Psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg, was perhaps a revolution on the subject of moral development. As a species, we, almost universally, have a moral compass that we all carry. Each of us has a set of moral principles that we desire to live up to, and often feel guilt or shame when we do not. However, like all psychological processes, Kohlberg recognized that this aspect of self must develop across time. Like other psychologists, such as Erikson, Kohlberg believed that moral development occurred across a multitude of stages. Let us examine further.
1. The preconventional stage: At this stage, one's sense of right and wrong are contingent upon opportunistic action and the subsequent result that follows. In other words, something is right or wrong in-so-far as it is beneficial or costly to the self. There is no further regard for principality or virtue. Instead, this stage appears to merely reflect a generalized risk/reward analysis.
2. The conventional stage: At this stage, one has acknowledged the standards of the culture with which one belongs to. Furthermore, the individual feels a sense of duty in living up to the norms and expectations of the social order. These principles however, are not yet internalized, but rather are still viewed in regards to how they maintain the social order.
3. The postconventional stage: At this point, the individual has come to internalized the moral standards imposed by the culture, and now views these standards as entities that are qualitatively distinct and independent from the culture itself. In other words, these principles are absolute universal truths (in the mind of the individual) and do not reflect an a cultural imposition. At this point, living to these standards is important do the person, and distressing when this does not occur.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Culture Shock: The U of Acculturation
It goes without saying that many cultures exist throughout the world. Individuals are born into a certain cultural context, and as such have to conform and adapt accordingly. Be that as it may, there are those who do not stick to one cultural environment. Some, for many reasons, feel the need to navigate to a new cultural environment. Once this has been done, the individual must learn about and adapt to the new culture. This process is known as acculturation.
When one is in the process of acculturation, a U shaped pattern typically presents itself. The individual typically experiences a "high" from the new environment, reacting to the new cultural practices, and the people of that culture, with enthusiasm and excitement. This is what is referred to as the "honeymoon" phase. Eventually however, the individual experiences a crash, where they become stressed and frustrated by this new adaptation process, find it difficult to adopt the practices and learn the language of the culture, and begin to miss their heritage culture and the individuals within it. This is known as "culture shock" and is typical among immigrants. Finally, the individual begins to emerge from this state and finds they are beginning to become adjusted to the new host culture.
What is interesting is that if the individual returns to their culture of heritage, the same phenomenon typically presents itself, where they are happy to return home, but become distressed by re adaptation to the culture. Then finally regain that "home" feeling as these distressing experiences begin to fade.
Adjustment to a culture appears to be contingent upon the individuals personality and the similarities between the heritage and host culture, what is referred to as "cultural fit" and "cultural distance" respectively. Individual personalities may be more suited to the practices and rituals of certain cultures than others. As such, immigrants may be more suited to the environment of their current host culture than their birthed heritage culture. Furthermore, immigration to certain cultures may produce a more severe culture shock syndrome, should the culture be more qualitatively distinct from the host culture.
The phenomenon of culture shock is one that is experienced by many immigrants throughout the world. This syndrome may fall under various DSM-5 diagnoses, such as adjustment disorder, or specific culture bound syndromes. As such, treatment may be contingent on several factors unique to the individual. As such, treatment for the condition is most likely contingent upon the individual who is experiencing it. However, with time and research, we may learn more about this condition and produce better treatment for immigrants experiencing it.
When one is in the process of acculturation, a U shaped pattern typically presents itself. The individual typically experiences a "high" from the new environment, reacting to the new cultural practices, and the people of that culture, with enthusiasm and excitement. This is what is referred to as the "honeymoon" phase. Eventually however, the individual experiences a crash, where they become stressed and frustrated by this new adaptation process, find it difficult to adopt the practices and learn the language of the culture, and begin to miss their heritage culture and the individuals within it. This is known as "culture shock" and is typical among immigrants. Finally, the individual begins to emerge from this state and finds they are beginning to become adjusted to the new host culture.
What is interesting is that if the individual returns to their culture of heritage, the same phenomenon typically presents itself, where they are happy to return home, but become distressed by re adaptation to the culture. Then finally regain that "home" feeling as these distressing experiences begin to fade.
Adjustment to a culture appears to be contingent upon the individuals personality and the similarities between the heritage and host culture, what is referred to as "cultural fit" and "cultural distance" respectively. Individual personalities may be more suited to the practices and rituals of certain cultures than others. As such, immigrants may be more suited to the environment of their current host culture than their birthed heritage culture. Furthermore, immigration to certain cultures may produce a more severe culture shock syndrome, should the culture be more qualitatively distinct from the host culture.
The phenomenon of culture shock is one that is experienced by many immigrants throughout the world. This syndrome may fall under various DSM-5 diagnoses, such as adjustment disorder, or specific culture bound syndromes. As such, treatment may be contingent on several factors unique to the individual. As such, treatment for the condition is most likely contingent upon the individual who is experiencing it. However, with time and research, we may learn more about this condition and produce better treatment for immigrants experiencing it.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Culture and Attractiveness: What Is and Is Not Universal.
Many men who I have known have asked the question "what do women really want?" In my experience, this question seems just as common from women in regards to men. As to what this answer is for either case seems universal in some circumstances, but is contingent upon culture in others. Let us examine further.
First, human beings seem universally attracted to clear skin. Historically, we evolved to be attracted to mates who are healthy and free of parasites and disease. Blotchy, boiled or lesioned skin indicates disease or poor health and is thus avoided by potential romantic partners (Heine, 2016).
Secondly, humans are universally attracted to symmetry of face and body. Symmetry is when both sides of the face and body are identical when compared side by side. Asymmetry is often a sign of poor genetic makeup, making it an unattractive trait in a partner. Indeed, symmetry is so fundamental to reproduction, that even other animals pursue symmetrical mates (Heine, 2016).
Third, humans seem attracted to average faces. Average refers to size of and distance between parts of the face. We do not like faces that are disproportionately large or small in certain aspects (Heine, 2016).
Despite these universal aspects, many attractive features vary by culture. Attractive traits that are unique to certain cultures encompass a list to long to describe here.. However, these traits seem to very depending on what is valued in that culture. For example, cultures which hunt regularly value more masculine men while cultures who do so less do not regard masculinity as important. Western cultures value thin, anorexic body types in women while other cultures prefer fuller, curvy women (Heine, 2019). Such is the case with many other appearances and traits. As such, when one asks what the other gender wants, it appears the answer, in most cases, lies in culture.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
First, human beings seem universally attracted to clear skin. Historically, we evolved to be attracted to mates who are healthy and free of parasites and disease. Blotchy, boiled or lesioned skin indicates disease or poor health and is thus avoided by potential romantic partners (Heine, 2016).
Secondly, humans are universally attracted to symmetry of face and body. Symmetry is when both sides of the face and body are identical when compared side by side. Asymmetry is often a sign of poor genetic makeup, making it an unattractive trait in a partner. Indeed, symmetry is so fundamental to reproduction, that even other animals pursue symmetrical mates (Heine, 2016).
Third, humans seem attracted to average faces. Average refers to size of and distance between parts of the face. We do not like faces that are disproportionately large or small in certain aspects (Heine, 2016).
Despite these universal aspects, many attractive features vary by culture. Attractive traits that are unique to certain cultures encompass a list to long to describe here.. However, these traits seem to very depending on what is valued in that culture. For example, cultures which hunt regularly value more masculine men while cultures who do so less do not regard masculinity as important. Western cultures value thin, anorexic body types in women while other cultures prefer fuller, curvy women (Heine, 2019). Such is the case with many other appearances and traits. As such, when one asks what the other gender wants, it appears the answer, in most cases, lies in culture.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Cultural Psychology and Dichotomous Relationships: A Summary
Readers of this blog will notice that I continuously post about contrasting mental states that vary from culture to culture. Typically, these states are dichotomous in nature, with one contrasting with the other. This is not done intentionality. Rather, it just so happens that this appears to be a recurrent theme within cultural psychology. I have explored the contrasts of analytical vs holistic thinking, individualistic vs collectivistic, independent vs interdependent selves, and primary control vs secondary control. It is truly amazing to see just how these various mental states can vary from culture to culture. What is truly interesting is that the former seems to be predominant, only in western cultures of north America (i.e, Canada and the U.S), while the latter is more predominant worldwide. This is obviously not coincidental, and leads me to speculate as to whether these latter capacities are the "right" way of doing things. In my own personal life, I have began to adopt these various cognitive models and used them in my daily life. In doing so, I have noticed increased mental fluidity, increased positive affect, enhanced self-esteem, greater acceptance of vulnerability, more fulfilling relationships and a heightened sense of purpose. As a result, I cannot help but speculate as to whether these former states of culture and cognition are a "perversion" of the natural ways of life. I really encourage cultural psychologists to examine whether a possible link exists here, as we may be able to add a greater amount of well-being and reduce psychological distress if this is the case. Indeed, it seems that cultural psychology may be of a massive benefit to clinical psychology is this hypothesis is true. In any case, we cannot draw conclusions based on mere speculation. We can only infer causal relationships, and it has been truly interesting to observe these relationships in cultural psychology.
Primary and Secondary Control: A Perspective on Environment
The human being and its relationship with reality have been a topic that has been explored with much speculation. What we do know is that this is a foundation for the establishment of culture. As I have covered in my other posts, many differences in the human psyche exist cross-culturally, with the collective agreement of the culture presumably serving as the causal factor of this variable. Because cultures uniqueness is founded on the unique settings with which the tribe is set, it makes sense that the psyches of individuals would vary. Yet another variable that exists is the individuals place within that reality. This is the topic which we shall explore. Yet again, we find a dichotomous relationship between to variables, known as primary and secondary control.
Let us begin with primary control. This perspective is understood as the individual believing that they control their own reality and that they may dictate events which occur within their lives. This is also known as an internal locus of control, as it is predicated on the belief that ones sense of control stems internally. Individuals believe that they have their own choice in making decisions, and strive to follow their own wishes and desires. Unsurprisingly, primary control tends to be used more often by those in individualistic cultures, such as western society.
In contrast, secondary control is based on the belief that one's agency is dictated externally, hence its other name, external locus of control. When one adopts this perspective, they belief that life, fate or circumstance is what controls the events of one's life. Events happen as they happen, and the individual rarely tries to change or tamper with their environment. Instead, the individual is more focused on accepting circumstances as they come. This perspective tends to arise more from eastern cultures with a collectivist nature.
Yet gain, I feel that adopting an attitude of secondary control may be beneficial in the individuals life. I am not arguing that primary control should be discarded, but I do believe that secondary control could prove helpful to well-being. Acceptance of one's circumstances allows individuals to be at peace while events happen, and to let them pass as they may. This could be nothing but beneficial to the individual. It is interesting that the eastern perspective tends to seem very therapeutic in nature, and it will be interesting to see what else the literature on this may reveal.
Let us begin with primary control. This perspective is understood as the individual believing that they control their own reality and that they may dictate events which occur within their lives. This is also known as an internal locus of control, as it is predicated on the belief that ones sense of control stems internally. Individuals believe that they have their own choice in making decisions, and strive to follow their own wishes and desires. Unsurprisingly, primary control tends to be used more often by those in individualistic cultures, such as western society.
In contrast, secondary control is based on the belief that one's agency is dictated externally, hence its other name, external locus of control. When one adopts this perspective, they belief that life, fate or circumstance is what controls the events of one's life. Events happen as they happen, and the individual rarely tries to change or tamper with their environment. Instead, the individual is more focused on accepting circumstances as they come. This perspective tends to arise more from eastern cultures with a collectivist nature.
Yet gain, I feel that adopting an attitude of secondary control may be beneficial in the individuals life. I am not arguing that primary control should be discarded, but I do believe that secondary control could prove helpful to well-being. Acceptance of one's circumstances allows individuals to be at peace while events happen, and to let them pass as they may. This could be nothing but beneficial to the individual. It is interesting that the eastern perspective tends to seem very therapeutic in nature, and it will be interesting to see what else the literature on this may reveal.
Independent vs. Interdependent Self-Concepts
The nature of each culture is contingent upon the culture being described. Various attitudes and practices are vastly different across a wide range of cultural contexts, and are representative of the collective intentionality predicated upon that culture. Likewise, it should be of no surprise to learn that the self-concept differs among individuals of distinct cultures. Though nothing in this regard is truly dichotomous, as shades of grey always exist, the self concept can be considered one of two types, independent or interdependent selves.
An independent self-concept is more commonly found in western culture. The nature of this self view is that one defines themselves in terms of internal characteristics. Though one may identify with others for regulation of the self concept, this appears to be more an identification with similar traits within another. Be that as it may, others are regarded as distinct from the self, despite relations with significant others. As such, the boundary between self and non-self is rigid, and does not allow others to enter the self concept, instead regarding them as non-self. Despite this, one with an independent self experiences a fluid nature between internal and external groups. In other words, others are more welcome to enter and leave the individuals life as they please. It is no coincidence that this concept emerges in western culture, as these cultures are individualistic, and encourages more focus on the individuals goals as a result.
In contrast, an interdependent self-concept is characterized by a self that is defined in relation to others. Though those with this self concept do identify with internal characteristics, they do not do so to the same degree as one with an independent self. Instead, they identify themselves in their relationships with others. Relationships are of significant importance with an interdependent self. Unlike the independent self, interdependent selves have porous boundaries and are subject to change via relationships and situations. As such, they are not affected by contradictions in the self and are less prone to cognitive dissonance. However, the boundary between ingroup and outgroup appears to be more rigid. In other words, others are less likely to enter or leave the individuals social life, yet the relationships which one has are of more emotional significance, as they are viewed as extensions of the self concept. This self view is more common in eastern culture, where collectivist mentality is more common.
As in my posts on analytical and holistic thinking, I do not believe that one self view is correct while the other is not. Both exist in response to differences in environment and collective intentionality of the culture. However, because of this distinction, it blurs the line between self and non-self. Normally, others are not perceived as part of the self, yet this is exactly the case with interdependent selves. What I speculate is whether either of these self views is more related to happiness, life satisfaction and a subjective sense of purpose. I would imagine that those with an interdependent self experience stronger emotion towards those they care about, and have more satisfying relationships overall. Nevertheless, this dichotomy is interesting, and researchers should expand on this further.
An independent self-concept is more commonly found in western culture. The nature of this self view is that one defines themselves in terms of internal characteristics. Though one may identify with others for regulation of the self concept, this appears to be more an identification with similar traits within another. Be that as it may, others are regarded as distinct from the self, despite relations with significant others. As such, the boundary between self and non-self is rigid, and does not allow others to enter the self concept, instead regarding them as non-self. Despite this, one with an independent self experiences a fluid nature between internal and external groups. In other words, others are more welcome to enter and leave the individuals life as they please. It is no coincidence that this concept emerges in western culture, as these cultures are individualistic, and encourages more focus on the individuals goals as a result.
In contrast, an interdependent self-concept is characterized by a self that is defined in relation to others. Though those with this self concept do identify with internal characteristics, they do not do so to the same degree as one with an independent self. Instead, they identify themselves in their relationships with others. Relationships are of significant importance with an interdependent self. Unlike the independent self, interdependent selves have porous boundaries and are subject to change via relationships and situations. As such, they are not affected by contradictions in the self and are less prone to cognitive dissonance. However, the boundary between ingroup and outgroup appears to be more rigid. In other words, others are less likely to enter or leave the individuals social life, yet the relationships which one has are of more emotional significance, as they are viewed as extensions of the self concept. This self view is more common in eastern culture, where collectivist mentality is more common.
As in my posts on analytical and holistic thinking, I do not believe that one self view is correct while the other is not. Both exist in response to differences in environment and collective intentionality of the culture. However, because of this distinction, it blurs the line between self and non-self. Normally, others are not perceived as part of the self, yet this is exactly the case with interdependent selves. What I speculate is whether either of these self views is more related to happiness, life satisfaction and a subjective sense of purpose. I would imagine that those with an interdependent self experience stronger emotion towards those they care about, and have more satisfying relationships overall. Nevertheless, this dichotomy is interesting, and researchers should expand on this further.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Cultural Evolution and Cognition: An Analysis
In our capacity for language and joint intention, we have the capacity to form culture. Obviously, these capacities are cognitive in nature, and appear to be evident in humans universally (Heine, 2016). However, not all cultures are the same. Culture, while the same at its core, appears to be a heterogenous phenomena in regards to how it manifests. Different cultures have different practices, values and means by which its members relate to others. For example, cultures in which men must hunt and fish for survival tend to value masculinity, whereas other cultures in which men assist mothers in child rearing and do not need to engage in as much physical labour have less regard for masculinity (Heine, 2016).
What intrigues me about this concept is the idea that culture can evolve and further influence the cognition of those within said cultural climate. Various environmental factors require different adaptations in knowledge and tradition, as previously mentioned. This evolution appears to correlate with biological evolution, in that its factors cannot be create from nothingness. Rather, each aspect of a culture must emerge from a pre-existing cultural practice. These practices in turn are internalized by members of a culture and allow further influence on the culture at large. This seems to me to create a "chicken-and-egg" dichotomy, in which one ponders which of these aspects came first. It is clear that cultural learning mainly comes from imitation of others (what is referred to as "imitative learning"), but these pre-existing cognitive aspects must have emerge from somewhere. Presumably, the cognitive capabilities of humans emerged from environmental changes, which further lead to changes in cognition. The short answer is we do not fully understand how or why this capacity emerged. However, we must keep our minds open to new evidence and allow the research to continue.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
What intrigues me about this concept is the idea that culture can evolve and further influence the cognition of those within said cultural climate. Various environmental factors require different adaptations in knowledge and tradition, as previously mentioned. This evolution appears to correlate with biological evolution, in that its factors cannot be create from nothingness. Rather, each aspect of a culture must emerge from a pre-existing cultural practice. These practices in turn are internalized by members of a culture and allow further influence on the culture at large. This seems to me to create a "chicken-and-egg" dichotomy, in which one ponders which of these aspects came first. It is clear that cultural learning mainly comes from imitation of others (what is referred to as "imitative learning"), but these pre-existing cognitive aspects must have emerge from somewhere. Presumably, the cognitive capabilities of humans emerged from environmental changes, which further lead to changes in cognition. The short answer is we do not fully understand how or why this capacity emerged. However, we must keep our minds open to new evidence and allow the research to continue.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Analytical vs Holistic: A Perspective on Two Models of Cognition
In my previous post, I had elaborated on the distinction between analytical and holistic thinking. Analytical thinking involves a philosophical perspective that aspects of the world are strictly independent of each other, and each thing exists in the context of its own nature and existence. It establishes that absolute, abstract rules govern the nature of reality. In contrast, holistic thinking involves an interconnected philosophical modality in which all things exist in relation to one another. In this case, truth is relative to what other factors are present in relation to the person, place or thing.
What intrigues me (among many other things) of these two contrasting cognitive modalities is that they are just that, contrasts. Be that as it may, these contrasts are attempting to establish a mechanism for absorbing and storing information about the external environment. Of course, which strategy is adopted is contingent upon the culture with which the individual belongs to. Because of this, is it imperative to say whether one cognitive model is correct while the other is incorrect? Indeed, both are two sides of the same coin, and attempt to function in a way that is advantageous to the individual. The conclusion I have come to is that neither approach is inherently wrong, but is rather an aspect of cultural evolution that has resulted due to various aspects of the environment. Analytical thinking is advantageous in certain contexts (identifying specificities of individual things and identifying individual characteristics) and disadvantageous in others (determining the collective whole of an environmental situation). Obviously, this is also true for holistic thinking, yet true in opposite circumstances.
Presumably, these two modes of thinking are not purely black-and-white within the individual mind. Rather, I would presume that all individuals have the capacity to use both analytical and holistic thinking. Of course, it seems obvious to conclude that one leans more towards one than the other (this author himself being more holistic), but one need not conform to only one system of thought. Indeed, it appears that one does not if not found in an extreme cultural context. Asian-Americans often use both analytical and holistic thinking when attempting to solve a problem (Heine, 2016). As such, I propose that a middle path between both cognitive capacities is what is most advantageous to the individual. However, this conclusion may wax and wane in regards to the context of the culture one is in.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
What intrigues me (among many other things) of these two contrasting cognitive modalities is that they are just that, contrasts. Be that as it may, these contrasts are attempting to establish a mechanism for absorbing and storing information about the external environment. Of course, which strategy is adopted is contingent upon the culture with which the individual belongs to. Because of this, is it imperative to say whether one cognitive model is correct while the other is incorrect? Indeed, both are two sides of the same coin, and attempt to function in a way that is advantageous to the individual. The conclusion I have come to is that neither approach is inherently wrong, but is rather an aspect of cultural evolution that has resulted due to various aspects of the environment. Analytical thinking is advantageous in certain contexts (identifying specificities of individual things and identifying individual characteristics) and disadvantageous in others (determining the collective whole of an environmental situation). Obviously, this is also true for holistic thinking, yet true in opposite circumstances.
Presumably, these two modes of thinking are not purely black-and-white within the individual mind. Rather, I would presume that all individuals have the capacity to use both analytical and holistic thinking. Of course, it seems obvious to conclude that one leans more towards one than the other (this author himself being more holistic), but one need not conform to only one system of thought. Indeed, it appears that one does not if not found in an extreme cultural context. Asian-Americans often use both analytical and holistic thinking when attempting to solve a problem (Heine, 2016). As such, I propose that a middle path between both cognitive capacities is what is most advantageous to the individual. However, this conclusion may wax and wane in regards to the context of the culture one is in.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Analytical vs Holistic Thinking: A Personal Account.
Steven J. Heine (2016) has examined and identified two major cognitive models of thinking that are found many cultural environments around the world; analytical and holistic thinking. Let us examine further.
Analytical thinking consists of viewing objects as strictly independent from the surrounding environment, and consisting of their own abstract rules by which the object in question is structured and functioning. In other words, aspects of the environment are independent of each other, and conform strictly to their own individual existence. This cognitive orientation is found predominantly across western cultures, and lead to a dispositional attributions. This is to say, individuals regard observed phenomena as manifesting from a fundamental attribute that belongs to the person or object individually. Such a perspective causes the individual to view the world as being governed by strict abstract rules and conforms to a rigid perspective on the cause of phenomena. Various advantages and disadvantages exist from this perspective, as we shall see in a future post.
In contrast, holistic thinking suggests that all things are not existentially independent, but are all interconnected to all other things in the present environment. Holistic thinking does not regard phenomena as having strict inherit rules of function, but instead suggests that the existence of phenomena occurs in relation to various other environmental events that are interconnected with the phenomena observed. Nothing is individual, but rather exist in a collective and interconnected state in a monistic reality. Furthermore, holistic thinking regards the behavior of others as not being the result of inherited characteristics, but rather as the result of past, present and potential future events that have, are and will occur within the persons life. This orientation is found predominantly among east Asian cultures, and also has several advantages and disadvantages to its presentation.
Though I subscribe to a middle perspective and adopt both cognitive models into my thinking, I have in recent years leaned slightly closer to the holistic perspective. As a westerner, this is unusual. However, this shift in thinking has led to interesting results within my personal life. First, I have noticed that holistic thinking allows one to take on a "flow", perspective; that is, it allows one to drop rigid cognitive schemas and to adopt an increase in perspective taking. Secondly, holistic thinking lets one adopt a more accepting attitude towards life. This mode of thinking allows one to accept contradictory information without neurotically ruminating on the need for a conclusion, which Heine also explains. As such, it may be beneficial for one to adopt a holistic perspective as a treatment for anxiety disorders. Thirdly, I have found that holistic thinking leads one to develop an emotional connection with the external world. In my perspective, this is due to the adoption of a philosophy that this vast interconnectedness with reality leads one to feel closer with others and one's surroundings, and to understand that every action will contribute to change in some way. Lastly, I have found that these previous three factors lead to more positive experiences of affect. This is also due to my recognition that negative emotion has to do with environmental aspects, and therefore can be changed and fixed.
In conclusion, I do fiercely believe that holistic thinking can be advantageous to one's mental health and sense of belonging. Though both have advantages covered by Heine (2013) and which shall be elaborated in a later post, holistic thinking, in my experience, leads to a euphoric sense of connection with reality, better interpersonal relationships, an increased sense of responsibility and increased subjective well being.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Analytical thinking consists of viewing objects as strictly independent from the surrounding environment, and consisting of their own abstract rules by which the object in question is structured and functioning. In other words, aspects of the environment are independent of each other, and conform strictly to their own individual existence. This cognitive orientation is found predominantly across western cultures, and lead to a dispositional attributions. This is to say, individuals regard observed phenomena as manifesting from a fundamental attribute that belongs to the person or object individually. Such a perspective causes the individual to view the world as being governed by strict abstract rules and conforms to a rigid perspective on the cause of phenomena. Various advantages and disadvantages exist from this perspective, as we shall see in a future post.
In contrast, holistic thinking suggests that all things are not existentially independent, but are all interconnected to all other things in the present environment. Holistic thinking does not regard phenomena as having strict inherit rules of function, but instead suggests that the existence of phenomena occurs in relation to various other environmental events that are interconnected with the phenomena observed. Nothing is individual, but rather exist in a collective and interconnected state in a monistic reality. Furthermore, holistic thinking regards the behavior of others as not being the result of inherited characteristics, but rather as the result of past, present and potential future events that have, are and will occur within the persons life. This orientation is found predominantly among east Asian cultures, and also has several advantages and disadvantages to its presentation.
Though I subscribe to a middle perspective and adopt both cognitive models into my thinking, I have in recent years leaned slightly closer to the holistic perspective. As a westerner, this is unusual. However, this shift in thinking has led to interesting results within my personal life. First, I have noticed that holistic thinking allows one to take on a "flow", perspective; that is, it allows one to drop rigid cognitive schemas and to adopt an increase in perspective taking. Secondly, holistic thinking lets one adopt a more accepting attitude towards life. This mode of thinking allows one to accept contradictory information without neurotically ruminating on the need for a conclusion, which Heine also explains. As such, it may be beneficial for one to adopt a holistic perspective as a treatment for anxiety disorders. Thirdly, I have found that holistic thinking leads one to develop an emotional connection with the external world. In my perspective, this is due to the adoption of a philosophy that this vast interconnectedness with reality leads one to feel closer with others and one's surroundings, and to understand that every action will contribute to change in some way. Lastly, I have found that these previous three factors lead to more positive experiences of affect. This is also due to my recognition that negative emotion has to do with environmental aspects, and therefore can be changed and fixed.
In conclusion, I do fiercely believe that holistic thinking can be advantageous to one's mental health and sense of belonging. Though both have advantages covered by Heine (2013) and which shall be elaborated in a later post, holistic thinking, in my experience, leads to a euphoric sense of connection with reality, better interpersonal relationships, an increased sense of responsibility and increased subjective well being.
References
Heine, S. J. (2016). Cultural Psychology (3rd ed.). United States: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)