My deficiency is common manners. I think it’s a lack of attention to the world outside of my own thoughts. I’ve been known to just wander away from a conversation that is clearly not over to the other participants. I notice a sneeze about 10 seconds too late to say “bless you!”. I’m appropriately thankful, but assume that’s clear without my actually saying or writing something to convey the feeling. Depending on the context, my preoccupation leads me to be perceived as everything from a lovable nerd to an arrogant jerk. It’s something I’d like to change.
When I interact with people who behave the way you do (there a lot here at NASA), I generally do not hold it against them.
However, since you said you’d like to change, here are some suggestions that don’t require a great deal of attention because they are responses to specific events (which you would need to practice noticing):
Always say “Thank you” for everything. Assume that no one thinks you’re thankful unless you say so. It’s not necessarily true, but it is true sometimes, and it’s virtually never true that saying “thank you” will annoy someone that has just done something for you.
Learn people’s names and use them when you see someone for the first time each day (assuming you’re in an anglophone culture—romance cultures greet more often, I don’t know about other cultures). For many people, saying “Hi, JoAnn!” instead of just “Hi” or “Mmf” helps make them feel valued and respected by you.
It’s OK to leave a conversation that others are continuing, if they’re not actually speaking to you at the time you leave. Tell everyone “Bye” or “Talk to you later” or whatever is appropriate for your expectations of interacting in the future, and then step away. If you don’t want to interrupt a lively discussion, you can just raise your hand in a quick wave, try to make eye contact with at least one person if you can and smile or nod, and step away.
I’ll second the “thank you”, and append that “please” and “you’re welcome” are also wonderful phrases. I tend to read out as exceptionally polite as long as I’m managing those three.
I have, ONCE in my life, had someone upset with me for my politeness, but that was because I was overusing “sorry”. I do find apologizing is a useful trait, but it’s definitely easier to overdo that one :)
Regarding exact phrasing, I think “no problem” has largely replaced “you’re welcome” outside of formal settings. Also, here is something it took me a while to figure out—in the case of an approximately equal trade, both parties should thank each other, but saying “you’re welcome” or an equivalent would be kind of insulting.
In that particular case I could see “you’re welcome” being received oddly, since the social expectation is to thank the other person. That said “You’re welcome—and thank YOU for your $GIFT” seems to work decently if it’s, say, exchanging Christmas gifts.
I’ve generally gotten positive reactions to using “you’re welcome”. It might help that I have a voice that comes across as genuinely friendly and happy, and when I’m not genuinely feeling that way I won’t use the phrase. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone react as though it was insulting, in any circumstances.
Admittedly I also just have a personal dislike of “no problem”—it strikes me as disparaging the effort that went in to something, and I only use it when it was a genuinely trivial effort, or if the person seems to be honestly concerned that they’ve imposed too much on me.
Saying “no problem” to something big also reads out as having an undertone of “you really shouldn’t bother thanking me, I didn’t actually put any effort in to this”, and my experience is that people DO react somewhat to that undertone.
Hmmm, interesting. Overall, “no problem” seems to move people towards a more neutral response to my gift—reducing both anxieties of imposing on me, and enthusiasm/gratitude for me going out of my way to help.
I used to think it was worthwhile to think of strangers as human beings. Now I prefer to ignore them until an actual reason to interact presents itself.
This doesn’t apply to people I expect to encounter at least several times. Just strangers.
I suppose learning to comfortably make eye contact and engage strangers was useful, but now I choose not to do it when I have no reason to. It conserves energy and makes me happier not thinking about how I’m perceived by them.
Maybe it’s true that crowded/urban living isn’t “natural” or “healthy”, but the solution isn’t to waste energy trying to constantly “connect” with strangers—that’s an exercise in futility. The solution would be to find a subcommunity where you can behave “normally”.
I have replaced the stock replies to normal social banter with something just on the edge of what most people expect. That little change has had a positive impact on my everyday life. When you ask someone how they are doing they will usually respond with the standard, “I’m Good”. A simple smile and a, “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” tends to bump them away from the script and engage with you a little more. Whether it’s a waitress or a mechanic, that simple statement (no matter how scripted it is on my part) tends to bring out a higher level of service from them. There is no wasted energy in trying to “connect” with them, as I usually don’t care… but stepping outside of their hum-drum routine gives them the perception that I care. That can make all the difference!
A simple smile and a, “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” tends to bump them away from the script and engage with you a little more.
*shudder* I’m going to have to say that I find that very surprising (on the basis of the typical mind heuristic, of course. :P ). While I like the idea of changing up the standard greetings, that specific question is one I would probably react hostilely to.
I’ll actually second Sniffnoy on that, but I concede I’m unusual.
First, I often don’t want to interact with people, and I’ve noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I’m not interested in interacting. Related to tat, I’ve found people who ask that specific question are often very likely to get upset when I refuse to engage them. Basically, it makes me feel objectified—you’re forcing me to engage with you socially without my consent. (I am aware that “non-consensual social interaction” is something my culture doesn’t seem to normally object to)
Second, as Sniffnoy pointed out, it’s rejecting my answer. I’ll often say “good” because I’m dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don’t want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you’re unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn’t your business and that I didn’t really want to be thinking about.
Third, it often reads out very much as a “stock response”, not something that’s genuinely attempting to engage me as an individual. “How are you doing?” is fine as a stock question, because I have a stock answer. However, in this case, I don’t have a stock answer, so it’s forcing me to engage you without you actually putting any effort in to engaging me.
All in all, it basically reads out as “I’m going to actively force you to engage with me, even though I’m unwilling to put any effort in to reading you or understanding you”.
(I should clarify that this is a minor peeve, just one that comes up often enough that I have a cached analysis that is fairly in-depth by now. I realize that a detailed critique like this could be read as overly hostile, and that is not at all my intent :))
I didn’t read you as hostile at all! I hope you don’t mind if I return the critique, since I have the corresponding counter-peeve. :)
I’ve noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I’m not interested in interacting.
Hmm… so you have heard that specific question before? One of the things I liked about it is that I have never heard it before; it seemed unusual and original. I could understand someone not liking it if they had heard it many times.
As far as being bad at reading cues, two other possibilities are a) they are good at reading the cues, but still interested in interacting with you and trying to find a way to make the interaction work; or b) your cues are more ambiguous than you think.
it’s rejecting my answer. I’ll often say “good” because I’m dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don’t want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you’re unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn’t your business and that I didn’t really want to be thinking about.
Contrast my own case, which is that I’ll say “good” because I suspect the other person isn’t actually interested in an honest answer, and giving a fully honest answer might be imposing. Pressing further allows for the possibility of actually being honest and genuinely connecting. If you’re not interested, you don’t have to lie or share something you’re not comfortable with; you could just say “Sorry, not in a good mood for talking now.”
This is why I said the signals you are sending may be ambiguous, in that acting reserved can be a) because you aren’t interested, or b) because you are interested, but aren’t sure that the other person is interested and don’t want to impose.
If it’s an obviously super-brief pro-forma “conversation”, like banter with a waitress, then I see why ruhe47 ’s approach works: it shows that you’re more interested than average, but the other person has an excuse (other customers!) to walk away rather than lay out their whole life or be rude, so it’s not trapping them into a demand for a long answer.
But if someone were to say “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” in a more extended-conversation setting, like a party, then I would agree with Sniffnoy in disliking the proposed question. Without such an obvious natural time limit, that open-ended reflection-demanding question creates too much of an interrogation atmosphere. It’s like you’re going to stand there and poke at their life until you’ve heard enough.
My feeling is that the right way to start an extended conversation with someone is to ask them a question that invites them to remember, specifically remember something that’s fun for them and likely halfway interesting to you.
Toy example from my own life: “I’ve got Netflix streaming now, and I can’t decide what to watch. When you think about TV shows or movies that you’ve really enjoyed, which ones do you think of first?”
It sounds silly, like most conversation-with-strangers openings (“How are you?” is pretty silly in its own way, when you think about it), but it’s easy to answer and it invites discussion of something the other person has fun thinking about. Also it puts the other person in the position of being capable of helping you, as opposed to being evaluated or judged by you, which is a much friendlier subtext.
And hey, I really do need the recommendations. :)
But ruhe47 offered up their technique simply in the context of pro-forma ‘conversations’ like when you’re buying something at a store counter, and in that environment I can totally see how it would work. Especially since when you’re clerking or table-serving, you’re spending hours helping people yet not being engaged with as an interesting human being, so a sign of more genuine interest (without a real obligation to raespond more than you feel like) should be pretty positive.
Several reasons. For one, it’s challenging my response for no apparent reason. I answered precisely how I intended to! Which may not be the same as answering truthfully but it’s the best you’ll get out of me in such a case. It seems to me to contain an implicit challenge that things aren’t actually good and I’m just saying that because it’s conventional. Which may well be the case, but if things are indeed bad, I am not about to start talking about it to an arbitrary stranger, nor do I have appreciate having it or the obviousness of it thrown in my face like that. And if that things are good then it seems to be accusing me of telling falsehoods when I’m not, which is not exactly complimentary either.
It isn’t challenging the response. It is asking for more information. I accept the answer of “good” and then ask for elucidation. The follow up question (“really good or just sorta’ good?”) is predicated on my acceptance of their response. If I were to continue the questioning beyond the initial request for more detail it would definitely be intrusive, especially coming from an arbitrary stranger.
If you were to respond to my follow-up question with anything other than a positive reaction I would not attempt to engage you in any meaningful way beyond that. It hasn’t happened yet, but it is entirely possible that it would!
Edit: I owe you an apology. After a little bit of thought (I posted shortly after you without giving what you said the consideration it deserves) it definitely could be construed as questioning your initial response of “good”, which would be rude. I just had my understanding improved a bit. I hadn’t even considered it that way (even after you spelled it out)!
Thought—warning, unreliable memory ahead—perhaps the problem is that I often do try to somehow answer the question in the first place, so if I simply reply “Good”, that’s already something of a “don’t-bother-me”. But I suppose other people couldn’t be expected to recognize that.
The phrase itself is less important than the “stepping outside of their hum-drum routine.” If you can get them to engage in what was going to be just another surface level customer interaction it can be a good thing.
Of course, that question is not the only one I use, but it was an example of stepping outside the expected script. An unexpected, but apparently friendly, response tickles the right places in many people.
I learned these things because for years my parents corrected me every time I was wrong. Is there someone close to you whom you can ask to give you a prearranged signal when you forget certain things? It would be a little odd to have your friend prompting, “What do you say, dear?”, but maybe you can come up with something more subtle.
The following is from my reading, thinking, and experience. Hopefully it contains some useful ideas.
“Etiquette” is being conscious of the needs and wants of others, and changing your behavior (within reason) to accommodate these. If your thoughts are sufficiently engaging, this may be difficult or even undesirable.
What I find works for me is to partition my time. For some of it, I am interested in the world outside my head (including people) and for some of it I’m coding or thinking deep or sick or what have you and am not. While I try not to be outright rude in the latter state, it’s probably clear where my priorities lie.
These attitudes I apportion strategically, and make a point of establishing the appropriate context with grooming (basic maintenance always gets done, but making sure I actually look okay to go along with it might not) and clothing (jeans and a t-shirt, I’m probably not looking as much to engage the world outside my head as if I’m dressed up a bit).
Set aside some time for deliberate practice in treating people considerately—literally. That is, giving them consideration and letting that guide your actions.
“Manners” are patterns of behavior—when they tend to correspond to the actions one would take if they were acting considerately, they’re “good manners.” These are habits, with all the good and bad that implies. Specifically, the good is that they can happen without thinking—meaning your interactions may be improved even when you’re not focused on them; the bad is that they will not always apply, and so one shouldn’t rely on them when things are particularly important, and should turn to actual consideration of the involved individuals.
I’ll briefly note that “protocol” is yet another class of behavior—that which is rigidly proscribed, generally around some function. While it is usually both etiquette and (consequently) good manners to follow protocol, the three should not be confused. In particular, etiquette and manners can usually be figured out—protocol must be taught, but thankfully there’s usually reference material regarding more formal settings.
I do recommend perusing a book on etiquette or manners (the Post tome, for instance), reading not so much for the details but for the thinking behind them.
My deficiency is common manners. I think it’s a lack of attention to the world outside of my own thoughts. I’ve been known to just wander away from a conversation that is clearly not over to the other participants. I notice a sneeze about 10 seconds too late to say “bless you!”. I’m appropriately thankful, but assume that’s clear without my actually saying or writing something to convey the feeling. Depending on the context, my preoccupation leads me to be perceived as everything from a lovable nerd to an arrogant jerk. It’s something I’d like to change.
When I interact with people who behave the way you do (there a lot here at NASA), I generally do not hold it against them.
However, since you said you’d like to change, here are some suggestions that don’t require a great deal of attention because they are responses to specific events (which you would need to practice noticing):
Always say “Thank you” for everything. Assume that no one thinks you’re thankful unless you say so. It’s not necessarily true, but it is true sometimes, and it’s virtually never true that saying “thank you” will annoy someone that has just done something for you.
Learn people’s names and use them when you see someone for the first time each day (assuming you’re in an anglophone culture—romance cultures greet more often, I don’t know about other cultures). For many people, saying “Hi, JoAnn!” instead of just “Hi” or “Mmf” helps make them feel valued and respected by you.
It’s OK to leave a conversation that others are continuing, if they’re not actually speaking to you at the time you leave. Tell everyone “Bye” or “Talk to you later” or whatever is appropriate for your expectations of interacting in the future, and then step away. If you don’t want to interrupt a lively discussion, you can just raise your hand in a quick wave, try to make eye contact with at least one person if you can and smile or nod, and step away.
I’ll second the “thank you”, and append that “please” and “you’re welcome” are also wonderful phrases. I tend to read out as exceptionally polite as long as I’m managing those three.
I have, ONCE in my life, had someone upset with me for my politeness, but that was because I was overusing “sorry”. I do find apologizing is a useful trait, but it’s definitely easier to overdo that one :)
Regarding exact phrasing, I think “no problem” has largely replaced “you’re welcome” outside of formal settings. Also, here is something it took me a while to figure out—in the case of an approximately equal trade, both parties should thank each other, but saying “you’re welcome” or an equivalent would be kind of insulting.
In that particular case I could see “you’re welcome” being received oddly, since the social expectation is to thank the other person. That said “You’re welcome—and thank YOU for your $GIFT” seems to work decently if it’s, say, exchanging Christmas gifts.
I’ve generally gotten positive reactions to using “you’re welcome”. It might help that I have a voice that comes across as genuinely friendly and happy, and when I’m not genuinely feeling that way I won’t use the phrase. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone react as though it was insulting, in any circumstances.
Admittedly I also just have a personal dislike of “no problem”—it strikes me as disparaging the effort that went in to something, and I only use it when it was a genuinely trivial effort, or if the person seems to be honestly concerned that they’ve imposed too much on me.
Saying “no problem” to something big also reads out as having an undertone of “you really shouldn’t bother thanking me, I didn’t actually put any effort in to this”, and my experience is that people DO react somewhat to that undertone.
Hmmm, interesting. Overall, “no problem” seems to move people towards a more neutral response to my gift—reducing both anxieties of imposing on me, and enthusiasm/gratitude for me going out of my way to help.
I used to think it was worthwhile to think of strangers as human beings. Now I prefer to ignore them until an actual reason to interact presents itself.
This doesn’t apply to people I expect to encounter at least several times. Just strangers.
I suppose learning to comfortably make eye contact and engage strangers was useful, but now I choose not to do it when I have no reason to. It conserves energy and makes me happier not thinking about how I’m perceived by them.
Maybe it’s true that crowded/urban living isn’t “natural” or “healthy”, but the solution isn’t to waste energy trying to constantly “connect” with strangers—that’s an exercise in futility. The solution would be to find a subcommunity where you can behave “normally”.
I have replaced the stock replies to normal social banter with something just on the edge of what most people expect. That little change has had a positive impact on my everyday life. When you ask someone how they are doing they will usually respond with the standard, “I’m Good”. A simple smile and a, “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” tends to bump them away from the script and engage with you a little more. Whether it’s a waitress or a mechanic, that simple statement (no matter how scripted it is on my part) tends to bring out a higher level of service from them. There is no wasted energy in trying to “connect” with them, as I usually don’t care… but stepping outside of their hum-drum routine gives them the perception that I care. That can make all the difference!
Interesting. The smile, and the fact that you’re really saying something, are probably what really matter.
I don’t ignore my mechanic or waiter—there is a reason to interact :)
*shudder* I’m going to have to say that I find that very surprising (on the basis of the typical mind heuristic, of course. :P ). While I like the idea of changing up the standard greetings, that specific question is one I would probably react hostilely to.
Why? I would guess you are unusual in that respect.
I’ll actually second Sniffnoy on that, but I concede I’m unusual.
First, I often don’t want to interact with people, and I’ve noticed that people who ask that specific question are usually somewhere between bad and INCREDIBLY bad at reading social cues that indicate I’m not interested in interacting. Related to tat, I’ve found people who ask that specific question are often very likely to get upset when I refuse to engage them. Basically, it makes me feel objectified—you’re forcing me to engage with you socially without my consent. (I am aware that “non-consensual social interaction” is something my culture doesn’t seem to normally object to)
Second, as Sniffnoy pointed out, it’s rejecting my answer. I’ll often say “good” because I’m dealing with all sorts of neurochemical imbalances that I don’t want to be thinking about. Pressing further makes me feel like you’re unwilling to accept a polite social deflection. Either way, it requires me to come up with a more convoluted lie, or else share something that isn’t your business and that I didn’t really want to be thinking about.
Third, it often reads out very much as a “stock response”, not something that’s genuinely attempting to engage me as an individual. “How are you doing?” is fine as a stock question, because I have a stock answer. However, in this case, I don’t have a stock answer, so it’s forcing me to engage you without you actually putting any effort in to engaging me.
All in all, it basically reads out as “I’m going to actively force you to engage with me, even though I’m unwilling to put any effort in to reading you or understanding you”.
(I should clarify that this is a minor peeve, just one that comes up often enough that I have a cached analysis that is fairly in-depth by now. I realize that a detailed critique like this could be read as overly hostile, and that is not at all my intent :))
I didn’t read you as hostile at all! I hope you don’t mind if I return the critique, since I have the corresponding counter-peeve. :)
Hmm… so you have heard that specific question before? One of the things I liked about it is that I have never heard it before; it seemed unusual and original. I could understand someone not liking it if they had heard it many times.
As far as being bad at reading cues, two other possibilities are a) they are good at reading the cues, but still interested in interacting with you and trying to find a way to make the interaction work; or b) your cues are more ambiguous than you think.
Contrast my own case, which is that I’ll say “good” because I suspect the other person isn’t actually interested in an honest answer, and giving a fully honest answer might be imposing. Pressing further allows for the possibility of actually being honest and genuinely connecting. If you’re not interested, you don’t have to lie or share something you’re not comfortable with; you could just say “Sorry, not in a good mood for talking now.”
This is why I said the signals you are sending may be ambiguous, in that acting reserved can be a) because you aren’t interested, or b) because you are interested, but aren’t sure that the other person is interested and don’t want to impose.
If it’s an obviously super-brief pro-forma “conversation”, like banter with a waitress, then I see why ruhe47 ’s approach works: it shows that you’re more interested than average, but the other person has an excuse (other customers!) to walk away rather than lay out their whole life or be rude, so it’s not trapping them into a demand for a long answer.
But if someone were to say “Are you really good, or just sorta good?” in a more extended-conversation setting, like a party, then I would agree with Sniffnoy in disliking the proposed question. Without such an obvious natural time limit, that open-ended reflection-demanding question creates too much of an interrogation atmosphere. It’s like you’re going to stand there and poke at their life until you’ve heard enough.
My feeling is that the right way to start an extended conversation with someone is to ask them a question that invites them to remember, specifically remember something that’s fun for them and likely halfway interesting to you.
Toy example from my own life: “I’ve got Netflix streaming now, and I can’t decide what to watch. When you think about TV shows or movies that you’ve really enjoyed, which ones do you think of first?”
It sounds silly, like most conversation-with-strangers openings (“How are you?” is pretty silly in its own way, when you think about it), but it’s easy to answer and it invites discussion of something the other person has fun thinking about. Also it puts the other person in the position of being capable of helping you, as opposed to being evaluated or judged by you, which is a much friendlier subtext.
And hey, I really do need the recommendations. :)
But ruhe47 offered up their technique simply in the context of pro-forma ‘conversations’ like when you’re buying something at a store counter, and in that environment I can totally see how it would work. Especially since when you’re clerking or table-serving, you’re spending hours helping people yet not being engaged with as an interesting human being, so a sign of more genuine interest (without a real obligation to raespond more than you feel like) should be pretty positive.
Several reasons. For one, it’s challenging my response for no apparent reason. I answered precisely how I intended to! Which may not be the same as answering truthfully but it’s the best you’ll get out of me in such a case. It seems to me to contain an implicit challenge that things aren’t actually good and I’m just saying that because it’s conventional. Which may well be the case, but if things are indeed bad, I am not about to start talking about it to an arbitrary stranger, nor do I have appreciate having it or the obviousness of it thrown in my face like that. And if that things are good then it seems to be accusing me of telling falsehoods when I’m not, which is not exactly complimentary either.
Edited: See the bottom section!
It isn’t challenging the response. It is asking for more information. I accept the answer of “good” and then ask for elucidation. The follow up question (“really good or just sorta’ good?”) is predicated on my acceptance of their response. If I were to continue the questioning beyond the initial request for more detail it would definitely be intrusive, especially coming from an arbitrary stranger.
If you were to respond to my follow-up question with anything other than a positive reaction I would not attempt to engage you in any meaningful way beyond that. It hasn’t happened yet, but it is entirely possible that it would!
Edit: I owe you an apology. After a little bit of thought (I posted shortly after you without giving what you said the consideration it deserves) it definitely could be construed as questioning your initial response of “good”, which would be rude. I just had my understanding improved a bit. I hadn’t even considered it that way (even after you spelled it out)!
Thought—warning, unreliable memory ahead—perhaps the problem is that I often do try to somehow answer the question in the first place, so if I simply reply “Good”, that’s already something of a “don’t-bother-me”. But I suppose other people couldn’t be expected to recognize that.
This makes sense in a context where you are actually trying to convey information. Absent that, I’m not sure it does.
The phrase itself is less important than the “stepping outside of their hum-drum routine.” If you can get them to engage in what was going to be just another surface level customer interaction it can be a good thing.
Of course, that question is not the only one I use, but it was an example of stepping outside the expected script. An unexpected, but apparently friendly, response tickles the right places in many people.
Welcome to the LessWrong / Autism Spectrum club.
I learned these things because for years my parents corrected me every time I was wrong. Is there someone close to you whom you can ask to give you a prearranged signal when you forget certain things? It would be a little odd to have your friend prompting, “What do you say, dear?”, but maybe you can come up with something more subtle.
that’s what you’re doing to me!
The following is from my reading, thinking, and experience. Hopefully it contains some useful ideas.
“Etiquette” is being conscious of the needs and wants of others, and changing your behavior (within reason) to accommodate these. If your thoughts are sufficiently engaging, this may be difficult or even undesirable.
What I find works for me is to partition my time. For some of it, I am interested in the world outside my head (including people) and for some of it I’m coding or thinking deep or sick or what have you and am not. While I try not to be outright rude in the latter state, it’s probably clear where my priorities lie.
These attitudes I apportion strategically, and make a point of establishing the appropriate context with grooming (basic maintenance always gets done, but making sure I actually look okay to go along with it might not) and clothing (jeans and a t-shirt, I’m probably not looking as much to engage the world outside my head as if I’m dressed up a bit).
Set aside some time for deliberate practice in treating people considerately—literally. That is, giving them consideration and letting that guide your actions.
“Manners” are patterns of behavior—when they tend to correspond to the actions one would take if they were acting considerately, they’re “good manners.” These are habits, with all the good and bad that implies. Specifically, the good is that they can happen without thinking—meaning your interactions may be improved even when you’re not focused on them; the bad is that they will not always apply, and so one shouldn’t rely on them when things are particularly important, and should turn to actual consideration of the involved individuals.
I’ll briefly note that “protocol” is yet another class of behavior—that which is rigidly proscribed, generally around some function. While it is usually both etiquette and (consequently) good manners to follow protocol, the three should not be confused. In particular, etiquette and manners can usually be figured out—protocol must be taught, but thankfully there’s usually reference material regarding more formal settings.
I do recommend perusing a book on etiquette or manners (the Post tome, for instance), reading not so much for the details but for the thinking behind them.