> 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 17 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 15 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 10 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 9 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 8 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.

	▲	topaz0 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Generously, it could be that some relevant phenomenon does exist, but the studies are testing a hypothesis that is too strong or misaligned with the real phenomenon. Like, say, maybe the studies are attempting to show that people divide along these lines for all purposes, when the actual phenomenon only applies to matters of sufficient gravity; or maybe the studies are attempting to show that cultures divide along these lines, but actually individuals vary much more within cultures than between them. There's a million related hypotheses that you could try to parse, and finding that some of the strong ones are not supported by evidence is interesting but not evidence that the concepts aren't useful at some level. Regardless of the above, it seems uncontroversial to say that some interactions have one or the other character -- and that it could sometimes be useful to name that character.