| ▲ | 'Askers' vs. 'Guessers' (2010)(theatlantic.com) |
| 160 points by BoorishBears a day ago | 108 comments |
| https://web.archive.org/web/20250831074424/https://www.theat... https://archive.ph/GBZBf |
|
| ▲ | donatj 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Oh, hmm... I must be an asker. I've done a lot of code review over the last decade. Let me tell you, the number times I have asked what I assumed were simple yes/no questions like "Would it make sense to do X?" or even "Why did we do it this way?" in cases where I'm looking for a discussion and it's been taken as a call to action. They're competent developers, I just want to understand the code and the context behind building it. I want to understand what their thoughts were while building it. Yet so many times a simple question like "Why X and not Y?" results in the person whose code I am reviewing going ahead and refactoring the entire PR without return comment. If I wanted you to change it, I would have said so. My question is not wrapped up in insinuation. It's a question I want the answer to. There are no layers to the meaning. I basically never mean anything I do not explicitly say. I have gotten so frustrated with this that I have started specifying "You can say no", "I'm just trying to understand the thought process", or "I'm just curious, no need to change it". Things I still feel like I shouldn't have to tell another person with an engineering mindset, especially someone with many years of experience. |
|
| ▲ | roenxi 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One aspect of that which is interesting is that what the article calls "Guess culture" is fundamentally exclusionary. If you aren't initiated into how the signalling system works by an insider or in a position of sufficient stability to fail socially many times there isn't a good way to break in. That gives the culture a lot of interesting properties that promote its ability to identify and coordinate against out-groups (which to the people involved would manifest as a "these barbarians just don't know how to be polite and we can't work with them"). One of those adaptions that is a bit crazy in the micro (could just ask for what they want, geeze) but makes a lot of sense in the macro. |
| |
| ▲ | scarmig 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a matter of different protocols, not exclusivity. An asker going into a guesser culture is like a client that doesn't respect congestion backoff; the guesser protocol is meant to ensure fairness for clients. The way to deal with it is having some kind of handshake that indicates what protocol is being used. | | |
| ▲ | fouronnes3 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Only on HN do we explain social interactions using network protocol analogies, and not the other way around! | |
| ▲ | roenxi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > An asker going into a guesser culture is like a client that doesn't respect congestion backoff; the guesser protocol is meant to ensure fairness for clients. The metaphor might be a bit strained, because a congestion protocol is fundamentally determining the system state by testing it with an optimistic request for what the client wants then responding based on the server answer or lack thereof. Which is to say, the typical asker strategy. Having a protocol at all might be more of a guesser thing though - good luck getting to index.html by sending "Hey my server friend can I have a copy of index.html pls?" to port 80 in with netcat. Very clear request, unlikely to get much consideration by nginx even if it is willing to hand over the page. |
| |
| ▲ | danaris 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And, importantly, there isn't one single "guess culture"; there are a myriad of different micro-cultures with their own local signals and codes for subtly communicating the information that isn't spelled out in speech. So even if you are a consummate Guesser, and have been one all your life, if you move across the country (or even just across town!) and find yourself in a group with a different set of Guessers, you may be nearly as badly off as if you were an Asker in that subculture. | |
| ▲ | BiteCode_dev 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As usual, if both sides exist, it's because they both provide benefits. The guessers' benefits are just not obvious at first glance. Taleb has a nice bit on that, explaining that if something exists for long, it must have enduring beneficial properties, and if you think it's stupid, you are the one having a blind spot. Dawkins led to the same conclusion: stuff that works stays and multiplies. You may not like it, but nature doesn't care what you think. It's true for entities, systems, traits, concepts... Everyone mocks Karens, until your flight is delayed and that insufferable lady tires up the staff so much that everyone gets compensation. I dislike lying but it works, and our entire society is based on it (but we call it advertising). Don't like mysandry? Don't understand why nature didn't select out ugly people? Think circumcision is dumb? All those things give some advantages in some context, to such an extend it still prospers today. In fact, several things can be true. Something can be alienating, and yet give enough benefits that it stays around. A huge number of things are immoral, create suffering, confusion, destruction, even to the practitioner themselves, and yet are still here because they bring something to the table that is just sufficient to justify their existence. See your friend making yet again a terrible love choice, getting pregnant, and stuck with a baby and no father? From a natural selection standpoint, it could very well be a super successful strategy for both parties. The universe doesn't optimize for our happiness or morality. | | |
| ▲ | woooooo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Enduring survival properties aren't the same as enduring beneficial properties. Feudalism and slavery stuck around for quite a long time and were mostly forced out against their will. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | gkoberger 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I found this 10+ years ago, and it was one of the most important things I ever read. As a consummate Guesser, it reframed my perspective completely. I started to be much happier and understanding with Askers. I also realized how frustrating, as a Guesser, I could be to Askers, and shifted more toward being clear about what I want or need. |
| |
| ▲ | entropicdrifter 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My family is almost 100% Asker. When I got to college, I drove Guessers nuts. They thought I was so selfish and would blow up at me (from my perspective) out of nowhere. "No" is always a perfectly fine and polite answer from my perspective | | |
| ▲ | arcfour 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a shame more people don't assume good faith so we can have more direct and honest communication with each other. | | |
| ▲ | cvoss 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Guessers don't believe Askers are asking in bad faith at all. If Guessers did believe that, it would be way easier for them to say no to Askers. It's precisely because the Guesser believes in the sincerity of the request that it becomes painful to deny it. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Indeed. It's the immediate assumption that since you're asking me, it must be important to you - otherwise you wouldn't be asking in the first place. I want to be the kind of person that helps others where it matters, and here you are, asking, thus proving it matters. Refusing becomes really uncomfortable, so I'd rather go out of my way to make it possible for me to agree, or failing that, to help your underlying need as much as I can. I realize now this is a form of typical mind fallacy - I wouldn't ask you for something if it wasn't really fucking important or I had any other option available, therefore I naturally assume that your act of asking already proves the request is very important to you. I guess I just learned I'm a Guesser :). | | |
| ▲ | ozgung 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's the really painful part. They ask you for something, you say 'yes' thinking it's important for the person, only to learn that it wasn't that important at all. It's like giving something that you don't want to give to someone that doesn't need it. Really annoying. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xyzal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A uni pal with the samey attitude had a wonderful motto - "better to look stupid than to be stupid". | |
| ▲ | jasondigitized 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Except a lot af askers will put you in an uncomfortable spot. No I don't want you and your family staying at my house while you are in town. | | |
| ▲ | elgenie 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Discomfort is present only if you suspect they're a Guesser and thus one of you has greatly misjudged the relationship and social context. If you know or suspect they're an Asker the discomfort disappears because you say "No" and they say "OK, cool". | | |
| ▲ | lloydjones 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think guessers agonise over HOW to say "No" in contexts like this, and what it says about them as people. "Can my family and I stay for two weeks?". Then: "No." (looks cold and heartless; do I want to project cold and heartless? Will they hate me?). "I'm so sorry but I'm not able to. The house is a mess and it's really small" (performative, hand-wringing reluctance; we both know I'm lying). "I just don't like to share my environment" (most truthful; might look petty to those who don't understand the need for privacy to that degree). | | |
| ▲ | j1elo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | All this rings true, which brings me to this question: are Guessers just a bunch of Overthinkers? | |
| ▲ | lloydjones 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Having said that, I have become a lot better at being direct these past few years, so I'd likely just say "I'm not able to, sorry. I can recommend some good hotels though". |
|
| |
| ▲ | nkrisc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then just say, “No, that won’t work out for us.” Done. |
|
| |
| ▲ | echelon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have been searching for this! Thank you for reposting this, OP. I have been (w)racking my brain trying to find this article and used HN search dozens of times. I couldn't remember what the title was, or the specific terms "ask" and "guess", so it was impossible to find. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37182058 This is one of the chief cultural differences between Southern and Northern culture. Southerners (not transplants) will "ask" without imposition: they "ask" when giving, and "guess" when receiving. Any inversion of these norms is an affront to "Southern hospitality" and will be met with the equivalent "Bless Your Heart". Ask what you can do for someone, never what you can have. Assume someone will do right by you (you should never have to ask), and if they don't - people say not so nice things about those folks. I need to articulate this better when it's not 4 AM, but it's an almost perfect descriptor of the cultural differences. |
|
|
| ▲ | socalgal2 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm pretty sure Japanese are guessers (would love to hear counter examples) To them, the etiquette is that if you ask you've put the other person in a bind. Even if they want to say no, they feel pressure to say yes. You putting then in that situation is considered bad. So, don't ask, at least not directly. You can say "Guess what, I'll be in town next week!" and see if out of the blue they offer a place to stay. But even then there is subtly of reading between the lines, of do they actually want you to stay or are they just being polite but hope you'll read between the lines and not take them up on the offer. Generally you're supposed to refuse "Naw, I couldn't possibly stay and get in your way" and then they can come back and say "No really, it'd be great" if they really want you to stay and you might have to do this dance once or twice more to really verify it's ok. |
| |
| ▲ | elgenie 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The usual dichotomy / terminology for this stuff as it relates to painting national and business cultures with broad brushes is "high context" versus "low context". In a high context culture like Japan people would be expected to code switch between Asking and Guessing behaviors depending on their audience, relative status, social rapport, etc. | | |
| ▲ | netsharc 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think in Japan the culture is almost 100% Guessing. I read this anecdote online about a US business dealing with Japanese partners (clients?). There's an item they'd like to discuss, in their regular meeting they bring it up, and the Japanese said "Hmm, this is possible. Let's discuss it next meeting.". Next meeting, they ask again, and the reply was the same. It took them a few rounds to realize that the actual (never uttered) answer is "No, this isn't possible."... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | artwr 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I found a good discussion that I keep referring to on Jean Hsu's blog:
https://jeanhsu.substack.com/p/ask-vs-guess-culture
and
https://jeanhsu.substack.com/p/bridging-the-ask-vs-guess-cul... It's been quite illuminating for people in multicultural teams... |
| |
| ▲ | pseudalopex 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did you see the HN comments for Jean Hsu's 1st article?[1] Did any stand out? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37176703 | | |
| ▲ | artwr 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the pointer, I hadn't. I think there is a couple of interesting things. First, it's still somewhat orthogonal to the High context versus Low context cultures (see the Culture Map), as in you can have people with more ask versus guess culture in either communication contexts from my observations (at least among some low to mid context cultures, I don't have a lot of experience with very high context cultures). Another way to think about it is that it's a lot more local than the broader culture of a country, down to the family level, and you can see this in the US as many commenters have reported where they grew up in various different places in the ask vs guess spectrum. Finally, the US work environment is generally very "Ask"-leaning, in particular in Silicon Valley and it can take a significant amount of time to recognize where you have been raised on this spectrum versus what is required of you to be effective at work. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Brajeshwar 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Here is my personal observation. Humans start by default as “Askers,” but society shapes them into either the “Askers” or “Guessers.” Kids don’t guess, they ask. I have also observed that Eastern countries/regions are generally “Guessers,” while Westerners are generally “Askers.” Growing up as an introvert, I remember many times when my guardians (uncles, aunties, grandparents, and parents) would interpret things differently than I thought they were. “My friend’s mom told me to come, play, and eat at their place today.” “No, they don’t. You need to come back after a while, not spend the whole day there.” I learnt a lot of Guesses in school and social settings: Yes, that meant No, and Nos that were weirdly Yes, etc. When I started working in the early 2000s, I worked with almost all US (and some UK and Australians) Companies and customers, from teachers and physicians to founders and businesspeople. Things were straightforward, “cut to the chase”, “get to the point real fast”, and the like. Eventually, I have also worked with many Indian companies and teams. We are mostly Guessers. My colleagues and bosses have called me aside to explain the interpretation of quite a few interactions, which I thought I was doing the right thing, but I should not have (even when the clients agreed). I’ve also worked with the Japanese, and they were all Guessers to a degree, and I would love to, hopefully, take the time and effort to learn the culture a lot more. |
| |
| ▲ | aidenn0 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think that's the case; I have a son who has been a "Guesser" from a fairly young age, despite our family encouraging people to be "Askers" all of his siblings are "Askers" and can't understand why he won't ask for things that he wants. For completeness sake, I should point out that most of our kids (including this one) are adopted so it's not impossible that there could be a genetic predisposition to being an asker or guesser. | |
| ▲ | gottorf 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Eastern countries/regions are generally “Guessers,” while Westerners are generally “Askers.” See also the concept of high-context and low-context cultures. | | |
| ▲ | ozgung a minute ago | parent [-] | | I think this is the correct dichotomy for the difference in cultures and better explains the Guesser vs Asker thing. High context cultures (Asia, South America, Mediterranean) tend to be Guessers because they already have the context and that context is the more important part of their communication. In low context cultures (Northern European, Russia, US) communication is more direct and words are more important than non-verbal cues. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nlawalker 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Gift link: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/2010/05/askers-vs-guess... |
|
| ▲ | dang 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Discussed (in a singleton sort of way) at the time: Askers vs. Guessers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1956778 - Dec 2010 (1 comment) Edit: plus this! Ask vs. Guess Culture - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37176703 - Aug 2023 (479 comments) |
| |
|
| ▲ | skrebbel an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm not that autistic but I simply can't deal with Guessers. The idea that I have to play some kind of 4D chess game to figure out what I am and am not allowed to ask or do makes me extremely stressed out. How am I supposed to map out the wishes and expectations and goals of everybody involved? Isn't that, in fact, borderline rude? What if I guess wrong? Everybody loses when that happens and it happens all the time. Growing up in the east of the Netherlands made this worse; the Dutch are widely known as rude and direct (ie Askers), but in the rural east this is very much not the case. Everything there runs on a mixture of "what will the neighbours think" and "what will people expect me to do?" and it's just maddening. Fortunately I was sufficiently tone deaf as a youth to not notice when I was getting it wrong, and when I grew old enough to figure that out I moved to places where you can just ask stuff. It's nuts that such a small country can have such a widely varying cultural differences but it's very real. I live in the south now and here I can ask everybody everything and people won't feel bad for saying no. It's lovely. I also figured out that my mom (a total Guesser like everybody in my family) loves me even if I get this wrong! So I just began to treat her like an Asker and verrry explicitly spell out that it's totally fine to say no, no really it is, I'm not asking for a favour, I just want to know what you want, really mom it's true. It stresses her out! The idea of being asked point blank for her personal, disregard-other-people preference is just entirely outside her normal way of thinking. She has to do hard effort to disregard other people's wishes, it's just all totally mixed together in her brain. I know it's not nice of me, but the alternative is that we (my wife and I) keep getting it wrong and accidentally visit too often or too little or invite them to parties they don't want to go to and so on. So yeah, protip for askers, treat guessers who love you as askers. They'll forgive you for it and everything else becomes easier. |
|
| ▲ | Pooge 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm born Guesser but evolved into an Asker. However, it depended on whether I was the requester or not; if I wanted to invite someone, I would try to avoid putting them in a position where they had to say "no". However, I didn't mind saying "no" myself. I would argue with other people that it's impolite to put them in such a position as they may not like to decline. After discussing it openly with friends and family, I realized that it was okay to say no and people wouldn't mind. This changed me into an asker. What's funny is that my parents were askers. I guess being introverted made me more of a guesser initially. |
| |
|
| ▲ | hekkle 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't necessarily think it is how you were brought up, and probably more to do with personality. As an introvert, I don't have the talk time to continuously put out feelers, I just gotta ask. |
| |
| ▲ | gkoberger 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Interesting, I feel the opposite. I always tend to associate askers and extroverts, and feel us introverts are tired all the time because of all the guessing going on during human interactions. But of course, your opposite takeaway also makes sense! |
|
|
| ▲ | Paracompact 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am timid: I conduct myself like a Guesser, and treat others' requests as though they are Askers. |
|
| ▲ | gwbas1c 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it requires emotional intelligence to know if you should ask or guess. I've encountered a few people that just won't stop asking for unreasonable things, and it destroys the relationship very quickly, because they just won't take no for an answer. I also have one child that I used to have to firmly say "stop asking for things" once it would get out of hand. But those are extremes in ask vs guess. |
| |
| ▲ | tenuousemphasis 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | An asker who won't take no for an answer is just an asshole. As is a guesser who continuously hints when they want something and you don't offer. |
|
|
| ▲ | CrzyLngPwd 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Labelling people this way is a blunt instrument. |
| |
| ▲ | strken 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems like the introvert/extrovert split, where few people are near the poles and there's a lot more going on in the middle. E.g. I might check if someone has weekend plans before asking if I can stay with them. Or, I might ask outright, but specify it's not important, I just want to catch up, and the nearby hotel looks nice. These seem like important differences even though they're both in the middle of ask and guess. | |
| ▲ | nlawalker 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, I don't support labelling people as one or the other, but defining and articulating the two kinds of behaviors and expectations relative to each other is incredibly useful for communication and understanding. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | If these behavioral models are indeed good and close enough to the reality. But that whole stuff comes from some internet comment! I agree it's better to label behaviors or situations than people. |
| |
| ▲ | orwin 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But it is useful if you apply that labeling to yourself. It also helps with empathy. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Labelling can be a shortcut around empathy. Empathy is the real deal. | | |
| ▲ | derektank 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s hard to imagine what a guesser is feeling if you don’t understand the differences between their expectations and yours as an asker, and vice versa. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are presupposing that the internet forum comment on which all this is based has correctly modelled the world and that this asker-guesser thing is indeed real. Usually it takes one or ideally several studies, with large groups of people, with a solid hypothesis and some strong, rigorous protocol. Until then, it's not worthless, but it's at best an inspiration. Social stuff is rarely that easy, seducing, cute, with two clear, beautiful categories of people. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | All models are wrong. Some are useful. It makes sense to judge models by how useful they're in some situation, and compare them by usefulness in context[0]. It doesn't make sense to ask which is right, because they're all wrong. Here, at least for me, but I guess(!) many other HNers, the "Askers vs. Guessers" model is very useful. Would some RCT studies be nice? Sure. I don't expect them to prove the model to be accurate. But it doesn't have to be, that's not the point. Just pointing out that there's some variability between people along these lines is very useful. Diverse modes loosely held, eh? -- [0] - Consider Newtonian vs. relativistic motion. The latter is more accurate and gets you better results at large scales - but in almost all circumstances in life (up to and including landing a probe on the Moon, or landing a shell in someone's back yard), the Newtonian model is much simpler and therefore much more useful. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Of course we could say that all models are "wrong" because they are simplifications of the reality. But there's wrong and wrong. We don't usually say a model like the Newtonian motion is wrong, it's not a very useful way to deal with models. Newtonian motion has been shown to be repeatable and to accurately predict motion within limits. It has scientific backing. The asker-guesser model isn't even shown to be a simplification of the reality. And actually, later in that High-context and low-context cultures [1] Wikipedia article: > A 2008 meta-analysis concluded that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped". Which is scientific speak for bullshit. There's a world between scientifically backed "wrong" Newtonian movement and random internet forum comment backed social model found to be "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped". The Newtonian movement is an evidence-backed simplification. The asker-guesser model is a persuasive illusion. Are you really comparing some internet commenter with Newton and the broader scientific community? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c... | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The Newtonian movement is an evidence-backed simplification. The asker-guesser model is a persuasive illusion. Both are evidence-backed simplifications. The difference is in the amount of evidence and degree of simplification. Both are better than random in their respective domain, and can be useful depending on your tolerance for errors. Sometimes even a very broad simplification is useful. E.g. it's perfectly valid to assume that π = 3 or even π = 5 to simplify some calculations, if you don't need the value to be more accurate than "non-negative and less than 10". It'll probably cost you something somewhere (e.g. you end up ordering too much paint), but being able to do the math in your head quickly is often worth it. I could keep inventing examples, but surely you'll be able to come up with some of your own, once you realize there's no hard divide between what's scientific and not. These are just rough categories. In reality, you have models of varying complexity, correlation with reality, and various utility. It's a continuum. Also: > Are you really comparing some internet commenter with Newton and the broader scientific community? Yes. Don't be biased against Internet commenters. Papers don't write themselves ex nihilo, and are generally distillation of existing ideas, not the first place where new ideas are ever published. And scientists are Internet users too. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Both are evidence-backed simplifications Which evidences do we have for this asker-guesser thing? Naive intuition doesn't count. That's not how robust knowledge works. There's a freaking meta analysis finding we don't have strong enough evidence. This is pseudo science. It could be discovered later that this stuff indeed works, but we don't know yet. It's a sexy topic, the lack of any convincing publication for all this time makes this pretty unlikely. > Yes. Ok, I'm done here. If you don't see how an internet comment from a random person and a proper paper written by Newton (or even by a random scientist) are fundamentally different when it comes to robustness and reliability of the described knowledge, even accounting for all the flaws scientific publishing has, I don't see how this discussion can be productive any longer. This won't lead to anything interesting. I think I've written everything I had to write on the topic, several times. I'll leave you with your pub / armchair science. You do you. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Naive intuition doesn't count. That's not how robust knowledge works. Sure it does. Data is actually plural of anecdotes. That's how most actual research started. The difference between "science" and "armchair science" of this kind is a matter of degree. | | |
| ▲ | jraph an hour ago | parent [-] | | Anecdotes is already a plural, of anecdote. Data is not a plural of anecdotes, or anecdote, it is plural of datum (kinda, data is often used as a mass/uncountable noun, in which case it's not a plural). Under which hypothesis (formulated before the observations), how you collect it and its statistical significance and then how you interpret it (guided by the hypothesis) are key. Such data is nothing like anecdotes. Anecdotes are at best inspirations to formulate hypotheses. Intuition is a core element in research (it guides the formulation of hypotheses) but doesn't constitute evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | the__alchemist 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Indeed. There is likely more of a spectrum. That said, I think applying the label to a given scenario, or a person's tendencies can be useful. | |
| ▲ | sublinear 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I agree, but the fundamental problem is a blunt one to begin with. It should not be a way to label people, but decisions. Guess culture is playing defense against the outcrowd. Ask culture is playing offense to achieve higher-level thinking and goals. This isn't always a deliberate thing. Still, everyone has to pick their plays with every interaction they have. |
|
|
| ▲ | saimiam 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I can think of birthdays when even the most diehard asker turns into a guesser - they would never go out of their way and ask to be coddled on their birthday but still don't mind bit of a fuss being made on their behalf. |
| |
| ▲ | greazy 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | ... You haven't met Colombians. It could be just my extended family or it could be cultural; they love celebrating birthdays, including your birthday and theirs, and will actively and overtly tell you what they expect. In a strange way they're asking, it's a negotiation of wants and needs. It could be just between family. I should ask my wife what's the go. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | floxy 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm going out on a limb and say that pretty much all human cultures are guess cultures. What if every woman was sexually propositioned thousands of times per day? Maybe I should ask every person I ever see if they'll give me $1,000, maybe some will say yes. And then I'll expand my horizons, since my normal day routine doesn't take me by enough potential benefactors. Spam is essentially an ask-culture failure. |
| |
| ▲ | nkrisc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m an asker, but I’m not going to waste my day asking everyone for $1,000 because I know it’s unlikely anyone will. “Asking” is for things you don’t already know the answer to, and “no” or “I don’t know” are acceptable answers. | |
| ▲ | helpful-guy 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As mentioned in the article, it's a spectrum, not a dichotomy. What you're describing seems to be on the very extreme end of ask culture. | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed. Most of human social interactions, throughout a lifetime, are non-verbal. That does not mean it's the most efficient or socially expedient way to communicate. I would say that it has a larger domain of communication failure states than direct questioning. Perhaps that's part of why language has persisted and supersedes non-verbal communication in most social domains. |
|
|
| ▲ | jraph 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Edit: this whole theory seems to come from some internet forum comment! I know a lot of people here are seduced (I was a bit too) but basing your social interactions and how you see others and yourself on this stuff might not be the best thing to do! Original comment below for posterity and because there are answers. ---- I'm not sure this stuff is really that helpful. You might be tempted to put people into these categories, but you might have a somewhat caricatural and also wrong image of both which could worsen interactions. By the way, that article doesn't cite any studies! It's probably helpful to know people are more or less at ease asking direct questions or saying no or receiving a no, but it's all scales and subtleties. It could also depend on the mood, or even who one interacts with or on the specific topic). The article touches this a bit (the "not black and white" paragraph). We human beings love categories but categories of people are often traps. It's even more tempting when it's easy to identity to one of the depicted groups! I wonder if this asker-guesser thing is in the same pseudoscience territory as the MBTI. In the end, I suppose there's no good way around getting to know someone and paying attention for good interactions. |
| |
| ▲ | Pooge 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > but basing your social interactions and how you see others and yourself on this stuff might not be the best thing to do! Why not? Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful especially when interacting with people. I was a guesser until maybe 2 of 3 years ago until I talked about it with friends and family and I learned just today that it was called "asker" and "guesser". If you spend time with people from different cultures, there clearly is a stark divide in behavior. Even inside said culture there might be situations in which someone becomes an asker. Therefore this framework is good to understand how people think socially and have a better understanding towards one another. Some people may think you are rude to ask–or an idiot not to–and you will probably lose relationships if you don't realize it. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Just knowing that there is such different ways of thinking is useful We agree. People have different ways of thinking and interacting. Maybe that asker-vs-guesser thing made you / others realize that (and that's good! Possibly it made me realize that too, although having a flatmate years before had already done the trick tbh), but we didn't need it to know this. > there clearly is a stark divide in behavior How are you sure it's not confirmation bias [1]? When you have a hammer, everything looks like nails. When you have a asker-guesser theory, everybody look like askers and guessers, including yourself. Odds are it is most likely, in fact, confirmation bias, since that theory was found to be unsubstantiated and underdeveloped, and since this is a sexy topic, it's hard to believe nobody tried to validate it rigorously (and the way scientific publishing is currently organized sadly doesn't encourage publishing negative results). > Why not? Because apparently, from what we actually know (robust, established knowledge), there's no good reason to think the following is actually true, even if it strongly feels like it for a host of reasons, which is my whole concern: > this framework is good to understand how people think socially and have a better understanding towards one another [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias |
| |
| ▲ | jackbravo 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not that helpful? Yes, it is not a black or white thing, more a spectrum. But for many people, including me, just naming the categories is very clarifying, even eye opening, akin to beginning to know an alien civilization. It allows you to consider a different point of view, a way of interacting, taking decisions and actions very different to what you are used to. | |
| ▲ | Paracompact 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The closest, actually academically studied concept that I know of is that of high versus low context cultures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c... | | |
| ▲ | jraph 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation. Damnit, that seemed interesting!
Thanks for sharing though, I'll still read about this. | | |
| ▲ | Paracompact 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Indeed, I personally take all this stuff not as scientifically merited theory, but just as some sort of artistic social commentary that at least has enough truthiness to be interesting/helpful. Sometimes the illusion of control and understanding is all you need in order to feel more secure in your social interactions, benefiting everyone as long as you don't fly off the handle with pseudoscience. | | |
| ▲ | caminante 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not to spam, but the 2023 HN discussion brought up the excerpt from the first paragraph on Wikipedia: > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation. The dichotomy feels true enough even if the data is fuzzy. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It feels true indeed, which is why this is a trap. Later in that Wikipedia article: > A 2008 meta-analysis concluded that the model was "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped". Difficult to beat a meta analysis (assuming it was well done of course). To be clear, "unsubstantiated and underdeveloped" is scientific speak for "bullshit". | | |
| ▲ | danaris 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, it can be. It can also mean exactly what it said: there might indeed be truth to the thesis, but it has not yet been substantiated or fully developed. Having to use circumlocution like that—and thus making the meaning unclear—seems like an aspect of a Guess, or high-context, culture, doesn't it? ^_^ | | |
| ▲ | jraph 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Having to use circumlocution like that—and thus making the meaning unclear—seems like an aspect of a Guess, or high-context, culture, doesn't it? ^_^ Ah ah :-) Well, not really. Scientifically stating something doesn't exist is very bold, usually you can't formally do this. Your best way is to say "so far, we have no evidence of this existing". Several studies or a meta analysis stating "we have no proof of this existing" is a strong hint towards this indeed not existing, usually that can't be for sure. To prove something wrong usually you need a counter example, but in this stuff it's hard even imagining what's a counter example. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | caminante 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This was discussed on HN in 2023 . The whole "high context v. low context" model doesn't have scientific backing.[0] > The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural communication studies but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_c... | | |
| ▲ | mx7zysuj4xew 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was going to make the same comment. The correct term is high context vs low context culture, not "askers" and "guessers" |
| |
| ▲ | happytoexplain 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >By the way, that article doesn't cite any studies! That's fine. I think we need to get away a little bit from the implication that any thought not connected to studies or statistics makes it borderline worthless. We need to lean a little bit more toward humanism ("we" as in ostensibly thoughtful people - the average person definitely needs to lean a little bit more toward studies/statistics). | | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thought not well grounded in objective evidence has a place, both on matters that are not subject to empirical inquiry and in preliminary speculation about matters that are. But it also runs the risk of building palaces of elaborate BS with no relation to reality and pure garbage filler content, like article presenting three different non-evidence-based ideas of how a dichotomy itself not grounded in evidence supposedly plays out in reality, with no effort to do look at any evidence or do any analysis as to whether any of them or the underlying dichotomy is connected to reality. | |
| ▲ | jraph 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Humanity / humanism and science aren't opposed. Wrong social models can have bad human implications. It seems to me that being careful with these models and requiring rigor is the humanist thing to do. Go ahead and present hypotheses, that can be very interesting, just don't present them as facts. (Now maybe this asker-guesser thing is indeed studied, I don't know) | | |
| ▲ | pseudalopex 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Go ahead and present hypotheses, that can be very interesting, just don't present them as facts. The article called it a provocative opinion described in a comment which became a meme. | | |
| ▲ | jraph 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Indeed! I didn't remember this (yes, I had already read that article a long time ago, I only scanned it quickly this time). At least the article is honest with its source. Thanks for emphasizing this. |
|
| |
| ▲ | technothrasher 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > ("we" as in ostensibly thoughtful people - the average person definitely needs to lean a little bit more toward studies/statistics). I'm not sure what you're getting at here by suggesting an elite class of people above the "average person" who do not require objective evidence. That's not really aligned with the core tenets of humanism. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | globular-toast 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this has a lot of truth to it, but I think it is ultimately an oversimplification or even a false dichotomy. I was in a relationship that was constantly strained by something similar to this. My partner would never ask for help with anything and would just get frustrated when I didn't pick up on her struggling and jump in to help. Conversely, I only ask for help when I really need it but she would see me struggling and jump in, which would annoy me because I didn't ask for help. But I'm not an asker in the sense of this article. I would never randomly ask someone to stay at someone's house, for example. This strikes me as like a child constantly testing their boundaries. I know where the boundaries are. But, there is still some truth to it. I've often found that non-native speakers in my country tend to be askers. This can come across as quite shocking and lead one to believe, as I had, that this is actually part of their culture. But I have another theory: to be successful as a non-native you have to be an asker, because you will find it difficult or impossible to be a guesser. So it's a survivorship bias, essentially. By the title I also thought this was going to be about another phenomenon: when given a task, some people will continue to ask for confirmation until they're confident they get it, while others will just "fill in the blanks" and deliver something, even if it's wrong. LLMs, of course, being the ultimate "guesser" in this sense. |
|
| ▲ | carabiner 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This has been posted like 20x: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=asker+guesser |
|
| ▲ | mock-possum 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What is the benefit, ultimately, of being a Guesser? How is it not better in every way for every one to choose to be an Asker? |
|
| ▲ | seemaze 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| ...
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex
... You probably know the rest |
| |
| ▲ | brianpan 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not saying please or having to be polite is often simpler. Knowing and using etiquette is often more effective. |
|
|
| ▲ | mjmsmith 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why is it "guesser" rather than, say, "hinter"? |
| |
| ▲ | bena 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I guess it's because they expect others to operate at the same level so they will expect to guess what others want. But I agree with you, it should switch to align from the perspective of the person wanting something. | | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've also seen responses saying that the framing of "ask" culture makes it sound as though it's all "ask" and no "tell", which is counterproductive. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | devmor 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is really interesting to me because I don’t think I fall into either category, but I can easily place a majority of people in my life into these two categories pretty solidly. |
|
| ▲ | gitonup 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Your boss, asking for a project to be finished early, may be an overdemanding boor – or just an Asker, who's assuming you might decline. I don't pay for the Atlantic and thus am limited by paywall, but this ignores power dynamics. |
| |
| ▲ | scott_w 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Only if you’re a Guesser ;-) Seriously though, it depends on the boss and the relationship you have with them. It can really fall into either camp and it might even be situational with the same person! I would say that, generally, I would prefer to be direct in these relationships unless you both know each other really well. It does make things easier for all involved. | | |
| ▲ | closewith 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Seriously though, it depends on the boss and the relationship you have with them. Those are the power dynamics the GP is referring to. | | |
| ▲ | scott_w 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That wasn’t the intention of what I wrote. I was referring more to how people speak. It’s very common in British English to phrase a request as a question. The “relationship” I refer to isn’t “they’re your boss,” it’s “how do you and your boss communicate,” which is a different thing altogether. That’s not to say power dynamics can’t exist, just that it’s not a thing you can apply to every conversation or situation. | | |
| ▲ | closewith 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The “relationship” I refer to isn’t “they’re your boss,” it’s “how do you and your boss communicate,” which is a different thing altogether. No, they're impossibly intertwined and cannot be treated separately. > That’s not to say power dynamics can’t exist, just that it’s not a thing you can apply to every conversation or situation. To the contrary, it's not something your can ignore in any conversion between subordinate and a boss, which is the point the GP was trying to make. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | __turbobrew__ 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Power dynamics are definitely a factor. There have been many scandals around people in power asking subordinates to sleep with them, and it appears that the majority of the (Anglo) public now considers this morally wrong. | |
| ▲ | jackbravo 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can read the original forum discussion that inspired this article: https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-bet... | |
| ▲ | neonate 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | These both work for me (copied from the top): https://web.archive.org/web/20250831074424/https://www.theat... https://archive.ph/GBZBf | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s conventional around here to share these sites. But they are basically unauthorized copies of the articles, right? IMO it is totally fair and fine to just respond to the part of the discussion that the publication decided to make publicly available. | | |
| ▲ | pseudalopex 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > IMO it is totally fair and fine to just respond to the part of the discussion that the publication decided to make publicly available. This wastes the time of people who read the article. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The publicly accessible article is the article, it isn’t the reader’s fault that the publisher decided to only make a little bit of it accessible to us. | | |
| ▲ | pseudalopex 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The publicly accessible article is the article No. > it isn’t the reader’s fault that the publisher decided to only make a little bit of it accessible to us. It is a commenter's fault if they comment on an article they did not read. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fyltr 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | a link to the non-paywalled article is at the top of the hn post |
|