Brontoforumus Archive
Discussion Boards => High-Context Discourse => Topic started by: Guild on July 05, 2008, 03:26:24 PM
-
i <3 u worsties
-
roffle what is this thread all about
oh it's guild
he's awesome
-
:humpf:
do you not have enough attention sir
-
Kazz is a leader of men. He understands the secret to good conversation: Keep things light and fill the blanks with positive things.
-
Are you drunk again
-
Lyrai tells it like it is. You know when Lyrai says she likes something it's the honest truth. Lyrai has the kind of panache that starts memes and promotes conflict resolution.
-
:disapprove:
-
I've had the pleasure of watching Brentai's sense of humor go from blunt-force-trauma funny to razor edge brain-surgery funny over the years. He's a horribly nice person who deserves many good things.
-
Very well. Now for a real challenge.
-
Hi Zach. *fingerwiggle*
Newbie, Norondor and Ted Belmont are cool too.
-
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b167/unhelpful/SLAP_FIVE_by_captainosaka.jpg)
-
42 votes divided by 12 respondents = an average of 4 votes each
USE THOSE VOTES PEOPLE
THIS IS IMPORTANT
-
I only voted once, as i feel that is quite sufficient for making my views plain.
-
:objection:
I WANNA VOTE SIX TIMES
-
this thread has been cancelled
(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)
(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)
(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)
(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)
(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)(http://brontoforum.us/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=529;type=avatar)
-
I used context in the conversational sense.
When two people who prefer to use a high-context conversation format talk to each other they will both dance around the point always, neither ever quite stating the point, each expecting the other to follow unspoken elements of the conversation as a matter of course. I'm only like 2/3 high-context, but I am strongly in this half of the ballpark.
Here is a high-context conversation in bold, with a more low-context version in parenthesis, and bracketed commentary for clarification on the differences between them:
"My cousin is coming over." (I am excited about my cousin visiting.)
[in high context, the excitement should be read from body language or more importantly simply inferred by the fact that the person mentioned the event at all*]
"Oh, I am very happy for you." (Really? What's the occasion?)
[in either case, these are ways to say "tell me more,' but direct questions are rude in HC]
"We always have a good time." (It's just a visit. Don't fill your head with unnecessary details, dude.)
[the first is not necessarily a conversation closer, however it IS a way of pointedly not continuing the conversation: telling someone to drop a subject would be rude in HC]
Japan is very HC. They call U. S. Americans rude for being direct, while our culture considers indirectness to be rude.
I learned that I was high-context after studying cultural differences for a semester in college. Fascinating subject, and very enlightening. I learned that there's really no such thing as rudeness, but there ARE people to be avoided for their embarassing or hard to deal with style of communication. Brentai is high-context and to a degree so is Sharkey. (you are not high-context at all, Thad) [did you see what i did there]
Man, that was difficult to explain! (please inform me whether I got the point across or not)
*in high context conversations smalltalk is replaced with a comfortable silence (in low context silence is mistaken for stupidity or agreement)
-
This play is terrible. You can't just have the characters announce how they feel. That makes me angry!
-
I used context in the conversational sense.
When two people who prefer to use a high-context conversation format talk to each other they will both dance around the point always, neither ever quite stating the point, each expecting the other to follow unspoken elements of the conversation as a matter of course. I'm only like 2/3 high-context, but I am strongly in this half of the ballpark.
Okay, I get it. You took a psych class once and are using that as an excuse for the fact that you love posting incomprehensible (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=240.msg17386#msg17386) gibberish (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=808.msg17483#msg17483) for the single purpose of annoying people.
Replace "psych" with "econ" and we've got your politics covered too.
EDIT: You know what? You just used the fact that you needed me to explain my post to you as a springboard to explain that you are high-context. :hurr:
EDIT 2: Actually, come to think of it, that's exactly why I brought up your seeming misuse of "high-context" in the first place. Another nuance which seems to have sailed over your high-context head.
-
Well I got her namba, so how do you like them apples.
-
Dude, Thad, relax a little.
Ok Thad, you want to talk about this? Clearly you do, because you are characterizing me as a child who does not understand of what he speaks.
If Picasso sat through an art class and made a post about color theory you'd laugh if he hadn't first painted a million cubism paintings. I get that. But I was born with a brain for interpersonal communications. Ask anyone who knows me. I understand the brain in a way that can't easily be quantified, becuase I don't do it consciously.
That having been said, when I "sat through" this class (actually aced it, and literally led my group (it's lame to quantify, but I led my 12 group members to acing the course having never cracked the book msyelf) something in my brain picked up on the fact that while this category or element of interaction is not a hard fact (LIKE EVERY GODDAMN THING IN ALL OF SCIENCE THAT ISN'T HARD MATH) I knew it was useful to know. And when you asked me about it, I though "Well, that might be a thread split topic, but I'll answer it and maybe it WILL get thread split and people can intelligently pick it apart the way Thad likes to do." What I did not consider is that you'd get angry and lock the topic. So here, in the middle of this thread I made for you to do EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID in, is my response to your heavy-handed backslap: You are an expert at categorical encyclopedic knowledge of political theory and have a strong opinion: I am an expert in my own field. I could give a fuck if you if you don't like it, but stop treating me like your girlfriend.
I used context in the conversational sense.
When two people who prefer to use a high-context conversation format talk to each other they will both dance around the point always, neither ever quite stating the point, each expecting the other to follow unspoken elements of the conversation as a matter of course. I'm only like 2/3 high-context, but I am strongly in this half of the ballpark.
Okay, I get it. You took a psych class once and are using that as an excuse for the fact that you love posting incomprehensible (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=240.msg17386#msg17386) gibberish (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=808.msg17483#msg17483) for the single purpose of annoying people.
Rubber and glue.
Replace "psych" with "econ" and we've got your politics covered too.
Rubber and glue.
EDIT: You know what? You just used the fact that you needed me to explain my post to you as a springboard to explain that you are high-context. :hurr:
Because I read into your post. It's, like, the premise of what I was trying to explain. This is actually the entire problem we've had since day one. Your gravitas with the masses of pyoko attracts people to your way of thinking. I don't mind it mostly, since I'm only here for like three people's posts, but once in a while when your ego inflates like this I like to egg you on. I've been told by many people in secret that they find it hilarious. I don't do it for them, I'm actually trying to get you to mellow a bit. It seems you're immune, so rather than take the Kazz route and start imitating you I think I'll just let sleeping dogs lie.
EDIT 2: Actually, come to think of it, that's exactly why I brought up your seeming misuse of "high-context" in the first place. Another nuance which seems to have sailed over your high-context head.
Yes. Yes it is. Now you've met me halfway on this. Why the fuck did you react so angrily?
This is the ONE PLACE in the world aside from when I'm hanging out with my close friends where I don't feel the need to use my powers. Addendum: This is the one place it doesn't work even if I try. Which I don't want to.
-
You know, I was about to ask the rhetorical question of whether there is anything in the world more annoying than a first-year psych student who goes around labeling people.
But then you reminded me: one who changes the subject when someone points out why his labels are wrong.
-
You know... by, the criteria posted by Guild, technically I could be categorized into this so-called 'high-context' thingummy.
Yet, oddly enough, I can still read and communicate on the internet without gross misunderstandings (most of the time) because I have a basic grasp of the notion that written messages =/= IRL spoken conversations.
HOW INEFFABLY BIZARRE.
-
Well I'm also a hugely arrogant jerk, so there it is.
-
Well, Guild, while part of me wants to continue the conversation, the truth of the matter is you've accused me of reacting angrily (false), locking the thread (false; I merged it into a locked thread and then immediately unlocked it), and then there was that completely gratuitous bit about "treating you like my girlfriend".
You want to know why people treat you like a child? Because you act like one. You whine like one, you throw temper tantrums like one, and you make off-base accusations like one.
You can kiss my ass.
-
He's an admitted troll. You really oughtn't encourage him past what's reasonably funny.
-
Alright. There's really only one thing I get mad about, and that's threadlocks. It's really pointless imo.
Sorry for the accusation and the tantrum.
Today's checklist:
X Troll Thad
/ Beat both campaigns in Warcraft II
Situps and pushups
X Win arguement on the internet
-
He's an admitted troll. You really oughtn't encourage him past what's reasonably funny.
Well, that's kind of the idea. I thought it was reasonably funny up until his little temper-tantrum edit up there. Now it's not, so I'm done playing.
-
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/approve.gif)
-
Is he banned yet?
-
He might yet reset and fall back within range of reasonably funny.
-
Is he banned yet?
I somehow think that banning Guild would not stop him from annoying us, even if it was just because of SoraCross-esque ban evasion.
-
Is he banned yet?
irony
-
Fuck, I don't play where I'm not wanted... if people really want me gone, fine.
-
so rather than take the Kazz route
Fuck, I don't play where I'm not wanted... if people really want me gone, fine.
:wheeeee:
All right, in seriousness, though:
Sorry for the accusation and the tantrum.
I DO appreciate the apology.
-
All right, going to have a look at this one:
Is he banned yet?
Presumably you're joking, but just to take the question at face value, there are three reasons off the top of my head why Guild isn't banned.
One: Take a look at this comment.
Your gravitas with the masses of pyoko attracts people to your way of thinking. I don't mind it mostly, since I'm only here for like three people's posts, but once in a while when your ego inflates like this I like to egg you on. I've been told by many people in secret that they find it hilarious.
Now, leaving aside Guild's and my obvious difference of opinion about which one of us is sitting back and laughing while the other one works himself into a frothing rage, I think we can go all HIGH-CONTEXT here and assume Guild's talking about somebody in particular. And I can only think of one guy who's expressed a similar sentiment (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=44.msg15135#msg15135) on the forum recently. (But hey, Guild, if I'm wrong and you really ARE just talking about a bunch of people who hide behind your skirts rather than state their opinions publicly, please feel free to correct me as I have something to say about that.)
Two: I don't like banning people. I don't even like locking threads (case in point). I've never even given SoraCross worse than a temporary posting ban. Guild hasn't done anything I actually see as ban-worthy.
Three: ...argh, okay, I hate to do this. I really hate to break kayfabe. But apparently some people need to be reminded of this, and maybe that includes Guild and me too.
You're not likely to see me ban Guild because Guild's my friend.
This is a game we're playing. We both derive some satisfaction from it, and that's why we keep doing it. (I'm a little baffled that Guild doesn't seem to get that and that he accuses ME of being an easily-manipulable powderkeg even as he himself blows up over an imagined slight, but...there it is.)
That's not to say one or the other or both of us can't get carried away with it sometimes. And when it's no longer fun, that's the point we should take a step back and quit doing it. Like yesterday when Guild got all pissed off and I told him we were done. (Or, as Brent put it, quit when it's not funny anymore.)
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: I should add that just because I like Guild and see this as a game doesn't mean I'm just bullshitting here. I DO want him to start behaving himself on Real World, and I AM going to continue calling bullshit when he uses sophomoric psychobabble to defend his love of making his posts a pain in the ass to read. (Yeah, yeah, Guild, you can keep crying "I'M JUST HIGH-CONCEPT! I'M JUST HIGH-CONCEPT!" But you'll pardon me if I think it sounds insincere from inside a code tag nested in a quote tag.)
-
And hey, kudos on using "infer" correctly, but I'm still baffled by your use of "context".
"High context" means he makes up what you meant, then disagrees with it.
-
Actually, I think it means he writes incoherent posts and then acts like it's your fault you can't understand them.
(actually it's both)
-
A simpler solution:
I used bullshit in the conversational sense.
When two people who prefer to use a high-bullshit conversation format talk to each other they will both dance around the point always, neither ever quite stating the point, each expecting the other to follow unspoken elements of the conversation as a matter of course. I'm only like 2/3 high-bullshit, but I am strongly in this half of the ballpark.
Here is a high-bullshit conversation in bold, with a more low-bullshit version in parenthesis, and bracketed commentary for clarification on the differences between them:
"My cousin is coming over." (I am excited about my cousin visiting.)
[in high bullshit, the excitement should be read from body language or more importantly simply inferred by the fact that the person mentioned the event at all*]
"Oh, I am very happy for you." (Really? What's the occasion?)
[in either case, these are ways to say "tell me more,' but direct questions are rude in HB]
"We always have a good time." (It's just a visit. Don't fill your head with unnecessary details, dude.)
[the first is not necessarily a conversation closer, however it IS a way of pointedly not continuing the conversation: telling someone to drop a subject would be rude in HB]
Japan is very HB. They call U. S. Americans rude for being direct, while our culture considers indirectness to be rude.
I learned that I was high-bullshit after studying cultural differences for a semester in college. Fascinating subject, and very enlightening. I learned that there's really no such thing as rudeness, but there ARE people to be avoided for their embarassing or hard to deal with style of communication. Brentai is high-bullshit and to a degree so is Sharkey. (you are not high-bullshit at all, Thad) [did you see what i did there]
Man, that was difficult to explain! (please inform me whether I got the point across or not)
*in high bullshit conversations smalltalk is replaced with a comfortable silence (in low bullshit silence is mistaken for stupidity or agreement)
-
STOP MAKING FUN OF HIM SEI
HE IS AN EXPERT ON PSYCHOLOGY IN SOME WAY HE CANNOT QUANTIFY
JUST LIKE PICASSO
-
Guild is the Picasso of Internet trolling?
I can see his posts secretly being some sort of avant-garde experiment, or at least that's what he would claim.
-
If it's some sort of experiment, it's more like the Milgram one.
-
I just refound this thread.
It's :perfect:
If we had signatures, this would be linked there.