If I presented the argument linearly then it was merely an attempt to differentiate. An oversimplification.
My own personal model is closer to the polyhedron but still closer to quantum physics. Individually we are clouds of decisions. Individually my decisions make me different from you. Crossing cultures, the cloud of decisions made by two Han will be closer to each other than they will be to the package that defines me and, dare I say, you and most of the people on this forum. Now that doesn't mean that you can't find Hans whose individual clouds are more like Anglo clouds or that an individual Anglo can't have affinities with Hans. It just means that on balance there will be more commonalities amongst Han than between Han and Anglo.
I think it is this clustering of decisions (that is a poor word for what I am trying to express for it is not just the active decisions but also the perceptions that define the individual) that outwardly manifests itself as what we choose to call stereotypes.
From that I take that it is possible to predict the likely reaction of a crowd with a reasonable degree of probability more easily than it is possible to predict the actions of an individual. However, since crowds can be swayed by individuals and individuals are unpredictable therefore it is always possible to be surprised and have the crowd choose to do something unexpected.
I don't know the matrix of perceptions and decisions that define the Han any more than I could accurately define my own with its mixed Anglo Scots heritage, and Brit/Canuck/Yankee acculturation, but I do strongly believe that their matrix weights different aspects differently than most Anglos, or Westerners do.
I think there we agree.
My sense of the West versus the Rest is that one of the outliers where we weight things differently is with respect to the family. Traditional societies, from all regions and all "races" (to use an oldfashioned term) more heavily weight the family than, I believe, your Western Liberal. This tendency is particularly acute the further you shift to the Left.
I mention the Kibbutzim, I could have easily mentioned Kindergarten, Day Care, Schooling, family courts, social services...... the myriad of ways in which the West intervenes between parent and child to diminish, and often sever, the links. This, I believe, is an explicit result of the belief that everybody comes into the world naked and should start on an equal footing. It is perceived as an unfair advantage if one's parents are able to offer more than the parents of another child. That, in turn, is in direct counter-point to the nurturing instinct of every being to give one's offspring the best possible chance of survival, if only to preserve the seed. Death taxes, discriminatory practices on school loans that favour the poor, wealth redistribution generally......all well intentioned, founded in the belief that if there are no differences there is no conflict.
But differences will always exist. My cloud will always be different to everyone else's just as they will alway's be different from each others. With my friends much of our clouds will look alike. With my enemies much of our clouds will be different.
At bottom, you suggested that we were less tied to our "world view" for lack of a better term than the Chinese are tied to theirs. You implied that that gave them a strength that our society doesn't possess. If I understand you correctly then I agree.
And I would put the "attack on the family" at the core of our weakness.
At the same time the cohesion of the Han, may be able to inflict a lasting effect on the west, and I leave the effect undefined, but I don't think they can eliminate the chaotic liberalism of our culture, or the chaotic authoritarianism of other cultures that, I believe, causes them disquiet. That is because, ultimately, the chaos will continue as long as there exists John Stuart Mill's "lone voice". And there are many "lone voices" even amongst the Han.
My money is always on the Nomad, not the pampered urbanite. And that is another characteristic of the Han, a greater tendency to congregate and I believe "concentration of forces" is often seen as opening a window of vulnerability.
From my personal standpoint that same tendency to congregate is found amongst the Western Leftists (Yankee Liberals). That in itself gives me comfort because in the long haul they are exposing themselves to the same risks as the Chinese but with out the benefit of their "Big Battalions".
I agree entirely that finding the right mental model is key to developing a strategy.
Maybe its appropriate that my own model is defined in terms of 6 billion constantly changing, kaleidoscopically coloured, fuzzy clouds of indistinct size and shape and form. When viewed up close there is nothing there. When viewed within the mass of clouds there is only constantly changing confusion. But if you go up above the clouds then the individual nature of the clouds fade and the kaleidoscope moves from the individual to the group.
Oh dear, getting all philosophical and social science artsy here.
Edit, on that score, think Jackson Pollock if you want a visual analogy to my worldview. Each canvas looks the same and they all look different and they can all be made into each other by continuing the process that created them.
