Last year I watched and blogged about a documentary film depicting the everyday life of a school teacher and his students in Japan.  The film showed his intense focus on the social-emotional aspects of teaching students rather than on their academic performance.  He paid particular attention to their happiness, collaboration, and communication. 

After viewing this movie, I purposefully read The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why by Richard E. Nisbett.  Like the documentary film, this book discussed aspects of communication.  However, it focused on the different thinking patterns and habits of Asian and Western cultures.  Nisbett prudently explained his use of the terms “East Asian”, “Asian”, and “Easterner” interchangeably to refer to China, Japan, and Korea; “Western” or “Westerner” for European; and “European Americans” for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics but not Asian from the US.

In the beginning of the book, Nisbett shared that he originally followed the universalist’s view that “all human groups perceive and reason in the same way” so they all have the “same basic cognitive processes” and use the same cognitive tools for perception, memory, casual analysis, categorization, and inference (p. XIV).  Cultural differences only arise because they have been taught different things about the world and not due to different cognitive processes.  However, based on a comment from a new Chinese student, he set out on a course of reading literature by philosophers, historians, and anthropologists which disputes the universalists' views.  These fields asserted that cultures differ in their beliefs about the nature of the world, use different thought processes to understand and explain the world, and align their social structures and concept of self with their beliefs and thought processes. Nisbett’s reading in fields outside of his own (psychology) aligns with my own experience that my training in multiple fields has provided me with alternative ways of looking at issues. 

I am confused about two of his statements.  On page XVII, he claimed “If people really do differ profoundly in their systems of thought – their worldviews and their cognitive processes – then differences in people’s attitudes and beliefs … might not be a matter merely of different inputs and teachings, but rather an inevitable consequence of using different tools…”.  I’m not clear on what he meant by “tools”.  Depending on what he meant by “tools”, maybe people do not differ in the tools they use but rather in their application of such tools?  As human beings, each of us has a brain (a tool?) but use it in different ways (application?).  Later, on page XX, he stated “The social practices promote the worldviews; the worldviews dictate the appropriate thought processes, and the thought processes both justify the worldviews and support the social practices”.  I think he should start with “thought processes”.  Also, I do not see how the “worldviews dictate the appropriate thought processes”.  Don’t the thought processes dictate the worldviews?  I also think that he could have added that a reciprocal relationship exists between social relations, world views, and thought processes.  It may be hard to tease out which came first and may be a question of the chicken and the egg:  which came first? 

Nisbett claimed that the differences in perception, beliefs, communication, and thought processes between these two cultures dates back thousands of years and can be seen in the philosophies of Aristotle and Confucius.  They did not originate these differing approaches but rather they reflected their respective cultures. 

In Aristotle’s time, Greeks believed they had control over their lives as individuals.  With a focus on individualism, they believed in the power of debate and developed rules for debating.  They were very curious about the world, categorized objects within the world, created rules about them, and in that way tried to control their environment.  They also believed that the world is static. This type of thinking continues today in Europe and the USA.  Ancient Greece was a popular maritime trading location with people of different cultures arriving and having different opinions, so they had to develop a way to logically deal with all these contradictions.  Certain Greek occupations (hunting, herding, and fishing) do not require cooperation. 

On the other hand, the Chinese emphasized the collective nature of their roles in reference to their relationships, harmony with others, and self-control.  They did not feel controlled by others but rather willingly fulfilled their obligations to others in light of the various roles they played, for example child to parent.  Easterners believed that the world does change and has contradictions built into it.  Most Chinese, however, originate from the same Han ethnic group so they do not have to deal with such contradictions.  Much of China is / was farmland and farming requires cooperation (you do not have to like your neighbors but you need to work together).  This approach to life arose out of 3 philosophies:  Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism.  Today, this way of thinking continues.  

These different approaches mean that parents raise their children differently.  Asian parents emphasize interdependence whereas Westerners stress independence.  For example, Asians suggest what is best for their children whereas Westerners give their children choices so that the children make the decision.  In Eastern books the emphasis remains on relationships whereas in Western books it is on the action of individuals.  Parents also teach their children different verbal communication styles:  Asians emphasize a polite, indirect approach whereas Westerners push for a direct approach, which can sound rude to Asians.  These differing approaches result in misunderstandings, of course, not only in childhood but also in the business world as adults between the two cultures. 

With Asians belief in change and contradictions, they supposedly have difficulty with the logic of math.  However, Nisbett claimed that young Asians outperform their Western counterparts in math due to teachers’ training lasting throughout their career, teaching techniques, teachers spending more time on preparation than actual teaching, and students working harder because their capability is not seen as static.  This does not hold true for the older generations of Asians because literature, arts, and music were stressed during their time. 

In his concluding statements, Nisbett referred to social scientists ongoing debate about Eastern and Western cultures continuing to differ or converge with each other.  Nisbett believed in the latter.  He cited an experiment which prepped participants to act more like Easterners or Westerners regardless of their cultural background. 

I liked the title of this book:  it gave me a heads up on what I might expect about its thesis and peaked my interest based on my sociology training.  Overall, the book was an excellent reminder for me to consider, especially in light of people’s global movements, that those residing in any one country may have been born and raised there, born there and raised somewhere else, or travel around due to their jobs.  Through experiments in which participants are prepped to consider another culture’s thought processes, Nisbett shows that human beings can be flexible in their thinking.