Comment by Paracompact
20 hours 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.
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.
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".
Well, it can be.
It can also mean exactly what it said: there might indeed be truth to the thesis, but it has not yet been substantiated or fully developed.
Having to use circumlocution like that—and thus making the meaning unclear—seems like an aspect of a Guess, or high-context, culture, doesn't it? ^_^
3 replies →