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 7 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 6 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 6 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.