I need to comment on this MN Nice=fake thing (fit in, move)

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

Okay, but don't say Minnesotans aren't fake.

Most of the Minnesotans I've known really don't fit the stereotype, and I suspect that most of the folks I know who are my age would also confront you directly about your unreasonably sweeping stereotypes.

Then again, I'm not from small town Minnesota. I can't speak for those areas.

Why are you so apparently so interested in generalizing? It's so easy to disprove.

I've seen a lot more "fake" behavior here in Atlanta. Maybe you need to add Southerners to your list of dislikes?

[Minneapolitan]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

I didn't say you should get in each others' faces, that would be annoying, just don't be fake. If someone pisses you off you could say, "you know that really bothered me," rather than just being passive/ passive aggressive about it and then venting about the person after they're gone. That's even more annoying than getting in someone's face.

If I've learned anything about human interaction, it's that open, honest, rspectful communication is best. To me, to let someone know in a direct, yet non-threatening way (ie no name calling, insults, etc) that they have upset you is not only perfectly acceptable...it is ideal. So, I have to agree with you on this. In my book, there is passive-aggressiveness (upper Midwest?), just plain agressiveness (east coast?), and then it seems there are people who have sorted out their self esteem and anger issues and decide that being assertive is the best policy. I sure would want to know if I pissed someone off, so I assume others would want to know if I did them. I can't stand when people talk behind others' backs. Makes me feel as if they're too chicken to deal with the issues that affect the relationships they have with other people. In other words, it is a deficiency in the way they relate with others.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

There's a difference between passive aggressiveness, and passive aggressive personality disorder. Passive aggressiveness is a way of interacting with people where instead of confronting someone directly, one makes subtle indirect negative remarks that are not related to why the person is actually upset, and denies that anything is actually wrong. That is very different from PAPD, which is a psychological disorder that describes people with extreme and pervasive passive aggressive tendencies to the point that it's almost anti-social.

I disagree. There is nothing aggressive in the interactive style being described here, only passiveness.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Minneapolitan

If I've learned anything about human interaction, it's that open, honest, rspectful communication is best. To me, to let someone know in a direct, yet non-threatening way (ie no name calling, insults, etc) that they have upset you is not only perfectly acceptable...it is ideal. So, I have to agree with you on this. In my book, there is passive-aggressiveness (upper Midwest?), just plain agressiveness (east coast?), and then it seems there are people who have sorted out their self esteem and anger issues and decide that being assertive is the best policy. I sure would want to know if I pissed someone off, so I assume others would want to know if I did them. I can't stand when people talk behind others' backs. Makes me feel as if they're too chicken to deal with the issues that affect the relationships they have with other people. In other words, it is a deficiency in the way they relate with others.

Key words: "To me." In other words, you want everyone to deal with you on your terms, rather than adapt to theirs. Sounds passive aggressive to me.

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Key words: "To me." In other words, you want everyone to deal with you on your terms, rather than adapt to theirs. Sounds passive aggressive to me.

So you're saying there can be no general truths when it comes to the best ways of dealing with people? I guess, then if a group of people thought killing babies was good, and you said "to me it seems wrong" you would not be justified in making that argument.

[claud605]

I just want to add that when I moved from the NE to the South I had all kinds of people telling me to watch out for Southern women, they will be nice to your face and the minute your back is turned watch out. Sounds just like the whole Minnesota nice thing. I think it's women in general, personally. That's why I've never had tons of female friends...two faced all of them! I'll take straitforward guys any day.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

So you're saying there can be no general truths when it comes to the best ways of dealing with people? I guess, then if a group of people thought killing babies was good, and you said "to me it seems wrong" you would not be justified in making that argument.

Oh, I think there are general truths, but being in your face with people all the time is not one of them. If people are defining "Minnesota Nice" as talking behind people's back, I think they are really describing something that is commonly called being two-faced, and not a behavior that I would describe as desirable. There are two faced people here, as there are everywhere.

Minnesota Nice is more accurately being polite and friendly with people is general, while at the same time being reserved and somewhat difficult to become intimately acquainted with. Now some people might think of that as a flaw, but I would describe it as a positive feature. That said, I am quite prepared for people to deal with me in different ways, as I appreciate that people are all different.

The common thread among the complainers here seems to be that they want to be direct with everyone, and want everyone to act the same way towards them. This seems to reflect a lack of appreciation for the culture you are living in, a degree of intolerance, if you will.

[Minneapolitan]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

So you're saying there can be no general truths when it comes to the best ways of dealing with people? I guess, then if a group of people thought killing babies was good, and you said "to me it seems wrong" you would not be justified in making that argument.

I agree.

Id like someone to show me a respected study that finds being either passive or aggressive is the generally accepted, healthy interaction style when it comes to dealings between people in everyday, normal situations. In my life, I have gotten more positive and generally great responses when I have been assertive, rather than when I have dealt with similar situations in either a passive, or aggressive manner. It is widely known information that assertiveness is, in most cases, the healthiest way of dealing with most human situations. You get you convey how you feel in a respectful, tactful manner that doesn't offend the person on the other end, thus allowing them to be more open to hearing your side of the story, assuming you give them the chance to convey their feelings as well. Makes for rather sophisticated, effective problem solving. Again, this stuff is pretty simple...they do teach it on Sesame Street. They expect 4 yr olds to understand this stuff, for crying out loud. (that was an example of a passive aggressive statement)

[Minneapolitan]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

That said, I am quite prepared for people to deal with me in different ways, as I appreciate that people are all different.

I'm glad you hold this as a virtue. I think it goes far in dealing with other folks who may communicate on different levels. It, however, does not mean that it gives me a free pass to be passive, aggressive, or passive aggressive back to them, just because they communicated with me that way. I (and i would guess most physchologists) still hold assertiveness as the best policy in most cases, no matter how someone may communicate with me.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think in many cases "Minnesota nice" is simply being polite, or at least the "if you don't have anything to say, don't say it all" kind of polite. If someone thinks his friend's new coat is hideously ugly, what benefit is there to saying so? Even if someone outright lies and says they love it, what's the big deal? (More typical, I suspect, would be that old MN favorite, "that's different," or "that's interesting.") Now clearly it's important to be assertive or be open about feelings when it's important, but

In general, I think Glenfield's definition of "Minnesota nice" hits it on the head -- people who are polite and friendly on a casual basis, but difficult to get to know on a deeper level. Some mistake this as being "two-faced." I don't. There's nothing wrong with being polite and friendly to people you don't know well. Now it WOULD be two-faced if you then turned around and said nasty things about them, but that's a different story. And, I suspect, doesn't happen all that often. More likely the nice-but-aloof person just goes on with their business. It's the collision of two different expectations/interpretations. Person #1 thinks that they've just made a new best friend, while person #2 thinks they've had a pleasant conversation with no further obligations. (or, as has admittedly been true in my case, they have full intentions to follow up and attempt to develop a more meaningful friendship, but other obligations get in the way.)