The Geography of Thought: How
Asians and Westerners Think
Differently...and Why by Richard
Nisbett
The Box
When psychologist Richard E. Nisbett showed an animated underwater
scene to his American students, they zeroed in on a big fish swimming
among smaller fish. Japanese observers instead commented on the
background environment -- and the different seeings are a clue to profound
cognitive differences between Westerners and East Asians. As Nisbett
shows in The Geography of Thought, people think about -- and even see --
the world differently because of differing ecologies, social structures,
philosophies, and educational systems that date back to ancient Greece
and China. The Geography of Thought documents Professor Nisbetts
groundbreaking research in cultural psychology, addressing questions
such as: Why did the ancient Chinese excel at algebra and arithmetic, but
not geometry, the brilliant achievement of such Greeks as Euclid? Why do

East Asians find it so difficult to disentangle an object from its
surroundings? Why do Western infants learn nouns more rapidly than
verbs, when it is the other way around in East Asia? At a moment in
history when the need for cross-cultural understanding and collaboration
have never been more important, The Geography of Thought offers both a
map to that gulf and a blueprint for a bridge that might be able to span it.
Personal Review: The Geography of Thought: How Asians and
Westerners Think Differently...and Why by Richard Nisbett
Is this book just crying Whorf? Or do modern investigation techniques help
support the thesis that language structures thought? In this book Nisbett
outlines the relationships between different languages and aspects of
apparent perception using much new empirical support from a host of
studies. Keep in mind that Nisbett later publishes his book "Intelligence
and How to Get It" which makes use of much of the same work in building
the thesis that fluency comes from immersion and fluent parents result in
more fluent children. A main result - intelligence comes from linguistic
fluency. So what kind of intelligence the fluency gives a person depends
on the sort of intelligence the linguistic tools make possible. One focus of
the book argues European languages lead more to an individualist
perspective while Chinese leads more towards a communal one. Here I
certainly wonder if the sort of study Charles Taylor gives us in either
"Sources of the Self" or "A Secular Age" details a historical evolution that
offers a different explanation of these differences in perspective -
especially since the languages seem relatively persistent while the cultural
focus changes. New vocabulary is created and meanings change with
cultural developments but the logic of the language seems to remain the
same. If so, this must certainly weaken the thesis, at least the strong
Whorfian thesis, that Nesbitt seems to support. Can both be true? What if
the logical structure of the language - especially the grammar -
predisposes speakers to evolve a certain type of perspective? In this way
ancient Greeks still had the grammar but the vocabulary evolves through
cultural periods. Romantics emphasize individualism more than the
Scholastics did. Perhaps? An interesting issue concerns the difference
between compound bilinguals and coordinate bilinguals. A pretty clear
conclusion follows this study: "There is an effect of culture on thought
independent of language." (p. 161) and "There is also clearly an effect of
language independent of culture - but only for the coordinate speakers
from China and Taiwan. They responded very differently depending on
whether they are tested in Chinese or in English." (p. 162) So tentatively
"language does indeed influence thought so long as different languages
are plausibly associated with different systems of representation." Both
cultural groups tend to make logical errors but each shows light on the
other. Perhaps the weakness of each can be enhanced towards the more
logical by an appreciation of both? Would this also be reflected in an
individuals maturation? An interesting point Nisbett makes regarding the
globalization of American Culture is a description of Francis Fukuyama's
point of view in "The End of History" that "everyone is really an American
at heart, or if not, it's only a matter of time until they will be". (p. 220) But

describing Huntington's views as the contrary Nisbett says "Westerners
tend to confuse modernization - defined as industrialization, a more
complex occupational structure, increased wealth and social mobility,
greater literacy, ad urbanization - with Westernization. But societies ...
have become modern without becoming very Western." (p. 224) Nisbett
continues with the suggestion that convergence might be more likely.
(This reminds me of Peter Berger's book "The Heretical Imperative".)
For More 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price:
The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why by
Richard Nisbett 5 Star Customer Reviews and Lowest Price!