True Story 10.15
To speak or not to speak while class is in session
The setting for this story
Heejung was a graduate student from Korea studying psychology at a leading U.S. university.
A story of misaligned minds19
Heejung was becoming exasperated with the frequent advice from her professors that she speak up in class. They had explained to her, several times, that not speaking up was often interpreted by Americans to indicate lack of interest in, or failure to fully understand, whatever was being discussed. One also had pointed out that speaking up and hearing the reactions of her professor and classmates would aid her overall understanding of the academic material.
Heejung didn’t buy it. She believed she and the other Asians would not significantly benefit from speaking up because their way of understanding the world was not primarily oral. She tried to find a way to help her professors understand this, but they were not convinced. Heejung realized she didn’t have a good explanation for her professors about the preference for silence among Asian students.
Heejung’s question
What’s the underlying reason why we Asians are convinced that speaking up during class will not benefit us?
Critique of story 10.15
This story acquaints us with a characteristic of Asian newcomers in the U.S. that is viewed as a problem not only by teachers but also by businesspeople: their silence during formal meetings.
Like Heejung’s professors, business supervisors who want to be supportive of their new Asian subordinates take them aside to explain that, if they don’t speak up in meetings, promotions might not materialize. A common reply of Asians is, “Judge me on the quality of the work I submit.” To some extent, they are judged that way. But that doesn’t eclipse the personal impression that silent Asians often make on Americans during business meetings and university seminars.
This characteristic contrast between Asians and Americans is one of the practical outcomes of a basic human difference that has long interested scholars. When we look at whatever is in a scene that appears in front of us, there usually is (a) a feature or activity in that scene that we find most interesting or conspicuous and (b) everything – literally everything – surrounding that feature or activity. It’s easiest to think of this using a simple example like an aquarium with a big fish and several small ones. For many of us, the large fish is the conspicuous feature. Surrounding it are the smaller fish and many other objects (rocks, plants, snails, castles), all within the scene in front of us. Finally, there are the activities of each of those different features, and the dynamic interactions among them. Out of all that, what are we attending to?
That example is useful but involves only our vision. We have five senses, all enabling us to perceive, interpret, and navigate our surroundings. Consider a university seminar. For many Westerners, the conspicuous activity is the discussion, the ideas being orally debated, which we perceive via hearing and understand with our minds. But many other objects, activities, physical properties, and human sentiments provide the context for that conspicuous one. Objects: How is the room decorated? Are the chairs uncomfortable? Activities: Are people going in and out? Is anyone checking their phones? Physical properties: Is it too warm or cold? Are odors (perfume, fresh paint) present? How are the acoustics? Human sentiments: What might voice qualities such as monotonous, high-pitched, or gravelly suggest about different speakers? What about facial expressions and gestures? Do any participants seem bored, angry, distracted, or eager to please? What role is the professor enacting: discussion referee, fellow learner, or expert authority? If referee, are the discussants heeding his guidance? If learner, are any attendees dissatisfied? If authority, are some reacting negatively? Is note-taking occurring? How (by hand or keyboard) and by whom? Is the dress or self-decoration of anyone drawing others’ scrutiny in any way?
Let’s not forget the discussion! Is its focus practical or philosophical? How are participants reasoning and trying to persuade others? Are positions held defiantly, languidly, or inquiringly? Do people seem to be self-censoring due to politics? Are the examples being offered convincing or off-target? Are shifts in individuals’ relationships emerging? Is anyone changing their mind? Why?
Out of all that, what are we attending to?
Research has found that Americans and other analytic thinkers attend to the most conspicuous person, thing, or event, while remaining only marginally aware of that feature’s setting and context. If they find that main feature interesting, they continue thinking about it largely in terms of its discrete parts and attributes. This narrowly focused parts-conscious approach lends itself to being expressed using language that readily names, describes, dissects, categorizes, interprets, counts, measures, compares, graphs, and seeks the causes and effects of – in short, analyzes.
Asians and other holistic (or relational) thinkers attend to a wide array of persons, things, events, and behaviors – not just whatever is conspicuous but everything else as well. If they find this cohesive scene interesting, they continue thinking about it largely in terms of the dynamic characteristics of, and the interrelationships among, all its elements. This broadly relationships-conscious approach isn’t well captured using discrete words. During formal gatherings, Asians often are attentively observing and inclusively considering everything going on in a largely holistic way. They are not mentally breaking the scene into parts or categories to be considered separately because, for them, it’s all one integrated whole. They don’t want to talk, which fragments and analyzes. In fact, pausing to verbalize discrete thoughts could disrupt their broadly inclusive holistic curiosity about the proceedings. Their perspective is: When I’m talking I’m not learning.
For thought
One of the best books for building one’s understanding of the differences in how Americans and Asians think – and the source on which this story and its critique are based – is The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently – and Why, by Richard E. Nisbett. It’s loaded with real-life examples of the various types of differences and their effects on everyday human relations.
Related stories
Story 7.19 offers another perspective on why Asians prefer not to talk during formal meetings. Stories 1.14 and 10.14 consider human communication from the perspective of discourse styles.
Go to Chapter 1 Quick-Links | Go to Chapter 4 Quick-Links | Go to Chapter 7 Quick-Links | Return to Chapter 10 Quick-Links
Endnotes:
19 Nisbett, 210–11.
Full citations are available at misalignedminds.info/References.