<p>I've been reading a book called The Way of The Shaman by Michael Harner. In it, I found three quotes on page 24 which describe how people perceive the world in different ways based on what could be cognitive biases. In the one quote Harner writes, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“In engaging in shamanic practice, one moves between what I term an
  Ordinary State of Consciousness (OSC) and a Shamanic State of
  Consciousness (SSC). These states of consciousness are the keys to
  understanding, for example, how Carlos Castaneda can speak of an
  ‘ordinary reality’ and a ‘nonordinary reality.’”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In another quote he writes,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"To understand the deep-seated, emotional hostility that greeted the
  works of Castaneda in some quarters, one needs to keep in mind that
  this kind of prejudice is often involved. It is the counterpart of
  ethnocentrism between cultures. But in this case it is not the
  narrowness of someone’s cultural experience that is the fundamental
  issue, but the narrowness of someone’s conscious experience. The
  persons most prejudiced against a concept of nonordinary reality are
  those who have never experienced it. This might be termed
  cognicentrism, the analogue in consciousness of ethnocentrism."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the third quote Harner writes,   </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Anthropologists teach others to try to avoid the pitfalls of
  ethnocentrism by learning to understand a culture in terms of its own
  assumptions about reality. Western shamans can do a similar service
  with regard to cognicentrism. The anthropologists’ lesson is called
  cultural relativism. What Western shamans can try to create, to some
  degree, is cognitive relativism. Later, when an empirical knowledge of
  the experiences of the SSC is achieved, there may be a respect for its
  own assumptions. Then the time will perhaps be ripe for unprejudiced
  analysis of SSC experiences scientifically in OSC terms.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure if these quotes answer your question well enough since they attempt to explain the mind more than the brain but I thought they were somewhat related to what you've asked.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-03T01:35:56.330Z
It is important to remember these are hypotheses formulated by the author of the book.
dogAwakeCat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-02T16:47:08.193Z
2014-10-02T16:53:08.687Z
2014-10-02T16:53:08.687Z
user18817545
<p>I have been reading a book entitled "The Geography of Thought" by Richard Nisbett. He talks about how easterners and westerners think differently. I am not all the way through it, but I agree with a lot of his points, because he stresses no true biological differences between the two groups but instead suggests that the difference in cognitive processes takes place over time as a result of cultural factors or "nurture" rather than "nature." I am reading this book as a part of a class I am taking entitled "perspectives on knowledge". </p>

<p>To accompany this book, we are watching a video series entitled "Brain Sex" which talks about the effects of hormones on the developing brain and supports the hypotheses that Males and Females have different cognitive processes. (More specifically male and female BRAINS, as you can have a male brain in a female body or have a brain that is actually more like a hybrid between the two due to hormonal abnormalities) This would be a difference of nature that is accentuated through out life through nurture.</p>

<p>The problem is that this video series is a VHS and is over 20 years old. </p>

<p>I am wondering what science's view is on the universality of mind is today. My question can actually be summed up by a question my professor asked us to think about in class:  </p>

<p>"Do different people think differently, or is the mind universal. If people think differently, is this difference due primarily to nature or nurture?"</p>

<p><strong>EDIT:</strong> 
I have been developing my argument and I am going to defend my long term belief that people think differently, but after much thought I am torn as to where the <strong>primary</strong> cause for this difference could lie. </p>

<p>Here is the first half of my argument which sets up the first major premise, which is that people think differently:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The physiology of our brain can be mapped directly to our
psychological “mind” regardless of the absence of a proven causal
relationship. </p></li>
<li><p>Our brains undergo a large amount of physiological change throughout
life due to  their plastic nature</p></li>
<li><p><strong>People think differently as a result.</strong></p></li>
</ol>

<p>Premise 4 is where I am torn. 
Both cultural factors and physical ones have a huge effect on our brains. non-physical cultural factors and physical ones, like hormones, both effect the way our brains are wired. </p>

<p>The <strong>amount</strong> of cultural priming throughout our life heavily outweighs our physical priming, but our physical priming takes place <strong>earlier</strong> in life, even pre-birth. presumably to me, this would make it a primary factor, because of a compound effect, making these developments more significant.</p>

<p>but I have no evidence to support either view point, so i'm looking for actual references that I can look at that address the significance of these factors as well as critiques of my argument in case I am operating off of some fallacy I am unaware of because of my limited perspective here. </p>

<p>I understand this question is subjective. I am honestly just looking for references related to my argument because it can be hard me to find good scientific references.... but the opinions of others would be awesome as well!
Thank you in advance!</p>

<h1>UPDATE</h1>

<p>I just stumbled across this again, and I actually wrote a paper on the matter which specifically answers the question. You can read it <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/163g_-dKqWBfDSizGPwAVD5KqXwsDpo7otI4QwKhjRHM/edit?usp=sharing" rel="nofollow">here</a>. </p>

<p>My conclusion is that the mind is not universal and nature is the primary cause. My explanation is somewhat nuanced, but very strictly logical in nature and I trace out the premises in the first page. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-25T09:52:35.610Z
You're very encouraged to write answers to your own questions, but it doesn't really make sense to put them in the question itself. Does this edit imply the question has an accepted answer?
Christian Hummeluhr
<cognitive-neuroscience><sexuality><plasticity>
Universal Mind? Nature or Nurture?
Luke
# Universal Mind? Nature or Nurture?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-09-30)

I have been reading a book entitled "The Geography of Thought" by Richard Nisbett. He talks about how easterners and westerners think differently. I am not all the way through it, but I agree with a lot of his points, because he stresses no true biological differences between the two groups but instead suggests that the difference in cognitive processes takes place over time as a result of cultural factors or "nurture" rather than "nature." I am reading this book as a part of a class I am taking entitled "perspectives on knowledge".

To accompany this book, we are watching a video series entitled "Brain Sex" which talks about the effects of hormones on the developing brain and supports the hypotheses that Males and Females have different cognitive processes. (More specifically male and female BRAINS, as you can have a male brain in a female body or have a brain that is actually more like a hybrid between the two due to hormonal abnormalities) This would be a difference of nature that is accentuated through out life through nurture.

The problem is that this video series is a VHS and is over 20 years old.

I am wondering what science's view is on the universality of mind is today. My question can actually be summed up by a question my professor asked us to think about in class:

"Do different people think differently, or is the mind universal. If people think differently, is this difference due primarily to nature or nurture?"

**EDIT:**
I have been developing my argument and I am going to defend my long term belief that people think differently, but after much thought I am torn as to where the **primary** cause for this difference could lie.

Here is the first half of my argument which sets up the first major premise, which is that people think differently:

1. The physiology of our brain can be mapped directly to our
   psychological “mind” regardless of the absence of a proven causal
   relationship.
2. Our brains undergo a large amount of physiological change throughout
   life due to their plastic nature
3. **People think differently as a result.**

Premise 4 is where I am torn.
Both cultural factors and physical ones have a huge effect on our brains. non-physical cultural factors and physical ones, like hormones, both effect the way our brains are wired.

The **amount** of cultural priming throughout our life heavily outweighs our physical priming, but our physical priming takes place **earlier** in life, even pre-birth. presumably to me, this would make it a primary factor, because of a compound effect, making these developments more significant.

but I have no evidence to support either view point, so i'm looking for actual references that I can look at that address the significance of these factors as well as critiques of my argument in case I am operating off of some fallacy I am unaware of because of my limited perspective here.

I understand this question is subjective. I am honestly just looking for references related to my argument because it can be hard me to find good scientific references.... but the opinions of others would be awesome as well!
Thank you in advance!

# UPDATE

I just stumbled across this again, and I actually wrote a paper on the matter which specifically answers the question. You can read it [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/163g_-dKqWBfDSizGPwAVD5KqXwsDpo7otI4QwKhjRHM/edit?usp=sharing).

My conclusion is that the mind is not universal and nature is the primary cause. My explanation is somewhat nuanced, but very strictly logical in nature and I trace out the premises in the first page.

**Tags:** cognitive-neuroscience, sexuality, plasticity

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You're very encouraged to write answers to your own questions, but it doesn't really make sense to put them in the question itself. Does this edit imply the question has an accepted answer?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-10-02. Score: 0

I've been reading a book called The Way of The Shaman by Michael Harner. In it, I found three quotes on page 24 which describe how people perceive the world in different ways based on what could be cognitive biases. In the one quote Harner writes,

> “In engaging in shamanic practice, one moves between what I term an
> Ordinary State of Consciousness (OSC) and a Shamanic State of
> Consciousness (SSC). These states of consciousness are the keys to
> understanding, for example, how Carlos Castaneda can speak of an
> ‘ordinary reality’ and a ‘nonordinary reality.’”

In another quote he writes,

> "To understand the deep-seated, emotional hostility that greeted the
> works of Castaneda in some quarters, one needs to keep in mind that
> this kind of prejudice is often involved. It is the counterpart of
> ethnocentrism between cultures. But in this case it is not the
> narrowness of someone’s cultural experience that is the fundamental
> issue, but the narrowness of someone’s conscious experience. The
> persons most prejudiced against a concept of nonordinary reality are
> those who have never experienced it. This might be termed
> cognicentrism, the analogue in consciousness of ethnocentrism."

In the third quote Harner writes,

> "Anthropologists teach others to try to avoid the pitfalls of
> ethnocentrism by learning to understand a culture in terms of its own
> assumptions about reality. Western shamans can do a similar service
> with regard to cognicentrism. The anthropologists’ lesson is called
> cultural relativism. What Western shamans can try to create, to some
> degree, is cognitive relativism. Later, when an empirical knowledge of
> the experiences of the SSC is achieved, there may be a respect for its
> own assumptions. Then the time will perhaps be ripe for unprejudiced
> analysis of SSC experiences scientifically in OSC terms.”

I'm not sure if these quotes answer your question well enough since they attempt to explain the mind more than the brain but I thought they were somewhat related to what you've asked.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: It is important to remember these are hypotheses formulated by the author of the book.  

---

