So I was hoping this would be a light hearted piece on the differences between British and American English with some examples of hilarious pitfalls happening due to differences in idiomatic...
So I was hoping this would be a light hearted piece on the differences between British and American English with some examples of hilarious pitfalls happening due to differences in idiomatic speech. For example I once had a fairly spirited disagreement with an American lawyer about "tabling" a particular item - turns out that means the opposite in American than British speech!
But no. Much less fun. That guy sounds like an arsehole. He does claim not to be - but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Anyway, I know someone who used to be like this dude. Frighteningly smart when it came to maths. Excellent programmer. Utter shambles at interacting with actual humans. Not, they claim, on the spectrum, just didn't get it and thought they didn't need to.
They did, eventually, figure out they had fundamentally misunderstood something. Human communication is not like maths or programming. People aren't computers, they're all wobbly and emotional and more sensitive to input than an unsanitised MySQL query. People like this guy are smart enough to learn the rules and use them well and to their own advantage if they wanted, if only they were smart enough to realise they have to.
Tangential to this, btw, is why I get angry at the common dismissal of English as an academic subject by the more rabid kind of STEM people. Literature grads don't, generally, have this kind of problem. They know how to use English with the same kind of skill this dude probably employs with python. It's possible to communicate clearly and accurately in a culture where indirect speech is common, without making people think you're being a dick. It's just a skill this guy thinks he doesn't need to learn. He is wrong.
I dread to think how this chap would manage in the UK because in my experience Americans are often direct to the point of appearing rude. Obviously accommodations are made when dealing with them, but we know it's not their fault.
I went on the same journey of hope turning to disappointment as you. The author does have a point about Americans being addicted to euphemism (particularly in business contexts) and prone to...
I went on the same journey of hope turning to disappointment as you. The author does have a point about Americans being addicted to euphemism (particularly in business contexts) and prone to inferring the worst possible interpretation of whatever has been said (particularly with younger people I find). But the authors’ examples are all way out of left field. Like his anecdote about the lady bumping into his luggage and he responds with
Excuse me, ma’am. It seems to me that you’re in a hurry. I don’t know how long this line will take, however, I am reasonably certain that it will take the same amount of time for you to reach the head of it whether you stand 5, 1, or zero meters away from my bag, so I must request that you please stop touching it.
Dude. . . that is so condescending lol. And from that comment you can pretty much tell he’s mad, with very little inferential leap necessary. I almost wonder if he’s sufficiently disconnected from understanding his own emotional state that he doesn’t recognize his own feelings and tone when talking.
and that's like, what, 20 seconds of unbroken speaking? I'm from the east coast and a current new yorker and that's freakish behavior by our standards. strangers should be spoken to for absolutely...
and that's like, what, 20 seconds of unbroken speaking? I'm from the east coast and a current new yorker and that's freakish behavior by our standards. strangers should be spoken to for absolutely as little time as possible. a simple "excuse me, you're bumping my bag" would be the polite way to go
I hate to pile on, but while we're here, can we talk about this line for a second: Ugh. The first time I read this I had such a disgusted look on my face, my girlfriend thought something terrible...
I hate to pile on, but while we're here, can we talk about this line for a second:
Now, in normal circumstances I wouldn’t say a word to someone being rude in a queue, however, those present circumstances mandated that my freedom and indeed even my physical safety hinged upon maintaining sole and exclusive control over my luggage and being able to testify to same just a few minutes later.
Ugh. The first time I read this I had such a disgusted look on my face, my girlfriend thought something terrible had happened. Even the second time around, it made me cringe pretty hard. Like, come on. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the arguments in this piece but no amount of bag bumping is going to land you in Mexican Immigration detention. The author calling it a threat to his safety and using that as a justification for his dickish response is, for lack of a better term, the ultimate bitch move. I know 'bitch' isn't the type of word we use here on tildes, but really, it takes a special kind of person to be a wimp and a meanie at the same time.
With regards to the dude's attitude, there's also a difference between being direct like "Hey, could you please stop bumping into my bag" and being aggressive (the author being "direct" to the...
With regards to the dude's attitude, there's also a difference between being direct like "Hey, could you please stop bumping into my bag" and being aggressive (the author being "direct" to the lady in line behind him). If you're polite, like my example, and they're rude they're likely just an asshole, but the way that second part was put was something many would take as at least passive aggressive, even taunting.
I actually have an issue where I need to be direct with most people, and it usually doesn't cause me any problems. It definitely causes me fewer problems than when leave any room for interpretation.
Also, that "California 'Yes'" thing was annoying and entirely fabricated.
This is the perfect counterexample to his point - it's direct, it's unambiguous, it's polite, and it works within the commonly accepted model of communication (which I fully accept is heavy on...
Hey, could you please stop bumping into my bag
This is the perfect counterexample to his point - it's direct, it's unambiguous, it's polite, and it works within the commonly accepted model of communication (which I fully accept is heavy on implication and sometimes frustrating!).
His additional choice to explain how queueing works to the lady does carry implication, whether he wants it to or not. At a bare minimum it suggests that he felt she needed that explanation, and given the relative simplicity of the concept it's only a very short leap to extrapolate a negative judgement in that. The author even says "frequently, what I choose not to say is on equal footing of importance of what I do communicate"; he knows that word choice and presentation carries meta-information, even while claiming to exist outside that model. I'll echo what @mat said: if he's smart enough to look down on the commonly accepted model, he's smart enough to operate within it more deftly than his examples would suggest.
As a resident of California and a frequent user of the "Yeah" as we'll see or just a way to exit a conversation, it exists. When you run into an old acquaintance from high school who says they...
As a resident of California and a frequent user of the "Yeah" as we'll see or just a way to exit a conversation, it exists. When you run into an old acquaintance from high school who says they want to grab a drink sometime, a "yeah, we should do that" is an easy non-confrontational way to exit the conversation without having to actually catch up. I assume unless set plans are being made than I have no obligation to attend whatever is being discussed. If a friend asks, "Hey, should we meet up tomorrow for a swim?" "Yeah, hit me up tomorrow" means, I'd like to but we'll see. It feels pretty normal here. All my friends/acquaintances do it.
There is something similar, the “Yeah, no” thing. Meaning, “yes, I see what you mean, but no, I disagree.” Also, answering yes to “do you want to come over sometime” doesn’t mean they will unless...
There is something similar, the “Yeah, no” thing. Meaning, “yes, I see what you mean, but no, I disagree.”
Also, answering yes to “do you want to come over sometime” doesn’t mean they will unless you set a date, and it’s expected that this date will be confirmed when it’s closer, perhaps agreeing on a time. And rescheduling depending on traffic is ok if you let them know your new ETA. So there’s sometimes an assumption of flexibility of plans, communication, and renegotiation up to arrival.
Remember the days when if somebody wasn't at home, you had virtually no way of contacting them? It's almost weird thinking about anymore. If you got stuck in traffic and someone was expecting you...
Remember the days when if somebody wasn't at home, you had virtually no way of contacting them?
It's almost weird thinking about anymore. If you got stuck in traffic and someone was expecting you there was a non-zero chance they thought you were dead.
See, I use "Yeah, no." to mean "I agree with your refusal of the topic at hand. "I wouldn't go to the Cheesecake Factory, their stuff is so overpriced." "Yeah, no."
See, I use "Yeah, no." to mean "I agree with your refusal of the topic at hand. "I wouldn't go to the Cheesecake Factory, their stuff is so overpriced." "Yeah, no."
I was really bothered by that, honestly. I was born in California and have spent about half of my life in the state and have not encountered this once.
Also, that "California 'Yes'" thing was annoying and entirely fabricated.
I was really bothered by that, honestly. I was born in California and have spent about half of my life in the state and have not encountered this once.
I was actually surprised to see he pointed this out as a California thing. But I do know what he's talking about. And I didn't think it was something specific to California (I'm from the Midwest)....
I was actually surprised to see he pointed this out as a California thing. But I do know what he's talking about. And I didn't think it was something specific to California (I'm from the Midwest).
The best example I can give is seeing at the grocery store, an old friend who perhaps is now only an acquaintance. Because you haven't seen each other in many years, maybe since high school or college or an old job. You engage in some small talk/light catching up. At some point towards the end of the conversation, one of you says, "We should grab dinner or drinks some time!" And the other goes, "Yeah, we should!" You may exchange phone numbers (if you're not already friends on FB), but then, that's the end of that. Both of you know that the likelihood of actually hanging out is pretty low. You may never talk to or see each other ever again. In fact, if you're friend texts you a few days later to set up a Happy Hour, you might be surprised! Pleasantly surprised, hopefully, but surprised nonetheless.
I've been in situations like this enough times to know how it works. And I've seen a few Europeans, on reddit, confused about this. They don't understand it's just a social nicety. I'm sure people in those countries have polite talk/niceties as well.
It kind of blew my mind he ended the post with "I choose to educate [them]". Bud, wouldn't the easy thing be to educate yourself instead of trying to make the world change for you? I'm American...
It kind of blew my mind he ended the post with "I choose to educate [them]". Bud, wouldn't the easy thing be to educate yourself instead of trying to make the world change for you?
I'm American and when I visit Japan the style of communication is very difficult for me, but I do make an effort to adjust. It only feels indirect or confusing if you're not used to it.
This is not my experience of americans in the UK. Brits are very polite and sometimes indirect, but overall far more direct than Americans. Are you speaking about the "american tourist in the UK"...
I dread to think how this chap would manage in the UK because in my experience Americans are often direct to the point of appearing rude.
This is not my experience of americans in the UK. Brits are very polite and sometimes indirect, but overall far more direct than Americans.
Are you speaking about the "american tourist in the UK" perspective? Because "tourist american" and "business american" are very different.
My experience, for what it's worth, is that americans do tend to have a problem in taking direct speech too personally.
I've had this exact experience in a team composed of me (French/European), a guy whose code I was reviewing (American), and two colleagues (German and Hispanic): I reviewed the code, gave negative comments explaining that there were several issues that would break in production, and gave advice on how to fix them.
The guy came up to me the next day telling me that he had a problem with me "telling him off and humiliating him like that". I asked wtf he was talking about as I had genuinely no idea. Turns out he felt humiliated that I had given his code a negative review.
I even had to go up to my two other colleagues and inquired "was I harsh on whatshisname?" and they both asked me wtf I was talking about.
This is one example that stayed with me a long time, but it's not a sole instance. I've both been the source of and witness to Americans feeling personally attacked when someone isn't "easing them" enough into a negative about something they feel connected to.
My ex girlfriend is doing a PhD and has an american on her team. She told me a very similar story to this about him feeling humiliated when his Belgian professor told him his work was sub-par. This story is three months old.
If you want indirect communication you should try doing business in Japan. Even Japanese people make memes about how opaque Japanese business communication is.
If you want indirect communication you should try doing business in Japan. Even Japanese people make memes about how opaque Japanese business communication is.
My experience (British) is that in aggregate we and the Americans probably have similar levels of indirection, but they're expressed differently and often come into play on different topics. The...
My experience (British) is that in aggregate we and the Americans probably have similar levels of indirection, but they're expressed differently and often come into play on different topics.
The comments you made about misinterpreting feedback are things I've absolutely experienced as well, but with myself playing the role of the American. Even knowing with absolute certainty that it was just a difference in communication styles, there's an emotional reaction to overcome that makes it feel personal.
Perhaps the difference here is the more culturally American way to handle it is to speak up or confront, the more culturally British reaction is silence or generalised grumbling. It's more apparent that the American feels slighted, all else being equal!
I will admit to judging slightly when anyone does find themselves in a multinational/multicultural team without preparing a bit for these kind of things - it's always best to assume good faith and simple misunderstanding - but that does take a conscious and continuous effort.
I worked for a large multinational whose staff were from all over the world, including the US. I ran and moderated a website with tens of thousands of users, about 30% whom were American. Several...
I worked for a large multinational whose staff were from all over the world, including the US. I ran and moderated a website with tens of thousands of users, about 30% whom were American. Several of my closest friends and quite a few family members are from the US. I had an American business partner for six years. That's my basis for saying I think Americans are more direct than Brits. I mean, compared to Germans, absolutely they aren't! But you know, it's all relative.
Oddly I don't think I've ever encountered any American tourists in person, to speak to. Probably walked past a few here and there.
Funny how experiences differ, isn't it? Anecdotal evidence eh? And on that note...
his Belgian professor
My experience of Belgians is that they are extremely rude, but that's a very limited experience. One weekend in Bruges but it stuck with me how many people were what I would consider unpleasantly brusque to the point of almost being insulting. Even in high-end restaurants..
(fwiw I don't think all Belgians are rude! I was a tourist in a touristy place, doing tourist stuff. A good friend is from Brussels and she's lovely)
Yes, yes. I didn't run a study, sue me. ;) I kind of agree with @Greg in that indirection is "expressed differently" between US and UK english. But since we're flashing creds, in my ~4 years of...
Anecdotal evidence eh?
Yes, yes. I didn't run a study, sue me. ;)
I kind of agree with @Greg in that indirection is "expressed differently" between US and UK english. But since we're flashing creds, in my ~4 years of living in various places in the UK, and ~15 years experience working with Americans, I am still really surprised to hear you think Americans are "more direct" than Brits. I'd like to hear you elaborate on this.
My experience of Belgians is that they are extremely rude
I should have said his Brusseleir professor. Belgians, Walloons and Flemish have extremely distinct personalities. And Flemish people (which you would have encountered in Bruges) indeed tend to be pretty brusque and rude, especially with tourists :) But Brussels being very multicultural, people here are far more polite. Ask your friend, she'll probably tell you the same thing, hehe.
Part of the difference may be that the US has a lot more regional subculture. I’d say the Northeast and mid Atlantic is probably as or more direct. The South and West Coast are notoriously evasive...
Part of the difference may be that the US has a lot more regional subculture. I’d say the Northeast and mid Atlantic is probably as or more direct. The South and West Coast are notoriously evasive (in markedly different ways). The MidWest is direct but much more about courtesy and saving face.
But in terms of business and media culture British are way more direct. You can tell, in particular, because they’re just straight up better at coming up with insults than Americans.
Perhaps a linguist might. But, perhaps a considerate, self-admitted lay person wouldn’t write a blog post presuming that the pragmatics of American English are unique (when in fact this is...
Perhaps the linguists among you can write to me and tell me how I’m incorrect.
Perhaps a linguist might. But, perhaps a considerate, self-admitted lay person wouldn’t write a blog post presuming that the pragmatics of American English are unique (when in fact this is ubiquitous, cf. Horn scales). Perhaps an intellectually curious person might ask a linguist, or maybe seek referrals for literature on the linguistic topics they are interested in. Perhaps they might do that instead of participate in lay speculation. For some reason, you don’t see linguists (at least not considerate ones) scrawling blog posts about nuclear physics or meteorology when they have no background in such domains.
(I apologize for being tongue-in-cheek with this, but this is a prime example of “bad linguistics”.)
Yeah. I don't want to stereotype programmers too hard, but I'm often struck by how often they mistake their deep topical knowledge in one area for broad understanding of the world. It's certainly...
Yeah. I don't want to stereotype programmers too hard, but I'm often struck by how often they mistake their deep topical knowledge in one area for broad understanding of the world. It's certainly not unique to them, but I do see it an awful lot.
I think that also comes with mathematicians and STEMS in assuming the world works according to the logical foundations in which they study, it seems the dominant attitude. I'd agree that the...
I think that also comes with mathematicians and STEMS in assuming the world works according to the logical foundations in which they study, it seems the dominant attitude. I'd agree that the universe seems to operate on, or can be described, by the logic we know and use but I think they don't realize that human interaction is a problem of scale. When you compound so many logical conditions and variables, the underlying logic we know may be there but it starts to break down from how we think things should work with sufficient complexity.
There's a name for the law which I forgot, but if you constantly tell a kid growing up that they're smart, they're going to rely too much on their own wit and over-estimate their own wisdom.
To be fair, physicists and meteorologists have to use language at a way deeper level of familiarity than linguists have to do physics or meteorology. Political scientists have the same problem....
For some reason, you don’t see linguists (at least not considerate ones) scrawling blog posts about nuclear physics or meteorology when they have no background in such domains.
To be fair, physicists and meteorologists have to use language at a way deeper level of familiarity than linguists have to do physics or meteorology.
Political scientists have the same problem. Everyone has (mostly wrong) opinions and they don’t want to hear you correct them.
This isn’t fair at all. Just because I experience gravity and weather doesn’t qualify me to say how they work, scientifically. Learning natural languages doesn’t make you any more qualified as a...
To be fair, physicists and meteorologists have to use language at a way deeper level of familiarity than linguists have to do physics or meteorology.
This isn’t fair at all. Just because I experience gravity and weather doesn’t qualify me to say how they work, scientifically. Learning natural languages doesn’t make you any more qualified as a linguist as contracting influenza qualifies you as a virologist.
Nor does any individual have the power to impact or manipulate the English language. This is the same major misconception that the author of the blog post makes. They believe that language, or...
Nor does any individual have the power to impact or manipulate the English language. This is the same major misconception that the author of the blog post makes. They believe that language, or more broadly interpersonal communication, works differently than it does. And they are under the false impression that they can bend the English language into something that it is not and that will somehow solve a problem, generally, that doesn’t exist in the first place for most people. Individual people don’t impact or manipulate something as broad as a natural language—at most what we can do as individuals is affect our own idiolects. Just as my using a personal umbrella doesn’t make it stop raining, even if it has the effect of preventing the rain from affecting me, personally.
That's still a lot more power than you have to alter your personal gravity well or weather conditions. Like I said, political scientists deal with the same thing. People have to interact with and...
That's still a lot more power than you have to alter your personal gravity well or weather conditions. Like I said, political scientists deal with the same thing. People have to interact with and touch political matters all the time and they think this makes them knowledgable about the underlying dynamics of it even as they make concerted efforts to alter or change it. Individuals, likewise, can't single-handedly turn the tides on much. But they are compelled to interact with and engage in activism to reform it anyway. And we wouldn't want them to stop.
Nor does any individual have the power to impact or manipulate the English language.
Did Shakespeare not? What about William the Conqueror? I think you're saying this in a pretty specialized way that's not what the author of the piece nor most activists for changing how people speak are thinking of it. When Clueless came out I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it didn't create new slang, alter some peoples' vocabularies, and generalize a lot of regional, southern Californian, affectations across the country. That's impacting the language people speak and I don't see much about what the author is saying that wouldn't be altering things on that dimension. Where he's wrong is simply thinking words have some sort of platonic meaning that exists independent of the contexts in which they're used. But that's not any dumber than the thousand other misapprehensions people have about how the world works.
Sure, individuals can invent new lexical items, or coin turns of phrase. They can also popularize their dialectal idiosyncrasies to larger audiences through celebrity. But, these are not things...
Sure, individuals can invent new lexical items, or coin turns of phrase. They can also popularize their dialectal idiosyncrasies to larger audiences through celebrity. But, these are not things done with intent to change the language. They are wordplay or artifacts of the dialect they grew up with that others pick up on and adopt in their own idiolects because they fancy them or because there is some social pressure to adopt them.
In essence what the author of this blog is doing is very different. They are saying "I think Americans (and maybe even Californians in particular) speak English wrong, so here's some anecdotes about how I'd change the way those wrong-headed people use English." The socio-cultural construct that is a natural language does not evolve through pressure exerted by engineering in this way.
If OP is unhappy with American use of euphemisms and polite indirections in conversation he should hold judgement until he visits Canada. I’m pretty sure our passive aggressive niceties and...
If OP is unhappy with American use of euphemisms and polite indirections in conversation he should hold judgement until he visits Canada. I’m pretty sure our passive aggressive niceties and subtext could put the most of the US to shame.
This is an interesting piece, about which I've got some varied opinions: A) It could be said that he's entirely lacking in emotional intelligence, unaware or uncaring of the effects of his words...
This is an interesting piece, about which I've got some varied opinions:
A) It could be said that he's entirely lacking in emotional intelligence, unaware or uncaring of the effects of his words on the people around him...
but that's exactly the sort of cultural assumption and mismatch that this piece is highlighting.
B) By preference I fall far more on the plain speaking side of things, as I have difficulty parsing sarcasm or implication (especially when stressed or otherwise under pressure.) Even so, this feels (and isn't that an imprecise term in its own right?) like an argument that there's some moral failing in using implication as opposed to outright statement, when it seems like mostly he's just complaining that he has issues when people make assumptions beyond the literal meaning of his words when he's speaking to people whose culture acknowledges a layer of implication on top of the particular words. That he can't or won't engage with it is a choice, but I'm not sure that it's clear cut that precision is right and good and implication is bad and wrong.
I agree, his response to the woman in the line didn't feel direct they felt aggressive. It makes me think the author is either Dutch or on the spectrum.
A) It could be said that he's entirely lacking in emotional intelligence, unaware or uncaring of the effects of his words on the people around him... but that's exactly the sort of cultural assumption and mismatch that this piece is highlighting.
I agree, his response to the woman in the line didn't feel direct they felt aggressive. It makes me think the author is either Dutch or on the spectrum.
100%. Coming from a family that trends subclinical to very much diagnosable, I just assumed this was someone with ASD who maybe doesn't realize it. Also, it strikes me that they attribute the...
100%. Coming from a family that trends subclinical to very much diagnosable, I just assumed this was someone with ASD who maybe doesn't realize it.
Also, it strikes me that they attribute the indirectness to Americans, because they never provide a non-American counterexample! Certain British folks are famous for their understatement and implicature, much moreso than Americans. This article seems much more like a rant than an analysis.
Agreed. We do have some really interesting linguistic quirks in the US and even more regionally, it would have been great to feel like he was curious about them instead of simply being...
Agreed. We do have some really interesting linguistic quirks in the US and even more regionally, it would have been great to feel like he was curious about them instead of simply being judgemental. Either way, I always enjoy reading a 'hot take' on my own dialect.
Non-sequitur: My favorite 'hot take' on American English, particularly my west coast dialect, was from a German girl I lived with in college. Someone had done a bad German impression that sounded a bit like the Swedish Chef from the Muppets kind of like "Hindi Bundi Boondie...". No real words, just noises and accent. I asked her what our equivalent would be and without missing a beat she turned to me and nearly shouted "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah..."! We all decided it was very apt.
What an odd feeling. I am not the author, but the author is me. That is the bane of my existence. I often give up on saying or writing something because of the verbal gymnastics required to be...
This leads to a chronic issue where listeners inaccurately infer my meaning or intent (often in direct contravention of what I have plainly stated) based on their own assumptions of my state of mind or intent when making the statement, which are almost always fundamentally at odds with what I am truly thinking or feeling.
What an odd feeling. I am not the author, but the author is me. That is the bane of my existence.
I often give up on saying or writing something because of the verbal gymnastics required to be both precise and non-threatening. Sometimes I use silly emoji to demonstrate that I mean no harm — a shortcut to empathy. But, in many discussions, emoji can be interpreted as disrespect. I proofread for tone multiple times, often obsessively. Sometimes I just delete what I wrote before anyone can see. Sometimes after. I wish offline conversations also had undo...
And no, this is definitely not exclusive to the US.
The author definitely sounds like a bit of a dickhead, but also, this comment thread has me incredibly disappointed in the community. It's just a blogpost complaining about a cultural clash,...
The author definitely sounds like a bit of a dickhead, but also, this comment thread has me incredibly disappointed in the community. It's just a blogpost complaining about a cultural clash, should we really demand a high degree of rigor of anyone speaking on anything? He acknowledges that he's not going to communicate easily with everyone based on his principles, do we really need to sit around ridiculing this dude for having a mildly maladaptive communication style and daring to complain about his problems?
I think you’re right that this thread is a bit overly harsh. Still, I think the post turned so many people off because it was both uninformed and the tone was abrasive. It’s definitely OK to not...
I think you’re right that this thread is a bit overly harsh. Still, I think the post turned so many people off because it was both uninformed and the tone was abrasive. It’s definitely OK to not know everything. But it’s less OK to be a dick. Just calling the author out as being a dick isn’t particularly constructive nor conducive to discussion on Tildes, so I think that may be why there was a bandwagon lining up to pick it apart.
That makes sense, I hadn't considered it in that way. I just wish people would recognize they're still not being productive when they repeat what's already been said, or simply complain that...
That makes sense, I hadn't considered it in that way. I just wish people would recognize they're still not being productive when they repeat what's already been said, or simply complain that someone isn't "qualified" to have their opinion. Get after the flaws in his reasoning, rather than assert yourself as the arbiter of social graces, you know?
I don't expect every lay person to have a deep knowledge of linguistics. But, I expect someone criticizing others' use of a language to have a solid grasp of that language themselves. If you've...
I don't expect every lay person to have a deep knowledge of linguistics. But, I expect someone criticizing others' use of a language to have a solid grasp of that language themselves. If you've grown up speaking any natural language (including English) and achieved basic language competence, you're expected to grasp the basic dynamics of conversational communication in social situations. In linguistics, this is known as the cooperative principle. It's totally fine to be unaware of this technical jargon, and it's also totally OK to say, "Hey, I noticed this phenomenon and I think it's peculiar". But, what is not OK is to cast aspersions on a linguistic community (like all American English speakers) when you actually don't know what you're talking about by saying "Hey, I noticed this phenomenon and these people are speaking wrong".
To be honest, as a native American English speaker, I don't see more than specific assumptions in his discussion as entirely wrong. Americans really do shy away from communicating clearly, not...
To be honest, as a native American English speaker, I don't see more than specific assumptions in his discussion as entirely wrong. Americans really do shy away from communicating clearly, not just as a matter of habit, but a conscious fear of offending their interlocutor with the truth.
I see what you're saying though. It's a particularly bad look to make those complaints as an outsider.
Generalization like this, and those expressed in the article, almost always fall apart upon further inspection. And in this particular case, such behaviors aren't universal, and tend to vary...
Americans really do shy away from communicating clearly, not just as a matter of habit, but a conscious fear of offending their interlocutor with the truth.
Generalization like this, and those expressed in the article, almost always fall apart upon further inspection. And in this particular case, such behaviors aren't universal, and tend to vary greatly from region to region. E.g. Having lived in Boston for several years, I can attest to the fact that the majority of Bostonians I encountered were not shy about expressing their true feelings, no matter how potentially derogatory or insensitive. And Philadelphians have a similar, well deserved reputation for the same too.
I've lived a lot of places across the USA and traveled a fair bit around those I haven't inhabited. Thanks for the counterpoint, though, you are right. It's hardly universal.
I've lived a lot of places across the USA and traveled a fair bit around those I haven't inhabited. Thanks for the counterpoint, though, you are right. It's hardly universal.
Fair enough, but in my experience, Americans are known abroad for being more offensive than less. It's all relative, but another sociological concept that is maybe relevant is politeness theory...
Fair enough, but in my experience, Americans are known abroad for being more offensive than less. It's all relative, but another sociological concept that is maybe relevant is politeness theory which goes beyond linguistics, but is related.
That may be more of a divide between being personally nice and culturally sensitive. Somehow I haven't looked into politeness theory much, thanks for the link.
That may be more of a divide between being personally nice and culturally sensitive.
Somehow I haven't looked into politeness theory much, thanks for the link.
I actually agree with him almost entirely, but his choice of anecdotes does his argument no favours, and his lack of self awareness about that is why I called him a bit of a dickhead. I'm sure...
I actually agree with him almost entirely, but his choice of anecdotes does his argument no favours, and his lack of self awareness about that is why I called him a bit of a dickhead. I'm sure I've even been ruder than he was in that customs line, but I wouldn't argue with someone calling me a dickhead, or worse.
Sorry, I deleted my comment above before seeing your answer. I'll answer this one. I 100% would never think of the guy as a dickhead. Nothing that he writes makes me think that. Specially because...
Sorry, I deleted my comment above before seeing your answer. I'll answer this one. I 100% would never think of the guy as a dickhead. Nothing that he writes makes me think that. Specially because even if he used example X or Y, it doesn't look like he's being judgemental or even irritated. He was just trying to adapt.
Maybe I understand him because, from what I can gather, I'm very much like him. I may or may not be on the autism spectrum, but those things were always very hard for me. All those wonderful and undeciferable implicitly stuff that's the very fabric of society.
I imagine myself writing exactly the same article.
I'm really not trying to dunk on the guy when I label him as such, to be clear. I'm also on the borderline of an autism diagnosis, and find it easier to treat those labels as unrelated to moral...
I'm really not trying to dunk on the guy when I label him as such, to be clear. I'm also on the borderline of an autism diagnosis, and find it easier to treat those labels as unrelated to moral character, and just as measures of how smoothly one acts as a cog in the machine. Probably more of a coping mechanism than a suitable working definition.
Some of what he's saying here reminds me a lot of Kyoto Japanese. Same concept, but cranked up to 11, where saying something like "you have such a kind-looking face" can mean you're ugly. Let's...
Some of what he's saying here reminds me a lot of Kyoto Japanese. Same concept, but cranked up to 11, where saying something like "you have such a kind-looking face" can mean you're ugly. Let's Ask Shogo did a fun video on this: https://youtu.be/9wPlO1FKy8U?t=151
So I was hoping this would be a light hearted piece on the differences between British and American English with some examples of hilarious pitfalls happening due to differences in idiomatic speech. For example I once had a fairly spirited disagreement with an American lawyer about "tabling" a particular item - turns out that means the opposite in American than British speech!
But no. Much less fun. That guy sounds like an arsehole. He does claim not to be - but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Anyway, I know someone who used to be like this dude. Frighteningly smart when it came to maths. Excellent programmer. Utter shambles at interacting with actual humans. Not, they claim, on the spectrum, just didn't get it and thought they didn't need to.
They did, eventually, figure out they had fundamentally misunderstood something. Human communication is not like maths or programming. People aren't computers, they're all wobbly and emotional and more sensitive to input than an unsanitised MySQL query. People like this guy are smart enough to learn the rules and use them well and to their own advantage if they wanted, if only they were smart enough to realise they have to.
Tangential to this, btw, is why I get angry at the common dismissal of English as an academic subject by the more rabid kind of STEM people. Literature grads don't, generally, have this kind of problem. They know how to use English with the same kind of skill this dude probably employs with python. It's possible to communicate clearly and accurately in a culture where indirect speech is common, without making people think you're being a dick. It's just a skill this guy thinks he doesn't need to learn. He is wrong.
I dread to think how this chap would manage in the UK because in my experience Americans are often direct to the point of appearing rude. Obviously accommodations are made when dealing with them, but we know it's not their fault.
I went on the same journey of hope turning to disappointment as you. The author does have a point about Americans being addicted to euphemism (particularly in business contexts) and prone to inferring the worst possible interpretation of whatever has been said (particularly with younger people I find). But the authors’ examples are all way out of left field. Like his anecdote about the lady bumping into his luggage and he responds with
Dude. . . that is so condescending lol. And from that comment you can pretty much tell he’s mad, with very little inferential leap necessary. I almost wonder if he’s sufficiently disconnected from understanding his own emotional state that he doesn’t recognize his own feelings and tone when talking.
and that's like, what, 20 seconds of unbroken speaking? I'm from the east coast and a current new yorker and that's freakish behavior by our standards. strangers should be spoken to for absolutely as little time as possible. a simple "excuse me, you're bumping my bag" would be the polite way to go
I hate to pile on, but while we're here, can we talk about this line for a second:
Ugh. The first time I read this I had such a disgusted look on my face, my girlfriend thought something terrible had happened. Even the second time around, it made me cringe pretty hard. Like, come on. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the arguments in this piece but no amount of bag bumping is going to land you in Mexican Immigration detention. The author calling it a threat to his safety and using that as a justification for his dickish response is, for lack of a better term, the ultimate bitch move. I know 'bitch' isn't the type of word we use here on tildes, but really, it takes a special kind of person to be a wimp and a meanie at the same time.
He seems very fussy and particular, especially because this was written BEFORE covid! Maybe he's chilled out since 2019? I hope so!
With regards to the dude's attitude, there's also a difference between being direct like "Hey, could you please stop bumping into my bag" and being aggressive (the author being "direct" to the lady in line behind him). If you're polite, like my example, and they're rude they're likely just an asshole, but the way that second part was put was something many would take as at least passive aggressive, even taunting.
I actually have an issue where I need to be direct with most people, and it usually doesn't cause me any problems. It definitely causes me fewer problems than when leave any room for interpretation.
Also, that "California 'Yes'" thing was annoying and entirely fabricated.
This is the perfect counterexample to his point - it's direct, it's unambiguous, it's polite, and it works within the commonly accepted model of communication (which I fully accept is heavy on implication and sometimes frustrating!).
His additional choice to explain how queueing works to the lady does carry implication, whether he wants it to or not. At a bare minimum it suggests that he felt she needed that explanation, and given the relative simplicity of the concept it's only a very short leap to extrapolate a negative judgement in that. The author even says "frequently, what I choose not to say is on equal footing of importance of what I do communicate"; he knows that word choice and presentation carries meta-information, even while claiming to exist outside that model. I'll echo what @mat said: if he's smart enough to look down on the commonly accepted model, he's smart enough to operate within it more deftly than his examples would suggest.
As a resident of California and a frequent user of the "Yeah" as we'll see or just a way to exit a conversation, it exists. When you run into an old acquaintance from high school who says they want to grab a drink sometime, a "yeah, we should do that" is an easy non-confrontational way to exit the conversation without having to actually catch up. I assume unless set plans are being made than I have no obligation to attend whatever is being discussed. If a friend asks, "Hey, should we meet up tomorrow for a swim?" "Yeah, hit me up tomorrow" means, I'd like to but we'll see. It feels pretty normal here. All my friends/acquaintances do it.
There is something similar, the “Yeah, no” thing. Meaning, “yes, I see what you mean, but no, I disagree.”
Also, answering yes to “do you want to come over sometime” doesn’t mean they will unless you set a date, and it’s expected that this date will be confirmed when it’s closer, perhaps agreeing on a time. And rescheduling depending on traffic is ok if you let them know your new ETA. So there’s sometimes an assumption of flexibility of plans, communication, and renegotiation up to arrival.
This wasn’t so fluid before cell phones.
Remember the days when if somebody wasn't at home, you had virtually no way of contacting them?
It's almost weird thinking about anymore. If you got stuck in traffic and someone was expecting you there was a non-zero chance they thought you were dead.
See, I use "Yeah, no." to mean "I agree with your refusal of the topic at hand. "I wouldn't go to the Cheesecake Factory, their stuff is so overpriced." "Yeah, no."
I was really bothered by that, honestly. I was born in California and have spent about half of my life in the state and have not encountered this once.
I was actually surprised to see he pointed this out as a California thing. But I do know what he's talking about. And I didn't think it was something specific to California (I'm from the Midwest).
The best example I can give is seeing at the grocery store, an old friend who perhaps is now only an acquaintance. Because you haven't seen each other in many years, maybe since high school or college or an old job. You engage in some small talk/light catching up. At some point towards the end of the conversation, one of you says, "We should grab dinner or drinks some time!" And the other goes, "Yeah, we should!" You may exchange phone numbers (if you're not already friends on FB), but then, that's the end of that. Both of you know that the likelihood of actually hanging out is pretty low. You may never talk to or see each other ever again. In fact, if you're friend texts you a few days later to set up a Happy Hour, you might be surprised! Pleasantly surprised, hopefully, but surprised nonetheless.
I've been in situations like this enough times to know how it works. And I've seen a few Europeans, on reddit, confused about this. They don't understand it's just a social nicety. I'm sure people in those countries have polite talk/niceties as well.
It kind of blew my mind he ended the post with "I choose to educate [them]". Bud, wouldn't the easy thing be to educate yourself instead of trying to make the world change for you?
I'm American and when I visit Japan the style of communication is very difficult for me, but I do make an effort to adjust. It only feels indirect or confusing if you're not used to it.
This is not my experience of americans in the UK. Brits are very polite and sometimes indirect, but overall far more direct than Americans.
Are you speaking about the "american tourist in the UK" perspective? Because "tourist american" and "business american" are very different.
My experience, for what it's worth, is that americans do tend to have a problem in taking direct speech too personally.
I've had this exact experience in a team composed of me (French/European), a guy whose code I was reviewing (American), and two colleagues (German and Hispanic): I reviewed the code, gave negative comments explaining that there were several issues that would break in production, and gave advice on how to fix them.
The guy came up to me the next day telling me that he had a problem with me "telling him off and humiliating him like that". I asked wtf he was talking about as I had genuinely no idea. Turns out he felt humiliated that I had given his code a negative review.
I even had to go up to my two other colleagues and inquired "was I harsh on whatshisname?" and they both asked me wtf I was talking about.
This is one example that stayed with me a long time, but it's not a sole instance. I've both been the source of and witness to Americans feeling personally attacked when someone isn't "easing them" enough into a negative about something they feel connected to.
My ex girlfriend is doing a PhD and has an american on her team. She told me a very similar story to this about him feeling humiliated when his Belgian professor told him his work was sub-par. This story is three months old.
If you want indirect communication you should try doing business in Japan. Even Japanese people make memes about how opaque Japanese business communication is.
My experience (British) is that in aggregate we and the Americans probably have similar levels of indirection, but they're expressed differently and often come into play on different topics.
The comments you made about misinterpreting feedback are things I've absolutely experienced as well, but with myself playing the role of the American. Even knowing with absolute certainty that it was just a difference in communication styles, there's an emotional reaction to overcome that makes it feel personal.
Perhaps the difference here is the more culturally American way to handle it is to speak up or confront, the more culturally British reaction is silence or generalised grumbling. It's more apparent that the American feels slighted, all else being equal!
I will admit to judging slightly when anyone does find themselves in a multinational/multicultural team without preparing a bit for these kind of things - it's always best to assume good faith and simple misunderstanding - but that does take a conscious and continuous effort.
I worked for a large multinational whose staff were from all over the world, including the US. I ran and moderated a website with tens of thousands of users, about 30% whom were American. Several of my closest friends and quite a few family members are from the US. I had an American business partner for six years. That's my basis for saying I think Americans are more direct than Brits. I mean, compared to Germans, absolutely they aren't! But you know, it's all relative.
Oddly I don't think I've ever encountered any American tourists in person, to speak to. Probably walked past a few here and there.
Funny how experiences differ, isn't it? Anecdotal evidence eh? And on that note...
My experience of Belgians is that they are extremely rude, but that's a very limited experience. One weekend in Bruges but it stuck with me how many people were what I would consider unpleasantly brusque to the point of almost being insulting. Even in high-end restaurants..
(fwiw I don't think all Belgians are rude! I was a tourist in a touristy place, doing tourist stuff. A good friend is from Brussels and she's lovely)
Yes, yes. I didn't run a study, sue me. ;)
I kind of agree with @Greg in that indirection is "expressed differently" between US and UK english. But since we're flashing creds, in my ~4 years of living in various places in the UK, and ~15 years experience working with Americans, I am still really surprised to hear you think Americans are "more direct" than Brits. I'd like to hear you elaborate on this.
I should have said his Brusseleir professor. Belgians, Walloons and Flemish have extremely distinct personalities. And Flemish people (which you would have encountered in Bruges) indeed tend to be pretty brusque and rude, especially with tourists :) But Brussels being very multicultural, people here are far more polite. Ask your friend, she'll probably tell you the same thing, hehe.
I think this sort of disagreement on general impressions can be resolved by assuming you talked to different people. :)
Part of the difference may be that the US has a lot more regional subculture. I’d say the Northeast and mid Atlantic is probably as or more direct. The South and West Coast are notoriously evasive (in markedly different ways). The MidWest is direct but much more about courtesy and saving face.
But in terms of business and media culture British are way more direct. You can tell, in particular, because they’re just straight up better at coming up with insults than Americans.
Perhaps a linguist might. But, perhaps a considerate, self-admitted lay person wouldn’t write a blog post presuming that the pragmatics of American English are unique (when in fact this is ubiquitous, cf. Horn scales). Perhaps an intellectually curious person might ask a linguist, or maybe seek referrals for literature on the linguistic topics they are interested in. Perhaps they might do that instead of participate in lay speculation. For some reason, you don’t see linguists (at least not considerate ones) scrawling blog posts about nuclear physics or meteorology when they have no background in such domains.
(I apologize for being tongue-in-cheek with this, but this is a prime example of “bad linguistics”.)
Yeah. I don't want to stereotype programmers too hard, but I'm often struck by how often they mistake their deep topical knowledge in one area for broad understanding of the world. It's certainly not unique to them, but I do see it an awful lot.
As a computational linguist, I know how little I know about two separate fields. So, surely I know even more about everything else! /s
I think that also comes with mathematicians and STEMS in assuming the world works according to the logical foundations in which they study, it seems the dominant attitude. I'd agree that the universe seems to operate on, or can be described, by the logic we know and use but I think they don't realize that human interaction is a problem of scale. When you compound so many logical conditions and variables, the underlying logic we know may be there but it starts to break down from how we think things should work with sufficient complexity.
There's a name for the law which I forgot, but if you constantly tell a kid growing up that they're smart, they're going to rely too much on their own wit and over-estimate their own wisdom.
To be fair, physicists and meteorologists have to use language at a way deeper level of familiarity than linguists have to do physics or meteorology.
Political scientists have the same problem. Everyone has (mostly wrong) opinions and they don’t want to hear you correct them.
This isn’t fair at all. Just because I experience gravity and weather doesn’t qualify me to say how they work, scientifically. Learning natural languages doesn’t make you any more qualified as a linguist as contracting influenza qualifies you as a virologist.
You don't really have the power to impact or manipulate either of those things though.
Nor does any individual have the power to impact or manipulate the English language. This is the same major misconception that the author of the blog post makes. They believe that language, or more broadly interpersonal communication, works differently than it does. And they are under the false impression that they can bend the English language into something that it is not and that will somehow solve a problem, generally, that doesn’t exist in the first place for most people. Individual people don’t impact or manipulate something as broad as a natural language—at most what we can do as individuals is affect our own idiolects. Just as my using a personal umbrella doesn’t make it stop raining, even if it has the effect of preventing the rain from affecting me, personally.
That's still a lot more power than you have to alter your personal gravity well or weather conditions. Like I said, political scientists deal with the same thing. People have to interact with and touch political matters all the time and they think this makes them knowledgable about the underlying dynamics of it even as they make concerted efforts to alter or change it. Individuals, likewise, can't single-handedly turn the tides on much. But they are compelled to interact with and engage in activism to reform it anyway. And we wouldn't want them to stop.
Did Shakespeare not? What about William the Conqueror? I think you're saying this in a pretty specialized way that's not what the author of the piece nor most activists for changing how people speak are thinking of it. When Clueless came out I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it didn't create new slang, alter some peoples' vocabularies, and generalize a lot of regional, southern Californian, affectations across the country. That's impacting the language people speak and I don't see much about what the author is saying that wouldn't be altering things on that dimension. Where he's wrong is simply thinking words have some sort of platonic meaning that exists independent of the contexts in which they're used. But that's not any dumber than the thousand other misapprehensions people have about how the world works.
Sure, individuals can invent new lexical items, or coin turns of phrase. They can also popularize their dialectal idiosyncrasies to larger audiences through celebrity. But, these are not things done with intent to change the language. They are wordplay or artifacts of the dialect they grew up with that others pick up on and adopt in their own idiolects because they fancy them or because there is some social pressure to adopt them.
In essence what the author of this blog is doing is very different. They are saying "I think Americans (and maybe even Californians in particular) speak English wrong, so here's some anecdotes about how I'd change the way those wrong-headed people use English." The socio-cultural construct that is a natural language does not evolve through pressure exerted by engineering in this way.
It's not bad linguistics, it's not linguistics at all. Those are personal observations. I think the author made that clear.
If OP is unhappy with American use of euphemisms and polite indirections in conversation he should hold judgement until he visits Canada. I’m pretty sure our passive aggressive niceties and subtext could put the most of the US to shame.
This is an interesting piece, about which I've got some varied opinions:
A) It could be said that he's entirely lacking in emotional intelligence, unaware or uncaring of the effects of his words on the people around him...
but that's exactly the sort of cultural assumption and mismatch that this piece is highlighting.
B) By preference I fall far more on the plain speaking side of things, as I have difficulty parsing sarcasm or implication (especially when stressed or otherwise under pressure.) Even so, this feels (and isn't that an imprecise term in its own right?) like an argument that there's some moral failing in using implication as opposed to outright statement, when it seems like mostly he's just complaining that he has issues when people make assumptions beyond the literal meaning of his words when he's speaking to people whose culture acknowledges a layer of implication on top of the particular words. That he can't or won't engage with it is a choice, but I'm not sure that it's clear cut that precision is right and good and implication is bad and wrong.
I agree, his response to the woman in the line didn't feel direct they felt aggressive. It makes me think the author is either Dutch or on the spectrum.
100%. Coming from a family that trends subclinical to very much diagnosable, I just assumed this was someone with ASD who maybe doesn't realize it.
Also, it strikes me that they attribute the indirectness to Americans, because they never provide a non-American counterexample! Certain British folks are famous for their understatement and implicature, much moreso than Americans. This article seems much more like a rant than an analysis.
Agreed. We do have some really interesting linguistic quirks in the US and even more regionally, it would have been great to feel like he was curious about them instead of simply being judgemental. Either way, I always enjoy reading a 'hot take' on my own dialect.
Non-sequitur: My favorite 'hot take' on American English, particularly my west coast dialect, was from a German girl I lived with in college. Someone had done a bad German impression that sounded a bit like the Swedish Chef from the Muppets kind of like "Hindi Bundi Boondie...". No real words, just noises and accent. I asked her what our equivalent would be and without missing a beat she turned to me and nearly shouted "Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah..."! We all decided it was very apt.
What an odd feeling. I am not the author, but the author is me. That is the bane of my existence.
I often give up on saying or writing something because of the verbal gymnastics required to be both precise and non-threatening. Sometimes I use silly emoji to demonstrate that I mean no harm — a shortcut to empathy. But, in many discussions, emoji can be interpreted as disrespect. I proofread for tone multiple times, often obsessively. Sometimes I just delete what I wrote before anyone can see. Sometimes after. I wish offline conversations also had undo...
And no, this is definitely not exclusive to the US.
The author definitely sounds like a bit of a dickhead, but also, this comment thread has me incredibly disappointed in the community. It's just a blogpost complaining about a cultural clash, should we really demand a high degree of rigor of anyone speaking on anything? He acknowledges that he's not going to communicate easily with everyone based on his principles, do we really need to sit around ridiculing this dude for having a mildly maladaptive communication style and daring to complain about his problems?
I think you’re right that this thread is a bit overly harsh. Still, I think the post turned so many people off because it was both uninformed and the tone was abrasive. It’s definitely OK to not know everything. But it’s less OK to be a dick. Just calling the author out as being a dick isn’t particularly constructive nor conducive to discussion on Tildes, so I think that may be why there was a bandwagon lining up to pick it apart.
That makes sense, I hadn't considered it in that way. I just wish people would recognize they're still not being productive when they repeat what's already been said, or simply complain that someone isn't "qualified" to have their opinion. Get after the flaws in his reasoning, rather than assert yourself as the arbiter of social graces, you know?
I don't expect every lay person to have a deep knowledge of linguistics. But, I expect someone criticizing others' use of a language to have a solid grasp of that language themselves. If you've grown up speaking any natural language (including English) and achieved basic language competence, you're expected to grasp the basic dynamics of conversational communication in social situations. In linguistics, this is known as the cooperative principle. It's totally fine to be unaware of this technical jargon, and it's also totally OK to say, "Hey, I noticed this phenomenon and I think it's peculiar". But, what is not OK is to cast aspersions on a linguistic community (like all American English speakers) when you actually don't know what you're talking about by saying "Hey, I noticed this phenomenon and these people are speaking wrong".
To be honest, as a native American English speaker, I don't see more than specific assumptions in his discussion as entirely wrong. Americans really do shy away from communicating clearly, not just as a matter of habit, but a conscious fear of offending their interlocutor with the truth.
I see what you're saying though. It's a particularly bad look to make those complaints as an outsider.
Generalization like this, and those expressed in the article, almost always fall apart upon further inspection. And in this particular case, such behaviors aren't universal, and tend to vary greatly from region to region. E.g. Having lived in Boston for several years, I can attest to the fact that the majority of Bostonians I encountered were not shy about expressing their true feelings, no matter how potentially derogatory or insensitive. And Philadelphians have a similar, well deserved reputation for the same too.
I've lived a lot of places across the USA and traveled a fair bit around those I haven't inhabited. Thanks for the counterpoint, though, you are right. It's hardly universal.
Fair enough, but in my experience, Americans are known abroad for being more offensive than less. It's all relative, but another sociological concept that is maybe relevant is politeness theory which goes beyond linguistics, but is related.
That may be more of a divide between being personally nice and culturally sensitive.
Somehow I haven't looked into politeness theory much, thanks for the link.
I actually agree with him almost entirely, but his choice of anecdotes does his argument no favours, and his lack of self awareness about that is why I called him a bit of a dickhead. I'm sure I've even been ruder than he was in that customs line, but I wouldn't argue with someone calling me a dickhead, or worse.
Sorry, I deleted my comment above before seeing your answer. I'll answer this one. I 100% would never think of the guy as a dickhead. Nothing that he writes makes me think that. Specially because even if he used example X or Y, it doesn't look like he's being judgemental or even irritated. He was just trying to adapt.
Maybe I understand him because, from what I can gather, I'm very much like him. I may or may not be on the autism spectrum, but those things were always very hard for me. All those wonderful and undeciferable implicitly stuff that's the very fabric of society.
I imagine myself writing exactly the same article.
I'm really not trying to dunk on the guy when I label him as such, to be clear. I'm also on the borderline of an autism diagnosis, and find it easier to treat those labels as unrelated to moral character, and just as measures of how smoothly one acts as a cog in the machine. Probably more of a coping mechanism than a suitable working definition.
Hello, my friend!
But yeah, "dickhead" is not neutral lol!
Eh, at a certain point you've gotta reframe the judgments or you can't live with yourself.
Some of what he's saying here reminds me a lot of Kyoto Japanese. Same concept, but cranked up to 11, where saying something like "you have such a kind-looking face" can mean you're ugly. Let's Ask Shogo did a fun video on this: https://youtu.be/9wPlO1FKy8U?t=151