Richard Nisbett's "The Geography of Thought" over-generalised and realistic?

May 29, 2009 12:19 AM

Help me determine the accuracy of Richard Nisbett's "The Geography of Thought : How Asians and Westerners Think Differently". I haven't read the book yet; however, I was shown a video associated with the book in my class. While watching the video, my skeptical senses tingled; therefore, now I'm trying to find criticisms of the book. From my perspective, the concepts of difference seemed too far generalised and "Western" and "Asian" seemed too black and white. The book seems popular; however, is it more pop science than real science? How scewed is the hard science of the book?
posted by Knigel to society & culture (7 comments total)

I've not seen the book either but I do translate a lot of Chinese social science and philosophical writing into English.
Whilst there are historical and cultural frameworks in place (for example, the latent influence of Judeo-Christian concepts of the self in many Western discourses and usual absence of the same in Asian counterparts), for my money any crude division of thought into Western and Asian models is likely to obscure far more than it illuminates.
Not only are there currently multiple competing schools of thought in a country like China and all the diversity of class, educational and official status differences, historical shifts mean that there is no simple continuity between, say, a Confucian of the Axial age, one contemporary with Zhu Xi and a self-professed New Confucian today.
So, to repeat, hard to imagine a model based on that dichotomy that could say much more that useless generalities.
posted by Abiezer at 12:27 AM on May 29

If the linguistic relativity principle is even remotely correct, then it stands to reason that any people from any two different linguistic backgrounds would necessarily "think differently".
As a "Western" person who lives in an "Asian" country, what I think this kind of pop culture book is trying to say is complete bullcrap, and more of the same "oooh, the orient is so exotic and strange" claptrap that tends to sell. However, I have not read the book in question.
posted by nightchrome at 12:28 AM on May 29

I read this a few months ago. Nisbett goes into quite a bit of detail about who he tested and how the results correlated with different groups. It isn't black and white by any means. His team noticed many differences within both the Western and the Asian groups. For instance, Asians living in East Asia vs Asians living in America. Or living in America but participating in the tests using Japanese vs English language for the study.

Quite a bit of the reading is history, rather than science. He spends a few chapters building an understanding of the opposing cultural traditions that inform Western vs Asian thought. For what it's worth, the difference he draws between rhetoric and dialectic in terms of western and asian cultures corresponds with what I learned about these arts in grad school.

It doesn't take very long to actually read the book. I'd suggest taking a look at a chapter or two before trying to pick the conclusions apart. Nothing wrong with critical thinking, but this seems a bit preemptive.
posted by Jeff Howard at 1:32 AM on May 29 [1 favorite has favorites]

Here's a metafilter posting which may be of interest...
http://www.metafilter.com/74117/Asian-socities-drive-like-this#2221017
posted by BobsterLobster at 5:31 AM on May 29

This is another mefi posting of possible interest to you.
posted by Rumple at 9:04 AM on May 29

Seconding Abiezer. Generalizations about Asians (or Japanese) vs. "Westerners" even became a pseudo-scientific academic discipline in the '60s called "Nihonjinron."

The cynic in me thinks the author's aiming for fame and fortune by having his book translated into Japanese or maybe Mandarian. I don't know about China, but in Japan, books like this sell really well, the more ludicrous the claims, the better the profits. Putting "Geography" in the title seems like a way to update the same old essentialist claims with a veneer of relevance to today's research trends.

I don't know anything about Nisbett. But what you describe doesn't inspire confidence that he's got a serious grasp of any particular subject matter.
posted by vincele at 11:46 AM on May 29

I read the book, and while I can't vouch for any of its conclusions, it's at least interesting and an easy read. At any rate, sometimes things provide food for thought even if they're wrong.
posted by pseudostrabismus at 12:03 PM on May 29