Rating: 
Summary: Minds from another culture work vastly different
Review: I never anticipated that the asian thought process and conception of the world and society was so fundamentally different from the West; even down to the roots of basic logical inference and perception. Nesbitt reveals that the possibilities of ethnocentric bias could be much larger than many thought.
I certainly believe I am better equipped to deal with my asian and half asian colleagues after reading this book. I had previously been under the assumption that the same path of logic would be followed and relational design patterns would be perceived similar to my own understanding - not so!
Rating: 
Summary: Clear and insightful
Review: I picked this book up casually and was not able to put it down. The differences between West and East tend to be so generalized and taken for granted in our culture, but this book explores the differing thought processes in depth and provides examples of how these differences affect world relations. I am also currently reading Wilber's "A Theory of Everything" and the two make an interesting comparison. For anyone who's ever wondered if it's possible to "think globally," this is a book for you.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating
Review: Intersting theories, interesting data. Definitely worth a read.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but could have been so much better
Review: Like Matthew Dioguardi said in his review, this is a good book that is
spoiled by trying to be more than what it is. The experiments
described are fascinating. But they're unsatisfying, because there's
so much more that could have been done. A typical experiment puts Easterners and Westerners in some
situation, and notes that they behave differently. For example,
Westerners describe the fish they saw, while Easterners first describe
the pond. But given two piles of descriptions, it's typically fairly
easy to find SOME differentiators between them. Instead, this should
have been done in a double-blind fashion: given just the descriptions,
with what certainty could the authors' ancestry have been predicted? Similarly, the rationalizations given for the results of the
experiments seem rather post hoc. For example, experimental subjects
were given an essay on a controversial topic, told that the writer had
been forced to support a particular view-point in the essay, and asked
what the writer's true view-point might have been. The "correct"
answer is that there need not be any link between the "forced"
view-point in the essay and the writer's true view-point. Would the
"rationalistic" Westerners or the "holistic" Easterners be better at
figuring this out? In fact, the Easterners were better, and this is
attributed to their understanding of the "whole situation." On the
other hand, if the Westerners had been better, could not that have
been equally easily attributed to their superior reasoning skills? The differences between Easterners and Westerners is attributed to
two millenia of cultural differences. However, the book also says
that people can be trained to switch viewpoints by a few hours of
training. So the differences can't be that innate in people, even
after two millenia! For example, a Western researcher had worked in
Japan for a few years. Upon wanting to return to Canada, he prefaced
his letters of application for university jobs in Canada by
apologizing for his being unqualified for those jobs! Apparently,
that's a standard practice for such letters in Japan. So this seems
very much a learned cultural adaptation, and does not contradict the
theses by Pinker et. al. that important human characteristics are
"hard-wired" (as described in the editorial review). When do Easterners switch to Western practices, or vice versa?
For example, Westerners apparently go to court looking for justice,
whereas Easterners seek hostility reduction. When would it take for
an Easterner to abandon hostility reduction and seek justice? "Yes,
he burned down my house, [took] my wife, and kicked my dog, but I just
want us to get along better." The author also carefully avoids discussing in any meaningful
fashion whether Eastern or Western practice is objectively better.
For example, among just the Easterners, is there any correlation between an individual's level of success (measured by income,
happiness, status, and/or other such measures) and how Eastern or
Western their thought processes are? Western thought is characterized as focusing on attributes of
objects, while Eastern thought focuses on the continuous substances
that constitute those objects. I'm not sure how literally the author
means this to be believed, but surely Western thought is superior in
this case, because objects are NOT made of continuous substances.
This was established long ago by showing that when different liquids
are mixed, the total volume often decreases, strongly suggesting that
the liquids are composed of differently-sized particles (think gravel
and sand), rather than being continuous substances. While reading this book, I felt that the author was very careful
to avoid any experiments or analysis that might undermine cultural
relativism. This gave the book a sour taste, in spite of how interesting the experiments were. Full disclosure: I've lived 57% of my life in Sri Lanka (near
India), 9% in Britain, and 34% in U.S.A., in that order. - Rujith.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book
Review: Nisbett has written a fascinating and thought-provoking book about an important topic, which is the differing cognitive styles of people from the West and Asia. Using a large number of social psychological studies as evidence, he shows that there's lots of evidence that Asians (by which he primarily means Chinese and Japanese) have different habits of thoughts than Westerners (meaning basically Americans), differences that are visible in research looking at very basic cognitive processes. Asians are more attentive to context, while Americans are more atomistic and object-focussed; Asians are more willing to anticipate changes in the directions of trends, while Americans tend to think linearly and expect trends to continue. Asians seek compromises to conflicts, while Americans tend to polarize alternatives; more generally, Americans are very used to styles of thinking that are argumentative and syllogistic styles (those involving formal logic), while Asians tend to find them less congenial. Admittedly, there's a danger here of over-generalizations or slipping into stereotypes, but Nisbett's work appears to avoid these problems partly by being based on empirical studies, and by being carefully qualified. And though he can't prove his speculations about the causes of these differences, he offers plausible theories as to why the differing cultural contexts of the two kinds of societies might have favored the different styles of thought. If Nisbett is right and people would take these differences seriously, two very positive consequences could follow. One is that Americans would have to confront the fact that other cultures don't necessarily have to or want to be like us--or even think like us. Our thoughtless assumption that either everyone is just like us, or ought to be, needs to be shaken up and this book does that. The other useful result is that this book encourages us to realize that there are many ways of using the mind to respond to reality. Some people may impatiently ask; but what's the right way? But that misses one of the points of the book: each way of thinking, each cognitive style, works well within a certain cultural context. Nisbett doesn't tackle the big issue of whether Asians would benefit more from thinking in "American" ways or we would benefit from thinking in "Asian" ways. He seems to think that each culture might learn something from the other. This answer is perhaps too speculative and imprecise for some people, but it sounds about right to me. In any case, read the book with an open mind and being aware that it's just one small part of the vast and complex subject of cultural differences in mentalities, and I think you will find it highly rewarding.
Rating: 
Summary: Caveat Emptor
Review: Nisbett's book is intended to illustrate the apparent differences in ways of thinking between Westerners and East Asians. While the experiments and their results as documented in the book are interesting and fascinating, in the early portions of the book he makes comparisons between the cultures of ancient Greece and China as an exploration of the historical origins of the mental inclinations of contemporary Westerners and Asians, and along the way he makes several claims about the two cultures which I would seriously question. (Indeed I would go further and ask why only Greece and China should be singled out for comparison, and not the Near East and India as well, considering the vast impact Christianity and Buddhism had on the West and East.) Nisbett -- somewhat typically of Western authors, be it said -- credits the ancient Greeks with such virtues as a recognition of the uniqueness of the individual, a sense of curiosity, a desire to plumb the underlying reasons and principles of things, and so on, all qualities which he claims are absent or largely absent in China (if not indeed everywhere else in the past). I really don't think these claims stand up to the facts at all. (Don't know if I'm being paranoid, but frankly I seem to pick up faint racist odors coming from this book. And I really do think Nisbett is selecting from the facts.) A reading of the Analects shows that Confucius was highly sensitive to the differences in personality among his students and tailored his teachings to suit them accordingly. He also demanded a lot of independent thinking from them and got upset when all they did was parrot his words. Contrariwise, scholars like Paul Feyerabend and Bruno Snell have argued that the 'heroes' of Homer's ILIAD cannot be understood as integrated individuals, only as 'systems of loosely connected parts'. Also, the Greeks practised slavery, but the Chinese mostly didn't, according to sinologists Joseph Needham and Derk Bodde. So much for the claim that the Greeks valued the individual and the Chinese didn't. Nisbett also claims that there was little debate and argumentation between different views in the Chinese tradition. But there have been disagreements aplenty in the history of Chinese thought. Letters of discussion went back and forth between the Sung Dynasty thinkers Chu Hsi and Lu Hsiang-shan. Maurizio Scarpari also spoke of 'a lively and productive debate' on human nature in China 'that has almost lasted twenty-five centuries'. Chu Hsi, China's most influential thinker for seven centuries, also advocated 'the investigation of things' to uncover their LI (often translated as 'principle') -- what makes them what they are. Who says the Greeks were the only people to search for principles and to be curious to know, and not the Chinese? Not surprisingly, there is no reference to Chu Hsi in Nisbett's book. Finally, I want to look at what Nisbett said about the ancient remains of a group of people found somewhere in China, being identified as being of Caucasian stock and showing signs of being operated on surgically. Alongside this he muses on the absence of the practice of surgery in the Chinese tradition. What's the intended point? That if those were the remains of Asians, then marks of surgical operation would have been impossible? Apparently Nisbett didn't know that the world's first book on forensic medicine was Chinese. And surely it is a very long way from the unusual features found on a few corpses to sweeping generalisations about differences between races and cultures. All in all, the book is interesting, but it makes certain claims that warrant a little suspicion.
Rating:
Summary: Essential for intercultural understanding
Review: Nisbett's book is the popular presentation of a decade-long (at least) revolution occuring in cultural psychology and anthropology. Essentially he tries to explain that the way that people think isn't just a standard "thought process" with different cultural definitions provided depending on where you grow up but that the process of growing up and absorbing the meanings and values provided by the cultural environment critcally and fundamentally shape how one thinks. People literally SEE the world differently. It isn't just language or concepts or values or customs. I've been doing research as an anthropologist and studying cultural psychology here in Japan for the last 5 years. This change in conception of how culture creates cultured people (and then cultured people create culture in turn) is truly wonderful, as it provides a systematic way of understanding the human condition. We all know that we are social, cultural creatures (see Tomasello's Cultural Origins of Cognition for a great treatment of this issue as well) but many researchers tend to treat culture as a "thing," an approach that has been recognizably problematic for decades. I found this new understanding of culture and self (it is referred to as "mutual constitution" as in they mutually contribute to the formation of the other) to be slippery though. At times, it makes so much sense and is so powerful for understanding culture that it feels like I'm looking through a microscope at the fundamental human cultural process, but then at other times the seemingly tautological aspect of it spins me around and spits me out like a carousel at high speed. Either it seems to make so much sense that it hardly feels worth mentioning or it makes very little sense. But don't give up on it, as it is the way our cultural species operates. I've been talking generalities thus far, but this book also provides interesting specific information about Eastern and Western cultures, going back to early philosophical foundations and following them forward to see how the thoughts (cultural patterns) formed. Once these patterns form, when they are transmited to a new generation of babies, they become part of the mental substrate of cognition and fundamentally shape how the babies view the world and the elements within it. This is NOT about cognitive science, nor is it incompatible with cognitive science findings. Nisbett and colleagues' research is well founded (check the bibliography) and published widely in peer reviewed journals. This books is intended to present this information without statistical analysis of the performance of different people from different cultures on particular tests or in particualr scenarios. Okay, I've blathered on long enough. Good book, great thesis, essential to understand cultural differences or the nature of cultural animals such as ourselves. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Essential for intercultural understanding
Review: Nisbett's book is the popular presentation of a decade-long (at least) revolution occuring in cultural psychology and anthropology. Essentially he tries to explain that the way that people think isn't just a standard "thought process" with different cultural definitions provided depending on where you grow up but that the process of growing up and absorbing the meanings and values provided by the cultural environment critcally and fundamentally shape how one thinks. People literally SEE the world differently. It isn't just language or concepts or values or customs. I've been doing research as an anthropologist and studying cultural psychology here in Japan for the last 5 years. This change in conception of how culture creates cultured people (and then cultured people create culture in turn) is truly wonderful, as it provides a systematic way of understanding the human condition. We all know that we are social, cultural creatures (see Tomasello's Cultural Origins of Cognition for a great treatment of this issue as well) but many researchers tend to treat culture as a "thing," an approach that has been recognizably problematic for decades. I found this new understanding of culture and self (it is referred to as "mutual constitution" as in they mutually contribute to the formation of the other) to be slippery though. At times, it makes so much sense and is so powerful for understanding culture that it feels like I'm looking through a microscope at the fundamental human cultural process, but then at other times the seemingly tautological aspect of it spins me around and spits me out like a carousel at high speed. Either it seems to make so much sense that it hardly feels worth mentioning or it makes very little sense. But don't give up on it, as it is the way our cultural species operates. I've been talking generalities thus far, but this book also provides interesting specific information about Eastern and Western cultures, going back to early philosophical foundations and following them forward to see how the thoughts (cultural patterns) formed. Once these patterns form, when they are transmited to a new generation of babies, they become part of the mental substrate of cognition and fundamentally shape how the babies view the world and the elements within it. This is NOT about cognitive science, nor is it incompatible with cognitive science findings. Nisbett and colleagues' research is well founded (check the bibliography) and published widely in peer reviewed journals. This books is intended to present this information without statistical analysis of the performance of different people from different cultures on particular tests or in particualr scenarios. Okay, I've blathered on long enough. Good book, great thesis, essential to understand cultural differences or the nature of cultural animals such as ourselves. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Usable and Informative!!!!!
Review: One again social/cultural psychologist Richard Nisbett makes an outstanding contribution the field of psychology. In the mid '90s I was enrolled in an international Master's degree program. About half of the students were from Asia. Just when I begin to think that I had a fair understanding of the thinking of the Asians in the program - surprise! "Geography of Thought" would have been of great value and helped me to better understand and appreciate my Asian classmates (Oh, we got along fine, but it is nice to know more). Too, I like how Nisbett relates some of his comments to Edward T. Hall's low/high context concept. Knowing that Westerners and Asians analyze the world in a different way is critical when seeking to communicate effectively. The ideas and findings described in this book may be used by academics, diplomats and businesspersons. I'll use this book in courses I may teach at the university level. I first heard about the book when listening to Prof. Nisbett being interviewed on National Public Radio. If you want to know more go listen to his interview; you should be able to find it at NPR's web site in the archives. While I caught but part of the interview, what I heard was enough to cause me to remember the title and buy the book as soon as I could get to Amazon's web site! I'll buy at least one more copy to send to a former classmate in Beijing with whom I maintain contact.
Rating:
Summary: It Helps To Combine The Best From the East and the West!
Review: Only by reading the excerpt of this book has already convinced me to get a copy of this new book, and JUST READ IT! As a person who got his formal education both from the East and the West, this book provides the bridge in connecting the "beauties" of both the Eastern and the Western styles of thinking. To me, Western people are relatively more left-brain dominant (rational!), whereas Eastern people are relatively more right- brain dominent (intuitive!). This book once again tries to prove the abovesaid contention, while providing sufficient MSA--Metaphors,Stories,and Anecdotes(historical, of course!) to back up its contention. This book is very well written and can provide readers a lot of Aha and Haha experiences, understanding where the conflicts between the Eastern and the Western people really arise? But there is one precaution here! Don't over-generalize how the East and the West think differently. Some Eastern people got their education from the West could have tuned their thinking style into more Western style, or vice versa. This book is a good starting point to shed light on how the East and West should respect each other and understand their cultural differences in terms of thinking and living. I enjoyed reading this book very much....
| 
