Chapter 8: And If the Nature of Thought is Not Everywhere the Same?

Until I got to the very end of the chapter where Nisbett talks about the advantages of people from integrated cultures in problem solving, many of his statements sounded very biased to me. I don't mean to ignore all the evidences that he has introduced in these past chapters to support his claims. However, in this chapter, his statements keep on going back and forth between which culture is better at what. Like Barna, he bases his arguments about how peer review and criticism never happen in Japan on only one Japanese scientist's statement (195) and makes straightforward statements like, "Their [U.S.-based Japanese businessmen]inability to perform causal analysis... leads to the belief that they are cognitively impaired" (210), "deficient" (I'm sure he used this word but I can't find the actual quote... sorry!), "... it is the Americans who are wrong and the Asians who are right in these cases" (207). Maybe it has to do with the fact that my own race is being mentioned, but even so, I don't like how he makes it sound like one culture is superior to another in each categorized topic. It's as if he's made Easterners vs. Westerners fight in a bunch of boxing games and he's finding a winner for each round...

But that's when I realized that he's an "either/or" thinker and I'm a "both/and" thinker. Though he begins with "The Syllogism AND the Tao", his later titles and subjects include: "Is the World Made Up of Nouns OR Verbs" "'The Bad Seed' OR 'The Other Boys Made Him Do It'" "Living Together VS. Going It All Alone" "'Ce N'est Pas Logique' OR 'You've Got a Point There'? " which supports how in the end, he is trying to get to the truth by a linear line instead of "welcoming onboard every conceivably relevant factor" and finding the Middle Way as I do (209). I found myself thinking, "Both these ideas sound reasonable. He shouldn't just say ONE is..." whenever he tries to find the more advantageous way of thinking for a particular theme.

In addition, his idea of cooperation between integrated people sprouts from the basis that different people hold different qualities. I can accept this but I also think that there are no qualities which some people may have/not have at all; instead, the difference between people occurs due to the strength of each quality in that person. Here again though, I realize that I am supporting his idea of the Law of Identity and the "both/and" thought.

Hmm... maybe my diasgreeing (and how I'm disagreeing) with his thinking is, ironically, living proof that his arguments on the differences between Easterners and Westerners is true.