People from Western cultures such as the United States are particularly challenged in their ability to understand someone else’s point of view because they are part of a culture that encourages individualism, new research at the University of Chicago shows.
In contrast, Chinese, who live in a society that encourages a collectivist attitude among its members, are much more adept at determining another person’s perspective, according to a new study.
One of the consequences of Americans’ and other Westerners’ problems of seeing things from another person’s point of view is faltering communication, said Boaz Keysar, Professor in Psychology at the University of Chicago.
“Many actions and words have multiple meanings. In order to sort out what a person really means, we need to gain some perspective on what he or she might be thinking and, Americans for example, who don’t have that skill very well developed, probably tend to make more errors in understanding what another person means,” Keysar said.
This could be a valid test, but I wonder if difference in spatial relations ability plays in to it. I am thinking that students from China get in to US schools because they do incredibly well on standardized spatial relations tests. I would want this stufy to have been controlled for spatial relations ability.
Hmm, this is interesting.
I think there is another factor here worth thinking about. American culture the last few years has celebrated and encouraged selfishness – “What I think and feel is most important.” When you have that attitude, then appreciating another’s perspective goes to the backseat before what you can see and touch.
It is one of the subtle, yet, most destructive sins pervading our culture today.
Americans are individualist, Chinese are collectivist. What an inaccurate and unhelpful generalization.
Yes, in the last century or so the Chinese nationalist movement has been collectivist, some would say dictatorial. But look back a few hundred to a few thousand years and you have sage after sage espousing what today would be considered individualist, even anarcho-capitalist views: the collective is evil; the people, left to themselves do a better job of reducing crime, trading peacefully, and living productive lives; and taxes are inherently evil.
As a foreigner who has lived in the US for about a decade now, I wonder if Americans have a giant complex. After absorbing gems from other cultures, they now assume, because they have made them their own, that they are bad, and want to apologize to the world for advocating them.
For the quintessential anti-collectivist pro-individualist text, read 1 Samuel 8 — oh yeah, the US didn’t write it.
Jon
“Yes, in the last century or so the Chinese nationalist movement has been collectivist, some would say dictatorial. But look back a few hundred to a few thousand years and you have sage after sage espousing what today would be considered individualist, even anarcho-capitalist views: the collective is evil; the people, left to themselves do a better job of reducing crime, trading peacefully, and living productive lives; and taxes are inherently evil.”
Jon, precisely which “sage after sage” do you have in mind?
There are indeed certain Taoist and Buddhist influences in the traditional Chinese psyche and society, which go against the historically predominant Confucian strain which emphasizes family, society, stability, order, and the collective (of which the state is deemed but a natural part), but these Taoist and Buddhist influences were strongest among the educated literati who could indulge themselves in the eremiticism, withdrawal-from-the-world, and so forth, which these influences espoused.
Yet China has always been predominantly a country of uneducated peasant masses, and even among the elites, Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism (i.e., Confucianism with some Taoist and Buddhist influence, primarily when to comes to personal or esthetic matters) have been pervasive. (Keep in mind, though, that Chinese thought traditionally eschews either/or distinctions; in a Chinese context, one can be simultaneously a Confucian, Buddhist, and Taoist, despite how these all differ from each other, depending upon which philosophy/religion seems most pragmatic in any particular situation.)
I woudl emphasize that traditional Chinese thought has *nothing* that comes close to being similar to Western post-Enlightenment types of individualism, especially of the late 20th and early 21st century varieties.
Personally, I found this article spot on, and quite unsurprising.
American culture the last few years has celebrated and encouraged selfishness – “What I think and feel is most important.â€
Thinking? Would that popular American culture did celebrate nd encourage thinking. Instead, I think the quote should read “What I feel is most important.” And from what I’ve seen, this holds true across the political/ecclesiastical spectrum.
[i]People from Western cultures such as the United States are particularly challenged in their ability to understand someone else’s point of view because they are part of a culture that encourages individualism, new research at the University of Chicago shows.
[/i]
I guess this is why the Chinese can sentence someone to a work prison camp and even execution simply for becoming a Christian. Yes, I can see how they understand and value someone else’s point of view.
Jim Elliott
A more reasonable explanation of their better appreciation of the perspective of others is that the Chinese have a higher appreciation for the impact that foreign intervention can have on their lives. This is because, unlike us, they have a better grasp of the import of history, and much of their history the last two centuries has been dealing with unwelcome foreigners. And you can’t effectively deal with other people unless you understand what makes them “tick” and specifically their strengths and weaknesses.
Now: take this study to 815 and see how they grasp the import of foreign intervention!
The ‘communitarianism’ upheld by modern China is not a “communicating” communitarianism, as implied by this article. It is a stiflling dictatorial imperative foisted on the people purportedly on their behalf. To see how “the People” respond to real communication, one need look no further than the tanks at Tiananmen Square.
The only moral and Christian communitarianism is a voluntary communitarianism (cf. Peter’s admonition to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts). Kindness is a choice that must be made at the individual level before it can bear fruits at the social level. Any tampering with that choice is a theft of an individual’s God-given liberty. In every country there will be individuals. In America there are 250 million. In Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia there were two: Hitler and Stalin. Individualism may be a perjorative, but it will always remain a fact.
As Christians, when did it become okay to resurrect a paradise by removing individual choice? We return to Eden and one-up God by chopping down the Tree of Knowedge at its center. Please, do yourself a favor and re-read 1 Samuel 8 to learn God’s opinion on the tyranny of the Majority.
For a small amount of information on the ancient Chinese traditions of individualism, click here. Unfortunately I am at work, and cannot access my library for more information.
http://www.mises.org/story/1967
Nadine Kwong wrote:
[i]I woudl emphasize that traditional Chinese thought has *nothing* that comes close to being similar to Western post-Enlightenment types of individualism, especially of the late 20th and early 21st century varieties.[/i]
Nadine, what do you find so offensive about individualism, i.e., the individual’s right to make choices regarding her life, liberty, and property, so long as they don’t infringe on the life, liberty, and property of others?
thanks for your insights, nadine
so much of the U.S. POV is premised on the word I
– I feel
– I think
– I know
the way in which individualism – a personal relationship with Jesus – has infected our churchianity is so much more corrosive than any single issue. the combo of individualism & consumerism creates a form of Jesus following that is FAR different from expressions throughout our history
the nicene creed gives me such hope when we say WE believe – some days, it is hopeful to know that someone around believes, even when I do not
Justin, Nadine doesn’t seem to find anything offensive about individualism, or if she does they are not expressed in her post. She is speaking about Chinese thought in general, not her own opinions.
As the experiment is recounted, nothng is mentioned about as the degree of parental “authoritarianism” in the family structures, or in comparitive difference between attitude towards “authoritarianism” in social relationships in the different communities and cultures the specific participants. Nor any consideration any other cultural artifacts that might influence the results, and how such are accounted for. In fact, no mention is made of how subjects were chosen in any manner to indicate that they are representative of the respective cultures whose differences are being measured. Although most people would be bored by the mention of what statistical tests were used at what level of significance, that could make a huge difference. Without much more information on procedures, or other varied tests being done all that, might be measured is the difference that people are trained to considered the view of those in authority “automatically”, and have nothing much to do with any social sensitivity as such.