read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27199709
I really can't understand how people can communicate and enjoy the conversation if literally everything is offensive.
Mountains out of molehills here.
What do people talk about where you're originally from?