lesson 3: culture and Cognition 1 Flashcards
Universality assumption for cognition
- People have believed that cog processes are same for all normal adults
- British empiricist philosophers of 18th/19th C (Locke, Hume, Mill) wrote about human cog processes under that assumption
influence of the universality assumption
Adopted by mainstream psychologists of 20th c, where it has been predominant from the earliest treatment of cog psychology by Piaget, to mid-century learning theories, to modern cog science
what analogy was the universality assumption strengthened by?
Universality assumption was probably strengthened by the analogy of human cognition to a computer
Has been implicit and often explicit in the study of human cog
- Brain: hardware ( ex: hindbrain = graphic cards ?)
- Inferential rules and data processing procedures: software
- Beliefs/judgements/behavior: output
We receive info from senses (input), brain processes this info, our behaviors and beliefs are the output)
what are the “basic” processes
Presumed to be the same for all human groups, regardless of culture
Types of basic cog processes:
-
categorization
Ex: chairs, colors, etc. -
selective attention
Remembering a small part of what we experience -
learning and memory
Ex: remember series of digits and words
These examples indicate all humans may have the same cog processes
Neumonic: basic girl, that’s a chair that’s a chair, I only see that chair, I remember that chair
Can cog processes ever be changed?
Psychologists suggest that cog processes (statistical, logical, etc) can be changed by training
ex: availability heuristics : which group has more words
- (a) Words starting with letter “r”
- (b) Words with “r” as third letter
Most say A but its B
Because it’s easier to think of A (more available in memory)
Training can change reasoning process about life events
Malleability of cog processes- If cog processes are changeable even for people in the same culture using training, what about people in other cultures?
Example:
Ex) Mueller-Lyer illusion ( <-> >-<)
In some cultures, the illusion doesn’t trick them
Nisbett et al. (2001) argued that considerable social differences among cultures affect
- (a) their native metaphysical systems
Beliefs about nature of the world and causality - (b) their tacit epistemologies
Beliefs about what is important to know/ how knowledge is obtained - (c) nature of their cog processes
Ex: ancient china and greece
If two societies differ both socially and cognitively-
Because social and cog differences are related, their cognitive processes will differ
Origin of human civilization
From 8th to 3rd c B.C., many civilizations made important innovations in moral, philosophical, and scientific thoughts
Greece and China were most distant from each other and impacted each other the least-
Significant impacts of China and Greece on the modern world
- Greek civilization gave rise to European and post-Columbian American civilization
- Chinese civilization impacted East and Southeast Asia
Ancient Greek chacteristics
- personal agency
- tradition of “debate”
- sense of curiosity and finding rules
- using causal rules/ models
personal agency
in ancient greece
- Most important characteristic: location of power in the individual
- It was the most important element of life ( freedom and agency)
- Ordinary people had a sense of personal agency
- “The idea of the Athenian state was a union of individuals free to develop their own powers and live in their own way” (hamilton, 1930/1973)
tradition of debate
in ancient greece
Well established by the time of Homer in 8th C
- Homer emphasized that next to being a capable warrior, the most important skill for a man was to debate
- Ordinary people participated in marketplace debates and political assembly
sense of curiosity/ finding “rules”
in ancient greece
- Important to have a sense of curiosity about the world
- The world could be understood by discovering “rules” and principles about it
Understanding the world using “causal rules” or models
in ancient greece
- The Greeks speculated about the nature of things and events around them, leading to the creation of causal models
- The models were constructed by categorizing objects and events and using general rules to create systematic description
Ex: scientific method, using inductive reasoning
Influenced advances in physics, astronomy, geometry, logic, rational philosophy, natural history, etc.
Ancient Chinese Characteristics
- collective agency
- Confucianism
- social structure
- in-group harmony
- confrontation discouraged
- exemplar-based/intuition-based thinking
collective agency
in ancient china
Reciprocal social obligation
Felt that: “individuals are part of a closely knit collectivity, whether a family or a village… behavior of the individual should be guided by the expectations of the group”
- People are part of a whole
- What you want vs obligation
Confucianism
Chief moral system of China
Elaboration of obligations or duties one obtained from diverse social relationships
- ex) emperor/subject, parent/child, husband/wife, brothers, friends
- Expectations of how to behave in particular relationships
Neumonic: Confucius saying “do your duty!”
Social structure
in ancient China
- Individuals were part of a large and complex social organism in which prescriptive role relations were their guide to ethical conduct
- Individual rights were seen as one’s “share” of the community’s rights
“Role fulfillment in a hierarchical system… [took] priority over most other goods” (Munro, 1985)
in-group harmony
Emphasis on collective agency resulted in value of in-group harmony
confrontation in social groups was discouraged
in ancient china
- Any form of confrontation within the group is discouraged (debate is uncommon)
- One person couldn’t contradict another without fear of making an enemy
Exemplar-based/ Intuition-based thinking
- General principles and causal rules/models were not used
- More emphasis on exemplar-based or intuition-based thinking.
who was more technologically advanced- Ancient Chinese, or Greeks? is this suprising?
Chinese civilization was interestingly much more technologically advanced than the Greeks
ex) irrigation system, magnetic compass, pascal triangle, paddle-wheel boat, immunization techniques etc
Surprising because:
- They didn’t use causal models or rules (like the ancient greeks)
- They used examples or insights
where scientific principles well developed in early Chinese history?
- No: these advancements weren’t the result of scientific theory and investigation.
- Instead they are reflective on their genius for practicality, and reliance on a different way of thinking
Thinking styles in ancient China
- No formal models of natural world
- Used intuition and empiricism
Ex: chinese medicine (symptom based) - Ancient Chinese never developed concept corresponding to laws of nature, because they did not have a concept of “nature” as distinct from humans
Deterministic vs Probabilistic
Ancient China vs Greece
Contrast between two ancient civilizations and resulting differences do not indicate “deterministic” differences between the two
- Not dichotomous
- ex) There are some general rules in ancient china, not every westerner loves debate
- Differences should be understood in a “probabilistic” sense (More likely to, not definite)
- Seeing the differences between cultures as a simple dichotomy can likely lead to misunderstanding
Context
Background information (other than what is said or written) that helps us understand others
Some cultures put a lot of weight on context, while others see it as extraneous
- Often plays crucial role in communication
types of context
- low context
- high context
Low-context cultures
- People’s communication or behavior is interpreted by what is actually said or written
- Details of business deals are specifically stated (Contracts)
- Written contracts matter much more than personal relations
Ex: emails are fine for important business transactions
Ex: Swiss, German, American, English, Italian
High Context cultures
The context itself often provides information
- What is unsaid but understood carries more weight than what is said or written
- Contracts are shorter in business
Relies on trust for agreement
- Face to face relations are preferred to emails
- Build up trust by meeting in person first
Personal relations add to business
Ex: Chinese, Korean, Japanese, French, Arabic
Cog differences btwn Ancient China and Greece can be grouped under these systems of thought:
- Holistic thought (china)
- Analytic thought (greece)
Holistic thought
Involve an orientation to the context or field as a whole
- including attention to relationships between focal object and the field
- Preference for explaining and predicting events on the basis of these relationships
Holistic approaches (within holistic thought)
Rely on experience-based knowledge instead of abstract logic
Are dialectical
- Meaning there is an emphasis on change, a recognition of contradiction, of the need for multiple perspectives, and a search for a “middle way” between opposing propositions
- Two opposite things can be integrated
Analytic thought
Detachment of an object from its context
Tendency to focus on attributes of the object and use those attributes to assign it to categories
- Preference for using rules about the categories to explain and predict the object’s behavior
analytic approaches
Inferences rest (in part) on the practice of de-contextualizing structure from content, the use of formal logic, and avoidance of contradiction
field vs object in holistic thinking and medicine
an individual object is not just a primary focal point. Instead, parts exist only within wholes, to which they have relations ( “continuities” and “relationships” are important in ancient chinese culture)
Medical model:
- Good health depends on balance and flow of natural forces (called “Chi”)
field vs object in analytic thinking and medicin
Greeks were inclined to focus primarily on the central object and its attributes. This tendency often led to misunderstanding of natural laws (Aristotle explained that a falling stone has “gravity”)
Medical model:
- Surgery is common in western medicine from an early period of time
- Focusing on the one part at a time
Dialectics vs Foundational Principles and logic (math
Chinese didn’t develop general or “abstract” principles underlying their mathematical or scientific assumptions
- Chinese advances in algebra and arithmetic were substantial while they made little progress in geometry (proofs rely on formal logic)
Instead they developed dialectics, which involves reconciling, transcending, or accepting apparent contradictions. Opposites can coexist
- Ex: Yin-Yang principle, the spirit of Tao
- Ex: “A” and “not A” both have merit, they are not necessarily incompatible
Early study by Abel & Hsu (1949)
Rorschach cards shown to European Americans and Chinese Americans
- Found that Chinese Americans were more likely to give “whole-card” responses. European Americans were more likely to give “part” responses (honing in on a single aspect in part of the image)
Neumonic: do you see a wolf here? No im not able to
Recent study by Masuda and Nisbett (2001) —- fill in
– assigned article #1
study by Hedden et al. (2000, 1999)
- Asked Chinese and American participants to look at a series of cards with words printed either on a background of social stimuli (e.g. people at a market) or no background. The words were unrelated to the pictures
- Participants were asked to recall as many words as they could. Chinese participants (but not the Americans) recalled words better if they had been presented on the background
- -Indicating recall of the background served as a retrieval cue for the word for them
Neumonic: words hidden in a marketplace
studies on attention
- Abel & Hsu (1949)
- Masuda and Nisbett (2001)
- Hedden et al (2000, 1999)
studies on Attribution
- Miller (1984)
- Morris and Peng (1994)
Recent studies by Miller (1984)
American and Asian participants were asked to explain someone’s behavior-
- Americans mentioned internal personality traits (e.g. recklessness, kindness)
- Asians (Indians) mentions social roles, obligations, physical environment, and other contextual factors
Neumonic: were the millers- and we are kind smart, American
Indian millers- we came from a good family and circumstances
Morris and Peng (1994)
When asked to explain events like mass murders
- Americans focused on presumed mental instability and other negative dispositions of the murderer
- Chinese focused on situational. contextual, and societal factors
Neumonic: morrisey the mass murderer
Western traditions of formal logic- how might they analyze an argument
Ex: Analyze argument structure apart from content and reason based on the underlying abstract propositions alone (seldom found in the east)
East Asians and logic
Tend to rely less on formal logic and more on experiential knowledge in their reasoning
A Study by Norenzayan et al. (2000)
Measured the extent that people relied on formal logic vs. experiential knowledge in their reasoning
The study:
1. all birds have ulnar arteries. Therefore, all eagles have ulnar arteries
2. all birds have ulnar arteries. Therefore, all penguins have ulnar arteries
One way to measure whether people use formal logic or experiential knowledge is to examine how they project properties from superordinate categories (birds) to subordinate categories (eagles, penguins).
- The two arguments have the same premise, but the conclusions vary in the typicality of the example (eagles are more typical birds then penguins)
Asked Korean and american participants to evaluate the convincingness of a series of these arguments
- If participants used formal logic, the “typicality” should not matter.
- Results showed that Koreans showed a large typicality effect, being more convinced by typical than atypical arguments
- European Americans were equally convinced by typical and atypical arguments
Neumonic: norepinephrine- have to give the bird an epipen in the ulnar artery
