The Geography of Thought

The Geography of Thought is a 2003 sociology book by American social scientist and psychologist Richard Nisbett. The book is subtitled How Asians and Westerners Think Differently…And Why, and Nesbitt’s somewhat controversial thesis is that Western peoples and Asian peoples are fundamentally different on a cognitive level and that this is true as a function of deep-seated cultural pressures as opposed to biological, evolutionary ones. The book has received a wildly polarized response, with critics from outlets like The New York Times pointing out what they call fundamental methodological flaws in Nisbett’s analysis while others, like American Psychological Association President Robert Sternberg, referring to it as a “landmark book.”

In the first chapter, Nisbett lays out his thesis in detail while summarizing his general approach to the question of cultural differences between the East and the West. In describing the generalities of each population’s mode of thought, Nisbett characterizes people of European descent as being focused on rules and categories, while people of Asian descent possess a way of thinking that’s more aligned with human and natural context. The author also discusses the fields of study he plans to use in the book to make this argument, mentioning economics, mathematics, philosophy, language, and the social sciences, among others.

Nisbett dates these fundamental differences at least as far back as ancient Greece and ancient China. In fact, he uses a direct comparison between the two cultures early on as part of the introduction of his overarching argument. First off, the Greeks, he writes, were far more concerned with notions of individual agency, and their culture in many respects was centered around each individual achieving not only a form of personal freedom—whether from other people or institutions—but also achieving a sense of one’s true self, which despite all the other changes around it does not itself change. To this end, the Greeks believed in assigning people and objects into various categories so that they might better understand the true nature of things.



In ancient Chinese culture, however, society was much more concerned with efforts that helped the collective as opposed to the individual. For the Chinese, an individual’s role in society was one of mutual benefit, Nesbitt writes. Moreover, the ancient Chinese were far less concerned with identifying some immutable true nature of anything or anyone because they believed such definitions and categorizations were fluid. The world and everything in it was always changing and so to categorize them would be more a waste of time than to the ancient Greeks.

After establishing the general parameters of these two modes of thought, Nesbitt begins to justify his approach by arguing that cognition is the result of societal pressures, at least as much as biological ones. If this were not true, then there would not be so much of a difference between two humans’ ways of thinking, even if they were born on other sides of the world and within radically different cultures. Nesbitt also says that while globalization pressures brought on by staggering advancements in international communication and travel have had somewhat of a unifying factor on the world’s people, it is not enough to erase the differences that have developed over the past centuries between the cultures.

Most of the rest of the book is devoted to fleshing out his thesis across a variety of broader notions and disciplines. Through this process, and citing various examples as he goes along, Nesbitt identifies what to him are a number of general dichotomies that exist between Eastern and Western cultures. For example, in addition to the Eastern focus on the collective versus the West’s focus on the individual, Eastern people prioritize relationships as opposed to action. They also prioritize feelings while the West prioritizes logic. Other dichotomies exist between, for instance, interdependence versus independence, circularity versus linearity, harmony versus debate, context versus objects, setting versus outcome, and multiple causes versus single cause and effect paradigms.



In the last chapter, Nesbitt actually admits to an extent that his work has an expiration date. He believes that the pressures of globalization, while they haven’t erased these hemispherical differences yet, will one day soon do so, bringing the world together.

Among the criticisms of the book is the fact that Nesbitt is so focused on differences between the East and the West that he rarely discusses some pretty dramatic differences within each culture, especially ones that exist between men and women, or between various religions. Had he done so, he might have found that a Western man and an Eastern man have at least as much in common between them, as a Western woman and an Eastern woman. Nevertheless, the book provides some very insightful—if not a significant bit controversial—food for thought about how the human brain responds cognitively to social pressures. It’s in these insights that the book actually transcends its controversial—and far from proven—headline thesis.