Asian and Western thinking

[daal]

One of my favorite resources for learning Chinese is hackingchinese, written by a Swedish guy named Olle Linge who lives in Taiwan. Most of the articles he writes are about learning Chinese, but recently he recommended a book called The Geography of Thought: How East Asians and Westerners Think Differently… And Why by Richard Nesbitt. I have only read a summary of the book, but it did revive the question in my mind as to whether or not there are Asian and Western ways of thinking about a game of go. Although the book doesn't appear to touch on the subject directly, it does seem to suggest that due to culture and language, there are fundamental differences in how Asians and Westerners think.

Here are a few quotes from Olle Linge's summary of Eigenauer's summary of Nesbitt's book that might be relevant.

"The Greeks understood things as linear and simple, devoid of context, whereas the Chinese regarded the world as a complex place in constant flux, with objects best understood by their relationship to each other, rather than as separate entities."

"The next chapter shows how ancient philosophy actually does reflect the way people think today, using several studies to show that East Asians are more sensitive to substance rather than shape, are better at perceiving relationships between objects rather than the objects themselves, and focus more on context than Westerners do."

"Westerners see overly simplistic causal chains where East Asians see opaque complex systems."

"Westerns strive to resolve dilemmas and paradoxes, whereas East Asians strive for compromises or can accept what to a Westerner looks like two mutually exclusive opinions."

So what do you think? Are people just people, or might there be something like an Asian way of thinking that is advantageous for playing go?

[Loons]

Without extremely well backed up examples I am tremendously skeptical.

[Boidhre]

That he's considering Westerners and East Asians respectively as single homogeneous groups is enough to make me raise an eyebrow.

[Kirby]

There may be different types of thinking between Asian and Western individuals - there's probably even different types of thinking among individuals from the same country, based on the environment in which they grew up.

But the goals that go players in Asian countries have might differ from the typical western player.

A lot of people in the West enjoy go and get involved in it. But don't think many people - even kids - seriously have plans of becoming a professional, for example. This isn't to say that all "Eastern" players have such ambitions, but if someone is seriously studying go in Asia, I think that the environment is different than it is in the West.

[leichtloeslich]

Are people just people, or might there be something like an Asian way of thinking that is advantageous for playing go?

Obviously culture shapes our patterns of perception/reasoning.
I don't see the connection to Go, though.

If you were to start an experiment where Chinese children and, say, British children are both taught Go round the clock by some professional 9d and after 5 years the Chinese children would decisively outperform the British children, then I might start to think "wait a minute, what's going on here."

Without such a comparable setup, why would you even suspect culture/genetics to play any role at all in comparative playing strength? (I know you didn't mention genetics, but others have.)


According to Occam's razor, the reason why Asians outperform Westerners in Go is because they play more Go.

[Bill Spight]

That he's considering Westerners and East Asians respectively as single homogeneous groups is enough to make me raise an eyebrow.

You and your Eastern ways of thinking! Westerners dichotomize, right?

[SmoothOper]

A literal translation of "Behind the building" was quite interesting. In both languages it is referring to a specific place, but in Chinese the location is part of the building, where as in English it is distinct from the building. I gather that Chinese are quite OK with overlapping boundaries in many cases suppose the back of the building is also the back of another building.

大楼后面 Dàlóu hòumiàn "Back of the building"


I have been studying Chinese character flash cards and also some of the "At a glance" series from Mycom, and the they seem to both be improving my ability to recall shapes which I think is quite interesting.

[MJK]

Based on the assumption that human thought is heavily based on language, and that difference in language implies a difference in the way of thinking, there must be some difference in general thinking between native English speakers and native Korean speakers.


Below is a Korean sentence which is very natural and quite colloquial. Any native Korean speaker will understand with no problem at all.

하다가 잘 안돼도 언젠간 잘 되겠지 하고 해나가다 보면 잘 될 때도 있을거야

However, its literal translation to English below is somewhat awkward.

While doing, not work well, thinking someday work well, keep doing, and see, work-well time may be.


A Korean sentence is usually formed with a lot of verbs compared to English where nouns usually do an important job. Also, the subject of the sentence is many times not necessary and in some contexts even recommended not to place a subject there. Thus, the problem of 'where to apply that verb' is often solved by context understanding, in both cases of expressing and reading/listening.

Look at the sentence below.

I should study math now because tomorrow there is a math exam.

This in Korean would be,

내일 수학시험볼려면 지금 공부해야돼
(In order to take tomorrow math exam, should now study.)


When expressing this situation in English, the main focus goes to 'math' and 'exam'. Then, you know you should 'study' math because of the exam.
However in Korean, the focus goes to 'taking' and 'studying'. You know you will take the 'math exam' and studying is recommended.

I did my best to explain my vague idea.

[Kirby]

Based on the assumption that human thought is heavily based on language, and that difference in language implies a difference in the way of thinking, there must be some difference in general thinking between native English speakers and native Korean speakers.
...

I agree that there are differences in language, but I feel that the differences are a reflection on differences in thought, rather than the other way around. I believe that every nuance that can be expressed in Korean, for example, can be also expressed in English. However, it may take several words to do so, and it may take time for one to understand the cultural basis for that nuance.

A simple example is the Korean word for 정 (情). Some may argue that this cannot be properly translated to English, because even though a dictionary has a translation (eg. affection/attachment), the translation does not capture the nuance and feeling of the word, as might be felt by a native Korean speaker.

I personally feel that such thoughts and feelings can be conveyed and expressed in English, but it may take time for a native speaker of English to truly understand. Someone's background and experiences could affect the time and effort it takes to comprehend the meaning, but this is due to the cultural differences, and not the language itself.

That being said, as language is passed on from generation to generation, it evolves, and likely becomes more and more difficult to pinpoint nuances and feelings of phrases and expressions in the language.

I hope that globalization leads to mutual understanding across nation boundaries, regardless of language or cultural origin.

[MJK]

...this is due to the cultural differences, and not the language itself
.
.

Try to find the natural way to express the below sentence in English.

하다가 잘 안돼도 언젠간 잘 되겠지 하고 해나가다 보면 잘 될 때도 있을거야 (While doing, not work well, thinking someday work well, keep doing, and see, work-well time may be.)

I am not a native English speaker but let me have a try.

During your life/work/study/etc., things can go bad, but if you keep trying with hope in your mind, someday your time will come.


Look how I used the nouns in bold case to express my thought. In English, I believe nouns do have an important role in sentences. Comparing with the Korean version may clarify.

[edit]
To expand this idea a little. Nouns are about each things itself while verbs are about the relations between such things.
[/edit]

[Kirby]

Try to find the natural way to express the below sentence in English.

하다가 잘 안돼도 언젠간 잘 되겠지 하고 해나가다 보면 잘 될 때도 있을거야 (While doing, not work well, thinking someday work well, keep doing, and see, work-well time may be.)

I am not a native English speaker but let me have a try.

During your life/work/study/etc., things can go bad, but if you keep trying with hope in your mind, someday your time will come.

I'm not a native speaker of Korean, but does your translation capture the essence of the meaning, and the feelings you get when you read the sentence as a native speaker of Korean? If so, then you've found a way to express this idea. If not, can you describe the feeling that is missing from your translation? I believe such an explanation should be possible, even if the result is not a literal translation, which may even require several sentences. Maybe it requires more nouns than verbs, but isn't that OK?

This is the idea I am trying to express: I don't think that there are thoughts and feelings that certain language speakers can understand, which are impossible for speakers of other languages to comprehend. We are all human, differing perhaps by genetics and the environment in which you are raised. I feel that these differences can be understood and overcome.

[daal]

Without extremely well backed up examples I am tremendously skeptical.

Without having read the book I can't say how well the examples are backed up, but to me the following hypothesis and example does not at all seem farfetched:

"The author hypothesizes that if social existence dictates the way that
people see the world, then modern East Asian mentalities ought to mirror those
of ancient Asia, and modern Western mentalities ought to parallel those of
ancient Greece. This should be true, he says, not only of mental outlooks, but of
actual perceptual tendencies.
Many tests bear this hypothesis out. For example, Americans consistently
identify objects by their shape, while Asians identify the substance of which
something is made and see two objects as being “alike” if they share the same
substance, even though they may have different shapes or different functions.

These perceptual tendencies spill over to the workplace, where Americans see
companies as composed of discrete parts and workers as having distinct jobs,
whereas Asians work is seen as a holistic place in which networks of people
work together to reach an end. "

As we can see the examples SmoothOper and MJK offered, language offers evidence that people from different cultures may look at the same thing and understand it differently.

That he's considering Westerners and East Asians respectively as single homogeneous groups is enough to make me raise an eyebrow.

Making generalizations is not the same as considering groups of people as homogeneous.

Are people just people, or might there be something like an Asian way of thinking that is advantageous for playing go?

Obviously culture shapes our patterns of perception/reasoning.
I don't see the connection to Go, though.

Let's start just by taking it as a fact that all great go players are Asian. Before we start arguing about why, let's just say that one possible reason is that Asians think differently about the game than Westerners do. What if Asians tended to be better at perceiving global relationships between groups of stones than Westerners are? What if Asians tended to be better better at tolerating unresolved situations in different areas of the board? What if Asians tended to concern themselves with the context of a joseki whereas Westerners might focus more on the local result? What if the skillset for exceeding at go simply had more overlap with an Asian way of perceiving the world?

I agree that there are differences in language, but I feel that the differences are a reflection on differences in thought, rather than the other way around.

Exactly. A non-Asian example: Americans look out a window when they are in a room, Russians look into it. I think this reflects not just a difference in language, but also a difference in mind. Sure the American and the Russian are both expressing the same thing, but they are nonetheless thinking about it differently.

[moyoaji]

Peter Shotwell touches on surprisingly similar concepts in his look at "Why the West Plays Chess and the East Plays Go." I took the time to read the short 16 page version of Appendix 7 (the full version is nearly 250 pages). He also discusses how classical Greek understandings have shaped the West's view of reality and how our differences in language reflect differences in our understanding of the world. It was fascinating.

I do think that Asians and Westerners think differently. I do not think that all Asians think the same or that all Westerners think the same, but to imply that culture does not impact the way we view the world is ridiculous. How much this impacts the day-to-day life or relationships is still a question mark. The fact of the matter is: we don't know what it is like to think like anyone other than ourselves. However, I have heard of enough stories of cross-cultural relationship failures to know that differences can make understanding one another challenging.

And as for advantages to playing go? I doubt that a worldview can actually hinder your ability to play a strategy game. It may be harder for someone with a different worldview to explain a strategy to you, even with a common language, but I think striving for a winning strategy is universal. Even so, I feel like go has something of a culture in its own right that allows people of different cultures to understand one another. I don't find it confusing when Kajiwara or Kageyama are explaining why a certain move is good in their books because they use diagrams showing moves - essentially speaking go and using examples from go to explain go. You don't need a cultural context deeper than an understanding of the game to understand their books.

[Bill Spight]

...this is due to the cultural differences, and not the language itself
.
.

Try to find the natural way to express the below sentence in English.

하다가 잘 안돼도 언젠간 잘 되겠지 하고 해나가다 보면 잘 될 때도 있을거야 (While doing, not work well, thinking someday work well, keep doing, and see, work-well time may be.)

I am not a native English speaker but let me have a try.

During your life/work/study/etc., things can go bad, but if you keep trying with hope in your mind, someday your time will come.


Look how I used the nouns in bold case to express my thought. In English, I believe nouns do have an important role in sentences. Comparing with the Korean version may clarify.

[edit]
To expand this idea a little. Nouns are about each things itself while verbs are about the relations between such things.
[/edit]

That puts me in mind of the English saying, Keep on keeping on.

There are no nouns, but it is concise. Westerners like conciseness. Therefore they often leave a lot to the imagination, trusting that the reader or hearer will fill in what is left out.

As for "work well time may be", there is another English saying, Que sera, sera.

[DrStraw]

To say that language does not play a part in understanding and interpretation is naive. Despite having live in the USA for 35 years I still have a tendency to think "British" instead of "American" when I am tired. I have known my wife for over 25 years. She is American born and bred. We still have occasional misunderstands and we are supposed to be speaking the same language!

I have known enough Asians in my life (CJK, Indian, Middle-eastern) to know that there is a definite difference in thinking, based on language.