China on My Mind

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.23)]

I guess I have China on my mind re the CSG Conference next year. Here is a report about a scientific study of how “culture” affects behavior. What is your perception of their scientific perceptions?

All who will be going to China for the first time might want to consider how your American “cultural” behavior may look through our Chinese PCT friends glasses.

Kenny

CSG President

Asians, Americans Show Perceptual Divide
Monday, August 22, 2005 10:58 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

WASHINGTON (AP) — Asians and North Americans really do see the wo orld differently. Shown a photograph, North American students of European background paid more attention to the object in the foreground of a scene, while students from China spent more time studying the background and taking in the whole scene, according to University of Michigan researchers.

The researchers, led by Hannah-Faye Chua and Richard Nisbett, tracked the eye movements of the students — 25 European Americans and 27 native e Chinese — to determine where they were looking in a picture and how w long they focused on a particular area.

“They literally are seeing the world differently,” said Nisbett, who believes the differences are cultural.

“Asians live in a more socially complicated world than we do,” he said in a telephone interview. “They have to pay more attention to others than we do. We are individualists. We can be bulls in a china shop, they can’t afford it.”

The findings are reported in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The key thing in Chinese culture is harmony, Nisbett said, while in the West the key is finding ways to get things done, paying less attention to others.

And that, he said, goes back to the ecology and economy of times thousands of years ago.

In ancient China, farmers developed a system of irrigated agriculture, Nisbett said. Rice farmers had to get along with each other to share water and make sure no one cheated.

Western attitudes, on the other hand, developed in ancient Greece where there were more people running individual farms, raising grapes and olives, and operating like individual businessmen.

So differences in perception go back at least 2,000 years, he said.

Aristotle, for example, focused on objects. A rock sank in water because it had the property of gravity, wood floated because it had the property of floating. He would not have mentioned the water. The Chinese, though, considered all actions related to the medium in which they occurred, so they understood tides and magnetism long before the West did.

Nisbett illustrated this with a test asking Japanese and Americans to look at pictures of underwater scenes and report what they saw.

The Americans would go straight for the brightest or most rapidly moving object, he said, such as three trout swimming. The Japanese were more likely to say they saw a stream, the water was green, there were rocks on the bottom and then mention the fish.

The Japanese gave 60 percent more information on the background and twice as much about the relationship between background and foreground objects as Americans, Nisbett said.

In the latest test, the researchers tracked the eye movement of the Chinese and Americans as they looked at pictures.

The Americans looked at the object in the foreground sooner — a l leopard in the jungle for example — and they looked at it longer. The e Chinese had more eye movement, especially on the background and back and forth between the main object and the background, he said.

Reinforcing the belief that the differences are cultural, he said, when Asians raised in North America were studied, they were intermediate between native Asians and European-Americans, and sometimes closer to Americans in the way they viewed scenes.

Kyle R. Cave of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst commented: “These results are particularly striking because they show that these cultural differences extend to low level perceptual processes such as how we control our eyes. They suggest that the way that we see and explore the world literally depends on where we come from.”

Cave said researchers in his lab have found differences in eye movement between Asians and Westerners in reading, based on differences in the styles of writing in each language.

“When you look beyond this study to all of the studies finding cultural differences, you find that people from one culture do better on some tasks, while people from other cultures do better on others. I think it would be hard to argue from these studies that one culture is generally outperforming the other cognitively,” Cave said.

···

———

/P>
On the Net:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: www.pnas.org

[From Bill Powers (2005.06.23.0746 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.23) –

I guess I have China on my mind
re the CSG Conference next year. Here is a report about a
scientific study of how “culture” affects behavior. What
is your perception of their scientific perceptions?

All who will be going to China for the first time might want to consider
how your American “cultural” behavior may look through our
Chinese PCT friends glasses.

I think I’d rather find that out by asking, because people vary so much.
The trouble with “studies” is that they seldom tell you how
many people didn’t behave in the way they reported. What are the
odds that if you treated the next Chinese person you met as fitting the
data, he or she would?

Just consider this passage:

The Americans looked at the
object in the foreground sooner � a lleopard in the jungle for example �
and they looked at it longer. Thee Chinese had more eye movement,
especially on the background and back and forth between the main object
and the background, he said.

So we’d find some average amount of background and foreground eye
fixations for Chinese, and another average for Americans. But how much
variability was there in each group? It often happens in studies like
this that there are many people from each group who score like the other
group, or even farther from their own group’s average than many members
of the other group score. To know just how much overlap there is, you
need to have more information, not just the averages that are usually
given in reports (especially summaries of reports). If 99% of the Chinese
spend more time looking at the background and 99% of the Americans spend
more time looking at the foreground, these findings would be quite useful
if you had to predict in advance what a given Chinese or American would
be paying attention to. But suppose that 51% of Americans look more at
the foreground and 51% of the Chinese look more at the background. If you
have enough subjects, this difference can be shown to be statistically
significant, yet this information would be almost useless – you would do
just about as well by flipping a coin, which takes a lot less time and
effort.

So the actual numbers make a great deal of difference in judging how
important statistical findings like these are. Unfortunately, when you
see summaries of reports like this, or references in the scientific
literature, and sometimes even in the original papers themselves, the
necessary information often isn’t there, or it’s hidden in esoteric
statistical jargon that can easily escape notice. But at least for
original articles, careful reading by someone who knows statistics can
pull out at least some relevant information, like the size of correlation
coefficients or the standard error of the mean, and other such stuff.
Gary Cziko found a review of statistical findings in the psychological
sciences that reported an average correlation of 0.26, which means that
there would have been a huge spread in individual performance, enough to
make different groups overlap almost completely.

So you’re safest to ignore such findings completely unless they clearly
show only a small overlap between groups. If someone reports just
“It has been found that …” without also saying how many
people did and did not fit the reported fact, you can pretty well bet
that the “fact” is trivial or useless.

The problem is that it’s not easy to think of research problems that can
produce facts that are both important and clear-cut. Statistics lets you
do studies and get results that you can prove are significantly different
from random chance, so you can publish a paper without having to show
that your discovery has any importance to anyone. If it weren’t for
statistics, I’ll bet that a large manjority of scientific papers would
never get published, so you can bet that scientists are not about to give
up on this approach to truth.

As to the particular findings you reported on, there’s no way to tell
whether these facts are interesting or not. We’d need more
information.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Kenny

CSG President

Asians, Americans Show Perceptual Divide

Monday, August 22, 2005 10:58 PM EDT

The Associated Press

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

WASHINGTON (AP) � Asians and North Americans really do see the woorld
differently. Shown a photograph, North American students of European
background paid more attention to the object in the foreground of a
scene, while students from China spent more time studying the background
and taking in the whole scene, according to University of Michigan
researchers.

The researchers, led by Hannah-Faye Chua and Richard Nisbett, tracked the
eye movements of the students � 25 European Americans and 27 nativee
Chinese � to determine where they were looking in a picture and howw long
they focused on a particular area.

“They literally are seeing the world differently,” said
Nisbett, who believes the differences are cultural.

“Asians live in a more socially complicated world than we do,”
he said in a telephone interview. “They have to pay more attention
to others than we do. We are individualists. We can be bulls in a china
shop, they can’t afford it.”

The findings are reported in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.

The key thing in Chinese culture is harmony, Nisbett said, while in the
West the key is finding ways to get things done, paying less attention to
others.

And that, he said, goes back to the ecology and economy of times
thousands of years ago.

In ancient China, farmers developed a system of irrigated agriculture,
Nisbett said. Rice farmers had to get along with each other to share
water and make sure no one cheated.

Western attitudes, on the other hand, developed in ancient Greece where
there were more people running individual farms, raising grapes and
olives, and operating like individual businessmen.

So differences in perception go back at least 2,000 years, he
said.

Aristotle, for example, focused on objects. A rock sank in water because
it had the property of gravity, wood floated because it had the property
of floating. He would not have mentioned the water. The Chinese, though,
considered all actions related to the medium in which they occurred, so
they understood tides and magnetism long before the West did.

Nisbett illustrated this with a test asking Japanese and Americans to
look at pictures of underwater scenes and report what they saw.

The Americans would go straight for the brightest or most rapidly moving
object, he said, such as three trout swimming. The Japanese were more
likely to say they saw a stream, the water was green, there were rocks on
the bottom and then mention the fish.

The Japanese gave 60 percent more information on the background and twice
as much about the relationship between background and foreground objects
as Americans, Nisbett said.

In the latest test, the researchers tracked the eye movement of the
Chinese and Americans as they looked at pictures.

The Americans looked at the object in the foreground sooner � a lleopard
in the jungle for example � and they looked at it longer. Thee Chinese
had more eye movement, especially on the background and back and forth
between the main object and the background, he said.

Reinforcing the belief that the differences are cultural, he said, when
Asians raised in North America were studied, they were intermediate
between native Asians and European-Americans, and sometimes closer to
Americans in the way they viewed scenes.

Kyle R. Cave of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst commented:
“These results are particularly striking because they show that
these cultural differences extend to low level perceptual processes such
as how we control our eyes. They suggest that the way that we see and
explore the world literally depends on where we come from.”

Cave said researchers in his lab have found differences in eye movement
between Asians and Westerners in reading, based on differences in the
styles of writing in each language.

“When you look beyond this study to all of the studies finding
cultural differences, you find that people from one culture do better on
some tasks, while people from other cultures do better on others. I think
it would be hard to argue from these studies that one culture is
generally outperforming the other cognitively,” Cave said.

���

/P>

On the Net:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
www.pnas.org

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2005.08.25.1625 CDT)]

Yep, in fact that book I posted has some of the same stuff.

Young, Linda Wai Ling (1994). Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American
Communication (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics), John Gumperz (Series
Editor). Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0521416191. Amazon Used: $25.

We are in sych on this, Kenny. :wink:

--Bryan

Quoting Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems <KJKitzke@AOL.COM>:

···

[From Kenny Kitzke (2005.08.23)]

I guess I have China on my mind re the CSG Conference next year. Here is a
report about a scientific study of how "culture" affects behavior. What is
your perception of their scientific perceptions?

All who will be going to China for the first time might want to consider how
your American "cultural" behavior may look through our Chinese PCT friends
glasses.

Kenny
CSG President

Asians, Americans Show Perceptual Divide
Monday, August 22, 2005 10:58 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

WASHINGTON (AP) — Asians and North Americans really do see the world
differently....
...
On the Net:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: www.pnas.org