Scan barcode
Reviews
The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why by Richard Nisbett
pattricejones's review
Nisbett came late to a notion that had already been discussed extensively in other disciplines (not to mention by other social psychologists) but does an adequate job of summarizing the old news that people from different cultures not only think about but even perceive the world differently, with these differences having profound repercussions.
Nisbett does a grave disservice by leaving out African and Native American patterns of cognition, but he does make a significant original contribution and it is to see the cognitive orientations he does cover as "self-reinforcing, homeostatic system[s]."
In short, Nisbett argues that different material (economic, ecological, etc.) forces lead to different social structures. Then, "different social practices and child training will result in people focusing on different things in the environment. Focusing on different things will produce different understandings about the nature of the world. Different worldviews will in turn reinforce differential attention and social practices. The different worldviews will also prompt differences in perception and reasoning processes -- which will tend to reinforce [those] worldviews."
The systemic nature of all of this, and in particular the interlocking interactions of social, material, and cognitive factors, ought to be understood by any activist in the business of provoking people to think differently.
Nisbett does a grave disservice by leaving out African and Native American patterns of cognition, but he does make a significant original contribution and it is to see the cognitive orientations he does cover as "self-reinforcing, homeostatic system[s]."
In short, Nisbett argues that different material (economic, ecological, etc.) forces lead to different social structures. Then, "different social practices and child training will result in people focusing on different things in the environment. Focusing on different things will produce different understandings about the nature of the world. Different worldviews will in turn reinforce differential attention and social practices. The different worldviews will also prompt differences in perception and reasoning processes -- which will tend to reinforce [those] worldviews."
The systemic nature of all of this, and in particular the interlocking interactions of social, material, and cognitive factors, ought to be understood by any activist in the business of provoking people to think differently.
mahir007's review
5.0
في حين أن مناسبة خاصة عند اليونانيين القدماء كانت تعني حضور المسرحيات وقراءة الشعر ، فإن مناسبة خاصة عند الصينيين في نفس الفترة كانت تعني فرصة لزيارة الأصدقاء والعائلة. كانت هناك ممارسة تسمى تشوان مين ، حرفيا "جعل الأبواب سلسلة" كانت الزيارات - التي كانت تهدف إلى إظهار الاحترام للمضيفين - شائعة بشكل خاص خلال العطلات الرئيسية. كان يُنظر إلى أولئك الذين تمت زيارتهم في وقت مبكر على أنهم أكثر أهمية من أولئك الذين تمت زيارتهم لاحقًا.
كان النظير الصيني للفردانية اليونانية هو الوئام أو التناغم . كان كل صيني أولاً وقبل كل شيء عضوًا في مجموعة ، أو بالأحرى في عدة مجموعات - العشيرة ، والقرية ، وخاصة العائلة. لم يكن الفرد ، كما هو الحال بالنسبة لليونانيين ، وحدة مستقلة تحافظ على هوية فريدة عبر الأوساط الاجتماعية. بدلاً من ذلك ، كما كتب الفيلسوف هنري روزمونت: "... بالنسبة للكونفوشيوسيين الأوائل ، لا يمكن أن أكون منعزلًا ، ثم يقول بشكل تجريدي: أنا كلية الأدوار التي أعيشها فيما يتعلق بأشخاص محددين ... كل واحد منا ، نمط فريد للهوية الشخصية ، بحيث إذا تغيرت بعض الأدوار الخاصة بي ، فإن الآخرين سيتغيرون بالضرورة أيضًا ، مما يجعلني حرفياً شخصًا مختلفًا ".
.
Richard Nisbett
The Geography Of Thought
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
كان النظير الصيني للفردانية اليونانية هو الوئام أو التناغم . كان كل صيني أولاً وقبل كل شيء عضوًا في مجموعة ، أو بالأحرى في عدة مجموعات - العشيرة ، والقرية ، وخاصة العائلة. لم يكن الفرد ، كما هو الحال بالنسبة لليونانيين ، وحدة مستقلة تحافظ على هوية فريدة عبر الأوساط الاجتماعية. بدلاً من ذلك ، كما كتب الفيلسوف هنري روزمونت: "... بالنسبة للكونفوشيوسيين الأوائل ، لا يمكن أن أكون منعزلًا ، ثم يقول بشكل تجريدي: أنا كلية الأدوار التي أعيشها فيما يتعلق بأشخاص محددين ... كل واحد منا ، نمط فريد للهوية الشخصية ، بحيث إذا تغيرت بعض الأدوار الخاصة بي ، فإن الآخرين سيتغيرون بالضرورة أيضًا ، مما يجعلني حرفياً شخصًا مختلفًا ".
.
Richard Nisbett
The Geography Of Thought
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
curlypip's review
4.0
There’s plenty of criticism of this book, but I liked it. As someone who struggled and clashed in pretty much every aspect of my relationship with my Chinese in-laws, I felt vindicated in a way I hadn’t before.
It was a light bulb moment of “wow, it really actually wasn’t my fault”, which is both sad and welcome in equal measure.
I’m sure I’ll come back to read it again in the future
It was a light bulb moment of “wow, it really actually wasn’t my fault”, which is both sad and welcome in equal measure.
I’m sure I’ll come back to read it again in the future
jwsg's review
3.0
In some ways, this book reminded me of Guy Deutscher's Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages, where the latter discussed the relationship between language, culture and perception. That's the fun part of the book, learning how culture shapes the way we perceive and analyse the world. The downside is that unlike Deutscher, Nisbett doesn't have the most engaging writing style - it's pretty dry and academic in style and in Nisbett's efforts to demonstrate the rigour of his analysis, the book can feel a little draggy at times.
Nisbett argues that many of the differences between Eastern and Western thought originate in the very different political structures these societies had. Greek democracy and its cosmopolitan, trade-based economy emphasised the importance of the individual - individual identity and personal agency were key. By contrast, Chinese society, which was predominantly Han, feudal and agrarian in nature emphasised the importance of the collective, where harmony and self-control were key. Nisbett notes that "Chinese society made the individual feel very much a part of a large, complex, and generally benign social organism where clear mutual obligations served as a guide to ethical conduct."
These contrasting characteristics come through in all aspects of Greek and Chinese culture. For the Chinese, "the ideal of happiness was not, as for the Greeks, a life allowing the free exercise of distinctive talents, but the satisfactions of a plain country life shared within a harmonious social network. Whereas Greek cases and wine goblets show pictures of battles, athletic contests, and bacchanalian parties, ancient Chinese scrolls and porcelains depict scenes of family activities and rural pleasures....[The Chinese] monophonic music reflected the Chinese concern with unity. Singers would all sing the same melody and musical instruments played the same notes at the same time. [By contrast] the Greeks...invented polyphonic music, where different instruments, and different voices, take different parts."
These characteristics similarly influenced their science and philosophy. Whereas the Greeks sought to understand the properties of discrete objects and to categorise and order them, the Chinese saw everything as interconnected and that understanding context was key. "The reluctance of the Chinese to perform surgery is completely understandable in light of their views about harmony and relationships. Health was dependent on the balance of forces in the body and the relationship between its parts...The notion that the removal of a malfunctioning or diseased part of the body could be beneficial, without attending to its relations to other parts of the body, would have been too simple-minded for the Chinese to contemplate. By contrast, surgery has been practised in many different Western societies for thousands of years." Moreover, "there has never been a strong interest in knowledge for its own sake in China." "Chinese [scientific] advances reflected a genius for practicality, not a penchant for scientific theory and investigation....In Confucianism, there was not thought of knowing that did not entail some consequence for action."
Whereas Greek philosophy was characterised by abstraction, and resolving contradictions using logic and debate, Chinese philosophy "favoured the most concrete sense impressions in understanding the world...the Chinese language itself is remarkably concrete. There is no word for 'size' for example. If you want to fit someone for their shoes, you ask them for the 'bigsmall' of their feet. There is no equivalent to 'ness' in Chinese. So there is no 'whiteness' - only the white of the swan or the white of the snow."
All this sets the context for the very different ways in which Westerners and Asians act and perceive the world, where (broadly speaking):
- Western parents focus on building self-esteem, establishing uniqueness and building independence while Asian parents focus on teaching children to blend harmoniously with others, including being sensitive to what others are conveying. These different upbringings - from the values emphasised to the vocabulary that babies are exposed to (nouns vs verbs) - socialise Western and Asian kids in very different ways.
- Westerners debate while Asians seek to build consensus in order to maintain group harmony.
- Westerners perceive the world in terms of objects; Asians see the world in terms of relationships
- Westerners tend to attribute behaviour to the actor while Asians are inclined to attribute behaviour to context.
Nisbett concludes the book by showing the real world implications of these differences - how they manifest in varied contexts from medicine and boardroom discussions, to contracts and science and rhetoric; from international relations and religion, to human rights and legal practice.
Nisbett argues that many of the differences between Eastern and Western thought originate in the very different political structures these societies had. Greek democracy and its cosmopolitan, trade-based economy emphasised the importance of the individual - individual identity and personal agency were key. By contrast, Chinese society, which was predominantly Han, feudal and agrarian in nature emphasised the importance of the collective, where harmony and self-control were key. Nisbett notes that "Chinese society made the individual feel very much a part of a large, complex, and generally benign social organism where clear mutual obligations served as a guide to ethical conduct."
These contrasting characteristics come through in all aspects of Greek and Chinese culture. For the Chinese, "the ideal of happiness was not, as for the Greeks, a life allowing the free exercise of distinctive talents, but the satisfactions of a plain country life shared within a harmonious social network. Whereas Greek cases and wine goblets show pictures of battles, athletic contests, and bacchanalian parties, ancient Chinese scrolls and porcelains depict scenes of family activities and rural pleasures....[The Chinese] monophonic music reflected the Chinese concern with unity. Singers would all sing the same melody and musical instruments played the same notes at the same time. [By contrast] the Greeks...invented polyphonic music, where different instruments, and different voices, take different parts."
These characteristics similarly influenced their science and philosophy. Whereas the Greeks sought to understand the properties of discrete objects and to categorise and order them, the Chinese saw everything as interconnected and that understanding context was key. "The reluctance of the Chinese to perform surgery is completely understandable in light of their views about harmony and relationships. Health was dependent on the balance of forces in the body and the relationship between its parts...The notion that the removal of a malfunctioning or diseased part of the body could be beneficial, without attending to its relations to other parts of the body, would have been too simple-minded for the Chinese to contemplate. By contrast, surgery has been practised in many different Western societies for thousands of years." Moreover, "there has never been a strong interest in knowledge for its own sake in China." "Chinese [scientific] advances reflected a genius for practicality, not a penchant for scientific theory and investigation....In Confucianism, there was not thought of knowing that did not entail some consequence for action."
Whereas Greek philosophy was characterised by abstraction, and resolving contradictions using logic and debate, Chinese philosophy "favoured the most concrete sense impressions in understanding the world...the Chinese language itself is remarkably concrete. There is no word for 'size' for example. If you want to fit someone for their shoes, you ask them for the 'bigsmall' of their feet. There is no equivalent to 'ness' in Chinese. So there is no 'whiteness' - only the white of the swan or the white of the snow."
All this sets the context for the very different ways in which Westerners and Asians act and perceive the world, where (broadly speaking):
- Western parents focus on building self-esteem, establishing uniqueness and building independence while Asian parents focus on teaching children to blend harmoniously with others, including being sensitive to what others are conveying. These different upbringings - from the values emphasised to the vocabulary that babies are exposed to (nouns vs verbs) - socialise Western and Asian kids in very different ways.
- Westerners debate while Asians seek to build consensus in order to maintain group harmony.
- Westerners perceive the world in terms of objects; Asians see the world in terms of relationships
- Westerners tend to attribute behaviour to the actor while Asians are inclined to attribute behaviour to context.
Nisbett concludes the book by showing the real world implications of these differences - how they manifest in varied contexts from medicine and boardroom discussions, to contracts and science and rhetoric; from international relations and religion, to human rights and legal practice.
jonsploder's review
1.0
Complete garbage, author is excited by their idea that westerners and the ancient Chinese think differently (individually vs collectively), and tries to find facts to support this idea. Shallow, repetitive, bloated, and worse illogical and factually wrong. A perfect example of how poor the authors thinking is his random fact insertion to make himself seem well read. E.g. stating that “that the moon caused the tides eluded even Galileo, unlike the Chinese” and of course this is because the Chinese think of the system as a whole rather than individual objects. Well it didn’t elude Galileo, he disagreed with it because there was no reason to believe it as far as he was aware - this was a well known and believed suspicion, and one of the reasons astrology was regarded as a science for a while. So the fact that the moons orbit DOES cause the tides is not at all important… what’s important is the reasoning for why it causes the tides if you want to argue it. The fact some random Chinese “knew it” (as well as some random superstitious Europeans too!), is stretched as a throwaway to support his argument.
Too many poorly thought pieces of evidence were put in, so it was hard to trust any of the material that seemed more interesting.
Too many poorly thought pieces of evidence were put in, so it was hard to trust any of the material that seemed more interesting.
margaretefg's review
3.0
This is a fascinating read. Nisbett uses a kind of historical imagination to point to differences in thought between ancient Greeks and ancient Chinese. That part seemed questionable, but then he backs up that theory with reference to numerous specific studies of Asians and Westerners. He reports the study results precisely (Japanese mothers and American mothers, etc), and shows middle ground (Asian Americans, or in some cases, some Europeans.) The idea that Asians tend to see field, connections and continuity; while Westerners see objects separately and discontinuity will stay with me, as will Nisbett's suggestion that people both think differently and yet that they can adapt that model. Still thinking about how this applies to my own work with students.