October 19th, 2007
High-context and low-context, in case you're wondering, is about how people talk. High-context people, when asked a question, will give you the answer, and all the surrounding reasons, plus the history of the building, what they had for breakfast this morning, and how their mother's operation went. Low-context people will give you the exact answer to what you asked - nothing more. Both can be difficult to deal with - sometimes you just want a simple "yes" or "no", and not all the reasons for that decision, because you just want to get the email sent and go home, please. And sometimes you need to know a little more than "yes" or "no", and having to drag every bit of information can be like pulling teeth.
It helped me deal with certain people at my previous work - one woman in particular would only give a direct, brusque answer, and I used to find her incredibly rude. But I learnt to see it as just the way she talks, and I could deal with it without taking it personally. (She was, actually, kind of rude, but I think some of that was in response to how other people reacted to her - she probably lived in a world of bad attitudes, and didn't realise she was bringing a lot of that upon herself.)
I started out with a point... Oh, yes: written communication is just as bad, if not worse, as most people aren't trained to express themselves emotionally through their writing. People on LJ are pretty good, but I think that's because it's pretty writing-centric. But people day-to-day don't necessarily know how their writing makes them appear.
I still think this guy is being rude to me, though.
---
See y'all later for the AIM
![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)