Scan barcode
A review by ben_smitty
The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why by Richard Nisbett
4.0
In Thai, the word for I depends on the person you are speaking with. Males can use เค้า, เรา, กู, ผม, ฉัน, or they can even refer to themselves by using their proper names. My identity is dependent on who I am speaking with, and changing who I am in different social contexts is expected. In English, it's just "I," a fixed identity, and changing who I am in different contexts is seen as "not being myself."
I thought Nisbett's hypothesis on how Asians and Westerners came to think differently was fascinating. He believes that because the Greeks lived in mountainous terrains close to the sea, it allowed them to live more independently, which allowed them to debate and search for truth without costing them too much; there were hunters, fishers, gatherers, traders etc. but they were not as reliant on a harmonious society as the Chinese were.
In China, there were "fertile plains, low mountains, and navigable rivers," which favored agriculture. If you can't get along with each other (or with the authorities), you don't get to eat because people "cultivate the land in concert with one another," so finding a middle ground was always favorable (think of the Yin-yang symbol of harmony in contradiction).
The rest of book grows from this hypothesis. Nisbett shows that Asians and Westerners think in drastically different ways. He cites psychological studies by universities from both the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Basically, Asians are more likely to think contextually (the circumstances control the man, your identity is found in your relationship with people, backgrounds first) vs. Westerners tend to think more objectively (the man controls the circumstances, you are who you are because of your individual characteristics, the background is secondary).
While Nisbett's material is important for the future of psychological research (especially when it tries to put a "this is how all humans think" label to certain studies), it was a little dry. I still highly recommend it though.
I thought Nisbett's hypothesis on how Asians and Westerners came to think differently was fascinating. He believes that because the Greeks lived in mountainous terrains close to the sea, it allowed them to live more independently, which allowed them to debate and search for truth without costing them too much; there were hunters, fishers, gatherers, traders etc. but they were not as reliant on a harmonious society as the Chinese were.
In China, there were "fertile plains, low mountains, and navigable rivers," which favored agriculture. If you can't get along with each other (or with the authorities), you don't get to eat because people "cultivate the land in concert with one another," so finding a middle ground was always favorable (think of the Yin-yang symbol of harmony in contradiction).
The rest of book grows from this hypothesis. Nisbett shows that Asians and Westerners think in drastically different ways. He cites psychological studies by universities from both the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Basically, Asians are more likely to think contextually (the circumstances control the man, your identity is found in your relationship with people, backgrounds first) vs. Westerners tend to think more objectively (the man controls the circumstances, you are who you are because of your individual characteristics, the background is secondary).
While Nisbett's material is important for the future of psychological research (especially when it tries to put a "this is how all humans think" label to certain studies), it was a little dry. I still highly recommend it though.