"People from Western cultures such as the United States are particularly challenged in their ability to understand someone else's point of view because they are part of a culture that encourages individualism", new research at the University of Chicago shows. In contrast, Chinese, who live in a society that encourages a collectivist attitude among its members, are much more adept at determining another person's perspective, according to a new study. Could years of basing our values on independence interfere with our ability to understand other's perspective? Do we need to promote the development of mental tools needed to take into account another person's point of view? Here's a discussion of the recent research study titled, "The Effect of Culture on Perspective Taking" which was just published in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200…|||I read the article and thought it made a lot of sense. We Americans are a bit spoiled in terms of interpersonal and physical space. Perhaps it is not only affecting our ability to communicate, compromise and find command ground but also our efficiency and productivity.|||yes|||You're starting from a false assumption, in effect asking why do more Americans beat their wives ? Without proving by any objective standard that your basic thesis is true, you're asking WHY it's true. I agree with the study of individual vs. collective values. But do collective values mean that Asians have a better understanding of other cultures' perspectives? No. Maoist indoctrination was the ultimate expression of collectivism, yet they outlawed even the slightest hint of western influence as evil and contaminating. Japanese collectivism led them to torture and kill Western POWs in WW2. Since their warrior collective values told them it was better to commit suicide than be captured, they thought that any Westerner who was captured was a coward and not worthy of respect. Every Asian culture is a monoculture. There are no "bilingual laws" in Japan or Korea. Your beginning assumption, like most liberal biases, is false and belongs to the realm of fantasy and wish-fulfillment.|||it not only encourages individualism, but a selfish, spoiled child attitude. I think that may be why there is such a great backlash against activist groups in this country.|||Yeah I understand that.|||I understand other's perspectives fine. Religious extremists and the religious right have a hard time with ideas they deem to be against God. Bush is a good example of this. In spite of millions of Americans disagreeing with him, he will continue to do what he thinks is right. He would be better off having an open mind.|||I agree, but believe it exceeds putting blame on individualism. Being an unselfish individual is most certainly the ideal. Following the herd is bad, and being completely self-absorbed is awful. The majority of Americans seem to posses both qualities.|||Interesting question. Taking an historical perspective regarding The United States; it a relatively new country, admittedly The North American Indians had a vast history but The United States today is young. For a young country to succeed against the tide of British Colonism was a huge gamble which paid off. Individualism was encouraged by the founding fathers; working on the premise that if you start with little you have only one way to go which is up. The Chinese were collectivists, however now with the radical acceptance by the Chinese nation that to succeed globally they need to be in the active global market place collectivism is fading, especially around village communities which are close to large urban conurbations. As The United States ages as a country and begins to settle and admit that it is a world leader without having to continuously prove it then the mental attitude will change.|||If you put that postulation on a personal level, look at the people you know who do not “understand” you. Are they individualistic or selfish? Maybe, but probably not. Everyone sees life and their beliefs based on their own experiences. Americans may not understand other countries’ point of view because we rarely studied other countries’ histories in our history classes in America. Ask the average American is they understand anything about the history of the Middle East. If it weren’t for the movie “Lawrence of Arabia”, they wouldn’t even know that perspective (which is slightly skewed) of how certain nomadic tribes came to power in Saudi Arabia. To know a person, a religion, and/or a country’s point of view, you need to understand their history. It tells you how they got to where they are today.|||I haven't looked at your link (thanks for posting it) as I have written extensively on this subject. The cult of individualism that exists in the US has its basis in the constitution and is validated by virtually every move the US makes. For instance, if you are unsuccessful in the world, YOU are personally responsible--which justifies lack of support for putting money into social programs. The "bootstrap mentality" as personified by the Will Smith movie about "happyness"--can't remember the title--is what allows people to justify behaviours that attack the individual's lack of initiative, lack of success, and so on. When the individual is at the centre of the world, the world can go to hell: that is basically the US mentality. On the contrary, China is founded on a collectivist way of thinking in that what is good for one must be good for all--that the good of the community overrrides the good of the individual. Canada is sort of part way between: we believe in individual rights, but if those individual rights infringe on the community as a whole, the community "wins." When anyone believes s/he is at the centre of the universe, all kinds of horrible acts can be perpetrated against others. It's like, who cares? I got mine, you go out and get yours. It is a very selfish way of living, but it is an ethos that has defined the US for a very long time. I'm not slagging anyone, I'm just telling it like it is

火车采集器