一个在美国的中国人对思维版图的述评应该更有新意
Brock Education
布鲁克大学教育 Vol. 13, No. 2, 2004
2004年第13卷第2期 BOOK REVIEW
书评 The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why
《思维的版图:东西方思维差异及其原因》 Richard E. Nisbett. New York: The Free Press, 2003
尼斯贝特著。纽约:自由出版公司,2003年出版。
理查德·E·Reviewed by Haiyan Nie, Brock University
综述 It is a general psychological assumption that the central processing mechanism, which enables people to think, experience, act, and learn, is universal. Mainstream psychologists believe that people across cultures and races have the same basic cognitive processes and rely on the same tools for perception, causal analysis, categorization, and inference. Decontextualized reasoning is the accepted standard process and procedure of reasoning. However, cultural psychology suggests an alternative discipline for interpretation of the fundamentals of the mind. Cultural psychologist Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan explains such a perspective in his book The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…and Why. He argues that people in different cultures not only think about different things, but also think differently. In a series of studies carried out in the United States, Japan, China, and Korea, Nisbett and his colleagues found that “there are indeed dramatic differences in the nature of Asian and European thought process” (p.xviii).
The eight chapters that compose The Geography of Thought map the habits of thought. The author states that Easterners are more holistic in perceiving the world and Westerners more analytic. Further to the point, the holistic way of thinking lies in East Asians’ broader view, focusing on the context and situation in which an object and a person are involved and the relationships among objects and people. They look at parts in relation to the whole, and believe in constant change. The other side of the coin is that Westerners zero in on a salient object and tend to categorize the object. They believe that they can control events by knowing rules that govern objects. They treat the world as static.
《思维的版图》共有八章,描绘了思想习惯的地域性。作者提出,东方人的世界观更多强调整体,西方人的世界观更多侧重分析。继而,作者指出,整体的思维方式,在于东亚洲人的视野更宽广,关注的焦点是事物和人所处的背景和情境以及事物和人之间的关系。他们认为部分与整体是有联系的,相信事物是不断变化的。相反,西方人集中精力在一个突出的事物,而且倾向于把事物进行分类。他们相信,通过掌握支配事物的规律,他们可以控制事件。他们认为世界是静止的。
In Chapters One to Three, Nisbett documents the literature through which the cognitive disparities between East and West can be traced. The theme that penetrates through the chapters is ancient Greek agency vs. ancient Chinese harmony. Agency has promoted the individual identity, a sense of debate, and a curiosity about nature of the Greeks, while harmony developed the collective agency, concern with unity and self-control, and lack of wonder of the Chinese. Two giant figures in ancient philosophy, Aristotle and Confucius, are taken as the examples to explore the philosophical roots of the two approaches to the world. The comparison of social aspects of the two ancient nations leads to the conclusion that the drastically different original physical surroundings, agricultural structure, economic infrastructures, social structures, focus and understanding of the nature of the world, worldviews, and different ways of thinking determine and generate one another, and are dependent on each other as well. The goal of reasoning is the discovery of truth for the Greeks and the Middle Way for the Chinese. The author also investigates how the sense of self differs between East and West. Nisbett points out that Asians are more interdependent, considering self as “a part of a larger whole” (p.76), while Westerners are more independent, thinking of self as “a unitary free agent” (p.76).
认同、辩论意识和希腊人骨子里的好奇心,而“和”发展了集体主义、团结和自我控制,以及中国很少惊讶。作者以两个古代哲学巨人——亚里士多德和孔子为例,来探讨两种认知世界方法的哲学根基。作者通过比较两个国家的社会各个方面的比较,得出如下结论。截然不同的原始物理环境、农业结构、基础经济结构、社会结构、关注的焦点和世界本质的理解、世界观和不同的思维方式依次决定和产生,且相互依存。推理的目标是希腊人的真理至上和中国中庸之道的发现。作者还探讨了东西方如何自我感知的区别。尼斯贝特指出,亚洲人更加相互依存,把自我看作是“一个更大的整体的一部分“(第76页),而西方人则比较独立,把自我看作是“一个单一的自由人“(第76页)。
Chapters Four to Seven make up the core of the book, with citations from cognitive psychological studies conducted by the author and other researchers. This practical backup sparks readers’ greater interest in the topic and nourishes their thoughts. One of the studies, of responses to animated underwater vignettes, demonstrates Asians’ “wide-angle lens” view and Westerners’ “tunnel vision” (p. 89). Participants in this study–students at Kyoto University and the University of Michigan were exposed to an underwater scene in which there are one or more bigger and fast-moving focal fish as well as some not-so-fast-moving animals and background objects. Americans and Japanese made about an equal number of references to the focal fish, but the Japanese made more references to the background objects than Americans do. Americans attended more to the focal fish.