Intelligence - Global capacity to think
rationally, act purposefully, overcome
obstacles, and adapt to a changing
environment.
Cognition - A general term that stands
for a series of processes by which the
individual acquires and applies
knowledge.
Source: Shiraev E. and Levy, D. Cross-Cultural Psychology. (2007). Second Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Nativist view on intelligence -The view
that all cognitive phenomena are inborn,
that they unravel as a result of biological
‘programming,’ and that environmental
perception
requires
little
active
construction by the organism.
Psychometric view on intelligenceThe view based on an assumption that
our intelligence can receive a numerical
value.
Source: Shiraev E. and Levy, D. Cross-Cultural Psychology. (2007). Second Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Cognitive styleAn individual way in
which people organize and comprehend
the world.
CreativityOriginality or the ability to
produce valued outcomes in a novel
way.
Formal reasoningBasic cognitive
operations based on abstract analysis of
given premises and deriving a
conclusion from them.
Empirical reasoningExperience and
cognitive
operations
drawn
from
everyday activities.
Field dependent style of cognitionA
general cognitive ability of an individual
to rely more on external visual cues and
to be primarily socially oriented
Field
independent
style
of
cognitionA general cognitive ability of
an individual to rely primarily on bodily
cues within themselves and to be less
oriented toward social engagement with
others.
Low Effort SyndromeLow level of
motivation on intelligence tests based
on the belief that the tests are either
biased or test results are unimportant
for success in life.
Source: Shiraev E. and Levy, D. Cross-Cultural Psychology. (2007). Second Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Critical thinking. A “Chinese way” in thinking? Comparing Socrates and Confucius. Do you believe
that there is a special, unique, Chinese way of thinking and processing information? Do you think there is
a special European style? According to one view, there ought to be a special “cultural” way rooted in
customs and early European and Chinese philosophical systems. Supporters of this argument use an
example of the teachings of two prominent philosophers of China and Greece— Confucius and
Socrates—and their impact on the general learning principles cultivated in Chinese and Western
(European) cultures. It is argued that Socrates, a major contributor to the Western scholarly thought,
valued critical thinking and skepticism by encouraging the questioning of common knowledge. He taught
his students and, subsequently, millions of followers of other generations, to be independent thinkers and
generate their own ideas. Confucius, to the contrary, is viewed as valuing the effortful, respectful, and
pragmatic acquisition of essential knowledge based on respect toward educators, and the constant
search for patterns of useful behavior to follow (Yang & Sternberg, 1997; Tweed & Lehman, 2002). While
Confucius urged his followers to respect elders, Socrates urged his followers to challenge them.
If you accept these arguments, you are likely to agree with the idea that there are culture-based
patterns of learning and thinking. Thus, Socrates impacted the cultural characteristics of the “typical”
European student who is primarily a critical thinker, while Confucius impacted the characteristics of the
“typical” Chinese student who is an efficient follower and problem-solver.
If you disagree, you are likely to suggest that respect of authority, acceptance of teachers, and
search for practical applications of knowledge are, in fact, universal features of any educational system,
whether it is Greek, or Chinese, or Mexican. Therefore, to attribute them exclusively to a particular culture
or any other philosophy is simply inaccurate (Li, 2003).
Which side of the argument do you find easier to support and why?
Source: Shiraev E. and Levy (2007)