Own used language's difference is generally caused from nation's own historical background's difference, and difference of ethnicity's composional content or so.

Necessarily each country has each own social circumstance and its dragging social aspectual situation, then necessarily both around own national language usage and communicative common sense are becoming gapped modus ponens.

These all things logically could be regarded as externally ideitified or signified factor to make us mutual cultrual, habittual difference.
Necessarily upper factor should never be neglected to us for dealing with and reacting any our confronting daily site in society. 

Nevertheles, only that factor does not always manage our daily communication.
Because, e.g. not only with it, but also even in same ethnicity, same nationality necessarily according to each personal character or inhenretly personally equipped characteristics or so could work on at each communicative occasion.

By the way, once upon a time, US citizens' communication is used to be frank and mutually open and directly spoken mutually, we Japanese students was taught by teachers in charge of not only English lesson or class but also social science or so.

Necessarily to some extent former interpretation could be hit really emobdied aspect in US, nevertheless, actually in each site's own nature with urban, suburban, rural or so, otherwise, each job's professionality or so.
Nevertheless, each country or nation's language communicative nature is not always attending that method or common sense at fixed immovable point or so, never yet, any country has age trend's transition according to each social situation which is impacted by not only historical factor but also each momentary present worldwide deplomatic relevance with any other country, economically and financially regarded national power, voice or so.

Much more, nowadays, any country according to global community's presence causing own influx of foreign country people, and inbound workers' acceptance and adoption with relevance with economics and diplomacy.

And, to be frank, simply I could say thoese attending essence, any country's each specific socially necessary circumstance is always so limited and not so ultimately direct factor, in other words, e.g. against ever and relatively until recently taken stereo-typed view around Japanese and American, ones whose method relies on very positively frankly talcative and directly taking communicative stance and ones whose communicative stance is jsut perfectly indirectly taken, and inactively taken very modestly abstinent, frankly both typed ones probably could exist almost same ratio, or share in any community in each country.

Necessarily at so offcial and formal ceremonial occasion, any relevance with more than two countries or nations could have each own social etiquette could be present or personally eqipped. But that difference is dependent on very exceptional global ceremonial formally taken deplomacy, at any country, suppositively we settle own municipality, or survived in that community, one country's social manner and "Own members' particularly taking own attitude or communicative manner or so must exist" that discourse must be just streo-typed prejudice or biased preoccupation or preconception.

Because in human world, from the beginning, e.g. at the view around communicative common sense, very deplomatically positively stance taken(or taking) ones and very carefully conservatively abstinent and modestly taken ones are each differentiated and both present in any community, at this reality, city, urban infrastructually equipped zone and depopulated intersperced habitual reality realized zone, simly these all mutual difference otherwise younger or aged, these factors are very partially restricted, necessarily very aged ones are inclied to procratinate directly speaking to strangers, nevertheless, at this case, certainly aged ones have only physically powerlessly inclined, then hardly to react any stranger's sudden taken question on the same road, nevertheless, at reacting that, both mentally very frankly doing ones and very inactively reluctantly doing ones exist not relevant with bodily condition's better or worse.

In other words, as far as concerned with, otherwise, in terms of frankly speaking and reacting between or among mutual strangers, very comfortably positively reacting ones and very bothersome ones must exist at any community, any generation.

Those essentially daily habitually taken attitudes and reluctance or enthisiastic stance in mutual difference must be really present and these direclty reason we can infer so probably must be each one's own raised environment, family nature caused kind of pedigree's nature as almost inherently given constituion or so, or any other factor are combined so complicatedly.
Though we could not judge or conclude mere cause or reason for judging each case, but anyway, these very complicated foctors are working out to fix each one's reactive difference, as the inclinaton, tendency or so.

Simply, at the case we are suddenly asking something to stranger on the road, very pleasantly reactitng ones and not so at taking only attitude very reluctantly obliged to react any question must have no region, no age's difference or no gender, any case could be at any category.

Otherwise, the stance for surviving society, very evolusively radically stance taken attitude and very conservatively traditional common sense taken attitude, both taking ones must exist at any generation and gender and region.
That is my conclusion though that so long period I'd tried so with each generation(not only the same generatiton, or same professional domain's ones but also any other ones).
By the way, I'm now 62 years old, and since very younger generation's ages, I'd tried to communicate with any citizen not to be related with the same nationality or foreigner, thus necessarily I am very openly positive communicative stance taken typed citizen, generally said so.

In conclusion, I'm never already so younger, nevertheless, being spoken from any stranger unless the one is so dubiously seemed danger, I'm not a type of person who is so reluctant being asked and respond to it, and that thing is not related with asked moment's my body condition(because I'm not so younger), being asked by anyone is not so burden at least to me, but ones who are feeling very burdensome are exactly existing in society.

In world, the ones whose nature is bashful and the ones whose it is friendly or outgoing, in other words, inborn bashful reactive manner attending or habitually doing ones and contrarily, friendly and outgoing ones are certainly present, as factual truth, and that thing is absolutely deniable. And mutual common sense is from the beginning, very gapped originally, and that true reason is not so indentified for the present either to me.

However, that problem is never so trivially tiny nor so small at taking it not so seriously at least to me.
One my subjective opinion is just, certainly socially factor impacting kind of atmosphere, or our each own acceptance to it could be concerned with these problems, specifically nowadays are in COVID variant evolusive crisis as pandemic horror to anyone, necessarily each one's stance and mentaity around personal diplomacy.

By the way, this time taken subject or propositional content, generally philosophers or kind of metaphysicists or so are uniterested in or indifferent, to each other, because they are apt to generalize any proposition at very abstracted dimensional horizon, at this viewpoint, psychlogists, mental doctors, or religios enlighting concern evangelists, clergy or so are generally actively debatable.

In other words, the difference of reality laid between very formally stiff adacemic circle and ordinary socially necessary site profession must be another so integrally debatable issue there, we could conclude so.

And, I now am intending to inject these problematic things into metaphysics, logics, and mind philosophy so personally(Because professional academic circle ones are never interested in those problems. That's why they academic circles' ones belong to very conservative guild as membership's authority. Nevertheless, that thing and each member's character or diplomatic strategy or personal stance and nature are mutually irelevant).
At this term, to me, at least only singers and song writers or misicians belong to pop music scene or so are generally so open to any external society(Of course, at each person, character difference could be present, Mae Muller, Benee are so diplomatic and positively communicative, but Billie Eilish are bashful, of course these are just my only impression at observing each of them, by the way that thing and my lovable emotion to each of them as fan listner are mutually irrelevant).

(to be continued)

Appendix; Suddenly very in rushed row, many issues, I'd inserted there today, but originally, any problem or proposition could be present just at so entangled and complicated whirlpool, you know, very smarter and wiser visitors' ladies and gentlemen, oops, these terms are already out of date at these days with LGBT or LGBTQ or SOGI or SOGIE in social reality, you know! Oh boy, too complicated to say anything so easily, oops, that saying also could have been culminated by anyone nowadays, being noticed to it is necessary either to me, oh boy!
(Actually, today's theme must be interacted with management issue and managed ones' mentality or conservatism's orthodoxy and nowadays' social adequacy, pertinence, and relevance, oh, boy so troublesomely complicated and entangled together, you know.
So far, bit by bit I'd like to grapple with each of them as integral proposition.

Feb. 5th.      2022