Yes, it's just another name for that.
But this article paints high-context as bad and low-context as good, when they're really just different (and opposite ends of a spectrum, not a black or white one or another).
But this article paints high-context as bad and low-context as good, when they're really just different (and opposite ends of a spectrum, not a black or white one or another).
The author is from a "guess" culture trying to operate in an "ask" culture world. She's adapting, but not because any particular culture is better than the other, but because "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
You're probably thinking "but implicit communication is just as effective!" but it definitely isn't. It's all about hints and guessing motivations which is inevitably unreliable.
I can't think of any company that doesn't have some low-context interfaces. It can be expensive for top executives to constantly address every question with "clear and effective communication." Some people make it look easy, but it's hard!
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context...
I was critiquing the parent and indirectly asking for an example of a firm that has *ONLY* "high context." Things become very abstract with unwritten rules as you move up the org chart.
But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory. ... Nonetheless, the contexting model simply cannot be described as an empirically validated model.
However, on a practical level, people throw this around as if it were empirically supported (which doesn't seem to be the case). If there have been hundreds of studies failing to make the connection, I won't take the bet that it will eventually get validated.
On a meta-level, that's also a weird quote.
> But the fact that contexting has not been empirically validated should not necessarily be construed as a failure of the theory
Pick any theory. If you can't validate it, and plenty of people have tried to validate it, then that's a failure of the theory, right?
Definitely not. There are a ton of theories that are very difficult to validate because you simply can't run the experiment due to practical or ethical reasons. That doesn't mean they are invalid.
For example my theory that UBI is unworkable. Basically impossible to prove because it's just too expensive to ever run a real UBI experiment.
Or the theory that eugenics would decrease genetic illnesses. Good luck testing that!
Even a lot of basic and fairly self evident stuff is difficult to actually prove when it involves people. Are the gender biases of children (toy preferences etc) innate? They definitely are but it's very difficult to actually test.
But they HAVE run high/low context experiments.
> For example my theory that UBI is unworkable. Basically impossible to prove because it's just too expensive to ever run a real UBI experiment.
Are you referring to Universal Basic Income? If so, countless experiments have been run. [0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...
Sure, but those experiments are fundamentally flawed because they are of such limited duration, and because they only apply to a small portion of society.
Obviously people's behaviour is going to be different if they know they can't abandon their careers, and the economy is obviously not going to be affected at all by these trials but it definitely would by actual UBI!
To do a proper test you'd need an entire country to try UBI for at least one lifetime. Good luck with that.
The link had explicit examples of universal experiments that met the parent's goalpost criteria (i.e. "entire country"). See the nationwide program in Iran[0].
If you're not satisfied, then you need to provide your criteria and references to support your argument.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...
My link provided examples that did that! See the Iran study [0]!
I deleted the rest of my comment elaborating on your fallacies because it's clear that you're acting in bad faith, and there's no point.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income_pilots#...
For example, in educated coastal-liberal California asking for favors or for hospitality (eg can I get a glass of water) is low context but certain topics like religion or most politically controversial things are generally off limits. Conversely in the South, hospitality has a decent number of high context expectations, but religion or political discussion are more acceptable for discussion. And of course every culture has common cultural/historical references that are implicitly known and sometimes implicitly referenced without explicitly making the reference or expanding on all the details.
That’s why I think a lot of cultures see themselves as low context compared to others, except perhaps the most pathologically high context ones (Japan), because we all have blind spots about where we’re actually high context.
If you were doing something like sales, where both all your salesmen and clients were locals with the same social expectations on how to communicate implicitly, there wouldn’t be any direct benefits to trying to communicate explicitly, and doing so may come across as rude or offensive.