This review does a marvelous job of navigating a minefield.
It is often said that travel is a good way to improve one’s understanding of other cultures.
The Geography of Thought discredits that saying, by being full of examples of cultural differences that 99.9% of travelers will overlook.
Yep.
There’s no Chinese word for individualism—selfish seems to be the closest equivalent.
The Chinese word for individualism 个人主义 is an import from France. I usually say “small families” or “weak family ties” instead.
There are no Asians in Lake Wobegon. I.e. Asians are rather reluctant to rate themselves as above average.
This is very true. My two closest Taiwanese friends suffer from this problem and don’t even realize it. I realize I suffer from this error and I still fail to appropriately compensate.
Asians are much less comfortable with attaching importance to categories and essences…
Some East Asian ideas are easy to express. Sinocentrism is easy to explain. So are tyrannical schools and extended families. But the aspect of East Asian culture I have the hardest time explaining to Westerners is the flexibility of abstract concepts. This flexibility of thinking is deeply connected to business, religion and political theory. It is foundational to at least one entire intellectual system.
Orwellian (dualist) double-think is a trap. But non-dualist (Daoist) double-think is critical.
Westerners want contracts to be unconditionally binding, whereas Asians want contracts to change in response to unexpected contexts.
What I like about the above quote is its grounding in economic reality. It’s easy to get lost in the clouds generalizing about cultures’ philosophical ideas. It’s much harder when discussing business standards.
Part of why Chinese people want contracts to change in response to unexpected contexts is they live in a laissez-faire economic system compared to the Free World. Flexible contracts are natural law. Inflexible contracts arise from the unnatural rule of law.
Asians are likely to consider justice in the abstract, by-the-book Western sense to be rigid and unfeeling.
Chinese justice is an art, not a science.
Western philosophy confused me in high school and college. It still does. To this day I do not understand how “justice” can be a fundamental value (in the most general value-criterion sense of the word).
High modernism, combined with excessive reification of categories, may have led the medical establishment on some dead-end paths.
Well stated. Obviously yes, but I’m not comfortable stating my precise views on a public forum.
Chuang Tzu is quoted as saying, “Classifying or limiting knowledge fractures the greater knowledge.”
I wonder to what extent this is connected to Asians’ reluctance to rate one’s self above average.
Doesn’t the Western lead in reductionist science conflict with the evidence of Asian students doing well at math and science?
Math and science as handed down for most students is sufficiently mechanical to perform unthinkingly without comprehending reductionist science. Newton’s Laws of Motion are true because the book, the test, the teacher, the government and your future boss all say so.
Nisbett hints that some of that is due to the WEIRD expectation that actions have a single cause, and can’t result from a combination of intentional and accidental factors.
This is an impressively concise sentence. The idea is important and complex enough to deserve its own post.
I wonder whether Asian cultures care less about virtue ethics, due to less influence from Fundamental Attribution Error?
I don’t know about “error” but East Asian cultures do perform less “fundamental attribution”.
One more thing
Another difference the review doesn’t address is “cultural appropriation”. Offence at cultural appropriation is not a thing in East Asia—at least among the major ethnic groups. Rather, the opposite is true.
Part of why Chinese people want contracts to change in response to unexpected contexts is they live in a laissez-faire economic system compared to the Free World.
Given China’s history of communism, I found this confusing. However, I know very little about China and you seem to know more. Can you elaborate?
The paragraph in question uses wordplay to poke fun at John Locke, the Chinese Communist Party and American-style capitalism. It requires historical context to understand.
“Communism” describes an economic system, a political party, a political theory, an ideology and so on. China is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is a political party. China is “Communist” in the sense it is ruled by the “Communists” [political party]. China was communist [economic system] in the decades after the CCP took power in 1949. However, in recent decades, the CCP has dismantled the communist economic system in favor of a capitalist economic system. Nixon’s 1972 visit to China is a useful landmark for when the communist Chinese Community Party began turning itself into the capitalist Chinese Communist Party.
Today’s China is hands-off when it comes to small-scale business matters. Compared to the United States, there is less government regulation in China of everything except speech, guns and politics. Ironically, China is now more capitalist [economic system] than the United States and the European Union.
That’s the joke poking fun at American-style capitalism and the CCP. What about John Locke?
John Locke is famous for his idea of “natural law”. His idea of “natural law” is not based in science and is therefore not based in nature. It is based on a particular artificial political philosophy. “Natural law” is relevant to the capitalism-communism joke because the capitalist ideology is philosophically entangled with the Enlightenment myth of natural law. I poke fun at John Locke by comparing his idea of “natural law” to what really happens in the absence of intervention by Leviathan (government).
Today’s China is hands-off when it comes to small-scale business matters. Compared to the United States, there is less government regulation in China of everything except speech, guns and politics. Ironically, China is now more capitalist [economic system] than the United States and the European Union.
Isn’t there more regulation of internal movement? People from the country being blocked from moving to the cities, etc.?
Also, while there may be less regulation, it also seems that the government is in general more powerful in China. It has more license to arrest people, shut down businesses, install political operatives in businesses, surveil people, order lockdowns, etc. than western governments, which struggle to cut through their own red tape when they do those things. Or is this a wrong impression?
You’re not wrong. I forgot about the hukou system. It’s also true that China’s government is more involved with large-scale businesses. You have to play more politics to build a business empire in China than in the USA.
Otherwise, especially when it comes down to small fry (which are the majority of businesses), national politics is just one aspect of the business environment. Also important to small businesses is things like paperwork, regulation and—perhaps most importantly—the chance of getting sued. The United States is a very litigious society where you (usually) have to pay high legal fees even if you win. China is less litigious because it is rare for anyone in their right mind to willingly call down attention from the government.
China is not known for its worker protections and environmental regulations. There are far fewer zoning laws in China than the United States. I reckon mundane annoyances are more likely to kill a small business than is a visit from the secret police. (This is not necessarily a bad thing. I like living in a city with breathable air.)
I also suspect organized crime plays a bigger role in China than in the United States for small businesses. This isn’t a good thing, but it does technically fall under “low government involvement”.
This review does a marvelous job of navigating a minefield.
Yep.
The Chinese word for individualism 个人主义 is an import from France. I usually say “small families” or “weak family ties” instead.
This is very true. My two closest Taiwanese friends suffer from this problem and don’t even realize it. I realize I suffer from this error and I still fail to appropriately compensate.
Some East Asian ideas are easy to express. Sinocentrism is easy to explain. So are tyrannical schools and extended families. But the aspect of East Asian culture I have the hardest time explaining to Westerners is the flexibility of abstract concepts. This flexibility of thinking is deeply connected to business, religion and political theory. It is foundational to at least one entire intellectual system.
Orwellian (dualist) double-think is a trap. But non-dualist (Daoist) double-think is critical.
What I like about the above quote is its grounding in economic reality. It’s easy to get lost in the clouds generalizing about cultures’ philosophical ideas. It’s much harder when discussing business standards.
Part of why Chinese people want contracts to change in response to unexpected contexts is they live in a laissez-faire economic system compared to the Free World. Flexible contracts are natural law. Inflexible contracts arise from the unnatural rule of law.
Western philosophy confused me in high school and college. It still does. To this day I do not understand how “justice” can be a fundamental value (in the most general value-criterion sense of the word).
Well stated. Obviously yes, but I’m not comfortable stating my precise views on a public forum.
I wonder to what extent this is connected to Asians’ reluctance to rate one’s self above average.
Math and science as handed down for most students is sufficiently mechanical to perform unthinkingly without comprehending reductionist science. Newton’s Laws of Motion are true because the book, the test, the teacher, the government and your future boss all say so.
This is an impressively concise sentence. The idea is important and complex enough to deserve its own post.
I don’t know about “error” but East Asian cultures do perform less “fundamental attribution”.
One more thing
Another difference the review doesn’t address is “cultural appropriation”. Offence at cultural appropriation is not a thing in East Asia—at least among the major ethnic groups. Rather, the opposite is true.
Offense at cultural appropriation is a pretty new thing in the West, too, rather than being a deep and long-standing tradition.
Given China’s history of communism, I found this confusing. However, I know very little about China and you seem to know more. Can you elaborate?
The paragraph in question uses wordplay to poke fun at John Locke, the Chinese Communist Party and American-style capitalism. It requires historical context to understand.
“Communism” describes an economic system, a political party, a political theory, an ideology and so on. China is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is a political party. China is “Communist” in the sense it is ruled by the “Communists” [political party]. China was communist [economic system] in the decades after the CCP took power in 1949. However, in recent decades, the CCP has dismantled the communist economic system in favor of a capitalist economic system. Nixon’s 1972 visit to China is a useful landmark for when the communist Chinese Community Party began turning itself into the capitalist Chinese Communist Party.
Today’s China is hands-off when it comes to small-scale business matters. Compared to the United States, there is less government regulation in China of everything except speech, guns and politics. Ironically, China is now more capitalist [economic system] than the United States and the European Union.
That’s the joke poking fun at American-style capitalism and the CCP. What about John Locke?
John Locke is famous for his idea of “natural law”. His idea of “natural law” is not based in science and is therefore not based in nature. It is based on a particular artificial political philosophy. “Natural law” is relevant to the capitalism-communism joke because the capitalist ideology is philosophically entangled with the Enlightenment myth of natural law. I poke fun at John Locke by comparing his idea of “natural law” to what really happens in the absence of intervention by Leviathan (government).
Isn’t there more regulation of internal movement? People from the country being blocked from moving to the cities, etc.?
Also, while there may be less regulation, it also seems that the government is in general more powerful in China. It has more license to arrest people, shut down businesses, install political operatives in businesses, surveil people, order lockdowns, etc. than western governments, which struggle to cut through their own red tape when they do those things. Or is this a wrong impression?
You’re not wrong. I forgot about the hukou system. It’s also true that China’s government is more involved with large-scale businesses. You have to play more politics to build a business empire in China than in the USA.
Otherwise, especially when it comes down to small fry (which are the majority of businesses), national politics is just one aspect of the business environment. Also important to small businesses is things like paperwork, regulation and—perhaps most importantly—the chance of getting sued. The United States is a very litigious society where you (usually) have to pay high legal fees even if you win. China is less litigious because it is rare for anyone in their right mind to willingly call down attention from the government.
China is not known for its worker protections and environmental regulations. There are far fewer zoning laws in China than the United States. I reckon mundane annoyances are more likely to kill a small business than is a visit from the secret police. (This is not necessarily a bad thing. I like living in a city with breathable air.)
I also suspect organized crime plays a bigger role in China than in the United States for small businesses. This isn’t a good thing, but it does technically fall under “low government involvement”.
[Edit: Fixed typo.]
According to the World Economic Forum website:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/why-chinas-state-owned-companies-still-have-a-key-role-to-play/