August 25, 2010
By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS
CORTES, CANADA — Imagine a country whose inhabitants eat human flesh, wear only pink hats to sleep and banish children into the forest to raise themselves until adulthood.
Now imagine that this country dominates the study of psychology worldwide. Its universities have the best facilities, which draw the best scholars, who write the best papers. Their research subjects are the flesh-eating, pink-hat-wearing, forest-reared locals.
When these psychologists write about their own country, all is well. But things deteriorate when they generalize about human nature.
They view behaviors that are globally commonplace — say, vegetarianism — as deviant. Human nature, as they define it, reflects little of the actual diversity of humankind.
This scenario may sound preposterous. But if a provocative new study is to be believed, the world already lives in such a situation — except that it is American undergraduates, not flesh-eating forest dwellers, who monopolize our knowledge of human nature.
In the study, published last month in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan — all psychologists at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver — condemn their field’s quest for human universals.
Psychologists claim to speak of human nature, the study argues, but they have mostly been telling us about a group of WEIRD outliers, as the study calls them — Westernized, educated people from industrialized, rich democracies.
According to the study, 68 percent of research subjects in a sample of hundreds of studies in leading psychology journals came from the United States, and 96 percent from Western industrialized nations. Of the American subjects, 67 percent were undergraduates studying psychology — making a randomly selected American undergraduate 4,000 times likelier to be a subject than a random non-Westerner.
Western psychologists routinely generalize about “human” traits from data on this slender subpopulation, and psychologists elsewhere cite these papers as evidence.
In itself, such extrapolation is hardly fatal. Freud built his account of human behavior from his work on patients in Vienna and generalized for the world. So many great analysts of human nature, from Aristotle to the Buddha, reached for transcendent human truths despite limited contact with the range of humanity.
The Canadian study’s claim is not to invalidate all extrapolation so much as to suggest that American undergraduates may be especially unsuitable for it.
The study’s method was to analyze a mountain of published, peer-reviewed psychology papers. It found evidence both of a narrow research base and of the eccentricity of that base. Among the many peculiarities of the usual subjects who serve as “universal man” are these, the study found:
American subjects disproportionately prize choice and individualism. In a survey of six Western societies, only Americans preferred a choice of 50 ice creams to 10. Studies have found that Americans are all but alone in giving newborns their own room.
Americans are also peculiar in the so-called Ultimatum Game, in which a subject receives money and must make an offer to share it. The second subject can accept or reject the offer, but if it is rejected, neither subject gets paid.
Americans playing the game are fair in the extreme, making higher offers than most. But they are also outliers in another way. In various places, including Russia and China, psychologists observe the rejection of excessive generosity — a demurring when offered too much. This behavior is absent from American undergraduates.
The study’s list goes on and on. Westerners tend to define themselves by psychological traits, and non-Westerners by relationships. In some languages, including English, directions are built around the self (“Take a right after the church”), while in other languages, they refer to immovable objects (“It is behind the church”).
Americans are worse than many at overcoming common optical illusions about the length of lines. But they are better than East Asians at recalling an object when the background changes, perhaps because the latter focus on context.
The data on these differences are patchy, the study’s authors acknowledge. Not enough work has been done on human variation. The Canadian attempt was simply to synthesize the existing research and to establish with their synthesis that psychological sameness is an implausible assumption.
Some critics of the study have suggested that there are universals underlying surface differences, and that the WEIRD variables may not be the right ones. But there has been little dispute about the premise that psychologists have extrapolated from an outlying few the ways of the global many.
It is an extrapolation with consequences. Democracy promoters tell us that all humans feel the same way about authority, despite evidence of diversity. Economists say that all humans are self-interested rational actors, though many succumb to selfless and irrational pursuits. Abstract rights are proclaimed for all humans, overlooking the fact that many prefer their ethics in more grounded, context-specific ways.
China, India and many other societies shy away from such universalizing. Their thinkers avoid proclaiming that all humans do this or do that simply because the Chinese or the Indians do. If they began to do so, how might things change?
For now, those outside the West continue to feel a certain pressure from beyond to think in ways not their own. The television sitcoms they watch, the books they read, the superheroes they grow up with, the PowerPoint presentations they give — these were often designed with someone else’s psychology foremost in mind, on the hope that they fit universally.
One response to the WEIRD study, by the psychologist Paul Rozin, is that extrapolating from Americans is acceptable because the world is Americanizing. “The U.S. is in the vanguard of the global world,” he said, according to Science magazine, “and may provide a glimpse into the future.”
But it is also possible that people around the world are not simply in the process of becoming like American undergraduates, and relying on WEIRD subjects can make others feel alienated, with their ways of thinking framed as deviant, not different.
Among the less-examined facets of globalization is its psychic pressure: a force that makes people feel that they are playing by others’ rules, that makes their own home turf feel like an opponent’s stadium. In this WEIRD people’s world, so many only know away games.
Anand,
Why did you stop at the question, “If they began to do so, how might things change?”
You shouldn’t tease readers with such thought-provoking questions. The article would have been a bit better if you had given examples of how the Chinese and Indians think and how things might change if such thinking was imposed via universalization. Now readers like me have been left in the dark regarding the Chinese/Indian psychology. Some examples would have been helpful!
Although extrapolating about human behaviors from psychological research based on a narrow homogenous sample is not fatal, it is unfair and confusing for individuals who may be tested on the same tests and given to understand that their behavior is deviant from the norm.
It is widely accepted that intelligence tests standardized on a western or urban sample of students will not result in an accurate score for students of less industrialized or rural backgrounds. Even a cerebral pastime like a newspaper crossword will reflect the lack of familiarity of the country and culture on an individuals’ capability to complete it successfully.
To compare people worldwide on various traits of human nature ,which have been arrived at after testing a narrow sample of American undergraduates, is like giving them a subtle hint that they are different and need to move towards the accepted codes of conduct. Psychologically and commonsensically, this is wrong. No behavior is right or wrong. The context, the environment decides its appropriateness.
In my view, diversity is vitality. Disparate behaviors around the world serve their societies well. Since ideas, behaviors can be shared so easily worldwide by virtual communication and physical travel, let this heterogeneity flourish , giving individuals the opportunity to pick the one they want to adopt.
This research should motivate scholars worldwide to take up such studies in their own countries , contributing to the understanding of human nature in their part of the world.
When I took Introduction to Psychology forty years ago (1969 at MIT), I vividly remember the professor giving the caveat in one of his first lectures that we should be cautious about applying the results to anyone other than freshmen and sophomores at major American research universities because that was who the subjects predominantly were because they were readily accessible and inexpensive.
And one of the common themes in history, political science and sociology is that different groups can have radically different ways of thinking about issues. In the US’s various counter-insurgencies–from Vietnam to Afghanistan–the repeated point is that the general population does not think like Americans and that there is a huge chasm between them and that country’s Westernized elite and between that elite and the US elite.
So is the referenced paper just yet another reincarnation of a situation that has been well-known for decades? If so, why has the lesson not sunk in and why might this time be any different?
If not, what is distinctive about this paper (beyond the examples it gives)?
I agree that the consequences of an extrapolation from such a narrow sample will naturally lead to incorrect conclusions, and the examples you provided Mr. Girid haradas are quite apropos. Increasing the sample size will not only improve the accuracy of the conclusions, but crucially it would allow the researchers to see the variations amongst the entire human population.
These differences that can lead to many or mistranslations and misunderstandings. Having knowledge of different languages is not sufficient; to unlock the vast riches of human experience of a culture or a people, one needs to have an encompassing knowledge of that culture. This kind of knowledge is lacking, and is very important if as a species we intend to survive for many more centuries and millennia (or more).
I think Paul Rozin’s conclusion is a victim off his timing – he has seen parts of the world adopting aspects of America’s culture, fashion and institutions for fifty-sixty years (longer in some places) – think Marshall Plan, McDonalds and western fashions – and so concludes it will continue apace. But I think more recent lessons suggest not. There are concrete demonstrations against the transferability of US experience in the East Asian financial crisis, South American economic difficulties, blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq and the failure of US-style democracy in these and other places like the Philippines. Harder lessons precisely because of the assumptions US experience would be transferrable. I think of the rise and rise of China and Vietnam, achievements with some US-style institutions but in direct rejection of others. And, being Australian, I cannot help think of our experience – a place that itself for at least a century by looking to the US and UK first and foremost but now has 6 of its top 10 trading partners in East Asia (incl. partners 1 and 2). In peak years, some 10%-20% of the Australian population travel overseas and most not to the US, an incomprehensible figure in the US where an estimated 10% so much as own a passport and the dominant ethos values nationalism, hearth and home in ways often incomphrehensible to many Australians. Perhaps most telling of all, less than ΒΌ of my 20-30 closest Australian friends and colleagues (now spread across six continents) are partnered with someone of Anglo/West Euro descent. The majority of us are with Asians of some flavour, from Iranians to Indian, Chinese, Malaysians and Thai, or Eastern/Northern rather than Western European. In coming years this will change the physical and philosophical face of Australia wonderfully, but probably not in the direction of the US. Globally the US is certainly at the vanguard, it joined Europe there after centuries of European-led globalistion, but as regions of Asia rise and impress with their achievements, as we marry their people and raise our children with different heritage and experiences, the vanguard will become more pluralistic and if we gain a better understanding of the universalities of humanity, I think it is unlikely to be simply because the world has become more American.
Do you realize how trivial, self-serving and overly academic this subject is?I remember when I was working as an antitrust lawyer and was handed a paper on who was the better lawyer, the one with an economic background or the one with a masters or a phd in economics. All based on quotes, publications and degrees. Nothing farther from the real world. Get a life!
Anand,
You have hit the nail on the head.
If an Indian youngster tells his family that he would like to be a sadhu (holy man) and spend time in contemplation and study perhaps beneath a big banyan tree, probably his may accept but with reluctance.
If however an American youngster said this he would be hustled off to a psychiatrist.
Can anybody generalise on this?
Something that could be examined in that context as well is the question of cultural imperialism.
Such generalized assumptions about human nature do not only make people feel alienated, much worse is the fact that if the results of such studies are spread in the disguise of a general truth, they will also change these peoples attitudes against themselves, change their understanding of themselves and imprint the Western worlds understanding of the universal human condition on them.
Also, it already happened quite some time ago, but I do wonder when we started to search for the normalized human. It is not there and even within one society human behaviour can only be generalized to a certain extend – and I wonder why it should work for all of our species.
And yes, I partly agree with Rushabh Sheth it would have been very interesting to outline the differences between different cultures more closely and also to include how this “self-understanding” influences morals and the relationship with the world, but then you would probably have to write a book.
I’m not a great fan of psychology, but that on the side, human beings wherever they are all share a trait of uniqueness, what works for one does not work for another. Living in Mexico city as a teacher, I have seen adoption of American gadgets, comforts, and stores and such…but for the most part I can’t say of American thinking. Peoples differ so much from culture to culture and then from one person to the next.
It’s interesting that the examples you use to demonstrate the Western predilection to seek the “universal” irregardless of context all come from the social sciences (ie psychology, poli. sci., and economics). For quite some time now in the West, such thinkers as Geertz, Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Kuhn, MacIntyre, just to name a few (!), have demonstrated that such attempts are outdated forms of Enlightenment wishful thinking.
As an intercultural trainer and applied anthropologist, it’s exciting to read articles like yours that question the nature of human cognitive process from another perspective. (Watters, 2009) But then again, you have the advantage of being Canadian which allows you a certain global view that your fellow North Americans in the United States lack. It sounds as if you are somewhat familiar with the major Intercultural theorists: Hofstede, Hall, or Trompenaars who shed light on “what makes the other guy tick”. These “management consultants of the 21st century” (culture brokers, intercultural trainers, cross-cultural consultants, culture-shock preventionists) have determined that cultural values (software) propel the mind (hardware).
Culture is how we solve life, birth, marriage, and death. Etiquette shows us how to handle them and anthropology shows us who does what and why. Nonetheless, it inspires symbols, heroes, rituals, laws, religions, taboos, and all kinds of practices. For five thousand years, the Greek’s used Homer’s Odyssey as their playbook to solve problems. Mythology explained it all. It was their Bible. Today, it has been updated with the world’s major religious beliefs including Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Paganism. At the core of culture are hidden deep, unconscious values.
The psychologists in your piece bring to mind an Ethiopian proverb that describes the nature of culture: Fish discover water last. Culture hides more than it reveals and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants. The real job is not to understand foreign culture but to understand our own. (Hall, 1959)
Hofstede is credited with developing the 5-D Model of Culture that relates to “business organizational values in different cultures” and should be viewed as a “systematic attempt to compare cultures on an aggregate, group level” (Ting-Toomey, 1999). The 5D Model is based on his survey of 116,000 employees in 72 countries and 20 languages around the world. This software, or the collective programming of the mind, distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.” (Hofstede, 1997:5)
Most of us use culture to classify groups other than our own as inferior or (rarely) superior. This applies to groups based on national, religious, or ethnic boundaries, but also on occupation or academic discipline, on club membership, adored idol, or dress style. In our globalized world most of us can belong to many groups at the same time. But to get things done, we still need to cooperate with members of other groups carrying other cultures. Skills in cooperation across cultures are vital for our common survival. (Hofstede, 2010).
That’s where Interculturalists like me come in. During training sessions, we use simulations to develop those skills which must be experienced to be understood because it’s like telling someone to appreciate music, (in this case, appreciate cultural differences). They may like what they see, but they have not studied music or taken a music appreciation class to know what’s beneath the surface of what is heard. Your “weird outliers” and “the other guys” is similar to “BaFa BaFa” which enables participants — the Alpha and the Beta Cultures — to become meta-thinkers about culture, and therefore making the existing culture visible. Making the implicit, become explicit. Knowing what makes the other guy tick and how to adjust one’s behavior accordingly during an intercultural interaction is not only crucial, but it has all kinds of far reaching implications. Suffice it to say, to quote President Obama, “if we’re talkin’, we’re not shootin’”.
Arguably, the flaw with this study cited is that Western Man is not Universal Man. However, the dozen or so values (national character traits) that Hall, Hofstede, and Tropenaars identify are, paradoxically, universal, just not from the West. They are:
Hofstede
? Who’s Boss: Power Distance (small power distance versus large power distance)
? Is It All About Me Or You? Individualism versus Collectivism (sometimes referred to as individualism versus group orientation)
? Tough Tender: Masculinity versus Femininity (also known as male dominance versus gender equality)
Trompenaars
? Who You Know: Universalism vs. Particularism (What Is More Important, Rules or relationships?)
Hall
? To The Point: High/Low Context Culture
? Gestures: Proxemics
? What Time Is It: Monochronic/Polychronic time or Sequential vs. Synchronic (Do we do things one at a time or several things at once?)
Based on these cultural dimensions, I am developing a Fractal Theory of Applied Anthropology demonstrating these values are manifestations of Jung’s Collective Unconscious, building on what the theories of Frazer and Campbell.
However, I would argue to the contrary, that “not enough work has been done on human variation”. There’s been a great deal of intercultural research in the past forty years to demonstrate those differences, but it’s not a very collaborative or publicized field. However, the seminal data was originally extracted in 1980 from Hofstede who demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behavior of societies and organizations, and that are very persistent across time. Psychologists who incorporate interdisciplinary research approaches can obtain more current and plausible world views. Psychological sameness (hardware, the mind, collective unconscious) is not an entirely implausible assumption it’s just that each culture goes about solving those problems differently (software, culture).
I agree with your example of “China, India and many other societies shy away from such universalizing.” The reason for this is because they are Eastern cultures. They are Collectivist and Universalist, oriented toward the group’s needs, which supersede the individual and in direct contrast to the Western view. The synchronized movement of the opening Olympics ceremonies was a shock and awe moment for Americans if I do say so myself. Another example of this Chinese/East orientation is holism, hence the concept of “mind, body spirit”. It is also evident in Taoism which is the Search for The Way, to live life while the Western cultures search for Truth. In China, the emphasis is on the interaction of the context (like water and air) as continuously interacting substances. The East emphasizes the whole – yin and yang, good as part of bad, and on interrelationships.
Some say this holistic value system stems from China’s geography which is dominated by one, large land mass, fostering an overall homogeneity, as opposed to the West, which has its roots in Ancient Greece (a trade center that interacted with many new people and cultures). Greece consists of many islands that may have given rise to the atomized view of the world that focuses on the object in isolation. The Western world view is a categorizing, left-brain, object-oriented thinking, and grouping model which led to a certain type of logic and scientific classification. It may be simplistic, and of course cultures are being increasingly influenced by each other but cultural values are very deeply rooted.
Do “those outside the West continue to feel a certain pressure from beyond to think in ways not their own”? I would argue that it is increasingly becoming the other way around. Rozin’s extrapolation that the “world is Americanizing” is dated and reflects an unconscious incompetence (you don’t know what you don’t ‘know). However, that can be improved through intercultural training simulation and experiential activities to increase self-awareness and a shift one’s global perspective.
That the “U.S. is the vanguard of the global world,” may only be partly true. I would argue that while America practically invented globalization by exporting its brands and businesses worldwide, it is becoming more evident that it is no longer the vanguard of the global world in that wistful, Reagan-esque, beacon-of-Democracy sense. Rather, the world is globalized as a result of local economies and cultures integrated by the internet and easier transportation of goods and increasingly open trade policies. Globalization, a product of (American/Capitalist) economics goes down easier than (American) political ideology. Many countries and cultures, (to the chagrin of the U.S. power structure) have adopted hybrid models that incorporate a free market economy without selling their cultural soul.
For some, this may be a glimpse into the future of a weird way of thinking.
________________________________________
Friedman, Jonathan1990 Being in the World: Globalization and Localization. Theory, Culture & Society 7: 311-328.
Friedman, Thomas L. 2000 The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books.
Hall, E.T. 1990 The Hidden Dimension. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Hall, E.T. 1959 The Silent Language New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Hofstede, G. 2001 Culture’s Consequences Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Hofstede, G. 2005Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Trompenaars, Alfons, ed.1998 Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity on Global Business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dear Mr. Giridharadas,
Thank you for a most interesting article, and one that raises more questions than I can list, in my head.
Writing from Europe in 2010, and Prague in particular, the idea that world is about to go through further “Americanization” seems distinctly odd. Isn’t the monoculture of the United States, falling apart?
The way we put this in graduate school at Berkeley, some years ago, was that the places of the world are not “backwards” or “a hundred years behind” (so to speak)– we’re all going through modernity, and modernization, together, in our own way.
The United States’ temporary and peculiar economic position, of course– and its somewhat self-imposed distance and isolation from the other peoples of the world– along with shear size, may have given the appearance of its being “the future” for a while.
Sitting in Prague tonight, again trying to reflect upon the past twenty years of freedom for the nations here– well, I’m struck again by the figures of the memorial to the victims of communism, here, which depicts those who lived under communism as only partial men and women, as if we had lived without an arm, without a leg, without half a body…
The memorial is powerful, in displaying the idea that under communism, we were partial humans. But what is it, to be fully human?
Young students from the United States and elsewhere, here for the first time, often comment (and often quite rudely), on the “Czech mentality.” I try to softly suggest to them, that this is a nation that has known freedom for scarcely two decades, and that they might wish to reflect, on how their personalities might be different, if they had lived here.
I also often see simple conflicts arise between Czech locals and non-locals, which when the same situation is repeated in [the] Czech [language,] are quite different and amicably resolved.
This is usually something far more than just the difficultly of communicating across languages and the misunderstandings which can result. People from the US and the UK, and to some extent Western Europe and elsewhere, often have conceptions and expectations about time and service, which seem quite at odds with those of the Czechs.
On the other hand– it is not quite so simple. A Czech family, when asked to wait for check-in at a hotel, because the computer system is not capable of entering their payment, or the room is not clean, yet, might begin a conversation about the weather or details of the crops in their region.
Doing this, they might find that there is room for negotiation of “the system,” (though calling it the system is a little heavy-handed). The maids are late, but you can use the room if that is all right; come down later to pay.
This seems to me often lost on the British or American or French visitor, not only because of language or expectations alone, but because of an inability to negotiate the boundaries of the situation, quickly– I might say, to match psychology and display understanding for the other.
Of course, the general point I’ve made, that conceding a little to the other side in an interaction, and being flexible, often leads to solutions– is not very profound, but general. Yet more opportunities for that kind of concession, and the trust and understanding that lead to the negotiation of a specific solution to a particular situation, — more such opportunities arise, when there is more of a linguistic base for communication, and more psychological understanding than a vague idea of “the Czech mentality” as something slow and uninviting.
On that note– I’ll just say that Czechs, like most peoples I’ve encountered in the world, are almost universally friendly and helpful towards visitors, when addressed respectfully and politely in their own language.
But there is still a “Czech mentality,” which seems to me distinct, and distinctly different. I’m sitting here thinking to myself– “how do I describe it,” but if you go to the outlying towns, and the villages, away from the international city of Prague– both the language, and the gestures people use, become quite– well, distinct.
From a Western (US, or American) perspective, if I were to describe them, many of the common gestures and behaviors might appear primitive, or “simple”– indeed there is a cult of nature in the Czech Lands, which might appear “native” or “indigenous” in the simplistic ways that comic-book “Indians” are imagined by the environmental movement in the US– but, of course and in fact, what we have here is the language, the gestures and identity, of a civilization nearly two millennia old.
That– survived communism, and the previous empire, and has begun to unfold again. And– I’ll give up on trying to give any concrete images and specific examples tonight– what is clear to me, is that simply in terms of behavior, versus what is taken to be “normal” in the US educational institutions, it would be quite easy to see a young Czech couple, speaking in Czech over dinner, and their gestures and concerns, as both quite alien and ‘deviant,’ rather than simply different.
Ah– the young woman has given me an example, if not a great one (which might as well come from from Belgium). The waiter has brought her soup; as it is placed in front of her, she exclaims what sounds like “myam-yauym.”
I won’t editorialize, except to speak of Belgium– where, especially from the formerly politically dominant perspective of French-speakers, the language and gestures and psychology of Flemish-speakers is often said to be more ‘primitive,’ exactly in the sense of ‘undeveloped.’
At the same time, one of your commentators mentions Mexico City, where I have also spent a good deal of time speaking to the youth, and trying to understand them on their terms.
Indeed, they are not youth from the US, though they often have their cell phones, iPods and music collections. I equally struggle to represent them– (who am I, to represent the thoughts of two millions?)– well, if we’re talking about the youth with cell phones and iPods, we’re already talking about an elite, while in contrast we might speak of the children of workers; or the high-schoolers who cannot get into UNAM, or any other university, because there are not enough places in the economic crisis.
What is it to be human, for each of these people? I return to that question, because as much as psychology has told us something about the thought-processes of some human beings, perhaps just those in a narrow band of economic advantage in the United States, how many tools has it given us to understand that question?
Or abandoning the implicit universalism, how many tools has it given us, for understanding the perspective of someone from a particular city in the central Russian federation, a village in China, an emerging megapolis in sub-Saharan Africa? For understanding how those perspectives, influence a series of global processes?
And so on– I guess that in addition to being WEIRD, I might ask if the US educational system is merely self-reflective?
Thank you all for these wonderful and thoughtful comments. Keep the conversation flowing!
Anand
In fact, the important cognitive differences for the West and outside have been written about quite comprehensively in Richard Nisbett’s “The Geography of Thought” (coincidentally he works at your Alma Mater, UofM). I couldn’t possibly summarize this profoundly interesting book, but it traces historical roots of cognition (mainly US/Europe and China/Japan), and outlines the many studies showing how they are in fact completely different in different societies. A must read.
“Americans” have this perspective, and “Americans” think this way. Within the United States there are so many ethnic groups, and different ways of thinking. Generally, when someone says “Americans” do this or think this way, that researcher/writer is talking about white/anglo Americans. I am Latino, born and raised in New Mexico. While we are of course influenced by mainstream American culture, we are also very distint in the way we interact and think. Many people in New Mexico are bilingual, and since lanuage helps influence the way we think, our behaviors and thought processes are different.
One aspect mentioned in the article: “Americans” think nothing of a newborn having his own bedroom. In general, in the Latino community in New Mexico, that’s nonsense. We also interact with extended family regularly. That includes great aunts and uncles, third and fourth cousins, and others.
People really need to be careful about generalizations about Americans, since we come in so many varieties. Qualify that the generalizations are about the Anglo community; they often don’t apply to the Latino, Native American, black and Asian communities. I imagine even in places like Louisiana, within the white community, some of these generalization do not apply.
My concern is that too many of the studies are done by people who have such a narrow persective, or articles are written by people who borrow ideas from other people, and really don’t know what they are talking about.
Psychology is in trouble. Your article points to one reason, but in a larger sense it seems to have run into a kind of epistemological dead end. Your article is a welcomed opening of the conversation, as are many of the comments. We simply have no idea, measurable or otherwise, as to the meaning of human existence, millennia of experience and observation to the contrary. All I can say, from the fragile perspective of an Elder, is that there appears to be no limit to what can happen in positive reality on this planet, and that those of us who chose to enjoy our time here simply do.
Thank you for this important article. It validates my decision to market to the entire population instead of to the groups that attract people who fit their preconceived notions.
It also helps explain how a doctor can say “I have seen many hundreds, if not thousands, of patients like Rose over the past 30 years. I have never had one-no, not one-say to me, ‘Gosh, Doctor, there are some real ?benefits to all this depression!’” Seems this one mistakes his small slice for the whole, while not realizing that such beliefs become wrongly validated by attracting the slice that corresponds to them.
The slice I attract is looking for insight and meaning in their depression and mania. While I recognize that some percent of the whole are incapable of it, we will never know if it is 1%, 99%, or somewhere in between, until we accept that it is possible and start teaching people how.
Thought #1
This week, a counselor/social worker/university office of disabilities representative told a group of us English to Speakers of Other Languages teachers that, even if we have an educated guess that one of our students is struggling because of learning difficulties, not just differences in languages or learning styles, there are few if any tests for dyslexia except in American English, and as a result, it’s quite difficult to diagnose, and the resulting diagnosis would be unreliable.
Thought #2
In general, academic ESL teachers around the world would probably agree that thinking and expressing one’s thought is generally culturally- and language-specific. Many of us who attend international conferences like TESOL shift more or less comfortably between “American English” or “British English” or “Liberian English” or all the other Englishes and the first languages of our students, commenting – in XXXX English we do this and in XXXX this is done.
Thought #3
As nations cooperate in organizations such as the United Nations, and as other multi-national groups focused on health, safety, research, education, money, and so forth work together, there is great need for asking the very question posed, but does it have to be answered, or could the posing, the provoking of thought be the answer?
Paul Rozer’s comment about American culture as a “vanguard” for the world is all wrong. The cultural dominance of the West has already peaked. American and European ways of thinking and doing will remain influential, but we will see growing cultural influence radiating outward from East Asia during the coming century. No single cultural standard will prevail globally.