I say tomato. You say it’s a warm day

According to Prof Richard Nisbett, Westerns and Asians think in different ways. What does this tell us about MMO design and the relative success of existing MMOs?

The story was spotted my friend of the show Matt ironrealms Mihaly, me and probably half of you. Prof Nisbett has sure been working the media this week.

One of conclusions of Nisbett’s work is that given an image a Westerner will tend to focus on prominent details where as someone from Asia will take in the images as a whole and the relationship between things – they tend to give a more overall, complete account of a scene.

Here is Matt’s take:

It makes me wonder if the reason Asians are willing to tolerate, en masse, online worlds with relatively primitive graphics (Lineage, for instance) is partially explained by the cultural difference this study demonstrated. To a Westerner who focuses immediately on the individual models, Lineage may seem far more primitive than to someone who may try to focus on the image as a whole. I really have no idea if that’s true or not, but there’s no doubt that there are certain fundamental differences in how the two cultures look at the graphics in games (much less look at gameplay). It also makes me wonder what Blizzard has done that appeals so strongly to both Westerners and Easterners in terms of visual style. I won’t presume to guess, but it’s an interesting thought to think.

Another point that Nisbett makes is that Westerners tend to assume linearity but Asians assume circularity. For example he gave in a recent interview was a stable set of circumstances a Westerner will tend to think that this signified a trend and that things will continue in the same fashion but an Asian will tend to think that it is indicative of the potential for change and ultimate return to some pre-existing state

He also cited an example of a contract between a Japanese company and an Australian one for a commodity to be bought by the Japanese at a fixed price. The story goes that when the bottom dropped out of the market and the price of the commodity fell, the Japanese assume that the contract would change to follow suit, the Australians assume they were looking at a big profit. 

In some of the discussions I’ve had about entering the Chinese market, I’ve been given similar examples. Nisbett’s work seems to suggest this is a tendency rather than a well socialised urban myth.

Comments

[ren reynolds]

1.

OK, typepad hates me.
Here are the links I wanted to add before it locked up and died.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0822_050822_chinese.html>National Geographic feature

The Book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743216466/002-5743189-7961641?v=glance> The Geography of Thought : How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/>Prof Richard Nisbett’s home page

Me on http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/08/moving_to_china.html>Moving to China

[greglas]

2.

"Nisbett says that any explanation for the cultural differences is, at this point, speculation. However, he and his colleagues suggest that the differences may be rooted in social practices that stretch back thousands of years."

Um... golly, do you think so? This may be news to social psychology, but there's this field of research out there called anthropology...

I can glean that he's doing some interesting empirical research -- the cog psych aspects seem pretty neat, but the way the National Geographic article distills it, it seems like he's putting "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus" into an East-West box. Maybe it is just the reporters doing that.

I wonder what Edward Said would make of this.

[magicback]

3.

I think the observed difference in perspective probably has more to do with the different traditions in the art of pictures. Religious influences in art probably had a lot to do with this.

For example:
1. you got the Buddhist Mandala: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala
2. you got the Zen Gardens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_garden

And the whole idea of reincarnation and the repeating life over and over again until you reach Nirvana, the end game content, probably has something to do with the tolerance and development of elaborate MMORPG grind. I don't really know.

I simply think that anime/manga art is currently more popular than western art in most of Asia. 3D graphics do wow crowds in Asia, but most are probably happier with the popular anime/manga styles. WoW hit the right spot with a good blend of 3D stylized art that works on lower end systems.

Frank

[Mike Sellers]

4.

Nisbett's book is well worth reading; IMO it should be required reading for any MMO developer. There are strong cognitive differences that emerge in children as young as two years old between (loosely) "Asian" and "Western" cultures.

As just one example, Asians and Westerners (especially USAmericans) react entirely differently to perceptions of rarity and value. Japanese will tend to choose an item as "most desirable" if it conforms to what others in their social set also have: that's how they obtain a strong sense of social identification. In the US OTOH, we tend to choose the "rarest" item -- our status is set by what we have that others don't.

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out the implications of this for things like "rare" or "epic" items in games, or guild-identification livery, say, and how these will be valued by players in different cultures.

That said, there are also moments when it's glaringly apparent that the book itself was written by a Western man -- that is, it's sometimes hyper-analytical, missing the forest for the trees, focusing on the differences rather than the commonalities.

Finally, for anyone interested in this, I'd also recommend the work of Geert Hofstede and his book "Culture's Consequences." The applications to both designing for those of different cultures and inserting actual different cultures in our games are many and possibly profound.

[monkeysan]

5.

Greglas>Um... golly, do you think so? This may be news to social psychology, but there's this field of research out there called anthropology...

Ok, here's the thing. Anthropologists are primarily concerned about the 'content' of culture: beliefs, norms, practices, etc.

Nisbett's research, otoh, lends support to a theory of cognitive psychology/philosophy of mind that holds:

1. Human minds have evolved to operate within an enviroment of culture.

2. Humans have mental mechanisms that are designed to exploit culturally local beliefs and theories as well as culturally local information about norms, social roles, local practices and prevailing conditions.

3. In addition to acquiring culturally local content (like beliefs, norms, and information about social roles), the cultures in which people are embedded also have a profound effect on many cognitive processes including perception, attention, categorization and reasoning.

Obviously, #3 is the kicker.

So, what you describe as, merely, 'neat' is actually the lynchpin that binds anthropologic data to interesting theories about the evolution of minds, culture, and cultural transmission, in addition to providing evidence for certain theories about modern human cognitive architecture.

I haven't read the Nat'l Geog. you are referring to, but it sounds like they might have obscured the importance of the work.

--Aaron

P.S. If you have any interest in this subject, I co-authored an article for a Cambridge Press anthology on the Cognitive Basis of Science that used this theory (and Nesbitt's earlier work) to help explain why western science exploded in the West and not Asia, debunking Alison Gopnik's developmental theory of science in the process. =D

[monkeysan]

6.

err...kinda retarded that i spelled Nisbett's name wrong

;P

[Torley Wong/Torley Torgeson]

7.

Whee kewlies, thanxaroonie for putting this up, Ren -- I can particularly relate to it as I'm of "Asian" heritage and raised with a great deal of that influence, yet was born and happened to be raised in a "Western" culfure. On top of that, along the way, myself woke up and I imposed my own self on things (which Asperger's Syndrome is prolly crucial to), so quite a trippy trifecta.

I'm always fascinated by varying perspectives, like a circle of dudes sitting around and looking at a statue in the middle, each one getting a different "slice" view that makes up the whole.

Now, these are my personal experiences and don't go into the greatest detail, but in short: when I was younger, I was keenly into obsessive little details, and it was my parents who encouraged me to see a special teacher to see forest AND trees and recognize both of them. And I switch between viewmodes on a sporadic, spontaneous basis, depending how I feel. For example, I can go on and on about audio analysis of Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells" but am generally not up much for art critique unless it involves lots of laughs in some way. ;)

I do the bow thing, I find shaking hands weird. But then again, Donald Trump does too -- I love exemplary examples like that.

There's something else I'm going to bring up here, which is Hello Kitty World Online, which contains some of the finest isometric art I've ever seen:

http://www.sanriotown.com/onlinegame/index.php?s=world

I do get the impression that while each piece of the puzzle is distinct and tasty, like a nifty bentobox, the whole indeed gives me harmonious vibes and a feeling of great completion (expansion packs and equiv. excluded).

I have had this recurring experience... I will often go off on "tangents" and they seem so natural and connected and flowing like water or traveling like trains to me, and it pains me to say "sorry for being offtopic" because honestly, in my mind, I don't realize it that way. But others will tell me "that point isn't relevant" or "I don't understand!" Likewise, I am confused by some very simple things in societies which I have seen many others grasp well.

I like what Mike said:

"That said, there are also moments when it's glaringly apparent that the book itself was written by a Western man -- that is, it's sometimes hyper-analytical, missing the forest for the trees, focusing on the differences rather than the commonalities."

Delicious irony!

This reminds me of the "how to negotiate" guidebook pages on the Internets. Like this one for Thai:

http://marketing.byu.edu/htmlpages/ccrs/proceedings99/hendon.htm

I continue to be an alien and am enthused to see, in the not-so-distant-future, how more "multicultural" crowds literally crowd onto virtual worlds and interact. One heck of a flea market.

This is great schtuff!

[Torley Wong/Torley Torgeson]

8.

O, can someone please teach me how to insert hyperlinks, bold, and other richtext formatting in here? Thanx in advance.

[Jessica Mulligan]

9.

>>As just one example, Asians and Westerners (especially USAmericans) react entirely differently to perceptions of rarity and value. Japanese will tend to choose an item as "most desirable" if it conforms to what others in their social set also have: that's how they obtain a strong sense of social identification. In the US OTOH, we tend to choose the "rarest" item -- our status is set by what we have that others don't.

It shouldn't take a genius to figure out the implications of this for things like "rare" or "epic" items in games, or guild-identification livery, say, and how these will be valued by players in different cultures.>>

Except it doesn't, really. While guild sigils and such are in demand in Asian games, as they are in Western games, so are rare and unique items demanded in Asian games, to the point where someone wishing to provide a game in Asia has to take that into account in the design.

It would seem, then, that MMOs might provide exceptions to the rules, or an opportunity to toss the rules and customs of society out the window and indulge a bit.

Something to think about, indeed.

[monkeysan]

10.

Jessica>It would seem, then, that MMOs might provide exceptions to the rules, or an opportunity to toss the rules and customs of society out the window and indulge a bit.

Or, alternatively, that data could turn out to support the claim that virtual worlds are novel enough and sufficiently distinct from RL that a player's RL culture doesn't impact their online behavior as much as the culture of the virtual worlds themselves.

In short, maybe it turns out to be evidence that MMO culture trumps RL culture inside virtual worlds.

=D

Aaron

[Alan Meades]

11.

I'm finding this a very interesting thread.

As some of you may be aware I'm currently conducting research in an attempt to genereate quantatitive evidence related to this issue: i.e. do players bring their cultural identities into MMOs and can trends be observed related to cultural background.

Preliminary analysis of the data (8900 responses and counting) is showing evidence of groupings of preference according to location (falling broadly along Western, European and Asian groups). Although (and it's still early days yet with the analysis) differences are not as pronounced in MMO preference as is suggested in Hofstede's Cultures Consequences (I haven't read Nisbett's book yet so I cannot comment).

Whether this says somthing about the urgency of such researchers to evidence pronounced differences in their theories - i.e. different nationalities are very different - or as Aaron suggests that RL, although influencing VL, "doesn't impact their online behavior as much as the culture of the virtual worlds themselves."

Alan

[ren reynolds]

12.

Aaron > Or, alternatively, that data could turn out to support the claim that virtual worlds are novel enough and sufficiently distinct from RL that a player's RL culture doesn't impact their online behavior as much as the culture of the virtual worlds themselves.

I wonder if it is possible to split out online-cultural influence from that of a given world. That is, we know that people act differently when using ICTs. I think that lots of studies of lots of different contexts have shown hyperpersonal type effects. Then there are given virtual worlds and in fact you have a whole set of cultures there (Richard has written about this and I’m applying it to moral norms right now).

So as wild unfounded speculation one could argue that the ICTness of things facilitates a tendency towards a common online culture that our geographical culture influences much less than in our face to face dealings. This broad pallet then has a virtual world culture put on top, this may or may not be influenced more by geographic culture e.g. one might argue that ones geographic culture has a greater influence where there are avatars that happen to look a bit like the people around you – hence the norms start to be triggered and kick in; where as say in a text world where you are a green-n-cube talking to summers-breeze these things might not influence so much.

It would be interesting to see studies across both virtual worlds, graphical and text, and other online environments such as chat rooms so one could see the differing levels of influence.

[terra nova freak]

13.

what the heck does this have to do with terra nova national park its so boring and dull