The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
How does high-context communication style, as discussed in High-context and low-context cultures, influence and shape the interaction of different groups such as Native American tribes, Native Hawaiian societies, Jewish diasporic cultures, Latino and Hispanic cultures, African cultures, Japanese cultures, Arabian cultures, Chinese cultures, Indian cultures, and Southern European cultures where the meaning has been derived through shared history and experiences, non-verbal communication, and storytelling and how does this differ from low-context communication style that is commonly practiced in mainstream US culture, Canadian traditions, Scandinavian, and Northern European cultures where meaning is derived through clarity of expression and directness of communication?
Additionally:
How does globalization and history influence and shape cultures to differ between high-context and low-context cultures and how can we increase awareness of high-context and low-context cultures to increase collaboration and reduce bias across cultures? GlimpseOfTheSun (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a problem statement for a PhD research program. A problem with the problem is that the context-level concept is currently lacking empirical validation, not the least because there is no established culture-independent measuring stick for the context level of communication. Also, no society I know of has standard cultural communication norms; there are strata within society that communicate in different ways; individuals may have problems with communication across strata. There was a world of difference between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi segments of the Jewish diaspora. ‑‑Lambiam07:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a tutorial. One way to answer a question like "How does my list L1 of things that share quality Q1 differ from my list L2 of things that share quality Q2?" is to show the questioner that one has paid attention by repeating the different qualities Q1 contra Q2. That however implies you agree with the tutor's own hypothesis of a social litmus test. ~2026-16372-61 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The question "How is A different from B?" is another, much easier, question than "How do the differences between A and B shape the interaction between A and B?". ‑‑Lambiam16:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Hawaii, we have many different cultures that are primarily high-context, and when I first moved here, it was difficult, as I generally don't communicate or derive information that way at all. Over time, I learned. One of the things that I found interesting is that it made me look back and realize all of the communication styles I had neglected as a youth growing up in California. I could look back on those experiences and realize from what I had learned in Hawaii, that I had been missing out on an entirely different level of communication. It also explained some of the miscommunication I had experienced in my younger years. Another thing I only learned within the last 20 years, is that that this style goes way beyond any specific culture. What I discovered on my own is that every culture has low and high context individuals. I had a boss once, a white guy from Los Angeles, who never listened to what anyone said, but how they said it, the tone of their voice, the words behind the words, etc. It was extremely frustrating because his workers couldn't communicate with him unless it was tailored exactly to his personal style. Of course, anyone who has worked in a corporate environment knows how this works. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In many rapidly growing cities around the world, informal settlements emerge outside formal urban planning systems. These areas are typically characterized by high population density, improvised housing, limited access to infrastructure such as water and sanitation, and economies based largely on informal work.
What is the commonly used term for such densely populated urban areas?
Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.-Gadfium (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BeReal uses a once-daily, randomly timed notification that gives users a short window (around two minutes) to take and post a photo using both the front and rear cameras. This seems quite different from platforms that allow unlimited, curated posting at any time.
Does Wikipedia have any form of "common sense" review? I've been looking at the talk pages of articles and it is very easy to see, over and over again, arguments that the content of an article is plain wrong. One I just saw what in Deadloch. It isn't anything important, it is just an example. It is obvious that the article is incorrect, but it backed by a citation and I know there is a policy that editors are not allowed to question citations. So, is there any form of review where common sense can be applied: If the cited article is clearly wrong, ignore it. Don't cite it. ~2025-42594-02 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that states that 'editors are not allowed to question citations'. And nor is there any policy that says that having a citation for something (even in an impeccable source) means that it must be included in an article. Questioning citations is one reason for having talk pages where Wikipedia:No original research doesn't apply, and common sense can come into play. If a source is just plain wrong, one simply doesn't use it. Needless to say, situations may arise where whether something is wrong or not is subject to dispute, which is why we have dispute resolution mechanisms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One common source of error is the birthdates that Hollywood stars used to make up (not so much these days when "truth" is so venerated). For example, they'd often postdate their birth year to make them seem that bit younger. That incorrect year would infiltrate into all the sources. Then the real birth year would finally be revealed, but people relying on older sources would still be quoting the wrong year as if it were gospel. Once an error has entered the public consciousness, particularly where fawning fans are concerned, it's very hard to eliminate it. Hence we have arguments. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is similar to the rather insignificant example I saw on the Deadloch article. Before release, sources claimed it would be released on the 20th. It was released on the 19th. But, because older sources said the 20th, the fact that was released early is unacceptable. I tested this. I posted a link to the official website for Deadloch, which shows the date it was released. I feel this is a common sense issue. Old sources published a planned date. That date changed. The official website publishes the actual date. But, the response was immediate: The source says the 20th. End of discussion. Because I see this abrupt response so often, I wondered if there was any real work-around. ~2025-42594-02 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds a bit like a time zone issue, especially given this is an Australian series. Are you based in the United States, ~2025-42594-02? It might be that it released early on 20 March in Australia, but that time corresponded to 19 March in the United States. Very possible that the Amazon Prime is automatically converting the release date according to time zone. Smurrayinchester10:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Do normal people get to go to movie premieres?. I know that especially lucky fans do get to see the stars and get stuff signed. But do they also get to watch the movie? ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what kind of screening and event it is. Many films are premiered at film festivals, and some of those are open to the public while others are not. Tickets for screenings at the Cannes Film Festival, for example, are not available to the general public, whereas tickets for screenings at the London Film Festival certainly are publicly available (although demand usually way outstrips supply and such screenings inevitably sell out very quickly). --Viennese Waltz08:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider the set workers and production staff - the ones who don't get their names in the post credits - to be "normal people"? They can be invited to a premiere. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming a union production, there are rules governing who must be credited. It costs money to add more credits, so there is little incentive to credit others. Your example: catering. They will credit the heads of each catering department (union rules), but not the entire staff. My initial reaction is because I used to be union and many relatives still are. I was never credited as a grip. The key grip was. The best boy usually was. Not a lowly "no title" grip. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The organization of the premiere of a major film is in the hands of its major production companies, who will use the occasion to promote the film by inviting celebrities, journalists, trend setters, influencers, all with an eye on getting publicity. No costs are spared to make the event glitzy. If you are Joe Shmoe, there is no gain for them in inviting you. For a low-budget film destined for the arts circuit, the premiere may be a low-key event where (seating accommodations allowing) anyone is welcome. ‑‑Lambiam22:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Miramax often did both a public-ish screening and an invite-only major event. As an example, Reservoir Dogs was initially screened at Sundance. If you could afford a ticket, you could see it. Then, later, they had the major invite-only release in Los Angeles. Clerks, The Crying Game, Hoop Dreams... they followed the same recipe. An odd one is Pulp Fiction. It started at Cannes, which is not open to the public. Then, instead of a major Los Angeles invite-only screening, they just did a promotional junket. I think it was because Bruce Willis and Sam Jackson were both stuck in South Carolina filming one of the Die Hard movies at the time, so that would have limited appeal of a big celebrity party. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's been windy here, so my lips are chapped. I just grabbed a stick of my fave lemon-lime lip balm. After applying it, I became self-conscious of pleasure centers in my brain being activated because of the lemon-lime taste. Thinking about how strange this was, I tried to self-reflect on the feeling. I came to the conclusion that I have always liked lemon-lime, likely originating from my parents ordering lemon-lime drinks for me at a very young age. Which got me to thinking, do I like it because it was an early, foundational experience, and thus a form of classical conditioning? If so, then aren't all of my personal preferences in some way false or situtational? In other words, it could have been anything, but it just happened to be lemon-lime in that example. Doesn't this put all of my likes and dislikes in doubt, since they rest on almost nothing solid but just random associations? Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the concept of the degree of agreeableness of a person's subjective experience being possibly "false" or being susceptible to being doubted. Alice: "I like the taste of chocolate." Bob: "No, actually, you don't. You only think you like it because it activates your pleasure centre. Otherwise you'd realize that you detest it." ‑‑Lambiam13:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are trying to distinguish acquired taste and innate taste. Or even you are ruminating about free will.
When ingestion of a neutral or mildly aversive foods are associated with good postingestive visceral sensation, those foods become hedonically positive and preferred. This phenomenon is documented as conditioned taste preference. Although the central neural mechanism of association of taste with postingestive reward is not fully understood, it is suggested that the PBN and LH play important roles in flavor preference learning with the involvement of the dopamine and the opioid systems.
Haven't found anything yet to suggest that sitting with your parents while young might have the same effect as a "good postingestive visceral sensation". Are you looking for references along these lines, or more philosophical such as what's wrong with enjoying some dopamine and opioids in the brain? fiveby(zero) 17:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Different ways of looking at identity, and lots of sources depending. In searching i wondered who would be the best to decide and what kind of test they would use to determine if the preference was "false". A neurochemist, the party[1], anthropologist, psychologist, psychiatrist. I've decided you need a diabolical neurosurgeon to truly get to the bottom of this. fiveby(zero) 18:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was, people identify with their preferences, but these things are basically meaningless as they are random and based on where you were located when you were born and the chain of causality that arises from random interactions. Your likes and dislikes, political predilections, tendency to prefer wheat over white bread, hankering for banana ice cream, whatever—all of it says nothing about who you are as a person, which is why I said it was false. If anything, these random likes and dislikes are used to manipulate and divide us, not to shed light on who we are as people. It is basically some kind of product fetishism, not a a deeper insight into being. Viriditas (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Politics, you say. That's a somewhat more objective realm. But it's true that my early politics were conditioned by aversive postingestive visceral sensations after watching a popular politician on TV. Subsequently though I decided that I admired this slimy person's policies, making new associations through reason, which neutralised the visceral effects of mere personality. Presumably similar things can happen to more subjective tastes, such as a preference for music based on your idea of the mind that you attribute the creation of the music to, rather than just whether you can dance to it, and perhaps cognition, in potential, affects preferences for foods as well (since cognitive behavioral therapy works). So I question whether these things are truly arbitrary. They may instead be dumb, which would be reassuring because then they would have, in potential, a connection to meaning. Card Zero (talk)14:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they are arbitrary in the sense that I am using it, because, as in your example, you just happened to be exposed to that politican on TV at that time and day in your life. It could have been anyone or anything. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some instances of pleasantness or unpleasantness are innate rather than learned, however. Famously, the substance Phenylthiocarbamide is tasteless to some people, but bitter to others, depending on a single gene variation in the taster. Doubtless there are other similar though less well publicised instances of variable perceptions.
I myself have utterly detested the taste of liquorice since childhood, even though my parents and grandparents liked it, and also greatly dislike aniseed and mildly dislike celery, though I can eat the latter (and sometimes do at parties where it's provided as a base for dips). I'm fairly sure I didn't learn these 'unpreferences'.
Conversely, I didn't particularly like typical British bitter beers until my thirties, and used to drink 'tops' or shandy – 90/10 and 50/50 respectively beer and lemonade. (Why? To a) be sociable and b) get drunk, of course.) However, after falling in with some fans of 'real ale' I acquired a taste for it and now love bitter beers, so tastes can be acquired. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2026-76101-8 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have read elsewhere that the taste preferences of the mother are thought to be passed on to the fetus during pregnancy but I suspect this is just a hypothesis. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but did she like it before you were born or after? Also, I've noticed there's a delay in some of these things. I couldn't stand coffee or some kinds of foods that my mother liked until I was in my 20s. I couldn't even eat (or enjoy) extremely dark chocolate until I was much older. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In Why We Get Sick, the authors suggest that kids' dislike of certain flavours (deep greens, dark chocolate, etc.) is an evolutionarily beneficial trait as bitterness can denote the presence of poison. Matt Deres (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I often wonder how much of the later acceptance of previously disliked foodstuffs is due to peer pressure rather than actual physiological changes. Personally, I find leafy vegetables just as inedible now in my 50s as I did in my childhood and don't really care what other people feel about that.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of anyone experiencing peer pressure when it comes to enjoying food, as food preferences are one of the most personal and private things we have as individuals. What I think you might be pointing to instead is cultural influences, which very much plays a role in food preferences. This was part of the thesis behind Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. Some of our food preferences derive from our family upbringing as well, which many people never break out of at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean peer pressure. Like "pepperoni pizza? What are you, five years old?" Or "you're a grown man, you need to just eat the broccoli". It astonishes me that people think that this sort of bullying is more "mature" than somebody liking chicken nuggets. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I've never really been subject to that kind of pressure. However, as someone who has spent the majority of my life eating a plant-based diet, I can understand where you are coming from here. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon everyone. Is there a kind of cuckolding where a couple watches their respective partners having sex with other people at the same time? I don't mean swapping, the ones being cucked are just watching (and maybe masturbating). ~2026-24671-3 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If Alice and Bob are the couple, and Alive watches Bob having sex while at the same time Bob watches Alice have sex, then Alive watches Bob having sex while Alice is having sex herself, and vice versa. So in the scenario as sketched in the first sentence, they cannot be "just watching". ‑‑Lambiam20:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the intended situation is couple one of person A and person B and couple two of person C and person D. Person A and C engage in sex, while B and D only watch. I myself don't know of a specific term for such a situation, but it certainly falls under the umbrellas of cuckolding and swinging. Amstrad00 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I’ve noticed that certain everyday sounds (like clocks ticking, appliances humming, or distant traffic) often seem much louder at night than during the day. I’m curious whether this is due to physical factors (such as changes in ambient noise levels or sound propagation at night) or more related to human perception and psychology.
I’ve tried looking into general explanations about noise levels and perception, but I haven’t found a clear, well-sourced explanation that ties these ideas together.
Could anyone explain the main reasons for this phenomenon, or point me toward reliable sources that discuss it?
To some extend it's real. During the day, radiation from the sun heats the air close to the surface, during the night outgoing thermal radiation cools the air near the surface, whilst the air a few hectometres up has a more constant temperature. In colder air the speed of sound is less and where there's a sound speed gradient, sound waves are deflected in the direction of lower speed. So, during the day, sound from distant traffic is deflected up, away from you, and during the night this sound is deflected down, towards you. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing that you (a punter) hope to win money from me (a bookmaker) in a wager on an uncertain future event (song contest) then my only interest in the matter is to offer numerical odds that to my mind balance the event risk as I conceive it, the competition that I perceive from other bookmakers offering odds, consideration of the impact on my business if you should win, combined with whatever formulas, mystical divination and/or crystal ball gazing I let influence my decision. To be frank, I don't owe you any explanation of whether these make sense, that is none of your business and I merely quote the odds "take it or leave it". There can be many reasons for me preferring not to engage in bets about a particular country (anyone can speculate reasons why, but not here) and I may deter you either A) by quoting very unattractive (low) odds or B) declining to accept your bet. Option A) involves me in timewasting paperwork to little advantage, and is bad for my reputation. That leads me to decline your bet, which is my decision that you have to accept. ~2026-16372-61 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I too prefer not to engage in bets about Austria. As a matter of fact, I prefer not to engage in any bets about any topic, which is why I am not a bookmaker, thank you very much. You may speculate reasons why, but not here, and anyway I don't owe any of you, and least of all this nosy so-called KnightMove, any explanation as to why it is how it is and whether it makes sense or not, as this is none of your damn business, exclamation mark. ‑‑Lambiam07:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2026
will be represented by a catchy little song
Tanzschein in which Cosmó asks in German "Vienna calling - Who sings for Austria?". As the host country, Austria automatically qualifies to the Final and will possibly have an advantage in performing in 25th (last place) at the show. Punters may be encouraged that Austria in 57 entries has won 1st place 3 times
Austria winning songs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1966 – “Merci, Chérie” by Udo Jürgens
2014 – “Rise Like a Phoenix” by Conchita Wurst
2025 – “Wasted Love” by JJ
Do people ever compare dates between different years between years when a certain date fell on same day of week, rather than intervals of a round number of years such as 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 or 100 years? For example, would anyone compare today's date to this date in other years when 31 March was on Tuesday (such as 2020, 2015, 2009, 1998, 1992, 1987 and 1981) rather than this date in 2021 (5 years ago), 2016 (10 years ago), 2006 (20 years ago), 2001 (25 years ago), 1976 (50 years ago), 1926 (100 years ago)? If most people consider e.g. 25th, 50th or 100th anniversary important, would anyone consider 28th anniversary important since each day falls on the same day of week as that date 28 years before and after (except across century common years), whereas only half of dates have that with 50 years, and no dates with 25 and 100 years? --40bus (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Long ago, when calendars were a thing, you could get a perpetual calendar. It had enough pages to be used perpetually because when you got to the end, you just started at the beginning and the dates lined up. A feature of some of the better ones was they would have "interesting" events marked on some days to mention what happened on that date/day in the past. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a 400 year cycle, with 400×365.25-3=146097 days or exactly 20871 weeks, but it also repeats after every 28 year interval in which no leap day is skipped at years divisible by 100.
For what it's worth, I don't really care for anniversaries, even less for round numbers of years and I only care about the days of the week because my boss cares. No, I don't care about combinations of those. That notwithstanding, I've got three calendars hanging on my wall here, from 1998, 2009 and 2026. Just for the pictures. I still miss three leap years. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like to compare recurring things that cannot be predicted such as weather and sports events of each month in other years whose calendar is the same as the month in question, thus March 2026 to March 2020, 2015, 2009, 1998 etc. and how similar and different each day in these months was to that day in this month. I have got an impression that for other people it is not as special. --40bus (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it isn't a cycle. It is 14 calendars. On Jan 1, you start the calendar that works for that year. There are absolutely no more than 14 possible calendars to choose from. 7 regular years. 7 leap years. ~2026-17428-26 (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The bracelet shown here uses 3 unique colors. As you go around you encounter, ABCBAAC and then the pattern repeats: it forms a cycle of length 7. Likewise, a perpetual calendar uses 14 unique calendars and repeats every 400 years, so we get a cycle of length 400. ‑‑Lambiam07:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only really useful application of this is the doomsday rule for quickly calculating dates - there are certain patterns of dates that fall on the same day in predictable cycles, and if you memorize these, you can very quickly work out what day of the week corresponds to any date. For example, 4/4, 6/6, 8/8 and 10/10 are always the same day, as are 5/9, 7/11, 9/5, 11/7 and several common holidays (US Independence Day, Halloween, Boxing Day). This is called the "Doomsday", and there is a cycle of years with the same Doomsday. The pattern is honestly pretty complex thanks to leap years but nevertheless, it does work on the basic principle of comparing dates between years. Smurrayinchester08:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In 2026, Doomsday is Saturday. But dates for Doomsdays differ in January and February in leap years. For example, the fist Doomsday in 2026 was 3 January, but in 2032 it will be 4 January, despite that both 2026 and 2032 start at the same day. This is because 2032 is a leap year when Doomsday is Sunday instead (like in e.g. 2027, which shares the calendar of 2032 from March onwards). In 2020, Doomsday was Saturday like in 2026, whose calendar was same as in this year except first two months. In 2015 the calendar was same as this year completely. But most special Doomsday dates are after March, so they usually fall on the same days of week in years on the same Doomsday weekday. --40bus (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do your own homework.
