Scan barcode
A review by storycraft
The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why by Richard Nisbett
4.0
This book is a cognitive psychologist’s look at how differences between Asian (mainly Chinese) and Western (mainly American) thinking influence what Nisbett refers to as “habits of mind.” He asserts that differences between Asian and Western “habits of mind” are essentially cognitive. With reference to the intellectual traditions of Aristotelian and Confucian logic, cognitive psychology experiments performed by both Asian and Western researchers, and several of his own experiments, Nisbett claims that, “[p:]eople hold the beliefs they do because of the way they think and they think the way they do because of the nature of the societies they live in” (201).
Nisbett’s argument relies experiments in four areas: foreground vs. background focus, cause and effect relationships, category forming, and laws of logic. When presented with a complicated image, Westerners tend to focus on foreground objects whereas Asians tend to focus on the background, taking a wide-angle view. When explaining the actions of a student who shot his advisor, fellow students, bystanders, and finally himself, Western newspapers attributed his behavior to personal factors whereas Asian newspapers described situational factors as the cause. When describing the relationships between objects, Westerners tend to categorize based on attributes (i.e. animal) whereas Asians tend to categorize based on relationships (i.e. cows eat grass). These differences indicate a Western object focus and an Asian relationship focus. Westerners tend to see a world filled with objects belonging to stable categories and events that can be explained with cause and effect reasoning. Asians tend to see a world filled with objects and events existing in complex and ever-changing relationship to other objects and events. Western logic is based on firm laws of non-contradiction whereas Asian logic seeks to harmonize seeming opposites.
For Nisbett, the most important conclusion in this book is that universal thought patterns do not exist. This finding questions the usefulness of psychological tools such as “culturally neutral” intelligence tests. It also responds to the debate about the nature of culture and its influence on society and politics, especially as outlined in books like Francis Fukayama’s The End of History and the Last Man, which claims that cultures are converging, and in Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, which claims that cultural differences are insurmountable. Nisbett wisely avoids the question of culture by limiting his discussion to “habits of mind.” However, his reference to Fukayama and Huntington can be read as an indirect comment on the culture question. Nisbett’s position is that Asian and Western cognition is fundamentally different. However, the convergence argument may have some grounding if it is decoupled from westernization.
The Geography of Thought is a well-written book with an ease of style that conceals complex arguments, especially in the sections about categorization and logic. Nisbett’s approach takes an experimental approach instead of describing cultural differences using observation and tradition. He also includes interesting and provocative observations on the ways that Asian Americans and biculturals fall in-between Asian and Western thought unless they are primed to answer one way or the other.
Nisbett’s argument relies experiments in four areas: foreground vs. background focus, cause and effect relationships, category forming, and laws of logic. When presented with a complicated image, Westerners tend to focus on foreground objects whereas Asians tend to focus on the background, taking a wide-angle view. When explaining the actions of a student who shot his advisor, fellow students, bystanders, and finally himself, Western newspapers attributed his behavior to personal factors whereas Asian newspapers described situational factors as the cause. When describing the relationships between objects, Westerners tend to categorize based on attributes (i.e. animal) whereas Asians tend to categorize based on relationships (i.e. cows eat grass). These differences indicate a Western object focus and an Asian relationship focus. Westerners tend to see a world filled with objects belonging to stable categories and events that can be explained with cause and effect reasoning. Asians tend to see a world filled with objects and events existing in complex and ever-changing relationship to other objects and events. Western logic is based on firm laws of non-contradiction whereas Asian logic seeks to harmonize seeming opposites.
For Nisbett, the most important conclusion in this book is that universal thought patterns do not exist. This finding questions the usefulness of psychological tools such as “culturally neutral” intelligence tests. It also responds to the debate about the nature of culture and its influence on society and politics, especially as outlined in books like Francis Fukayama’s The End of History and the Last Man, which claims that cultures are converging, and in Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, which claims that cultural differences are insurmountable. Nisbett wisely avoids the question of culture by limiting his discussion to “habits of mind.” However, his reference to Fukayama and Huntington can be read as an indirect comment on the culture question. Nisbett’s position is that Asian and Western cognition is fundamentally different. However, the convergence argument may have some grounding if it is decoupled from westernization.
The Geography of Thought is a well-written book with an ease of style that conceals complex arguments, especially in the sections about categorization and logic. Nisbett’s approach takes an experimental approach instead of describing cultural differences using observation and tradition. He also includes interesting and provocative observations on the ways that Asian Americans and biculturals fall in-between Asian and Western thought unless they are primed to answer one way or the other.