I don't have time to itemize it all, but this bit jumped out at me:

"Chinese are more skilled at understanding other people's perspectives"

What about the "perspectives" of Americans (and Canadians, and Bolivians), who don't want to be poisoned by their toothpaste? Doesn't seem that they're too understanding about THAT.

(Or, for that matter - the Chinese didn't seem to be too understanding about the perspective of student-protesters a few years back in Tianamen Square.)

Also, I don't know much about working-class, but collectivist? Really? I think working-class folks tend to be more concerned with (a). keeping body and soul together and (b). trying to move on up to something better.

Eh, this just seems to me to be another excuse for "Americans bad; all the rest of the world, good."

As a working class bubba, I can assure everyone that I am collective. I collect books, CDs, DVDs, etc.....

;-P

Ricki,
The whole thing struck me as more of an editorial than a professional study. The irony (or indeed, the obtuse stupidity) of it is that one of the pre-requisites for fostering an environment where individualism is valued is a certain level of "live and let live" tolerance that appreciates cultural diversities and the freedom to make persoanl lifestyle choices. Collectivism is the exact opposite - in order for it to function, there must be uniformity will a very, very low tolerance for deviation from the will of the "collective." People that live under those circumstances, that value them, tend to be the least tolerant people in the world. Indeed, maintaining that environment gives rise to the need for things like gulags and a controlled press.

But yeah, the commies are better than us because they share more. Whatever.

OK, here's my serious contribution:

When the director asked 20 American participants (none of Asian descent) to move a block, most were confused as to which block to move and did not take into account the director's perspective. Even though they could have deduced that, from the director's seat, only one block was on the table.

Ooooooooookaaaaaaay. From this, I can only conclude that the Chinese ("Asian") "collectivist society" is genetic in nature. Which is what some people might call "racist" in nature, nicht wahr?

By implication, "Rugged American individualism" is also genetic. Which speaks poorly for Euroweenies.

Silly me - I thought that making sure you understood what somebody wanted so you could do it properly was the considerate thing. Now it turns out that I should just assume I know it all and go right ahead. Did they give the subjects a friendly punch in the mouth after the test was over?

I'm going to forfeit the prize. I don't want to hurt my brain trying to find all the stupid.

Jeff,
Yeah, the whole article (or "study" as those responsible would have it) just stinks with self-loathing contempt and stereotypes about race and nationality.

And I still can't get over the people who make these sweeping generalizations about Americans that never take into account that "American" pretty much includes people from all over the entire damn world. Yet WE are the ones who are clueless. Uh-huh.

BTW, the study sounds more than a little biased, even ignoring the editorializing Emily points out. America is a melting pot of cultures; American-Asians should not have been excluded from the "American participants".

It's also relevant to note that 20 Americans and 20 Chinese is a pretty small sample. So this is vastly oversimplified study.....and that's being polite.

Yet WE are the ones who are clueless. Uh-huh.

Amen.

Momma tol' me, study is as study does.

I think they were stupid for not directly writing a love letter to China.

At least I think that was their purpose.

I'll repeat my comment I posted on another site:

What this actually shows is that the Asian first instinct is to toady up to the boss, while the American first instinct is to see what is really there. The study is instructive, but it should have come to the opposite conclusion - that the Chinese are at a disadvantage when faced with instructions from above that do not reflect reality.

I also want to see the transcript in each language. Chinese does not have a definite article. If "move the block" was translated as I (with my very imperfect Chinese) would say it, I'd probably add "tse ge" which loosely translates as "that", which would give the Chinese speakers a subtle, indirect cue as to which block was indicated.

That being said, you can't trust my Chinese, as I once asked my daughter to bring me her mom's glass. The word for "blanket" is the same as the one for "glass", but the tone is different. I used the wrong tone, and minutes later found my daughter stuggling down the hallway with her mom's huge Chinese comforter. My wife still hasn't let me live that one down.

So I have trouble understanding other people. Cry me a river. I think I'm about ready for somebody to try to understand me, for a change.

It actually makes sense to me that a rugged individualist would be more likely to internalize the fact that he has a unique perspective and other people will have a different one. The "we are a collective and all think alike" mindset - how is that understanding of other people's points of view? I understand your point of view because I know it's just like mine. And if it's not, you'll be cast out of the collective, so you'd better pretend that it is. Yeah, that works.

My head wants to explode.

That's just gas, Ken. It'll pass.

You all will understand after you've been assimilated.

It's a trick question. Keysar Soze doesn't exist.