Cross Cultural Communication: A bridge to understanding

[Scayde]

I wanted to start a thread with the sole purpose of increasing the positive energies here on SYM through gaining insight into the differences we has a group posses, while finding common ground with each other. My heart is very heavy tonight, because of feelings which were hurt unnecessarily. I think the root of it was a difference in communication styles. I think the ways in which we communicate are colored by a myriad of things. I hope in this thread we can build some bridges, mend some fences, and heal some wounds through better understanding of how we perceive the world by looking through each others eyes. I hope everyone will feel welcome to participate in this dialogue, especially people with whom I have had misunderstandings in the past.

In particular, I would like to know every ones thoughts on the differences between

1.Discussion
2.Debate
3.Dialogue
4.Communication

Please, I do hope everyone will participate.


*HUG* to any I have offended….especially CE. I think we have had terrible misunderstandings simply because we do not understand each other. I hope this will help us all communicate more effectively, with out any hurt feelings in the future.

[Scayde]

I will start by saying that I come from the South. Texas to be specific. Culturally it is rare for a person, especially a female to openly challenge another. It is just something not done. Those who do are seen as attacking the other party. We "Share ideas". We "discuss" issues. We cordially defer to the other and demurely offer that we think that there "might" be a difference of opinion when we disagree. We don't argue. As a young lady we are taught that is just rude. We do not question the reasons of the other party. It may sound quaint, but that is the culture I am from, and the way I was taught. At the same time I realize this is rather archaic by some standards. Never the less, I know it has colored my perceptions at times.
LOL…even as I read this, I think I am looking over some Victorian time-warp , but I have to be honest with myself, and others, it was ingrained in me from the cradle, and it still permeates my interactions with others.

[Maharlika]

... with the way I was brought up by my parents, I was trained to be critical on things, be vocal but watch the language. We can agree to disagree and it's all about the the manner on how you express your point of view without being offensive and disrespectful to the other person.

Then again, dealing with people from my grandparents generation would be more or less different because with the way they were brought up. They think that what they say is the final point of the argument.

The deal here is to make them "think" that it's their call, persuade them to think like you do and make them think that it was their idea.

Here in Thailand, most people practice the "krengjai." That is utmost respect to the elders, something akin to filial piety. When there is a conflict of ideas the "poo-yai" (senior) MUST always win the argument and have his way in favor over the "dek" (junior). End of discussion. The "deks" are not allowed to speak out against (read: disagree) the "poo-yai" most especially in front of everybody.

Never ever make a "poo-yai" lose face. The "poo-yai" is always seen as right, if it conflicts with that of the "dek's". Constructive criticism is not part of their vocabulary.

Normally Thais are not confrontational and they always try to use euphemistic words to temper the meaning into somethin more acceptable.

[Scayde]

Quote:

Originally posted by Maharlika ... with the way I was brought up by my parents, I was trained to be critical on things, be vocal but watch the language. We can agree to disagree and it's all about the the manner on how you express your point of view without being offensive and disrespectful to the other person.

I think that is a wonderful thing. It was the way I tried to teach my daughter. Still, I think I would have done a better job if that had been the way my parents had raised me. I remember my father saying" You can disagree with me in private all you want to, but never let me catch you arguing with your mother."

Quote:

Here in Thailand, most people practice the "krengjai." That is utmost respect to the elders, something akin to filial piety. When there is a conflict of ideas the "poo-yai" (senior) MUST always win the argument and have his way in favor over the "dek" (junior). End of discussion. The "deks" are not allowed to speak out against (read: disagree) the "poo-yai" most especially in front of everybody. Never ever make a "poo-yai" lose face. The "poo-yai" is always seen as right, if it conflicts with that of the "dek's". Constructive criticism is not part of their vocabulary. Normally Thais are not confrontational and they always try to use euphemistic words to temper the meaning into somethin more acceptable.

LOL...So in Thailand fable would always be right ?....LOL..Better not let him see this, he may want to relocate.....Oh the power cravings of a Babylonian God

On a more serious note, I was shocked when we moved to NewYork and my friends there would condradict their parents in public. I was horrified and thought they were the meanest kids in the world...Funny, after I got to know them, they became some of my dearest and truest childhood friends. A second family if you will. It did take some getting used to though

[Beldin]

Thank's @Mah for providing some interesting insights for me... and YES, please keep fable out of Thailand... ...

Now for my definition.... mind you - I'm not the "typical" Austrian - but some of our culture has rubbed off on me... .

"Our" main streak is to try to find a compromise.
The Austrian political "life" is (in MY opinion) mostly a permanent discussion.... and afterwards we settle down and discuss the discussion we had before. I don't have to mention that they don't get much done, do I ? But it works on an international scale - apparently. Might have to do with our neutrality. (Same as Switzerland..) . Apparently Austria is very popular as a site for international talks (even Carter an Breshnev signed the "SALT 2" treaty in Vienna... ) .

On a more personal level - I can't imagine ANYONE I know around here to AGREE on a single thing. . . even if they only disagree just to get a chance to have a row... . Children disagree with their parents, I disagree with my boss ... and so on... ad infinitum... but that's mostly just good hearted banter, at least I suspect so much because whenever anyone dares to intrude on an argument and tries to mediate - all of the previous "fighters" team up and go for the throat of the intruder... ...

It might sound weird, but this ongoing argument that 'm going through ( - my life - ) helped me to develop my rethoric abilities and increased my eloquence (sp?) . Not to mention the fact that you have to be able to "think quick" to change the direction of your argumentation in the middle of a sentence .

But - NO WORRIES - we always manage to work it out in the end...

Beldin

[C Elegans]

Nice initiative, @Scayde. Interesting what you write about your background, it reminds me of what my grandmother used to tell me of her upbringing When she was young, it was viewed as rude to express you had a different opinion that others, especially for females. Difference in opinion were viewed as a threat towards the group, towards the community in general. I think in her case, this had much to do with the stratifications in society. Women were inferior to men, younger were inferior to elder, people with little education were inferior to highly educated and so on. Debate and discussion was viewed as something as only the "intellectuals" (and those were mostly men), should participate in.

My own background is very different. I come from a family where critical thinking and expressing different opinions was a natural part of socialising. Debating and discussing is an integrated part of all my social as well as professional relationships, as well as personal dialogue and total speculation. Very often I find that the conversations shift from one form to another and back again.

To the distinctions, I roughly define them as this:

1. Debate: A formalised discussion about a specific issue. It follows a set of rules, where the participants present their arguments and counterarguments. Arguments must be valid and logical rules followed. Facts are opinions are distinguished clearly, and personal speculations and thoughts that are not funded on facts that can be demonstrated cannot be presented as arguments, only added as "spice".

2. Discussion: A less formalised way of talking about an issue, where personal thoughts, ideas and associations can be mixed with valid arguments and conclusions, although a distiction between the types of statements should still be clear. Speculation is allowed to a higher degree. Usually goal-oriented.

3. Dialogue: A means of talking about or around as issue with no specific goal. Speculation, expression of personal emotion or ideas are fully accepted, and understanding each other is more important than coming to any certain conclusions.

4. Communication: All of the above, plus other forms like non-verbal communication.

[Dottie]

While I dont remember how serious or frequent the discussions were when I grew up the concept of not being able to freely criticize anyones opinion feels rather alien to me. Basically the climat was (and is I think) that if you cant have your opinion criticized you should either not express them, or better yet dont have them. (Although I think my mother was softer on this point)

Debate&Discussion: About the same as CEs Discussion.

Dialogue: Communication between two or more active participants about a subject.

Communication: Any exchange of information.

Quote:

Originally posted by Scayde LOL...So in Thailand fable would always be right ?....LOL..Better not let him see this, he may want to relocate.....Oh the power cravings of a Babylonian God

lol, I certainly dont claim to know him, But my guess is actually that he would found it a very unpleasant atmosphere.

Quote:

Originally posted by C Elegans Debating [...] is an integrated part of all my social [...] relationships

No, According to your definitions its not.

[C Elegans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dottie No, According to your definitions its not.

Sorry, my socialising with you is the sole exclusion!

Another distinction I find is an imortant dimension in communication is the degree of evaluation. A schematic example of two extremes:

In a scientific debate, you evalute every statement that is presented to you, and you are prepared to have your own statements evaluated the same way. The criteria you evaluate from could for example be: Exactly what is the statement funded on? Can every step of the reasoning be demonstrated objectively? What conclusions can be drawn and not? To what degree are conclusions possible to generalise, and to what? Are there other possible interpretations? What possible sources of error is there? What predictions can we make to test this hypothesis? etc etc. When you write a scientific paper or hold a presentation, your measure every single word you use by this type of criteria.

In a psychotheray session with a patient who have just undergone a severe personal trauma, you don't question or critisise. You listen, aim to understand the patient's situation and emotional state, and initially you try to minimize evaluation, only take in information. You role is to understand, as a tool for support and initiation of treatment. You monitor the patient's feelings, and it is important not to hurt or alienate the patient.

[Littiz]

Ah... italians!
How do we debate, discuss?

Here I think, more than anywhere else, people are just "supporters" of their opionions.
First, the other side is wrong.
When someone addresses you about something, he does so implying that he's right, of course!
He speaks so, 'cause it's clear that you're supposed to have the same opinion as he.
Better put, if you think differently, you'd better remain silent 'cause your stupidity has already been proven...
you have no escape.
Really annoying. We are capable to discuss about the most important matters this way, turning them in pure flaming...
which was the purpose from the start. No real concern about the topics themselves.
We just love to polemize, scream, feel winners.

A fiery attitude, for the stupidest things.
But, I have to say, malice is often absent. We are sly, we just love to eat, drink, have fun and all.
These things alone are capable to level all the edges...
Even more so with florentines.
Don't start arguing OR eating with one of them, unless you have *A LOT* of free time

I don't feel much like the average italian, for MANY aspects... but still, the environment permeates me

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by Scayde 1.Discussion 2.Debate 3.Dialogue 4.Communication

1. A statement of opinions.

2. A statement of opionins with the option to tear the other person #$% apart. Leads to great Flame wars

3. Something between two people.... good chance of leading to divorce or another Flame war.

4. The Most Holy of the Holy Cavaliers attempt to bring enlightment to this place called SYM. Sadly the Tyrant had to step down from leadership because of his bad reputation. Still has some of the best people running it though.

[Gwalchmai]

Debate: A prepared, formalized presentation of two opposing viewpoints. Conducted not for the edification of the debaters, rather presented to an audience for their consideration. SYM has never seen a debate and probably never will unless someone organizes it.

Friendly Discussion: A sharing of opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and views among people who wish to both understand another’s viewpoint as well as express their own. Value judgments are left out of it. Viewpoints can be diverse or similar. Fine points or generalities can be discussed at length. Opinions are recognized as opinions but not discounted. Facts are well and good, but since this is not a prepared debate, opposing facts should not be expected. Everybody wins in an open, friendly discussion.

[dragon wench]

Great idea Scayde !

Recently, in viewing the posts at SYM, questions such as these have played across my mind a great deal. Perhaps this is in part related to my own circumstances. My mother was part Dutch and part German, my father is from the North of Britain. During my early childhood I lived in Holland, Germany and Britain. My parents moved to the Canadian East Coast when I was six; yet, because they had considerable trouble adjusting to life in North America, life inside the home was very much "European."

At school and elsewhere I was exposed to Canadian lifestyles and ideals, and they differed considerably from those I learned at home. To say all of this caused me some internal confusion would be an understatement. For years I endured my parents complaining about Canada, it's apparent "lack of culture," the 'fact' that everything was "superior in Europe."
For a very long time I felt the pull of both continents, while simultaneously feeling that I did not really belong in either. This has now changed, and I find myself in a position where I can comfortably dwell within both.

The differences between the two cultures were both subtle and striking, and often they clashed in very direct ways. From my father I learned the importance of discussing the big questions of politics and religion, and our mealtimes would nearly always fall into conversations about politics, religion and philosophy. He also taught me to question everything. At school... I was discouraged from speaking out against things I disagreed with; yet, I also acquired from my Canadian classmates and friends the tendency to rebel against the fairly strict houserules imposed upon me, along with a general disregard for one's elders. Two worlds....

It are these distinct worlds that I have recently seen played out within SYM.... Owing to my exposure of European, Canadian and also US cultures, I have often found myself revisiting that confusing time of my childhood and youth.


Debate, for me, means an animated and frequently heated conversation about some type of issue. Yet, I also view debate as something that lies within the boundaries of civility and mutual respect. To stray beyond those lines is "fighting."
I see discussion as a less-heated realm than debate, wherein there is usually (though not necessarily) more agreement between the participants.

Dialogue, I think is much more related to the use of actual words, whether they be spoken or written, and I tend to percieve it as being somewhat narrow in definition. On the other hand, communication is an all-encompassing link between people, and it embraces as much that is unspoken as the actual words uttered.

[Scayde]

Wow !!!...Alreay I am feeling more enlightened :D
Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I hope there will be more. :)

Quote:

Originally posted by Beldin On a more personal level - I can't imagine ANYONE I know around here to AGREE on a single thing. . . even if they only disagree just to get a chance to have a row... ;) . Children disagree with their parents, I disagree with my boss ... and so on... ad infinitum... but that's mostly just good hearted banter, at least I suspect so much because whenever anyone dares to intrude on an argument and tries to mediate - all of the previous "fighters" team up and go for the throat of the intruder... ;) ... But - NO WORRIES - we always manage to work it out in the end... :D Beldin:cool:

Oh my, I would be a nervous wreck around you guys...I must admit though, It might be fun just to hide in a dark corner and watch the fireworks :D

Quote:

Originally posted by C Elegans Nice initiative, @Scayde. Interesting what you write about your background, it reminds me of what my grandmother used to tell me of her upbringing :D When she was young, it was viewed as rude to express you had a different opinion that others, especially for females. Difference in opinion were viewed as a threat towards the group, towards the community in general. I think in her case, this had much to do with the stratifications in society. Women were inferior to men, younger were inferior to elder, people with little education were inferior to highly educated and so on. Debate and discussion was viewed as something as only the "intellectuals" (and those were mostly men), should participate in. My own background is very different. I come from a family where critical thinking and expressing different opinions was a natural part of socialising. Debating and discussing is an integrated part of all my social as well as professional relationships, as well as personal dialogue and total speculation. :D Very often I find that the conversations shift from one form to another and back again.

Thanks CE. I think it is helpful in understanding each other to see a little through the other fellows eyes. LOL.Like I said, my background sounds a bit like time-warp, so I am not surprized that I have more in common with your grandmother. As for your background, it sounds more like my father and his associates. Of course when they got going, it was our cue to leave the room and "Help Mother do 'something' " :D

Quote:

Originally posted by Dottie While I dont remember how serious or frequent the discussions were when I grew up the concept of not being able to freely criticize anyones opinion feels rather alien to me. Basically the climat was (and is I think) that if you cant have your opinion criticized you should either not express them, or better yet dont have them. (Although I think my mother was softer on this point)

Thanks Dottie :) As for me, it was never that I should not have an opinion, nor was it expected that I always agree with another. It was more a matter of posturing and polite niceties that were ingrained in order to prevent discord.

Quote:

Originally posted by Littiz Ah... italians! How do we debate, discuss? A fiery attitude, for the stupidest things. But, I have to say, malice is often absent. We are sly, we just love to eat, drink, have fun and all. These things alone are capable to level all the edges... Even more so with florentines. Don't start arguing OR eating with one of them, unless you have *A LOT* of free time:D

Ah..Littiz....:D you bring back fond memories. My adoptive father was Sicilian.....He was as passionate about how the towels were folded as he was about current events. Many times I was sent to my room from the dinnertable because I would try to suggest something to him :D.......but I loved him dearly, and miss him very much :)

Quote:

Originally posted by Weasel 1. A statement of opinions. 2. A statement of opionins with the option to tear the other person #$% apart. Leads to great Flame wars :D 3. Something between two people.... good chance of leading to divorce or another Flame war. 4. The Most Holy of the Holy Cavaliers attempt to bring enlightment to this place called SYM. Sadly the Tyrant had to step down from leadership because of his bad reputation. Still has some of the best people running it though. ;)

LOL....Maybe you should never have given up the cause. I sense direction is what we need :D ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by Gwalchmai Debate: A prepared, formalized presentation of two opposing viewpoints. Conducted not for the edification of the debaters, rather presented to an audience for their consideration. SYM has never seen a debate and probably never will unless someone organizes it. Friendly Discussion: A sharing of opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and views among people who wish to both understand another’s viewpoint as well as express their own. Value judgments are left out of it. Viewpoints can be diverse or similar. Fine points or generalities can be discussed at length. Opinions are recognized as opinions but not discounted. Facts are well and good, but since this is not a prepared debate, opposing facts should not be expected. Everybody wins in an open, friendly discussion.

Gwally, your definitions are so close to my own that I am only going to say thank you for stating them. Not only did you save me the trouble, but you did a much more eloquent job than I ever could have. Thank you....:)

Quote:

Originally posted by dragon wench It are these distinct worlds that I have recently seen played out within SYM.... Owing to my exposure of European, Canadian and also US cultures, I have often found myself revisiting that confusing time of my childhood and youth.

I am sure your background gives you a very unique nsight into the dinamics of the conversations here on SYM. Thank you so much for postin DW..*HUG*

One thing I notice is the differnt ways, sometimes subtle, sometimes drastic in which we all seem to define the same terms. I am not so much concerned with the deffinitions according to a dictionary, as I am the 'perceptions' of the members here. For me, there is no 'right or wrong' answer to the questions I posed. I hope more will post and give their perceptions as subjectively as you all have.

Thank you all for cotributing.....and please continue the conversation :)

*HUG*

[VoodooDali]

Great idea, Scayde.

I think I'm known for being outspoken.
Scayde's description of her upbringing is, I think, actually typical for most American women, not just Tejanas.
I've often felt torn here between the need to socialize with my own gender, and my own needs in discussions. In other words, I probably enjoy the company of men more, b/c I enjoy arguing about stuff, and I do not enjoy discussing personal issues. That's not to say that I don't like women, but I often feel like a stranger, like I'm communicating with another cultural group that I'm not a part of. On the other hand, some men are threatened by "smart" women, or view friendship with a female as a means to an end. It's a strange sort of limbo I exist in. However, in my life, the most intense and intimate friendships I've had have been with women.

I grew up the only girl in the family - I have 3 brothers. My father treated me more like his son, than he treated my brothers, probably b/c we were the most similar in thought and temperament. My mother is referred to as "the matriarch" in a joking way by all the family. She is the strongest woman I know.

Discussion with my brothers were usually fights, and ended up with us chasing each other around the house with baseball bats, LOL. I had to unlearn the notion that a valid response in a disagreement was to say: "you're stupid" or "shut up". I do attribute to them some of my "toughness" and all the fighting served to save my life twice - once in Guatemala City, and once in East New York, Brooklyn - since my first response to an attacker was to punch him. I was raised by wolves.

I was surprised when I left my job in Texas that the women I worked with were so saddened, and they told me, what are we going to do without you, you're the strong one. (I was the one who was always willing to tell higher-ups when they had a stupid idea.) Somehow I had never perceived myself as strong.

Anyway, this is kind of a roundabout response, just the things that are popping into my head as I think about this.

Things I like most in discussions:
People who are knowledgeable about something I don't know about and have something to teach me. I want to learn.
People who can challenge me to think differently.
People who are not threatened by different POV's.
People who don't need to be "right" all the time.
People who are entertaining and funny.

[Scayde]

Quote:

Originally posted by VoodooDali Great idea, Scayde. I think I'm known for being outspoken. Scayde's description of her upbringing is, I think, actually typical for most American women, not just Tejanas. I've often felt torn here between the need to socialize with my own gender, and my own needs in discussions. In other words, I probably enjoy the company of men more, b/c I enjoy arguing about stuff, and I do not enjoy discussing personal issues. That's not to say that I don't like women, but I often feel like a stranger, like I'm communicating with another cultural group that I'm not a part of. On the other hand, some men are threatened by "smart" women, or view friendship with a female as a means to an end. It's a strange sort of limbo I exist in. However, in my life, the most intense and intimate friendships I've had have been with women.

It is funny you should mention that. I have often said I enjoy talking to men mor that other women. There are a few exceptions like you said. Those women are usualy intensly close friends and are far and few between. In general, I think here, men tend to be more straightforward and honest, but seldome personal in their communication styles. This is something I find immensly refreshing and comfortable compaired to the more personal, and emotional styles of women. I am generalizing here, and there are exceptions to every rule. You for example are not at all like talking to most woment, and I have enjoyed our chats very much. There is a comfort and ease. I do not know who to explain it, but like I said in another thread, I can see you and me in1880 drinking tequila in a bordertown

Quote:

Things I like most in discussions: People who are knowledgeable about something I don't know about and have something to teach me. I want to learn. People who can challenge me to think differently. People who are not threatened by different POV's. People who don't need to be "right" all the time. People who are entertaining and funny.

I agree very much with the part about talking to people who can teach me something. It is one thing I always find you do....