The opening of Naming the Mind is a REMARKABLE anecdote:
Danzinger walks into an Indonesian university, realises that there is a 'Western psychology' class and an 'Eastern psychology' class, and proposes to do a combined seminar ...
And then fails to find any common ground.
For context, I'm reading this because Lisa Feldman Barrett assigns it to everyone in her lab:
"Chinese thinking often gives no attention to distinctions which for Western minds are so traditional and so firmly established in thought and language, that we neither question them nor even become aware of them as distinctions."
I find this hilarious, because it implies that — for 'emotional intelligence', at least — the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is real.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguisti…
LOL "Psychologists did not invent the concept of 'emotion', for example, to account for certain empirical findings, they obtained certain empirical findings because of their desire to investigate a set of events which their culture had taught them to distinguish as 'emotional'."
Ok this is an excellent opening to a book. It's like Danzinger decided to take the entire body of knowledge that is psychology, and then gleefully set all of its foundations on fire.
Here he is arguing that what we call intelligence (the g factor) might not be intelligence:
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.