jim.shamlin.com

3: Ways of Reasoning

Culture influences the way that people think: what they consider relevant, true, accurate, important, credible, reliable, or persuasive depends on many factors. The author alludes to the considerable difficulty that foreign students have in obtaining student visas and admission to American universities, as they approach they have to answering questions and making a case to decision-makers who will determine whether they will be admitted are not satisfactory from a Western perspective.

The subject has been the topic of much consideration and scholars writing on the topic tend to go into great detail about the philosophical and psychological underpinnings. In the present chapter, the author will seek to avoid the intricacies and complexities, acknowledging the risk of oversimplification, and discuss reasoning in terms of five topics: context, the point, organization, evidence, and cause.

The author reiterates that notions of American culture are often based on WASP culture, particularly males of that culture, as this was the category of people who held power for the past few generations. Some social scientists argue that the pattern of thought considered to be "American" is over-generalized and changing - but the author maintains that, especially in the educational system, this remains a cultural norm.

THE CONTEXT

A contrast is drawn between Western culture and Asian culture: in terms of perspective and context, Westerners have "tunnel vision" wheras Asians have more of a wide-angle lens.

Details are given about a study (Nisbett) of Japanese and American students, who were shown an image of some fish they were later asked to describe and answer questions. In general, Japanese subjects began by speaking about the pond, whereas Americans began by speaking about a particular fish. And in comparison to Americans, the Japanese subjects made 60% more references to background elements (the water, rocks, bubbles, plants) - but had far greater difficulty in a following task where they were shown images of fish, out of context, to see if they remembered which were in the scene.

As such, it was concluded that there were differences in perception: the Asian way of thinking relies upon the background, or "field" in psychological terms, to contextualize objects, whereas Westerners focus on the individual objects and pay little attention to the overall context. This has been born out in other experiments.

Returning to the notion of college entrance exams, the author notes that Asians generally provide a great deal of context. Their essays began with a lengthy history about their parents' professions, the year they were born, their brothers and sisters, and other details that they felt were necessary to set a context, without which the subject of their academic history and future goals would not make sense.

Admissions officers found this level of detail unnecessary and rambling, the sign of an unfocused mind, as compared to the typical essay from an American applicant that would zoom in on details that were specifically relevant to their educational background and future academic goals.

THE POINT

In conversations with Americans, there are often references to "the point." ("Let's get to the point ... My point is ... What's the point?"). This concept represents what they intend or presume to be the key piece of information or topic of any discourse, to which anything else is less relevant. In terms of the Nesbit experiment, "the point" is the fish, exclusive of the water or the seaweed.

In general, American education teaches students to focus intently on a specific topic and avoid digression. In effect, they are trained to ignore and dismiss the contextual information.

This is contrasted to a few other cultures: Africans communicate by telling stories that convey their thoughts, sometimes without specific reference to the point. Japanese speak about subjects indirectly, considering it to be respectful of the listeners intelligence to avoid being specific about the point. In some cultures, being direct and matter-of-fact is inappropriate - it seems insensitive or insulting.

This is bolstered by differences in language. For example, Chinese is characterized by vagueness and ambiguity, and lacks the terms and structure to be direct and clear. It's something of a circular argument whether the language influences philosophy or vice-versa - but fairly clear people who think and communicate in one language find it difficult to express their ideas in another. While it is fairly simple to learn the sounds words, and rules of grammar, the structure of communication (EN: on the level of syntax, diction, and rhetoric) remains unfamiliar and awkward.

THE ORGANIZATION

In addition to making a point clear, American listeners require thoughts to be organized according to specific patterns in order for them to "follow" the discussion and take it seriously.

In America, rhetoric is taught from the classical method: in introduction that makes the point, the body that provides supporting detail, and a conclusion that reiterates the crux of the argument. It is a repetitive method of communication (tell them what you're going to tell them, then tell it to them, then tell them what you just told them), and quite rigid.

On the level of a paragraph, the pattern taught is to begin with a topic sentence, then give an example or supporting evidence. It is utterly devoid of "digressions" or "tangents" - that is, contextual information that is not directly related to the main point of a communication (a written article or verbal speech).

(EN: the author does not contrast this with any examples from other cultural methods of organizing information. It would be interesting to know how an Asian might structure a lengthy discourse, or to identify subtle differences between American and European communication, which are allegedly quite different but extend from the from the same Aristotelian roots.)

THE EVIDENCE

In any system of reasoning, evidence is presented that is relative a premise or assumption in order to support a conclusion. (EN" "In any" are the author's words - I rather suspect that this is culturally derived, but the author does not qualify it as such). What constitutes "evidence" varies according to the subject matter and, of course, the culture.

In the American view, a speaker makes clear points organized in a linear fashion - as previously discussed - and is expected to prove that each point is true, accurate, and valid. The American educational system likewise sets standards for what is or is not acceptable as proof or evidence.

One of the most fundamental distinction is between facts and opinions. Facts are presumed to be objective and irrefutable, whereas opinions are to be dismissed unless they are, in turn, supported by factual evidence.

Americans have a reverence for science and the scientific method. It is assumed that a "scientific fact" is objective and established, by a method that banishes the subjectivity of the person who is communicating them. However, the notion that a fact exists independent of the observer is not shared in other cultures.

Americans are also fond of numeric evidence: a fact that is expressed in term of numbers, percentages, rates, rankings, are amount is taken to be more valid than a qualitative observation. Foreign visitors are often stunned by the abundance of statistics that they encounter in American media and even everyday conversations. Even such frivolous topics as the weather are communicated numerically: in a small-talk exchange about the weather will not stop (and sometimes will not start) with the vague notion that "it's hot and humid today," but one of the speakers will express that "it's 96 degrees with 67% humidity."

While Americans feel secure and certain when a conversation involves numbers, foreign visitors often wonder whether they hold much significance. The author refers back to his own account of the Nisbett experiment, in which he was specific in stating "60% more references" - to an American, this seems entirely convincing, whereas the same statement without the number would have been viewed with greater suspicion.

While quantifiable facts are considered to be the best form of evidence, they are not exclusive: facts based on personal evidence can also be persuasive, whether the information arises from personal observation or is related to the reported observation of someone they know or trust. Television advertisers capitalize on this by presenting information through a celebrity spokesperson, someone presented as an authority (such as a doctor), or even a "average person" with whom the viewer identifies.

In terms of sense-data, Americans rely most heavily on sight, and the language is peppered with idioms that pertain to visual evidence: to say "I saw it with my own eyes" is expected to convey a sense of certainty and reliability. In other cultures, this notion is neither certain nor reliable, as what a person "sees" is filtered through their own subjective interpretation.

Americans are likewise taught to have a general distrust of emotions. In some cultures (Arabs and Brazilians), a person is granted greater credibility for being passionate about his argument, in his tone and method of expression. In America, emotional appeals are perceived to be subversive - an attempt to mislead or cover a lack of real (factual) evidence by means of an emotional smoke-screen - and grant less credibility to a passionate speaker.

Americans are also pragmatic: in evaluating the significance of a point or a bit of evidence, they consider its usefulness - whether it has practical consequences. In general, a good idea is a practical idea, with the potential to impact action that leads toward a specific goal. They distrust theory and generalizations, especially those that seem to express things that may be true, but seem to have no practical application.

Returning to student essays, the author notes that an American advisor would be more impressed by a student who sought to gain education to enter into a specific profession or position than one who suggested that they wanted to "contribute to the development of the private sector" without specific, practical detail.

Another example comes from a Latin American student whose professor criticized a paper he had written about national sovereignty and noninterference in the affairs of other nations as being "pure bunk ... nothing but words and theory. It has nothing to do with what really happens." The student was instructed to write a different paper and ground his ideas in "documented facts."

Latin Americans and Europeans are more likely to be concerned with ideas and theories - the specific facts being overly granular and pertinent only to specific situations rather than more generally applicable. Americans believe in some theories and certain rules of logic, but without reference to facts and correlation practical conservation, they seem entirely esoteric. Americans are generally critical of European intellectuals, whose abstract reasoning and theory seems effete.

(EN: The author misses a point that is highly relevant to American contempt for theory: the notion of a schism between intellectualism and practically - common phrases such as "it may be true in theory, but doesn't work in practice" and a general distrust for philosophical approaches from "the Ivory tower" - further contributing to the perception that Americans are folksy and unsophisticated.)

It's also noted that in some Eastern philosophies, "truth" comes from neither accumulated facts or generalized theories, but is more inspirational - one can discover by meditation a truth that cannot be expressed in words. Zen Buddhism, in particular, focuses on this sort of silent realization, and teachers often communicate abstractly and leave it to students to decide what the point is.

THE CAUSE

American reasoning is strongly focused on causal relationships and the notion that there must be a reason for any observable phenomenon that can be discovered, examined, and understood. They seek to understand the reason something occurred in the past, as a model for how they can act to have the same outcome (or avoid the same outcome) in the future, and are not content merely to accept what they see as given.

An example is an airplane crash: Americans demand an explanation, and assume that a careful study of all the possible causes will enable them to accurately isolate and identify exactly what occurred. Failure to identify the specific cause is unacceptable.

The notion of chance is unacceptable to Americans, and they are largely unable to accept that some things "just happen." The notion that fate, or even the gods, have any impact on real life is unacceptable, even to those who profess to have strong religious beliefs.

It's noted that some religious Americans will accept an inexplicable event, especially a tragedy, as being "God's Will" but not until they have explored every possible scientific and non-religious explanation. (EN: An the author, perhaps out of propriety, avoids the secular notion that "shit happens" - but it is a common refrain when someone either is unable to find a reason, or is unwilling to invest the time in investigating it.)

Other cultures are less grounded in cause-and-effect, and more prone to accept circumstances without the compulsive need to investigate the reasons why things are the way they are. Even when they employ a more investigative approach, Eastern cultures tend to look less at specific factors to explain an occurrence, but will look outward to the relationship of objects in an environment, and will be much quicker to accept that a cause cannot be ascertained.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

When individuals interact with others who have different methods of reasoning, there is frustration and that the other party's inability to understand or make sense of things stems from a lack of intelligence or perception. Where it is important to communicate and be understood, a person will try all the harder to explain to the other, by his own method of reasoning, and grow all the more frustrated.

Damage to interpersonal relationships can be mitigated if a person can accept that someone else doesn't think the same way as they do - not just in terms of their conclusions, but in the process by which conclusions are drawn - and stands a better chance of communicating clearly to others if he understands and attempts to leverage the audiences ways of reasoning.