Chrisonomicon

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

An article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday discussed cognitive processing differences between people of Asian and Western descent ("Asian" indicating those from Japan, China and Korea, and "Western"-ers being from Europe, the British commonwealth, and North America). Scientists have observed that Westerners tend to group things by category and focus on specifics, while Asians see relationships between objects and process entire situations, "the big picture" (e.g. Pick two that go together: monkey, panda, banana -- the Japanese man chooses the monkey and banana (monkeys eat bananas), whereas the Brit, the monkey and panda (both animals)). I've observed this at my office, the IT field being a great laboratory for this kind of experiment since the majority of employees are either of Asian (Chinese, Japanese, or Indian) or Western lineage, and the differences in the way people approach one another can spur many awkward situations.

For instance, as I rounded the corner to enter the lavatory, the handle twisted rudely from my grip and the door swung inwards to reveal, standing in similar surprised stance, a late-40's-ish Chinese co-worker who immediately bowed with a nod of the head and proceeded to pull the door open for me to enter. Two possibilities were immediately processed:

1. Categorical: We are both proceeding through the same doorway. Western etiquette recommends giving the exiting party right of way. I should let him through.
2. Relational: He has opened and now possesses hold of the door, apparently for me to pass. Assuming the bow indicates polite acquiescence, I should enter.

And so I stood there for a moment while I considered these possibilities, on one hand coming across as brazenly American, refusing to let this man play to his conscience and upbringing, subsequently indicating an expectation that he should think of himself first, "please, exit," or possibly an impatience on my part as I demand that he get out of my way; but on the other hand, there was always the possibility of committing a Type I error by assuming he was following an inbred etiquette, when in fact he was merely feigning the polite gesture while knowing that the perfectly logical maneuver would be to evacuate the room in order for me to enter. I dug deep into the recesses of my mind for, after all, I am equal parts Chinese and German so it somehow seemed appropriate that I'd know the proper action to take in such a problematic situation. Meanwhile, he'd smiled and nodded again. Would a split-second wait to allow him the decision be rudely construed? I thanked him and entered.

The article described how international business relations can be improved by considering and even balancing the two methods as seen in business transactions of previously-occupied Hong Kong. However, as I have recently experienced, it is entirely possible that any such attempt may result in a reaction similar to a matter/anti-matter collision, causing a Leidenfrost layer to form and forcing them apart again, grinding all cognition to a halt. Monkey and panda? Or monkey and banana? You can only pick two, after all. It is also entirely possible that I think too much. But I'm going to go with the matter/anti-matter conclusion on this one for now.