"Can I [x]?"Unless you can honestly say you're not going to want to know the reason, or that you're not going to be offended by any reason at all, the asking stresses me out because it's forcing me to either bet on how well I know you or bottle it and do the "acquiescent guesser" to spare your feelings.
"No."
"Why?"
I was just going to say no. Not "Hell no." Or "No way." Or "Nope. Sorry." Just "No." I was going to change this one behavior, my own tendency to elaborate, to explain, to set the record straight when turning people down, when risking the disappointment of others, just to see what it changed in the equation of influence. ...posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 11:26 AM on May 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
Waiters. Shuttle-bus drivers. Flight attendants. I began to see how many meaningless questions came my way through the service industry. By asking questions -- Did I want a take-home box? Fresh ground pepper? Could they take that bag for me? -- they were saliently asserting that the conventions of their typical service were somehow favors they might grant me. The problem wasn't my answer, it was their questions. In their own way, these endless questions were an attempt to dominate the transaction, to make it be about them and not me.
My nos gave me control. No. No. No.
The NTSB report on the accident determined the cause as pilot error due to the crew never declaring a fuel emergency to air traffic control as per IATA guidelines. The crew asked for "priority" landing which, because of language differences between English and Spanish, can be interpreted as an emergency to the Spanish-speaking pilots but not to the English-speaking Air Traffic Controllers.posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 12:00 PM on May 8, 2010
12. The first officer incorrectly assumed that his request forThen in the following section, Recommendations, there's this paragraph:
priority handling by air traffic control had been understood
as a request for emergency handling. The captain experienced
difficulties in monitoring communications between the flight
and air traffic control.
13. The controllers' actions in response to AVA052's requests
were proper and responsive to a request for priority
handling. They did not understand that an emergency
situation existed.
14. The first officer, who made all recorded radio transmissions
in English, never used the word "Emergency," even when he
radioed that two engines had flamed out, and he did not use
the appropriate phraseology published in United States
aeronautical publications to communicate to air traffic
control the flight's minimum fuel status.
Develop in cooperation with the International Civil AviationThe key thing here is the first officer never used the word "emergency" or the phrase "minimum fuel", which have specific technical meanings when dealing with air traffic controllers. Had he said either of these things, all the rules for handling their flight would have changed.
Organization a standardized glossary of definitions, terms,
words, and phrases to be used that are clearly understandable
to both pilots and air traffic controllers regarding minimum
and emergency fuel communications.
[beneficiary] [benefactor] Ask -> Decide [ask culture] Hint -> Guess [guess culture]I'm not sure what else to call Decide. Maybe Up-to-you works better. Replace beneficiary with initiator for mutually beneficial exchanges.
If you don't give people the option of saying yes or no, how should they respond to the unstated but obviously intended question? Say you are the New York visitor in the original question, and rather than asking to stay with the OP, you just let them know what was going on hoping they would offer the use of the apartment, but they didn't.In the ideal Guess culture world, assuming neither person was a twit who is put out by not getting their way, the interaction would proceed with Person A saying "Oh, I'm going to be in town during [dates] and I'm trying to figure out where to stay. I'd love to see you if you have any time free while I'm around." Person B could either say, "You're welcome to stay with me, if you'd like; I live at [location] and have a guest room" or could say "Good luck finding a place--I've heard good things about [hotel X], you might want to check them out." Person A would understand that the second response was a no, and if they're not a twit, would assume the same thing that an Asker would after getting an explicit no-that's-not-possible back: Person B doesn't have a room, or doesn't want to offer it, or is busy that week, or doesn't like houseguests, or whatever. There's not going to be a gnashing of the teeth and rending of the garments over it, any more than there would be from asking directly and getting a no.
In japan, Doi notes, a host would simply have sensed his hunger and given him something to eat without having to ask if he wanted it.Goleman's source for this is Takeo Doi, The Anatomy of Dependence (New York: Kodansha International, 1973).
That sensing of another person's needs and feelings, and the unsolicited response to them, bespeaks the high value placed on the I-You mode in Japanese culture (and in East Asian cultures generally). The Japanese word amae refers to this sensibility, empathy that is taken for granted, and acted upon, without calling attention to itself. . . .
English has no word for amae, but it could certainly use one to refer to such a closely attuned relationship. Amae points to the empirical fact that we attune most readily with the people in our lives we know and love -- our immediate family and relatives, lovers or spouses, old friends. The closer we are, the more amae.
posted by Eideteker at 8:57 PM on May 7, 2010 [2 favorites]