Conclusions like this can be assessed for plausibility by flipping them round. So "malaria is caused by the bites of tropical mosquitos": "people who don't live in the tropics or who don't get bitten won't get malaria".
In this case, the study implies, Gentiles seldom interrupt each other, avoid talking about personal subjects, and stay rigorously on topic.
I was shocked to find out I am the same age as Deborah Tannen. Less shocked to find out I am the same age she was in 2000.
Like most goyem, my conversation style involves staying strictly on topic.
Who are the ones who change the topic in the first 40 comments?
Anyone remember the Asimov story where the Jewish mother advises the space agency to surmount the lightspeed communication delay by just talking continuously from both ends about anything and everything that might be relevant?
Other features of Jewish conversational style include a preference for personal topics,
WTF? "By contrast, the AME Church members' conversational style includes a preference for basketball and watermelon topics."
Alternative hypothesis: This is a difference between familial and formal speech. People tend to talk faster, and interrupt teach other more, in their own families. If your family is Jewish, you might think your mother and father interrupt each more than your teachers do because they're Jewish, but you would be wrong. And if you're older than 10, you'd be stupid also.
This style of Jewish writing was lost when the internet became widespread. As late as 2000, a "correspondent" for Jewish Weekly of Northern California might assume that only a few hundred Jews in Northern California would ever see the story, and Deborah Tannen might assume that she could talk about her favorite ethnic stereotypes without anyone outside of the room finding out. Bad assumptions. Not as bad as the attribution of a whole bunch of traits to an ethnic or religious group apparently based on a single conversation among four women,
Other features of Jewish conversational style include a preference for personal topics,
WTF? "By contrast, the AME Church members' conversational style includes a preference for basketball and watermelon topics."
Alternative hypothesis: This is a difference between familial and formal speech. People tend to talk faster, and interrupt teach other more, in their own families. If your family is Jewish, you might think your mother and father interrupt each more than your teachers do because they're Jewish, but you would be wrong. And if you're older than 10, you'd be stupid also.
This style of Jewish writing was lost when the internet became widespread. As late as 2000, a "correspondent" for Jewish Weekly of Northern California might assume that only a few hundred Jews in Northern California would ever see the story, and Deborah Tannen might assume that she could talk about her favorite ethnic stereotypes without anyone outside of the room finding out. Bad assumptions. Not as bad as the attribution of a whole bunch of traits to an ethnic or religious group apparently based on a single conversation among four women,
But we really do tend to repeat ourselves.
It's certainly not all Jewish vs Others, but some cultures are really fucking quiet even at home.
Anyway, farmers really aren't very chatty.
They do like to bitch about rainfall, though.
Heh.
Think of how many farmers are active commenters here but haven't yet had anything to say.
I will repeat my comment from facebook:
Something very weird about saying "this is characteristic of NY Jews and not of non-Jews from the South, Midwest, and West" and then saying "so it's Jewish!".
There are Jews in all those areas. There are non-Jews in NY. Is this characteristic of Jewish people in Los Angeles? Is it characteristic of Italians in NY? If it's found "especially [among those] of Eastern European origin", what about other Eastern European populations in NY, or the rest of the US?
Hasn't there been prior discussion here leading to the conclusion that Tannen is not worth reading or paying attention to? Maybe that was somewhere else.
"Who are the ones who change the topic in the first 40 comments?"
Hanukkah commemorates the occasion when a bunch of Jewish commenters miraculously managed to stay on topic for eight days and eight nights.
There's something -- I'm not Jewish, but was raised in a heavily Jewish milieu, and to the extent there's a conversational style being discussed I'm a native speaker. And I notice (some) people who don't talk that way as being difficult to interact with. That is, they send really clear "don't interrupt me" signals, but then drone on for literally fucking ever, and I can't figure out when someone else is ever supposed to get a word in edgewise. It feels both boring and aggressive, like someone who's casually standing blocking a doorway and getting pissy at people for being rude when they squeeze by.
One thing about the interrupting style is that one of the goals is to place both speakers on equal footing within the conversation. Like, "I'm interrupting you and I'm inviting you to do the same, because we're equals". And it works best when it invites two people to see themselves as equals and start parrying.
It falls apart in situations where one party isn't sure if they're supposed to maybe display submission, or if one party is concerned that the other party will interpret it as a show of dominance. I'm thinking across cultural lines. I love our housekeeper and we do stop to have extended conversations, but I would not interrupt her and do this sort of informal jockeying, because I would not want to risk that she would interpret it as dominance, for example.
I don't know Texans. I associate with older men asserting conversational dominance -- the implicit message is "there is no way for you to speak at all without being hopelessly rude. Listen to me politely forever, or you're the one being a jerk." I end up going into a spin of insanely elaborate politeness if I need to communicate in one of those situations -- a lot of deferential body-language and "If I may?" as I attempt to take a turn. And I quietly hate them.
Something that's a real part of it that I don't quite understand how it works, but it definitely does, is that you actively signal somehow that "interrupting me reasonably is okay". Because not getting those signals is super conspicuous, and when it's combined with the extremely extended conversational turns I was talking about above, that's what's obnoxious.
Someone who doesn't want to be interrupted but is concise is a little peculiar to me, but fine.
The possibility of anyone other than oneself having thoughts worth hearing and the ability to deliver them in complete sentences can of course be excluded a priori.
21: That's when you pull out your phone.
Little kids are the worst at conversational dominance. They take forever to get to a point and interrupt anybody.
But, they don't really complain if you pull out your phone.
||
Buffalo Bill Cody, awarded the Medal of Honor for his scouting with the army, said "every Indian outbreak that I have ever known has resulted from broken promises and broken treaties by the government."25 Many in the professional army agreed with that view; more often than not, they blamed settlers for causing massacres. The federal army was throughout the Indian Wars generally critical of the policies of state and territorial governments and hesitant to enforce them or cooperate with militia engaged in themTrue? False? Discuss.
True about the army's views or about how the wars started?
Everything. All claims made. I'm a glutton, me.
You shouldn't be off topic yet, because (I think) you're a gentile.
Stealing land is a form in interrupting somebody.
But can you get a word on edgewise?
"Hesitant" seems overstating it. Maybe they didn't respond to every hue and cry, but they still intervened a lot.
Anyway, I'm not an historian, but I think it's pretty clear most of the wars were started by somebody on the American side breaking a treaty. It seems plausible that the soldiers, as being most at risk of getting shot and unlikely to profit because they weren't stealing land for themselves, would not like this.
HEY I'M STILL TAL
I wonder what Custer's Penultimate Stand was. Probably something inconsequential, like standing in line for the outhouse or something.
30: It seems consistent with earlier history. My impression was that the British government was frequently annoyed by the colonists' habit of encroaching on the natives' territory and then calling for military aid when things got out of hand. The whole 'no settlements west of the Appalachians" edict was supposed to put a stop to that, except that everyone ignored it.
You know who's the most irritating interrupt...? Moo!
41 I was going to say Rosebud.
But that was Crook, in support of Custer. Crook, incidentally, had some choice things to say about Indian policy . . .
One thing that's interesting about my relatively new department chair, who is a man, is that he tends to call out interrupt it's during faculty meetings, especially when it's a male professor interrupting a female professor. It hasn't seemed to have much effect on the behavior of the men, but I appreciate the recognition that it's happening.
As to 30, I think it's fair to say that there were plenty of officers in the federal army that were just as gung ho as the locals, but I don't find the substance of the statement shockingly wrong. Also not a historian.
Our local landmark, Fort Fizzle, is an interestingish variation. The Nimiipuu people (in English we call them Nez Perce) were driven out of parts of Oregon/Idaho essentially by locals supported by the feds. They'd thought that getting to Montana would end their problems -- they could live with the Selis people here (they had lots of relationships with the Selis, because of their regular buffalo hunting trips). Meantime, as they were coming, white settlers here were all in a panic, and organized themselves into a militia to assist the Army in stopping the 'invasion.' Army and militia assembled at a narrow spot in the Lolo canyon, built earthworks etc. So, there's a parley upriver between the Nimiipuu leadership and the army/militia leadership, at which the Nimiipuu make clear that they don't have any issues with Montana settlers, and plan to just pass through. Word spreads in the encampment, and the militia melts away: no one wants to get killed upholding the theft of land in Oregon. Then the Nimiipuu go through the hills around the encampment anyway, henceforth known as Fort Fizzle.
(The rest of the story is well known, but might not have been part of your education, MoChar. The Nimiipuu passed through the valley south of here, buying supplies from ranchers (many of whom they knew from past forays) and generally not being any trouble, stopping after they crossed the Divide. Too bad, the Army caught them there. After fighting off the Army, they realized that western Montana wasn't going to work out, so maybe they could go east to live with the Crow. Went east, eventually after anoher battle in Idaho, across Yellowstone Park, but by then the Crow had waved them off, so they turned north and headed for Canada. Couple of battles later, they almost made it.)
Then fought no more forever?
Yeah, but of course the promises made to get their surrender weren't kept.
Charley or anyone, have you heard of this book or its subject? Ernest Wallace, Ranald S. Mackenzie on the Texas
Frontier.
Don't know the book. Elementary school education in Texas in the 60s was pretty hand wavy about the Comanches -- something about Quannah Parker -- and I guess even since then I never really learned any more about the wars with them than is in BMH@WK.
Which was enough to recognize immediately that the book upon which the movie Dances with Wolves was based was written about Comanche folks not Dakota. Maybe it's harder to get language coaching, or maybe it would've clouded the Civil War narrative . . .
1: the article doesn't claim exclusivity, just traits common to a group, but I agree with you 100%. Just this weekend I was at a non-Jewish funeral and no one was talking over anyone, except some dude in all black with a microphone, which is good enough for me.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt, what we're you saying?