They (the non-WEIRD majority) identify more strongly with family, tribe, clan and ethnic group, think more “holistically,” take responsibility for what their group does (and publicly punish those who besmirch the group’s honor), feel shame — not guilt — when they misbehave and think nepotism is a natural duty.
I have heard of the difference of culture between Western and "honor-shame" cultures.
creating states to replace tribes, science to replace lore and law to replace custom
Prohibition on marrying cousins probably caused people to form larger and more complex societies.
Don’t marry your cousin!
Sounds like a good idea to me.
The 20th-century Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin believed that the answer lay in dialogue. We need others in order to evaluate our own existence and construct a coherent self-image.
Comparing the self to others helps us understand ourselves. This makes sense. How would I know if I was tall or short unless I had been around other people?
Genovese’s murder had to be seen against a backdrop in which violence against women was not taken seriously, Cherry said, and in which people were reluctant to step into what might have been a domestic dispute.
The same thing still happens today, despite violence against women being taken more seriously. For an example, I recently saw a video of a woman being brutally beaten in a restaurant. While there were many people around who could have stopped this, everyone simply watched.
Who I am depends on many ‘others’: my family, my friends, my culture, my work colleagues. The self I take grocery shopping, say, differs in her actions and behaviours from the self that talks to my PhD supervisor.
Is this a difference of "self?" Or is it simply choosing to reveal certain aspects of the self over others dependent on the situation?
In the case of behaviour' he noted how the twentieth-century change in the meaning of the word had been in the direction of supplying a morally neutral description of human actions.
Is this why parents tell their children to "behave!" when they are behaving badly? :P
In other words, psycho-logical theory operates on the basis of some pre-understanding of that which it is a theory of
Every understanding of our world ultimately requires assumptions. If we remove all our assumptions (supposing this is possible), I think we would be unable to function. This reminds me of the question of if the size-weight paradox is "true" or not. It is an illusion, but it is a helpful one.
'organs of experience'
This makes me think of how Descartes saw the mind as a unified consciousness. He even proposed it was located in the pineal glad. I wonder what the Maori would think of this idea. Are these organs of experience similar to Descartes' idea, except there are multiple? Do they see consciousness as unified or are separate experiences categorically separated similar to how sense organs work (ex: eye detects light, ear detects sound...)?
languages
Not only are concepts and categories different, the way language is used is different too. It can be difficult to translate meaning from one language to another.