> A nosy question is nosy because it demands an answer to which the querent is not entitled.
Jesus, is this really what you meant? I can't imagine how barren my life would be if I restricted my interactions with others to only include things to which I was "entitled."
It's not an "all the time" thing, but an aspect of how human relationships work. Like everything else there, it's contextual. In the context of public conversations and professional relationships, it's reasonable to consider there exists a threshold of intimacy beyond which further inquiry is improper.
That shouldn't be a tremendously controversial statement, I hope. If there's a variation on it here, it is only that "improper", again as with anything in human relationships, is contextual and not always obvious, but that there can exist subtexts in a conversation which indicate when it verges thereupon.
I wasn't trying to straw-man you and I agree with this more verbose phrasing. There's a vibe in some related comments that suggests that the proper way to manage your work affairs is to interact through some narrow "proper" API, in which nothing is sought nor proffered, that we exist to each other as callable services only.
I try to generally be polite and treat people the way they seem to want, but I'm not going to live some meek life terrified that someone might take offense at my over-reach. If I'm going to screw up, my defaults are set for errors of commission.
> If I'm going to screw up, my defaults are set for errors of commission.
There have been times in my life where I said the same.
> I'm not going to live some meek life terrified that someone might take offense at my over-reach.
This isn't about that. This is about the wrong assumptions people make, much more easily than they realize, based on someone speaking knowledgeably of things very far beyond their own experience. Those assumptions easily motivate harmful behavior.
> There's a vibe in some related comments that suggests that the proper way to manage your work affairs is to interact through some narrow "proper" API, in which nothing is sought nor proffered, that we exist to each other as callable services only.
This is a cold and mechanistic view of the thing. I would rather say that some relationships more easily bear personal intimacy than others, and a basic aspect of human social competence lies in knowing which are which and avoiding the imposition of undue strain on those relationships that can't support it.
Jesus, is this really what you meant? I can't imagine how barren my life would be if I restricted my interactions with others to only include things to which I was "entitled."