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.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
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)