There's something about this post that really bothered me. It took me a moment to figure out what it was.
Partly it's that he picks a very specific dinner experience in Paris and generalizes it to a French dinner. Idealizes it, even. And then on the Silicon Valley side, he describes a lifestyle. And then he compares the event in Paris to the lifestyle in San Francisco. Intimate hosted dinners for a small group of acquaintances happen all the time in Silicon Valley. Business meals happen all the time in Paris.
That alone is more of a weak comparison or flawed cultural commentary, but then this comes out:
> Why? Silicon Valley people get bored easily.
> They look around and assess who actually came to the dinner. If they do not see enough friends or if they do not see enough people they can do business with they will leave fast. Dinner invites typically say “from 6pm to 9pm” and that means you can arrive anytime in that time frame and leave anytime no-one will be offended. You can stay for 10 minutes and no-one will pay attention. You can either show up at 08h50 and just say hi then leave at 9. Everyone knows the “rule” and no-one shows before 6 and rarely stays after 9.
I get the impression from this description that the actual issue is that Parisians and San Franciscans use different language to set expectations, and that the author is actually describing a difference in how the two cultures express expectations around social gatherings. But that in no way implies that people in Silicon Valley get bored easily. It just means the two cultures communicate differently, which should surprise nobody in either location. Why try to make an ambiguous cultural generalization out of it that is neutral at best and insulting at worst?
The whole thing feels lazily written and uncharitable to the colorful variety of both Parisian and Silicon Valley culture. It makes me specifically think less of the author's startup that is advertised at the bottom of the post.
This is not the Silicon Valley my friends and I know! The differences the author describes between SV and French dinners seem to be more reflective of differences between business meals with acquaintances/partners vs relaxed meals with family/friends. I feel like at the moment you're booking caterers, making up invitations to send out, and printing a time LIMIT like 6-9PM, you're already well into "event" territory rather than "meal" (and fwiw I went to my share of both kinds during my years in central France as well!).
Seconded. In New York, even dinner with friends tend to be catered. In the Valley, however, it is common in my experience for friends to cook and for the topic of conversation to be life, the food and the future of humanity. I really enjoy the last topic. It's not specificallt work related, but neither is a food magazine editor talking about food not work related.
The difference between Manhattan and Paris is more interesting, to me, given the similar population densities.
> In New York, even dinner with friends tend to be catered
In Paris it's kind of rude to not cook yourself. Not "very rude", not "I'll never see this person again rude", but a little désinvolte.
If you can't be bothered to buy the food and cook it yourself, why invite people to your place? We can all go to the restaurant and share the bill -- we do that too, of course.
But if it's at your place, the expectation is you gave some thought to the menu and the wines, etc. -- including, yes, the seating of the people, who should seat next to whom, etc.
Or it's a cocktail and there are 30+ people, then catering is fine.
Based on his writing, I assume by "catered" he also meant to include ordering food to be delivered from a restaurant. In typical American usage, that's "takeout" or "delivery" but not "catered".
That point aside, I think his representation is also very narrow to the crowd that mostly combines business networking with socializing. That's a small minority. In my social circles (20's, middle class, highly educated tech workers), small dinner gatherings almost always follow one of three formats: the host cooks, the host asks everyone to contribute a dish, or we all go to a restaurant.
Restaurant delivery is usually reserved for large groups or when the food is a secondary consideration, such as when it's a board game night and we order a pizza.
I wonder if this might have something to do with differences in cooking skill. It's hard to invite people over for a home-cooked meal if your skills aren't up to it. Are the French supposed to know how to cook the way Americans are supposed to know how to drive?
New Yorker with an accent strong enough that they don't ask me questions at Customs: he's full of it. Never been to a catered private meal, also all the catering sucks in this city.
I can't speak as to others in the bay area, but I quite enjoy the traditional Sunday dinner, wherein I cook for a number of friends in my own home, without expectation. I live in downtown SF, so clearly not an extravagant amount of space, but we make it work (and well). I feel this article is written by someone who doesn't actually know anyone outside of their own echo chamber in SF.
edit: if anyone likes meat, potatoes, and whisky, get in touch.
When I was living in Rome, the main topic of discussion at dinners was always food (with colleagues who were also software engineers). My experience has been that the Italians, French and Spanish love talking about food - which is probably why their cuisines are regarded so highly.
My problem is I don't know how to talk to people for 4 hours straight. That only happens if we have very specific interests in common. When that does happen, it might only be with one person, then everybody else gets bored and leaves. I actually like the idea of long, lazy meals with friends. I just don't know how to do it.
You just might be more on the introverted side of the personality scale.
A good way to see the difference between intro- and extraversion is as follows.
Introverts have a lot of inner tension. That starts when they are toddlers. They constantly have something to think about, thus they need more alone-time than others to sort themselves out and work with their inner life.
Talking to others is fine and rewarding, but recovery time is needed afterwards, so they choose their communication carefully.
Extroverts have way more inner peace. They don't need much time for themselves, they often get bored being alone. So they seek out other people for stimulation. More often than not they seek out introverts, because those are especially interesting.
Talking to others is refreshing for them, it refills their batteries.
So if you see yourself on the introverted side, don't worry about it.
Just accept it and give yourself the peace you need.
Invite more or different guests, so they can talk to each other, while you are busy with someone.
I've never seen this description before, saying that introverts are tense and extroverts peaceful. If you put them in an empty room, you could instead easily picture the introvert being calm and the extrovert tense due to a lack of human interaction.
I rather think that the best description of the difference is how you charge your batteries. An introvert prefers alone time to recharge and an extrovert prefers the company of other people to do the same. A social gathering with many people would drain an introvert and invigorate an extrovert. It has nothing to do with inner tension or peace.
I have seen Susan Cain in the book Quiet talk about introverts as highly sensitive, in the sense that they take in and process more information about the environment. An extrovert would love talking to their friends at a noisy bar, while the introvert would be bothered by the noise and prefer a calmer setting. Being alone is then a way of reducing sensory input to produce a sense of calm, it's not that an introvert would need to be alone to relieve any inner tension.
> If you put them in an empty room, you could instead easily picture the introvert being calm and the extrovert tense due to a lack of human interaction.
That is what I said. I guess my usage of the word "tension" is different.
> Being alone is then a way of reducing sensory input to produce a sense of calm, it's not that an introvert would need to be alone to relieve any inner tension.
Producing a sense of calm IS the work of relieving inner tensions. I think here lies our misunderstanding.
When I'm talking about inner "tension", I'm not talking about any form of visible or invisible stress. Just that there is something "going on". Thought, ideas, inner monologue, some kind of inner activity.
There are people who regularly experience prolonged periods without thoughts, idea, inner monologues etc. They are routinely able to access a state of mind which could be described as happily relaxed nothingness.
Introverts have a lot of inner tension.
...
Extroverts have way more inner peace.
I've found the opposite. Introverts are happy to be by themselves not because they need to sort them selves out but because they are at peace with their own company. Extroverts on the other hand constantly seem to need to work something out about themselves or the world around them and can only do so by bouncing the ideas off others. Many times the other person isn't even necessary more than a prop. I've had many conversations with extroverts where all I've added was "aha" and "OK" for 30 minutes while they basically monologued, only to have the other person thank me for the insightful conversation and claiming I really helped them out.
"Sorting themselves out" is a loaded word, I see that now.
I agree with you. This being at peace with your own company is a result of a tendency to work on your inside, and respond to emotions and "calls" from there immediately.
The other side are people who regularly experience a state of mind which could be described as happily relaxed nothingness. No thoughts, ideas, inner monologues etc.
No urgency to work on their inner life.
That isn't better or worse. It brings advantages and disadvantages.
It's not as daunting as it sounds. I consider myself about halfway between introvert and extrovert. On a Friday, I'll semi-regularly will go to a quiet bar with 1-2 friends and talk. If we start with dinner, that's 6 hours until closing time.
People have these 4 hour dinners in the bay area too, just not in the social groups of the author. I've been to many of them of myself! Not specifically cheese & wine themed, but the same idea.
The irony is that French food is often not very good. After some stays there, I formed the hypothesis that French like to talk about food all the time for the same reasons that the British like to talk about the weather all the time - because it tends to be bad...
(To be sure the "public facing" food in France is great, but the daily, mundane stuff often disappoints).
The French do care about food, it's not a stereotype. I live in Germany and most people here don't really mind having a company restaurant that's "good enough", or don't mind not having a hot meal for dinner. The French (and a few other nationalities) really do, and put more effort and money into eating properly.
Maybe not in the restaurants, but in private life. For example, when I went there as an exchange pupil, I lived with a family that had potato crisps as a side dish.
If you come to Paris as a tourist, of course you can also stumble into a lot of bad restaurants that are just looking to rip of tourists. Of course good stuff also exists.
As a french, I think that "potato crisps as a side dish" is a good idea when receiving a young child. In schools, childs often refuse to eat vegetables and prefer to choose french fries.
When receiving a foreigner, I will ask for his taste before deciding the menu.
French people do not really talk much about food. Sometimes with foreigners, because it's a bit of a cliché topic, and foreigners usually may want to talk about it, or as a way to chitchat with a foreigner (but between french people, this very rarely happens).
However, they talk a lot about wine, really a lot, and that is very boring when you don't drink.
As for food, it really depend on the restaurants, or event where you happened to be, but I wouldn't call french food «bad», it's usually ok or above ok.
Actually, I wouldn't call any country's food «bad», not to my taste maybe, or very different to what I'm used, but generalizing to bad a whole food culture, that's a bit harsh, and certainly unfair whatever the country.
I'm sure you can get a lot of good food, it was just my personal experience, and my remark was meant to be humorous. I should also note that I don't like wine much, and I was a vegetarian when I was in French - not the best conditions for enjoying their food.
Talking about food and wine all the time would quickly get boring to me, so I'd probably prefer the Sillicon Valley version in the long run.
You are so right. Try living in Bordeaux when you don't drink wine.
It's awful, people wouldn't believe I didn't like the taste of wine. Not my fault, I just dislike it. French people would always try to convince me it's because I didn't tried their favorite brand, or thinking I didn't know the Bordeaux wine. Sometimes I even had to resort to telling them it was religious (which it's not) so they'd stop bothering me.
it's a fairly universal ice breaker too, if you happen upon a stranger in close proximity whereby it would be impolite not to say something, commenting on how it is hotter/colder/windier/calmer than expected/yesterday/forecast/this time last year is a good start, their response is the key to whether they would like to exchange small talk, 'yes, it is isn't it, well, yesterday I was in Golant and ....' vs 'Yes.'
Truth be told, talking about cheese for 40 long minutes seems kind of boring. What's there to talk about? You just eat it. My East-European grandma has been making her own cheese using milk taken from her own cows for all of her life, and I've never heard her talking about cheese. Must be a bobo thing.
If you enjoy cheese as much of everything you'll know that there's a seemingly endless stream of varieties even within a single defined kind of cheese.
I would say that having 40 minute discussion about cheese is no more obscure than having one about programming languages, of course context and setting plays a big role in suitability of both discussions.
I think I can talk about 20 minutes about Camembert, but I am not an expert. If you add roquefort, sainte maure, boulette d'avesne, hervé, 40 minutes is not long. Have you heard about the chimay (http://chimay.com/en/fromages/) ? Next time I go to belgium, I want to taste it.
"Very few people cook for each other. If it’s at home it’s often food delivered from a startup like caviar or for the wealthier hosts a private chef."
Really? I'm in the UK and even wealthy people try to put effort into actually cooking for their guests, even if it's something as simple as a roast thrown in the oven for an hour. I definitely always cook for my guests, unless we're in mood for pizza, then it's takeaway.
I've definitely noticed that about some American homes though - massive kitchens with huge gas ranges, and they all look completely brand new, unused - is it that people cook less in general?
Apples and Oranges. Maybe there are intersections, but "Silicon Valley" and tradition? Just seems a stretch. The Bay Area is mixture of traditions depending on those you mingle with.
While this is charming, this seems more like a reflection on how being from a place is different from living in a place. I have the same long meals with friends and family here, despite the commenters saying the "Silicon Valley" style meal is also the standard in NYC.
It feels like he is really pointing out that the mechanics of interaction are very different when no one present is rooted in the region, and you don't have shared history.
(because 'Silicon Valley' can be ambiguous for non-locals) San Francisco has an incredible number of French restaurants. A quick search on Google Maps shows 4-5 dozen. Hayes Valley alone has 8.
The dinner stereotypes are pretty baseless among my communities of friends in SF... seems like the author has more friends at home in France and more business acquaintances in SV.
dont know about the valley but being a Frenchman in New York, I have plenty of dinners that no one calls "seated". And I jave plenty of buffets in Paris as well.
Talking about clichés, I can confirm that (in my circles at least) we almost always talk about food while eating, and it's usually completely unrelated to what's in our plates.
How about neither? I don't enjoy group meals, I'd much rather eat quickly, quietly and alone. For socialization I'd prefer a bar or to sit around the house chatting.
Well, typically people chatting about programming languages are programmers. I can see cheesemakers chatting about cheese for similar reasons, but mere mortal eaters of cheese?
Partly it's that he picks a very specific dinner experience in Paris and generalizes it to a French dinner. Idealizes it, even. And then on the Silicon Valley side, he describes a lifestyle. And then he compares the event in Paris to the lifestyle in San Francisco. Intimate hosted dinners for a small group of acquaintances happen all the time in Silicon Valley. Business meals happen all the time in Paris.
That alone is more of a weak comparison or flawed cultural commentary, but then this comes out:
> Why? Silicon Valley people get bored easily.
> They look around and assess who actually came to the dinner. If they do not see enough friends or if they do not see enough people they can do business with they will leave fast. Dinner invites typically say “from 6pm to 9pm” and that means you can arrive anytime in that time frame and leave anytime no-one will be offended. You can stay for 10 minutes and no-one will pay attention. You can either show up at 08h50 and just say hi then leave at 9. Everyone knows the “rule” and no-one shows before 6 and rarely stays after 9.
I get the impression from this description that the actual issue is that Parisians and San Franciscans use different language to set expectations, and that the author is actually describing a difference in how the two cultures express expectations around social gatherings. But that in no way implies that people in Silicon Valley get bored easily. It just means the two cultures communicate differently, which should surprise nobody in either location. Why try to make an ambiguous cultural generalization out of it that is neutral at best and insulting at worst?
The whole thing feels lazily written and uncharitable to the colorful variety of both Parisian and Silicon Valley culture. It makes me specifically think less of the author's startup that is advertised at the bottom of the post.