Discussion Post #2
Figuring Foreigners Out was a book about the aspects of different cultures and how they communicate. The book sorted all of these into different categories, such as Individualism vs. Collectivism, Monochronic vs. Polychronic Time, Internal vs. External Locus of Control, and Direct vs. Indirect Communication.
The Hofstede Dimensions of Culture had a similar idea in the way it also categorized different aspects of different cultures. These dimensions were: Power Distance Index, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Long Term Orientation, and Indulgence.
I think I mostly agreed with these assessments based on personal experience. One aspect of these categories that might be problematic is that it is generalizing a particular ethnic group in the way they communicate and act. However, both of these sources recognize that these categories exist in a spectrum, which is more believable. I think that I could make interesting connections to these readings and the cultures I am familiar with. For example, in my experience, I think America depends more on low-context communications and values directness. However, in Korea, I think the tone and the context are very important. I also found it very interesting how Korea and the US were opposite in terms of uncertainty orientation on the map. The US is much more resistant to uncertainty, while Korea is not.
Figuring Foreigners Out was a book about the aspects of different cultures and how they communicate. The book sorted all of these into different categories, such as Individualism vs. Collectivism, Monochronic vs. Polychronic Time, Internal vs. External Locus of Control, and Direct vs. Indirect Communication.
The Hofstede Dimensions of Culture had a similar idea in the way it also categorized different aspects of different cultures. These dimensions were: Power Distance Index, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance Index, Long Term Orientation, and Indulgence.
I think I mostly agreed with these assessments based on personal experience. One aspect of these categories that might be problematic is that it is generalizing a particular ethnic group in the way they communicate and act. However, both of these sources recognize that these categories exist in a spectrum, which is more believable. I think that I could make interesting connections to these readings and the cultures I am familiar with. For example, in my experience, I think America depends more on low-context communications and values directness. However, in Korea, I think the tone and the context are very important. I also found it very interesting how Korea and the US were opposite in terms of uncertainty orientation on the map. The US is much more resistant to uncertainty, while Korea is not.
Comments