The idea that people who speak the same languages also have the same cognitive functions can have even more advantages for those who speak more than one language or are bilingual. Our textbook talks about how many studies have found that those who are bilingual can selectively attend to stimuli better and suppress interference from competing stimuli in attention. In addition to that, when they think in a second language it reduces biases when making decisions. Early exposure to a multilingual environment may also promote more effective communication. A reason for this may be that it impacts the white matter that is in out brain. While I am not bilingual I wonder how/why speaking in a second language makes someone almost become a "superhero" allowing for then to escape the negative aspects of our brain, such as having biases and mind-wondering? As we have learned in many other chapters, just because a concept doesn't exist exactly like it might in Westernized culture does not mean that it doesn't exist, it just might exist in a different way. Our textbook says that there have been many other studies done on this subject that pushes back on these ideas and I think that I would like to know more about these ideas as well.

I think that the differences in dimensions among different cultures are important to highlight in both the kinds of health systems that exist in different cultures but also in the differences of disease and illnesses that are present in the first place. For example, our book highlights that individualistic cultures tend to have more heart related illnesses whereas collectivistic cultures tend to less heart related illnesses because social support may serve as a buffer. In collectivistic cultures, social support is a lot more prevalent. However, collectivist cultures tend to have more infections and parasitic disease compared to individualistic cultures. This could be because those in collectivistic cultures tend to spend more time around one another and exist in hotter climates which may support these diseases. Additionally, other dimensions that are also discussed in this article influence the presence or absence of other diseases. These dimensions may be something to keep in mind when different cultures may be funding research on health issues and when the health care system is being selected. Health care systems should be considerate and accommodate health matters that are specific to different cultures.

Reading how interdependent cultures regulate their emotions using suppression whereas cultures that are more independent are less likely to use suppression, made me think about how our book talks about psychological therapy. Many therapies in independent individualistic cultures are often focused on the individual and their emotions. Individuals that participate in these therapies and that live in these cultures may see therapy as beneficial, finally being able to express what they are feeling. However, those who live in a more collectivist and interdependent culture know that their emotions impact others in different ways, and therefore would have a more difficult time expressing their emotions. Psychotherapies may not be as beneficial to them and they may feel that they cannot express their feelings in any certain way because of the effects it may have on the relationships around them, including the patient/client relationship. This makes me wonder if more collectivistic cultures have different therapies to treat different things? If they don't why is that? Do they recognize mental illness? I think this also helps to strengthen the argument that culture is an important concept in psychology. How can cultural psychologist know if psychotherapies are "working" in other cultures?

This related to the section in Chapter 8 that also talks about dialectical thinking and the differences in this type of thinking across cultures. Dialectical thinking according to our text book is the tendency to accept what seem to be contradictions in thought or beliefs. In turn or book out lines the concept of positive logical determinism which it defines as the tendency to see contradictions as mutually exclusive categories, as either-or, yes-no, one-or-the-other types of categories. While this article outlines the differences in culture in relation to social categorization (e.g if penguins are birds or not), Our text outlines differences in dialectical thinking in other concepts such as self, emotional experiences, psychological well-being, attitudes, and evaluations, social categorizations, perceptions, and judgements and decision making. Findings from many of theses studies have lead researchers to find that while Westernized cultures like America, show that positive and negative feelings are negatively correlated, East Asian cultures such as China have shown that positive and negative feelings are either not related at all or they are positively related. This has lead researchers to come up with a new concept which is not mentioned in this article of naïve dialecticism which is a constellation of lay beliefs about the nature of the world rather than a cognitive style that dialectical thinking suggests. This concept suggests that the truth in any disagreement lies somewhere in the middle- something most Westernized cultures would not agree with. This makes me wonder how differences in thinking among cultures may lead to interpretations about wars. While they may seem justified by Westernized thinking (because one side is always right), they may not seem justified by East Asian cultures (the truth is in the middle- so what are we fighting about?).

I think it is very interesting that we see gender differences when it comes to the big 5 personality traits across all cultures. Later on in the article, these differences are said to be a result of biological differences. However, thinking back to our text book, our book highlights the Five Factor Theory which states that everyone is born with the biological bases of the five personality traits, neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience. then our cultural gives us characteristic adaptations that turn certain personality traits up or down. This then impacts how we think about ourselves. Our textbook also notes that while the five universal traits may be correct the theory for how they develop may be wrong. So does this claim that certain levels of personality traits have a biological basis in terms of gender, disprove the five factor theory? Should researchers start studying the differences in gender? How does culture influence how someone of a specific gender identity is treated or for example shape the expectations of being a female? or a male? or trans? How does this influence the development of personality traits in cultures and individuals?

When you think about American culture and how children develop we often think of this time period as being characterized by "risky behavior". This may be attributed to the underdevelopment of the prefrontal cortex which plays a role in children regulating their behavior. Many articles that I have read in many of my psych classes often contribute risky behavior of adolescents to the underdevelopment of the prefrontal cortex but also to the influence of peers. However, this information that we believe to be true is based on a population of WEIRDOS. Since other cultures differ on the amount of exposure they have to their peers, what other social agents might influence risky behaviors the most in other cultures?

One thing that I think is notable about this is about the kind of children that may results from this type of structure in the family. Our book talks about the Whiting and Whiting's 6 culture studies which found two big findings. One was that depending on is a child grew up in a hunter gather society or a urban dwellers, they would have very different experiences regarding who the child spent time with, what activities the child was exposed to, and what behaviors and personality traits were valued, emphasized, and encouraged. Another huge finding was that women's work roles contributed to the children's social behaviors. In cultures where women are the subsistence base of the family, children learned to share the family responsibilities and were not as dependent. However, in cultures where women were not expected to substantially, contribute to the subsistence base of the family, children were high on dependence. So I am wondering if the same would be true for those who live in a more patrilineal or matrilineal structure. Would children raised in a more patrilineal culture be more dependent on others as opposed to children who were raised in a matrilineal culture who may be less dependent on others and share more family responsibilities.