Being polite is an evident bias, but often seen as a minor one – at its worse, equivalent to a white lie. But politeness has a more sinister side, biasing people’s perception of the truthfulness of other (see for instance why some groups failed in
Yes, we are taught to always say "please" and "thank you", that's why not saying them says so much.Politeness is not just a convention. On the politeness axis, around the zero point, we first need to reserve space for non-recognition. How else to express that you are taking people for granted, that they are invisible, that they are like appliances, that they are not worth two seconds of your time? Routine politeness raises the baseline slightly above zero in order to make room for non-recognition underneath. If a person holds a door for you, and you want express to them that as far as you're concerned you just walked through an automatic door, then your only option is to leave out the "thank you". I can't think of another way to do it. (Recognition cannot be negative.)
Yes our society is biased against non-conformists - in certain ways. And politeness is part of it - the average person can't afford to be rude. Politeness is signaling - signaling, at the minimum, that you aren't insulting your hosts, that you respect their conventions, and that you're culturally close to them.
I feel that people can be non-polite, but only in some situations. People will only put up with someone who defies the conventions if there is something there that makes it worth their effort to really look at the person. So to be non-conformist, you have to appear exceptional. Either powerful (bosses are famously rude), or brilliant, or maybe `artistic' (totally non-conformist). I feel that being generally conformist but also rude is the worst social position anyone can be in.
Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else?On a bias level, it does. On a human level, I've got used to it - it's so prevalent, that it's one battle you can't win.
although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success
Yes, but the reason rudeness was correlated with non-success was because other people in the group were less trusting of the rude speaker than they should have been.
In unsuccessful groups, rude behaviors [...] by the previous speaker negatively predicted agreementBut this behaviour was not noted in successful groups. So it doesn't seem to be the rudeness per se, but people's reactions to it.
The ways of rudeness and politeness seem subtle and manifold. Which probably isn't surprising, seeing as most people devote more of their lives to politeness and rudeness in social circumstances than practically anything else (academics being slightly exceptions).
Does this say that our society is biased against those who don't conform? (certainly this is not the only example) Is politeness simply a nonconformist bias?
This has always bothered me. If we are taught to always be polite, then what meaning do "please" and "thank you" have anymore? It seems that not being polite signals that you don't understand (or abide by) the social norms. You are some kind of outcast (in fact, I think the first trait depicted of outcasts or rebel-types in novels or movies is impoliteness). Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else? Am I alone here?
Interesting study at http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/... - although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success, if anything contradicting the main point here. If we interpret causally, rudeness distracts, but politeness is neutral. (Not a major fan of politeness myself, but that's what the paper seems to say.)
Yes, we are taught to always say "please" and "thank you", that's why not saying them says so much.Politeness is not just a convention. On the politeness axis, around the zero point, we first need to reserve space for non-recognition. How else to express that you are taking people for granted, that they are invisible, that they are like appliances, that they are not worth two seconds of your time? Routine politeness raises the baseline slightly above zero in order to make room for non-recognition underneath. If a person holds a door for you, and you want express to them that as far as you're concerned you just walked through an automatic door, then your only option is to leave out the "thank you". I can't think of another way to do it. (Recognition cannot be negative.)
Yes our society is biased against non-conformists - in certain ways. And politeness is part of it - the average person can't afford to be rude. Politeness is signaling - signaling, at the minimum, that you aren't insulting your hosts, that you respect their conventions, and that you're culturally close to them.
I feel that people can be non-polite, but only in some situations. People will only put up with someone who defies the conventions if there is something there that makes it worth their effort to really look at the person. So to be non-conformist, you have to appear exceptional. Either powerful (bosses are famously rude), or brilliant, or maybe `artistic' (totally non-conformist). I feel that being generally conformist but also rude is the worst social position anyone can be in.
Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else?On a bias level, it does. On a human level, I've got used to it - it's so prevalent, that it's one battle you can't win.
although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success
Yes, but the reason rudeness was correlated with non-success was because other people in the group were less trusting of the rude speaker than they should have been.
In unsuccessful groups, rude behaviors [...] by the previous speaker negatively predicted agreementBut this behaviour was not noted in successful groups. So it doesn't seem to be the rudeness per se, but people's reactions to it.
The ways of rudeness and politeness seem subtle and manifold. Which probably isn't surprising, seeing as most people devote more of their lives to politeness and rudeness in social circumstances than practically anything else (academics being slightly exceptions).
Does this say that our society is biased against those who don't conform? (certainly this is not the only example) Is politeness simply a nonconformist bias?
This has always bothered me. If we are taught to always be polite, then what meaning do "please" and "thank you" have anymore? It seems that not being polite signals that you don't understand (or abide by) the social norms. You are some kind of outcast (in fact, I think the first trait depicted of outcasts or rebel-types in novels or movies is impoliteness). Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else? Am I alone here?
Interesting study at http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/... - although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success, if anything contradicting the main point here. If we interpret causally, rudeness distracts, but politeness is neutral. (Not a major fan of politeness myself, but that's what the paper seems to say.)
Yes, we are taught to always say "please" and "thank you", that's why not saying them says so much.Politeness is not just a convention. On the politeness axis, around the zero point, we first need to reserve space for non-recognition. How else to express that you are taking people for granted, that they are invisible, that they are like appliances, that they are not worth two seconds of your time? Routine politeness raises the baseline slightly above zero in order to make room for non-recognition underneath. If a person holds a door for you, and you want express to them that as far as you're concerned you just walked through an automatic door, then your only option is to leave out the "thank you". I can't think of another way to do it. (Recognition cannot be negative.)
Meaningless words? How about "the" and "a"? They're basically meaningless, but we use them all the time anyway.
Scott W,
Yes our society is biased against non-conformists - in certain ways. And politeness is part of it - the average person can't afford to be rude. Politeness is signaling - signaling, at the minimum, that you aren't insulting your hosts, that you respect their conventions, and that you're culturally close to them.
I feel that people can be non-polite, but only in some situations. People will only put up with someone who defies the conventions if there is something there that makes it worth their effort to really look at the person. So to be non-conformist, you have to appear exceptional. Either powerful (bosses are famously rude), or brilliant, or maybe `artistic' (totally non-conformist). I feel that being generally conformist but also rude is the worst social position anyone can be in.
Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else?On a bias level, it does. On a human level, I've got used to it - it's so prevalent, that it's one battle you can't win.
All I can say is that Miss Manners will have a word with you after recess from etiquette school in the detention hall...
Just got back from my meeting with Miss Manners... My ears are still ringing... You wouldn't believe the language she used!
although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success
Yes, but the reason rudeness was correlated with non-success was because other people in the group were less trusting of the rude speaker than they should have been.
In unsuccessful groups, rude behaviors [...] by the previous speaker negatively predicted agreementBut this behaviour was not noted in successful groups. So it doesn't seem to be the rudeness per se, but people's reactions to it.
There are other papers by the same authors http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/erj/200200170001/0079.htm and http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0407(200007)73%3A3%3C175%3AEOSOSL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 (probably based on the same study, though I couldn't access the texts). The abstracts, though, claim that politeness biases people's evaluations in other ways as well - that more politeness on the part of a speaker will bias people towards believing him, but more rudeness will cause them to respect him more as a leader, so more likely to follow him.
The ways of rudeness and politeness seem subtle and manifold. Which probably isn't surprising, seeing as most people devote more of their lives to politeness and rudeness in social circumstances than practically anything else (academics being slightly exceptions).
Does this say that our society is biased against those who don't conform? (certainly this is not the only example) Is politeness simply a nonconformist bias?
This has always bothered me. If we are taught to always be polite, then what meaning do "please" and "thank you" have anymore? It seems that not being polite signals that you don't understand (or abide by) the social norms. You are some kind of outcast (in fact, I think the first trait depicted of outcasts or rebel-types in novels or movies is impoliteness). Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else? Am I alone here?
Interesting study at http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/... - although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success, if anything contradicting the main point here. If we interpret causally, rudeness distracts, but politeness is neutral. (Not a major fan of politeness myself, but that's what the paper seems to say.)
Guess who scores as the most polite city of the world ?
Stuart!
All I can say is that Miss Manners will have a word with you after recess from etiquette school in the detention hall...
Yes, we are taught to always say "please" and "thank you", that's why not saying them says so much.Politeness is not just a convention. On the politeness axis, around the zero point, we first need to reserve space for non-recognition. How else to express that you are taking people for granted, that they are invisible, that they are like appliances, that they are not worth two seconds of your time? Routine politeness raises the baseline slightly above zero in order to make room for non-recognition underneath. If a person holds a door for you, and you want express to them that as far as you're concerned you just walked through an automatic door, then your only option is to leave out the "thank you". I can't think of another way to do it. (Recognition cannot be negative.)
Meaningless words? How about "the" and "a"? They're basically meaningless, but we use them all the time anyway.
Scott W,
Yes our society is biased against non-conformists - in certain ways. And politeness is part of it - the average person can't afford to be rude. Politeness is signaling - signaling, at the minimum, that you aren't insulting your hosts, that you respect their conventions, and that you're culturally close to them.
I feel that people can be non-polite, but only in some situations. People will only put up with someone who defies the conventions if there is something there that makes it worth their effort to really look at the person. So to be non-conformist, you have to appear exceptional. Either powerful (bosses are famously rude), or brilliant, or maybe `artistic' (totally non-conformist). I feel that being generally conformist but also rude is the worst social position anyone can be in.
Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else?On a bias level, it does. On a human level, I've got used to it - it's so prevalent, that it's one battle you can't win.
All I can say is that Miss Manners will have a word with you after recess from etiquette school in the detention hall...
Just got back from my meeting with Miss Manners... My ears are still ringing... You wouldn't believe the language she used!
although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success
Yes, but the reason rudeness was correlated with non-success was because other people in the group were less trusting of the rude speaker than they should have been.
In unsuccessful groups, rude behaviors [...] by the previous speaker negatively predicted agreementBut this behaviour was not noted in successful groups. So it doesn't seem to be the rudeness per se, but people's reactions to it.
There are other papers by the same authors http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/erj/200200170001/0079.htm and http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0407(200007)73%3A3%3C175%3AEOSOSL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 (probably based on the same study, though I couldn't access the texts). The abstracts, though, claim that politeness biases people's evaluations in other ways as well - that more politeness on the part of a speaker will bias people towards believing him, but more rudeness will cause them to respect him more as a leader, so more likely to follow him.
The ways of rudeness and politeness seem subtle and manifold. Which probably isn't surprising, seeing as most people devote more of their lives to politeness and rudeness in social circumstances than practically anything else (academics being slightly exceptions).
Does this say that our society is biased against those who don't conform? (certainly this is not the only example) Is politeness simply a nonconformist bias?
This has always bothered me. If we are taught to always be polite, then what meaning do "please" and "thank you" have anymore? It seems that not being polite signals that you don't understand (or abide by) the social norms. You are some kind of outcast (in fact, I think the first trait depicted of outcasts or rebel-types in novels or movies is impoliteness). Does the use of meaningless words bother anyone else? Am I alone here?
Interesting study at http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/... - although the main conclusion was that rudeness was correlated with non-success, if anything contradicting the main point here. If we interpret causally, rudeness distracts, but politeness is neutral. (Not a major fan of politeness myself, but that's what the paper seems to say.)