Fantastic primer on the way thought processes differ between the (Far) East and the West, written by someone who has done the research himself and who collaborates heavily with East Asian researchers in his work. If anyone is qualified to discuss this topic, it’s him.
In many ways, this book is an overview of studies performed on this topic with minimal self-purported analysis of those studies. This isn’t a criticism of the work but it is something to note for future readers. It jumps from one study to the next and is minutely focused on making its point, and at times this gets somewhat boring. Its saving grace is that it’s written very accessibly, so even the boring parts are easy to get through and digest without feeling like you’re slogging through it.
While reading, I found myself disagreeing with many of the clearly evidential conclusions Nisbett described. I have therefore spent many weeks thinking about my own thought processes and why I feel alienated from many of the American/Western responses in these studies. I’m not sure if it’s because I’ve been exposed to East Asian (particularly Japanese) thought via media since I was a young child; or if it’s because I am a social and political woman and therefore lack the social prestige of manhood to think the way (masculine) others may; or if my generation (Millennials) has grown up in a more “converged” social culture compared to that when Nisbett published his book (2003).
My more masculine friend and roommate of over a decade does exemplify many of the findings detailed in Nisbett’s work, however, so I cannot deny the reality of these conclusions. Indeed I’ve seen these thought processes represented across all spheres of my life, from all sorts of people. And I, too, agree with many of the Western thought processes compared to the Eastern ones; I’m certainly not exempt from the culture I grew up in.
So my discrepancies may lie in a mixture of those three options, or lie outside of them. They may well be explained by mere standard deviation; not all Westerners are built the same.
I appreciate the author’s conclusions: perhaps someday we may all converge and expand our minds beyond only the philosophical foundations of our cultural ancestors. Certainly I’ve recognized more holistic thinking among my peers, and Nisbett also describes an emphasis on analytical thinking among Asians. This kind of code-switching can surely only help us prosper as a species as we become more fluent in it. So let us prosper.