That said, it is important to keep in mind that what's here under discussion is a broad and fairly imprecise description of how varying acculturation can affect interpersonal relationships mostly among people who don't know one another all that well. In that context it's useful; to try to generalize it to every human interaction is not.
[1] https://alexandria.ucsb.edu/lib/ark:/48907/f37d2s7h#:~:text=....
So I think one of the hidden dimensions here are — are you guessing because you are trying to consider the other person, or are you guessing because there is vulnerability to exposing what you really feel?
Verbal abuse, childhood bullying, body shaming, cyberbullying, workplace harassment are all abusive and normal and accepted in many cultures.
I don't think we'd have ever come up with money if abuse weren't a common cultural norm. It's pretty much a proxy for "or I'll have my thugs hurt you".
The argument is easy to construct in either direction, but in no case adds anything of value to the conversation.
Too, claiming that abuse is "just a cultural thing" offers both abusers a convenient excuse for their actions, and everyone who isn't abusive but does share traits of whichever culture an undue indictment.
That's why I'm grateful that the commenter I replied to helped me see the healthier side of this trait!
Likewise ask culture can only be healthy if there is not a power imbalance: is the asked party really free to say no?
The title is catchy but I’m not sure how useful this dichotomy really is.
Instead of saying "can you do x" you can say "i know you're busy so no pressure whatsoever but if you're available can you do me out with x? feel free to say no my feelings won't be hurt"
Yea it's a lot more words but the general gist is you ask with an additional explicit "out" for the other person so they can say no using your pre-provided excuse instead of them having to come up with one. I've found this over communication can be useful for bridging the gap sometimes
Instead of asking 'Would you do this for me? etc.' which I know would cause a mild-natured guesser stress.
When asked directly, they will give in even if they don't like doing what is being asked.
'Asking' in these cases is actually exploitation (if done with prior knowledge).
Simple example, when somebody cuts into a line in a super market, how many people actually speak up? Most of the time I see eye-rolls, angry shrugs but people just move on.
Is checking out one person later going to be better or worse than what will probably be the very mild confrontation of prompting someone to move back in line? Usually, one person's inconvenient action has no meaningful impact on me at all and is quickly forgotten, but I don't know how it might impact the other person, so I wouldn't normally choose that confrontation even though it also wouldn't bother me if it happened. I'm weighing "no impact on either of us" with "no impact on me, but possible negative impact on the other."
Meanwhile you may have just asked me on a long shot.
If the other person is also an asker, it's probably accurate. As an asker myself, I have no trouble saying no when the answer is no. I will generally offer some explanation of the no, and I'll probably also suggest some other way the other person can accomplish what they were asking me about, but saying no just feels like "being honest" to me.
I'm also comfortable with the prospect that I might disappoint people this way. I consider my own disappointment to be my responsibility, and thus also consider other people's disappointment to be theirs, not mine.
I don't know if that's any less true of "guess" culture. In guess culture the one with less power gets punished for guessing wrong instead of asking wrong.
Ah, I see you’ve met my dad.
The difference between normal and pathological behavior in either culture lies in whether people treat others in the same way they would like to be treated themselves.
For example, Is it okay if I bang your wife/gf?
If you think that's a rude question, why? All I'v done is Ask.
By default, I would take your request at face value and have no trouble saying, "No, we're monogamous, but I can't very well blame you for wanting to!"
Of course, the nut of the question is whether its ever possible to be rude with a question. If it's possible to be rude with a statement, I don't really see the difference between questions and statements, at the higest level, though
Similarly, "Can I sleep with your wife" implies that the asker thinks it's a possibility worth inquiring about. So I basically agree with you on a practical level -- most people would not respond well to the underlying assumption. The question is a veiled statement ("I think you might be open to letting me sleep with your wife, so here I am asking"). In that sense, the question and the statement aren't very different, as you noted.
Certainly sometimes I'm wrong. Most people are assholes sometimes (myself included), and some people are assholes most of the time. But I've found my conversations go best when I try not to assume assholery about someone for as long as I possibly can.
In this case, assuming someone's worldview doesn't take monogamy for granted, and that they've also noticed how sexy my partner is, is how I avoid being offended, even if they frame the request in a somewhat crass way.
I can't imagine a context in which someone would bother asking me for permission to rape my partner.
IME this person is always a women dominating her family. Idk why.
I've experienced it in the contexts of narcissism and borderline personality, where the underlying thought is, "I am so obviously the center of the world that anyone with half a brain who's paying a whit of attention should to intuit my needs without my having to speak a word. If I have to speak, you have already failed." And anyone who failed was punished, sometimes intensely.
Ask culture, for me in that context, became about being able to exist as a separate person and express a boundary. I'd much rather put the cards on the table, find out we want completely different, even opposed things, and work from there, than deal with the power imbalance of one person's assumption that anyone who isn't reading their mind is an idiot.
It seems the virtue, as most of the time, is in the mean.