Cross Cultural Communications an Asian Viewpoint

Cross Cultural Communications An Asian Viewpoint

Posted by Tawan , Reader : 253 , 13:13:57
Print

Tawan Quote - (“Khun Ian that is because the falang blogger would take every word she wrote literally which is the big problem writing in English. What she wrote could mean many things you have to wait to see what comes out. ”).
Khun Ian Quote - (Tawan, that seems a very strange comment, it seems to imply that we should never believe literally anything that a Thai writes in English. I'm sure you did not mean that, can you explain further?”).
This was a very interesting conversation between me, Khun Ian, and Khun Windy. This is my attempt to explain our misunderstanding from a cross-cultural viewpoint. Since this is from a cross-cultural viewpoint all comments are welcome. This conversation was between 2 Thais and a Scottish any other cultures that want to join in, I would appreciate it very much.
The conversation……………
Khun Windy - (“I don't know how law making works here, but Thailand should have a constitution made by the people, not just a yes or no vote on the referendum.

And when a law needs to be changed, the people have to vote again on whether they want the law changed. They can't just go saying they want to amend the constitution and just write what ever they want.

really, why can Thai politicians get away with every little thing?”).
Khun Ian - Windy, do you not find it strange that you an educated reporter can yet say, "I don't know how law making works here".
Is this not one of the problems with Thailand?
I am sure that every Farang blogger here knows how laws are made in their home countries.
Please keep in mind that this is only my opinion from my experiences in cross-cultural communications. Thanks to all of my professors who have done extensive research in this field. I am not going to spend days google all the bits and pieces of research but instead rely on my memory.

When I read Khun Windy’s comment, I think very good story looking forward to hearing more. Asian conversation is filled with many feelers before a conclusion is made. It is not a one on one conversation. The fractural group’s reaction (credit to Khun Ian) must be considered first. In other words it is not based on an individual’s need for immediate information in order for the conversation to continue. Asian people before they say or write anything must consider the needs of the fractural group comes before the individual’s needs. This fractural group may include what will my boss think of this, what will my co-workers think of this, what will my company think of this, what will my parents think of this, what will my friends think of this, what will my spouse think of this, what will my country think of this, what will the person I am talking to think of this and so on and so on. Everything an Asian person says and does must first consider the group’s possible reaction and needs first not based on the individual’s immediate need for information. It is always a group conversation and a group decision and conclusion. This process takes longer to arrive to an understanding but it is necessary for group cohesion, productivity and harmony. In summary every conversation is a group conversation not an individual conversation. When you are talking to an Asian person you are in fact talking to many persons whether present or not.
This can be seen in everyday life in classrooms all over Asia where a Teacher is guiding students along a path as a group not as an individual an A-type personalities do no not function well in Asian society. Children in a Chinese classroom are taught that as a National group your favorite color is Yellow for the Great Yellow Han race. What there individual favorite color may be is reserved for the appropriate group. Therefore, there are many right answers to the same question. The Yin and Yang is often grey but never leads to conflict. Westerners too often read the Yin and Yang as black or white, right or wrong or truth and lie.
Another example would be Deming bringing his quality control circle to Japan, where it was immediately successful because it fit the Asian group cultural so well. If Deming had brought his quality control circle to Thailand today you would have Thailand Inc. instead of Japan Inc. Deming was a complete failure in America’s individual A- type personality culture.
Contrasted with an Individual culture’s need for exact immediate need for information exchange between two individuals in order to survive in society, there is no group to rely on every piece of information must be analyzed and logically concluded on an individual basis. A-type personalities thrive in this environment. This type of conversation is much focused going back and forth from point A to point B to point C and on and on until a linear logical conclusion is made.
Let me try to analyze the conversation in a linear logical manner.
“I don't know how law making works here, but Thailand should have a constitution made by the people, not just a yes or no vote on the referendum.”
Logical understanding this person does not understand law-making.” but Thailand should have a constitution made by the people, not just a yes or no vote on the referendum”. Since this person has no information about law-making the second statement is an illogical false statement.
A group culture understanding of the above statement would be yes we must study and discuss law-making more closely in order for us to have a Democratic constitution made by the people for the people.
“(And when a law needs to be changed, the people have to vote again on whether they want the law changed. They can't just go saying they want to amend the constitution and just write what ever they want.”)
Logically since statement A is false this statement must be false since it is a carry- on based on a false statement.
Group understanding more feelers put to the group on how to solve the problem of lawmakers writing anything that suits their interest.

“(really, why can Thai politicians get away with every little thing?”)
Logical interpretation - Conclusion statement conversation finished conclusion reached.
Group interpretation - a call for more discussion.
Khun Ian’s Quote response
(“Windy, do you not find it strange that you an educated reporter can yet say, "I don't know how law making works here".
Is this not one of the problems with Thailand?
I am sure that every Farang blogger here knows how laws are made in their home countries.”)
Logical conclusion and response is that since the first statement is true the remaining statement cannot be considered as true fact since they do not support the first statement, therefore, I must analyze where the logic broke down in order to help. The logic broke down based on an educated informed professional does not understand law-making since this is true I can carry the logic further by assuming others in Thailand must also not understand law-making also, therefore, the real problem is Thailand does not have people that understands law-making. The logical answer to this problem would be for Thailand to follow the western example of individuals understand law-making and are thus capable of governing the country.
Basically, an individual culture conversation goes like this the first thought is I need information let me ask you a question and your answer must be logical in order for me to accept you.
Basically, a group culture conversation goes like this the first thought is what can I say or do that will benefit the group this starts the information flow.
Well that is the best I can do from memory. I hope that even a little bit will be understood. My best advice is to sit in on a quality control group conversation both Western and Asian do not ask any questions just listen and you will see the difference.