> I'm saying "norms" are different for each person.
We’re using the word “norms” differently, then. Norms are what you use with people you don’t know. They’re based on cultural contexts. The rules of conversations are observations about how people tend to expect conversations to unfold in a particular culture and context.
You can approach the norms as descriptive or prescriptive. Both approaches are useful, but you’ll (IMO) get more mileage out of the descriptive approach. If you think of norms as prescriptive rules that you must follow in order to have a good conversation, then they won’t work very well. The same is true if you look at conversations on a smaller scale—we also have rules for grammar and vocabulary, and those rules can also be approached from a descriptive or prescriptive angle.
> There's no choice but to use your intuition.
This part is flat wrong. You do not have to use only intuition. Human nature is not somehow inexplicable, it is not somehow beyond our power to describe how good conversations work, or what friendship is, or what the nature of love is.
Our intuition about other people and our relationships is extremely powerful but it is not all-powerful. This is why people write in to relationship advice columns (or modern analogues like Reddit). People ask for help with their relationships because intuition is not enough. Some things need to be explained with words.
You do not need to follow these rules like a robot. They are just there to help you understand how to interact well with other people. The rules are not there so someone who is distracted or careless can more easily make better connections with other people; the rules are there as an explanation for how people who are paying attention will make connections.
Again, if you look closer you’ll also find that the grammar we use follows rules too. There are entire sections at the library full of books that explain the grammar of the English language. This isn’t really any different. The books can either explain the rules as directives that you must follow (the prescriptive approach), or explain the rules as observations about how native speakers write and speak English (the descriptive approach). Someone who’s fluent won’t need to think about the rules because they’re internalized, but they’ll still mostly follow the rules anyway. Someone who is clumsy and new at English will generally benefit from studying the rules.
We’re using the word “norms” differently, then. Norms are what you use with people you don’t know. They’re based on cultural contexts. The rules of conversations are observations about how people tend to expect conversations to unfold in a particular culture and context.
You can approach the norms as descriptive or prescriptive. Both approaches are useful, but you’ll (IMO) get more mileage out of the descriptive approach. If you think of norms as prescriptive rules that you must follow in order to have a good conversation, then they won’t work very well. The same is true if you look at conversations on a smaller scale—we also have rules for grammar and vocabulary, and those rules can also be approached from a descriptive or prescriptive angle.
> There's no choice but to use your intuition.
This part is flat wrong. You do not have to use only intuition. Human nature is not somehow inexplicable, it is not somehow beyond our power to describe how good conversations work, or what friendship is, or what the nature of love is.
Our intuition about other people and our relationships is extremely powerful but it is not all-powerful. This is why people write in to relationship advice columns (or modern analogues like Reddit). People ask for help with their relationships because intuition is not enough. Some things need to be explained with words.
You do not need to follow these rules like a robot. They are just there to help you understand how to interact well with other people. The rules are not there so someone who is distracted or careless can more easily make better connections with other people; the rules are there as an explanation for how people who are paying attention will make connections.
Again, if you look closer you’ll also find that the grammar we use follows rules too. There are entire sections at the library full of books that explain the grammar of the English language. This isn’t really any different. The books can either explain the rules as directives that you must follow (the prescriptive approach), or explain the rules as observations about how native speakers write and speak English (the descriptive approach). Someone who’s fluent won’t need to think about the rules because they’re internalized, but they’ll still mostly follow the rules anyway. Someone who is clumsy and new at English will generally benefit from studying the rules.