54
votes
'Americans are fake and the Dutch are rude!': A personal account on their difference in social behavior
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Americans Are Fake and the Dutch Are Rude! - By Batja Mesquita - Behavioral Scientist
- Authors
- Batja Mesquita, Antonia Violante, Evan Nesterak, Editorial Board, Adam Grant, Kit Yates, Dan Heath
- Published
- Sep 26 2022
- Word count
- 2294 words
Interesting read and something I do fully recognize. I am actually Dutch, but didn't have to go to the US to experience. For the past 5 years I have worked for companies who employ a lot of expats from a wide variety of nationalities.
While language also plays a part, a lot of struggles we encounter are very much related to what the author also writes about. There are many instances where someone says a specific thing to me, but where it is clear there is some surrounding context implied that I should "just" get. It's hugely interesting and frustrating at the same time.
The added challenge here is also that it isn't just me needing to adapt to one new culture and their way of expressing themselves. There is a wide array of different cultures and expressing certain emotions at play.
So I find myself adapting to the people I engage with, but also padding my message with sort of "emotional disclaimers". What I mean with the latter is that, for example, I'll find myself saying that I might be a bit direct but don't have ill intend. At that point, I likely will already be less direct than I'd otherwise would have been.
And I feel like I still have an advantage here over my expat colleagues. As they do live in the Netherlands already, they are much more aware of Dutch emotional expression. Meaning, I basically don't need to try as hard to get the right message across. The other way around or between other nationalities, there is no such advantage.
It presents an interesting dynamic working at companies like this.
Yeah I think the Netherlands' attractiveness as an expat destination (I've only barely looked into it myself but I know there are some pretty big potential tax benefits) influences the degree to which this kind of "culture clash" happens. As a US American living in Europe (though not the Netherlands), a huge portion of relatable online content for expats and immigrants concerns exactly these kinds of social differences.
It's reassuring to see someone approaching these differences from the other side with a more thoughtful eye to where these differences actually come from, rather than the usual thought-terminating cliche of "Americans are fake". At least as an American living in Europe, I feel like it's more popular to push back on the negative cliches in the other direction (the "Dutch are rude" side of things in this scenario) while affirming the negative cliches towards us. Which is probably because it's more effective at getting Americans to acknowledge that the way they're used to things isn't inherently better (a common problem), but it becomes frustrating once you yourself are past the point of recognizing that. I think this author expressed a really thorough and balanced view of the American social tendencies that often get read as "fake".
I will say that even within my American cultural context, I think her friends are assholes for brushing off her emotional openness. Sharing my emotional experiences like that is the cornerstone of friendship for me. But that may be influenced by the fact that I'm neurodivergent (and thus perhaps a bit of an "over-sharer" by mainstream American cultural norms) and tend to be drawn to other neurodivergent friends as a result.
I‘m an American who has been living in Western Europe for a few years now and have had to hear, more than a few times, how Americans are fake and it’s always centered around using „How are you?,“ as a greeting. During my time here I’ve reflected a lot on my Americanness and I have to say that I don’t agree at all with that perception of American fakeness.
I’ll admit that some European nations may be on to something about being a little more honest and straightforward in our communication with friends and loved ones but in the day-to-day pleasantries Americans constantly find themselves faced with, I outright reject the label of fake.
I look back on all of the „how are yous,“ small talk with strangers in line or on the elevator, or the „exaggerated“ emotions to show support and understanding and I realize how much better off everyone was in those situations. Sure, there were times where I smiled and laughed and then promptly turned around and rolled my eyes in secret but that very small percentage of time is overshadowed by the enormity of pleasant interactions where I came away happier just from a little pleasant human contact. Even when I worked as a bus boy in restaurants or a cashier in retail, I did largely enjoy my small interactions with customers. When I go to the store here, the process is as efficient as it is cold and unrecognizably human and while I get exactly what I’m asking for and nothing more, nobody comes away happier for it.
This morning I was riding the bus when a late comer frustratedly banged on the windows as we pulled away. Already this was a strange occurrence in otherwise reserved Germany but I observed an obviously outgoing German man joking with a couple of older German strangers about the situation, them all smiling and laughing. And as he got off the bus I saw this same man make a small comment to another stranger and saw the recipient of that comment walk away smiling. It was notable because this kind of behavior is not as common here but also notable that in both situations everyone seems genuinely happy having had a little meaningless connection.
A favorite German podcast of mine featured a guest a few months ago, a German woman who had emigrated to the U.S. and was talking about the differences in cultures. One thing she raved about was that in the U.S. strangers would not outright call you out for being out of line over relatively minor things. Germany and other Western European nations are rather conformist and it’s entirely not unheard of for a stranger to be very direct with you over things that Americans are more willing to either let go entirely or show our displeasure in a face saving roundabout manner. The young German woman was relieved about how light and free she felt in public in the U.S., not constantly worried if she was doing things the right or expected way.
I think that certain Europeans get it wrong when viewing these small courtesies as fake. Americans know what they are getting is a bite sized friend, a brief friendly moment in an often routine or even harsh world. I don’t think it’s fair to call it fake when no one expects anything more from an exchange of pleasantries, after all we’re just efficiently getting exactly what we’re asking for - a smile, a brief chance to feel connected, or the comfort to receive grace when making a Fauxpas that others are willing to overlook
Edit: Something just popped into my head. My mother all throughout my childhood and adolescence was a waitress and her stories about her time working there are replete with interactions that some Europeans would call fake. Today she is an amazingly successful business woman and do you know where a large portion of her client base originated from? Customers at the restaurant who were charmed by her pleasant interaction with them. Those former customers are now her clients, some are honest to goodness friends, and there’s always someone around town who will stop her in the super market or at the bank to say hi because they really enjoyed connecting with her at that restaurant. There are situations in which even this „fakeness“ can lead to more and I think that’s a great example as how it’s not fake at all. Maybe superficial but not fake
I think it's worth noting that emigration has a filtering effect. I was her opposite: I left the US for the Netherlands after university, and I loved the normalcy of the society. I found the Dutch refreshingly honest and efficient in how they communicated. They spoke their minds, and they often made it clear where someone stood with them.
They'll tell you whether or not they like you and want to see you again. Early in my time there, I made an Americanism calling a friendly Dutch acquaintance my "friend". In the US, the label is used casually to describe anyone someone likes. He replied, "how do you mean? We don't know each other that well yet."
in California, there's a half-serious joke that if someone says, "oh my god, it was so good to see you, I'm busy for a while, but let's grab coffee sometime" really means, "meh, I'll see you when I see you, mmkay byyye."
I found myself experiencing much less social anxiety there because no one tried sugarcoating their feelings. Little wondering or wallowing about whether someone liked or disliked me. They would have made it known to me.
(I now think of social anxiety as a reaction to the ambiguity or indecipherability of others' feelings and intentions.)
I think the social micro-policing also keeps society better behaved and much less crazy. One is reminded that with liberties and entitlements come obligations and responsibilities to society, whereas in the US cultural attention is too focused on the former. I remember another time I (slowly) rode my bicycle onto a sidewalk, and an elderly man verbally reprimanded me. In San Francisco, antisocial behavior is widely tolerated because no one wants to speak their mind: this has resulted in a rather unpleasant urban atmosphere.
I do completely understand where you’re coming from. One of the reasons why I love living in Germany is because I do prefer the orderliness and directness to American social niceties. But we’re talking here about American „fakeness,“ and that’s where I will defend a culture that I think doesn’t as readily suit me. There are definite pros to direct European culture but it’s entirely unfair and disparaging to label American social culture as fake.
Of course I’ve always said myself that the people who emigrate usually are not the best representation of the country they came from, unless escaping dire situations they usually left for a reason after all (not exactly fitting in), but again it’s not about the podcast guests experiences somehow invalidating European culture but the exact opposite. It illustrates how this „fakeness“ serves a purpose and isn’t at all fake, just different
Yeah, I often wonder if social anxiety is exacerbated by all the American phoneyness. I hate it. It sure seems likely to me.
I think I'm the same. I've seen bluntness used by people too often to excuse being mean or cruel. This belief gets reinforced when I send criticism back at them and they react badly.
I'm not American, but I'd I had to choose one - I'd go with the American 'fake interest' over the Dutch "honesty" (I'm putting that one in quotation marks for a reason to be explained). As much as there is some fake-ness to these interactions from an American perspective (A 'how are you' is only to be met with a quick 'good! And you?' because giving an honest opinion or even a 'bad' reply is unwanted.), the whole point isn't supposed to make you better or even equals; rather, it's to make you come across as either less or that the other person is superior and you want to let them know you appreciate those qualities that elevate them.
From the Dutch perspective, as much as it is direct, ANYBODY can make positive or negative comments about you. It happens on a day-to-day basis in any city whether it's a random person or a commercial. In any country (besides the Netherlands) regardless of language, anyone can and maybe will give you a positive or negative evaluation, but that doesn't make you close - if any thing many times it can be the opposite. Commercials, random people, and even close people may give you evaluations, but for the most part it's not to be trusted unless it's already been established that you are very close. In China, pretty much everyone will give you an honest evaluation every day you leave the house, but unless you are/can actively change that thing ("You are eating too much" vs "Your nose is too big") then those people just come across as @ssholes.
I've found this to be very context-dependent -- Chinese people will be very blunt about some things (like appearance, as you mention), but will be the exactly opposite in others. I double-majored in Chinese in undergrad (I barely managed B1 at my best and now I can barely speak any at all) and it was practically a meme that Chinese people will compliment your Mandarin the second you say 你好 (ni hao).
This video by a linguist discussing the tricks people use in those fake polyglot youtube videos has a portion that addresses this in the context of that social situation: people very frequently make those videos using Chinese languages like Mandarin because it's very likely you'll get weak compliments to save face rather than an open acknowledgment that you suck at the language. (I highly recommend the whole video btw, not just the part that's relevant here, it's a good watch and not very long.)
I took a linguistics seminar on Chinese politeness back in undergrad and I wish I remembered more or still had any of the papers. The only takeaway I can confidently say here is that it's deceptively complicated.
Anyway I know that wasn't your main point anyway, but I had to use it as a jumping off point ig.
Something that makes this whole conversation even more complicated is that American culture isn't a monolith, it varies by region. I grew up in the South East, which is kind of a blend of Southern Hospitality and Northeastern "coldness", and I never got the feeling that you had to reply to "how are you?" with "good!". True, it wasn't an invitation to trauma dump, unless you were close friends. It would be considered very inappropriate to respond with details of extreme negative emotions. But it's okay to say "I'm not doing so hot today, actually. And yourself?" and the person you're talking to might ask for more information, or they may not. You can even get a little silly with how bad you're feeling, with responses like "I've been better but I've been worse" or "I feel like I've been shot at and missed, shit at and hit" (among adults in a non-professional environment). The issue isn't necessarily the honesty, it's the level of detail, and that will vary depending on who you're talking to. I'd say someone that you actually have to lie to about how you're doing is being fake, but someone who asks how you're doing and is looking for a one-sentence answer is not.
I agree. When my friends or coworkers say something that isn't "good, you?" I both care and want to listen.
If I'm at a grocery checkout or something I don't really want all the details, nor am likely to give them, but I do care if someone did share. It's so context based.
I think one important point is missed: it's evaluations of the relationship that are seen a sign of a deep relationship, not evaluations in general. An honest remark in the Netherlands will still be way more appreciated than in the US, but they are not seen as a sign of closeness. And if a stranger makes an unkind remark, it is still seen as unkind.
In a way, the Dutch communicate efficiently; If you ask them for something, you get what you asked, not what you hoped for. You get the truth, not some lie.
And I agree with the article, for the Dutch, this builds the relationship.
This works great amongst themselves, but causes issues when dealing with other cultures. It’s especially visible with Americans (who we definitely see as ‘fake’). It also happens with the Brits, because they rarely say what they really think. Then some other cultures have difficulty making a point (talking seems to be the point). Or have trouble saying they don’t know something (because it is seen as bad).
It took me a while to see it (and I still don’t half the time). It’s both useful, annoying and fun.
This is a reason drinking is often so intimately linked to social activity and friendships in many cultures. It's like a "what happens in Vegas, stays in vegas" kind of thing. You don't even necessarily have to be tipsy, just being at a bar is tacit social approval that you can be honest and open.
It's not just a US thing. Maybe the most extreme case is in Japan. Does kinda suck for people that don't drink, I suppose.
This article brings to mind the Dutch footballer from Ted Lasso, who is an amusing caricature of tactlessness.
When I visited the US in the 2000s (total about 2 and a half weeks, maybe close to 3), the upbeat niceness of the servers definitely made an impression. We didn't know anything about mandatory tipping and were kids on a budget so they probably all hated us, but they sure were nice to us.
On the other hand, in continental northern europe, I also felt more than once that people were pretty cold in an offputting way, compared to Portugal.
Upon reflection, I find that I do prefer the Dutch way. I am myself probably too Dutch for Portugal, if that makes any sense. It's difficult for me not to be honest or blunt, and while the tone and intent of all of my interactions with strangers are usually friendly, I'm really bad at things like meaningless greetings or replying "well" when people ask me how I'm doing (which is really all they want to hear). It must be refreshing to be able to do without the cruft.
I often wonder if this phenomenon of American culture feeds into the neuroses of people I know. We're all so superficially polite that you can never really know how people feel about you. Do they really like you? Or are they just trying to avoid being rude?
I've lived my whole life on the West Coast of the US, and I believe we're supposed to be pretty high on the phoneyness scale. Not in the same way the South is supposed to be, though. But it feels like different flavors of the same dish.
This can also make people wonder how much they really appreciate each other. Our language is formative of our emotions, and an overly adulatory language might make me question my own sentiments as well.
I could see that. It would be interesting to see empirical research on the subject.
Perhaps even in the book this is excerpted from...?
I don't think this counts as science, but an anecdote that is tried to be explained by the author's experience as a psychologist. However, it doesn't cite or engage the literature while speculating either. So the speculation part isn't that informed by science either.
Edit: This doesn't mean the story told is necessarily untrue. However, it should be kept in mind that this isn't an opinion that is tested or supported scientifically. At least in the way the article presents it.
I first posted this to ~life. It was later moved. The author is a psychologist studying this very issue and it is clear there's a lot going on "under the hood". ~science is just a group for things related to science, it is not a scientific journal or an instance for the academic validation of what is and is not science merely by its inclusion.
While taking your reply into account, I'm gonna take this opportunity to reply in general to commensts I've gotten, in order to not be redundant. Also, I'm not fully aware of the mechanisms of moderation here and criteria for inclusion for different subforums, so, thanks for the clarification.
My criticism wasn't aimed at it being a pop-sci article. They are very important, and have some wonderful entries. They are useful for numerous people with varying degress of interest in a field and research in general. However, I found the article itself to be too anecdotal to be a properly written pop-sci article. By engaging the literature I didn't mean contributing scientifically to the field, but mentioning the theory and the findings of the relevant field or fields (and pointing to resources). For example, for pop-sci articles of a somewhat similar complexity, The Conversation also has pop-sci articles, and I think they are presented in a much better way. They generally don't overemphasize anecdotes, and they cite things.
Science communication is very hard, and I don't think it's good practice on the side of scientists to not convey empirical thinking to the public. Overrelying on anecdotes and not properly presenting the resources are things in science communication I'd rather see be left in the past.
I wouldn't have made these criticisms had this topic been posted to ~life, as it was originally posted, because then it would be an anecdote that was shared in a place for anecdotes. But I felt the need to criticize, because it was shared in this subforum, and for the reasons I mentioned I don't think this way of doing science communication is a good idea. At the very least, not as good as it could have been. A big reason is that people could mistake this anecdotal thinking to be scientific, when the way the article presents itself is not a good way of presenting the scientific findings or thinking to the public. I want to emphasize that this is a criticism about the structure of the article, and it's not necessarily about whether its author is right or not. They could have a myriad of findings to support their argument, but had chosen not to share them. Or not. I don't know, because they haven't mentioned those findings.
Edit: Hope I'm doing this right. @Johz @sparksbet
Sure, it could go back to ~life. I wouldn't oppose this. But it's not that big of a deal, this is a group for things that are related to science, which implies things that someone might not consider strictly science. I wouldn't think that the mere inclusion of a science adjacent article to this group would mislead the masses, or anything serious like that.
From the sidebar:
~science and /r/science are not the same.
(I did indeed get notified so I assume you did it right)
I don't think it's meant to be "science" per se, but rather an except from a popular science book. I suspect there'll be more of a bibliography in the book, which by the looks of things dives deeper into the subject.
I certainly agree that this pop sci article (or, well, excerpt from a book technically) isn't engaging with the literature, but this is also true of... pretty much every single popsci article, even in the so-called "hard" sciences. It seems unfair to read this excerpt and assume that there was not any scientific research backing up what it discusses when one would be unlikely to do the same for a popsci article about, say, dark matter with similar citation practices. I haven't read the book in question (ETA: though I have now ordered it based on this article) so I have no idea how thorough the bibliography is -- but neither do you. So it's pretty harsh to call it "speculation" that "isn't that informed by science" based solely on this article. As unfortunate as this may be, it is not outside the norm to not include bibliographies on popsci articles, even articles that aren't excerpts from a book that almost certainly has one.