Richard E. Nisbett

A thought too far. The author's overreach condemns this book to mediocrity. He is a psychology professor dabbling in philosophy, an American who proclaims to speak for "the West" who stuffs his (quite interesting) experimental evidence of cultural differences with half-baked, unscientific explanations.

The first flaw is his cafeteria approach in picking some elements of the Ancient Greeks (that fit his personal world view) to somehow define the Western mind. It would be quite difficult to show more authenticate the transmission mechanism that instills his Midwestern children and students with his Aristotlean perspective, especially as a majority of the US public does not exactly fit into his supposedly rational paradigm. After all, evolution is just a theory, right?

He commits the same error of discarding evidence that does not fit his preconceptions, when his concept of Westerners excludes Europeans and the "not real Americans" African-Americans and Hispanics when their answers do not fit into his preferred box. When women do not answer "correctly", they are discarded also. This leaves the essence of Westerness in the form of Midwestern white Americans (if his subjects were not students, I venture to say that his ideal Westerners are middle-aged, white professors). Curiously, this selectiveness does not occur on the other side. He is perfectly willing to lump Koreans, Chinese and Japanese into a giant lump of Asians who all share the same characteristics and behavior.

His bias often taints his experimental examples as his implicit American judgments color the "correctness" of the answers. The different Asian answer might be due less to cultural than political differences. There are places in this world where stricter health codes (and unions) are valued. A more Popperian approach would have curbed his confirmation bias and removed some of his logical fallacies. A discussion of the Western concepts of homo oeconomicus and homo sociologicus might have improved his cultural mental map. What remains is the repetition of the cliché of Asian holism and Western individualism. He ends his book with a wish for a cultural "stew that will contain the best of each culture". Apart from the fact that this stew can only be achieved by giving up the individualistic part, I don't believe that those that share his concept of WASP Westerness will be very enchanted by this dish. show less

This is an important work in the undermining of the universalism that has afflicted private discourse and public policy in the West since the age of Plato.

Nisbett explores a simple issue - whether, how and why East Asians and Americans (though he insists on referring to them as Westerners) think in different ways.

It is more exploratory than decisive. There is no psychological experiment that is not contingent in time and space by the very nature of its subject matter but much of his show more material is persuasive.

In essence, Nisbett is suggesting that East Asians in general and Americans more particularly have different modes of thought and different ways of seeing the world that inform their actions.

The implications are important in international relations but also in the types of respect we accord the 'other'.

The book dates from 2003 and, of course, is a thesis not a proof. It demands more research from a social science perspective but anyone involved in inter-cultural relations does not have to wait on the intellectuals.

Common sense and praxis teaches us that, while the situation is always as variable as the number of persons in the world, systems do approach problems in different ways that are fundamentally cultural.

There is, of course, little or no evidence (perhaps some at the margins in rare cases not covered in this book) that actual brain structures have evolved differently. This is not the issue by any means.

Nisbett's evidence seems to suggest quite the contrary - that people from one culture aculturate to the norms of thought of another with some ease if obliged to by circumstances.

This leads to an interesting short debate at the end about the degree to which one mode of thought (Western or East Asian) is functionally superior. It also raises questions about the benefits of cultural hybridisation that he does not address.

Naturally, there is no simple answer to 'superiority' because the types of situation that humans find themselves in could suggest an either/or or perhaps a neither/nor. Nisbett does not look into European distinctiveness, 'Latin' or Russian or African thought processes.

However, what is clear is that, once we accept one simple universal - the huge variability in problem-solving and ways of seeing the world - most of the other claimed universals start to disappear.

A paradox intrudes here. The lack of universalism in ways of seeing and thinking reinforces mutual respect at the most basic level of humanity - we really are all equal just differently circumstanced.

It also condemns all forms of aggressive mental imperialism and forces each side to adapt to the other if it wants to solve a problem involving both.

Again, we must say that Nisbett is hypothesising for further research and the social sciences are not like the hard sciences in that they are contingent and probabilistic. We must always be cautious.

We are currently in the middle of a series of crises where international relations has not yet caught up with these findings. There is often a thirty year lag between knowing amongst the few and doing amongst the many.

Most senior American policymakers, for example, are still embedded in the enlightenment liberal universalism of their schooling in the 1970s and 1980s.

The result has been the twin lunacies of multiculturalism (which is patronising) and the exports of rights ideology, sometimes through the barrel of a gun.

The last has been a consistent foreign policy disaster where it is clear that its proponents are inadequately equipped to understand why. They simply continue, creating negative reactions that undermine their own security.

The coup in Egypt and the protests in Turkey that are happening as I write this suggest that there is no simple equation between rights, democracy and freedom where democracy simply aids the arrival of obscurantism and authoritarian soldiers may be defenders of freedom.

The Middle East is distinctive but it still part of the 'Western sphere' but East Asia is different again. Relations between China and its neighbours and between China and America are probably of far more global significance even than protection of Israel and energy flows.

Nisbett's research and that of others - Nisbett has also done important work on honour cultures which could usefully inform strategy in relation to the Arab world - must now be working through the system.

The rethinking of 'universalism' should start to inform the more intelligent Westerners within a decade or two. Sadly, a lot of people may have to die before it gets to the sort of person who may be President in 2016 or, more likely, 2020.

If so, however, we may see some interesting changes in approach, especially to negotiations - continued differences of ambition, stance and opinion but mutual appropriations of method, especially when use of artificial intelligence is added to the analytical pot.

It is my own belief that the difference between, say, European and American culture is no less significant in the long term and that constant hybridisation of cultural forms, far from creating the future prospect of universalisation of culture, promises the exact opposite - almost infinite variation and 'difference'.

I see this in my own family - difference within a common core way of seeing. More widely, this owes a great deal to the sheer range of mental inputs provided by the internet.

The way that the internet 'ennobles' difference that might have been forced into a 'norm' within more rigid cultural systems - whether Western or other - is liberatory in a way that elites seem unable to cope with because their mental models belong to the past already.

This all suggests that the human mid-century will be very different, not merely from the age of competing ideologies but also from the now-rapidly degenerating age of imperial liberal universalism.

There are universal values - mutual respect, equality of persons, very basic aspirations (not rights which are after the fact inventions), maybe one or two clear rights (to cognitive freedom, the means to live reasonably well and a good death) - but these are surprisingly few.

We just need a generation of rigid thinkers, raised on post-Marxism and the rejection of Marxism, to move on and for genuinely liberal minds to resist the reactionary rise of past obscurantisms and let them die out of their own accord with prosperity and education.

As for the book, it is obviously recommended but be aware, as a general reader, that the central sections are rather dry accounts of psychological and social scientific experimentation that it will be hard to evaluate if you are a layman or laywoman. show less

The TLDR of this is that 1. I wish I'd read it when it was newer. 2. I kept marking passages with bookdarts. 3. I kept talking about it to my husband and 25 yo son, who are also intrigued. 4. I recommend it, if you can read it as something to think about (as he intended) instead of as if it's a textbook statement with all the answers.
---
Thoughts as I go along first:

People have different points of view, but also surprisingly different strategies for problem solving. And learning from each show more other is a good thing not only for better communication but for more tools to help us with the big problems of climate change, world peace, etc.

Common sense isn't common because there's less universality to human nature than many assume.

One can make the divider East/West as he justifiably does. And/or one can recognize, as I do, the traits within groups of ppl within the US, for example ppl who identify as moderate are more like the East in that they are after a Middle Way and understand that context & harmony are important, whereas extremists (liberal or conservative both) are more like the West in that ambition is more individuated.

Lots of support for the author's position: anecdotes plus studies plus history...

But not counter-examples, not actual arguments to explain exceptions we might see, other fallacies.... Well, except for little bits, including a Note re' p. 170 that is interesting, & that concludes "I have no idea why."

I found it an engaging, accessible read... but there are a few bits that get a bit too academic (so I just had to keep going past them) and there's some repetition.

I note that our reading of diverse (esp. children's) literature needs to take these things into account, like the extended family that dotes on little East Asian children is teaching them harmony not spoiling them, and the second-generation Chinese immigrants break their grannies' hearts because they're not just sort of different, but to the core don't understand independence/interdependence.

In some respects it's stuff we've been thinking about for years/forever. In [b:Shield|13171873|Shield|Poul Anderson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1333331210l/13171873._SY75_.jpg|2421957], by [a:Poul Anderson|32278|Poul Anderson|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1218818842p2/32278.jpg], from 1963, for example, we have a character (probably speaking for the author), say, "Man is not capable of being an autonomous individual.... He needs to be part of a whole culture, with duties as well as privileges." But Nisbett brings the idea front & center, making us think it about it hard enough to see it clearly enough to be able to incorporate into our understanding of human nature & how the world works.... Well, at least those of us who read the book... which I hope is lots of people!

Note that he's not saying every Chinese person thinks only about hierarchy and contextual harmony, and every American is obedient to pure logic of separate ambitions or whatever. But my musings lead me to suggest: I bet if he did interviews of respective subjects he'd discover that more East Asians think it might be cool to live as a member of a bee colony and that more Americans & northern Europeans would get the willies at the thought.

Another thing I'm personally getting out of this is one of the reasons I don't fit in, in a lot of ways, in communities in the US. I am already more Zen than a lot of people who pay to go on yoga retreats. I'm not into dog-eat-dog, or rat-race, or winner vs. loser, or revenge. I am much more into one w/nature, we're all in this together, let's work towards a win-win. (But I admit, I do like formal Aristotelian logic.)
---
Ok done. I found the speech to text function on my PC so Imagonna give you *all* my bookdarts right now:

“There is an adage holding that every Chinese is a Confucianist when he is successful and a Taoist when he is a failure.”

“Algebra did not become deductive until Descartes. Our educational system retains the memory trace of their separation by teaching algebra and geometry as separate subjects.”

“Japanese schoolchildren are taught how to practice self-criticism both in order to improve their relations with others and to become more skilled in solving problems.“

“It should be noted that for the studies described in this section, and for all studies conducted by our research teams in which some participants were tested in English and some in another language, we used the method of “back translation” to ensure comparability.”

A visiting Japanese student attended a football game and was surprised when fans stood up out of their seats. “The American students indifference to the people behind him seemed unfathomably rude to him.”

“Surveys show that Asians feel themselves to be in less control than their western counterparts. and rather than attempting to control situations they are likely to try to adjust to them.”

Which of these two things goes with the cow? Chicken or grass? Ask yourself, then see comment below.

“Chinese remain far more committed to reasonableness than to reason.”

I want to find a book of Chinese proverbs, quotations, and or fables of the Aesop variety. Because Nisbett did and found differences between East and West.

An example of Eastern thought is the perspective that it's possible for one to posit 'A is right and B is not wrong either' even when those of us steeped in Aristotlean logic see A and B as contradictory. “This stance is captured by the Zen Buddhist dictum that 'The opposite of a great two is also true.'”

“The dialectical approach would favor finding some truth in both in a search for the Middle Way.”

“One can be a Confucion, a Buddhist, and a Christian in Korea and Japan (and in China prior to the revolution).”

“Robert Abelson Has written a lovely book describing statistics essentially as rhetoric. I believe the metaphors are deep and correct.” [b:Statistics As Principled Argument|226575|Statistics As Principled Argument|Robert P. Abelson|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1348325080l/226575._SY75_.jpg|219463], I assume.
---
I will look for more recent works by the author, and check the GR Listopias to try to find other more recent & related books. show less

Thinking: A memoir by Richard E Nisbett is a delightful blend of memoir and psychology, particularly as it relates to our cognitive processes.

While I have found his other books, well, the ones I read, quite accessible I think this volume takes some of the best parts of those and creates a wonderful new entity. I don't mean that it repeats what came before but that rather than scatter real life examples throughout a book of psychology we have psychology scattered throughout a personal show more narrative to both understand the writer and to understand the scientific principles. I know that many of the best lectures I've attended, whether on social psychology or physics, are most impactful when we are given some real-life examples of the principles discussed. So this book is like taking all of those examples and making an immensely interesting book.

This is far short of a textbook though it would make a great springboard for those who want to read more about certain topics. This is, first and foremost, a memoir and it succeeds as such. He has led a fascinating life and reading about it through a theoretical lens takes it from one man's story to something we can all, I hope, relate to. Which is why we did some of the things we did.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley. show less