We frequently encounter personal video bloggers on social media offering comparative commentaries on different nations and ethnicities. But does such comparison truly hold meaning?
Upon reflection, a single individual possesses dozens, if not hundreds, of facets. A nation—as an aggregate of politics, economics, history, culture, and geography….has facets numbering in the millions. Most of us are merely like the “blind men touching an elephant,” observing through extremely narrow slices of reality such as “tourism,” “short-term stays,” or “reading materials.” Attempting to extrapolate a “national character” from the attitude of a convenience store clerk is a statistical impossibility; it highlights the massive chasm between “Individual Experience” and the “Grand Narrative.”
However, the proliferation of this phenomenon stems from our cognitive structure: we rely on “pattern recognition” to survive. To quickly make sense of the world, our brains crave to label complex things (e.g., “Country A is rigorous,” “Country B is romantic”). Social media, aiming to harvest traffic, often caters to this need for “cognitive ease” by manufacturing polarization and stereotypes. Such comparisons are rarely about exploring the truth; rather, they are often about seeking confirmation bias to support pre-existing stances, which only deepens misunderstandings and divides.
So, how should we position ourselves?
The key lies in our role. As humans, we lack the capacity to act as “Arbiters” judging the superiority of nations; but we possess the right to act as “Chroniclers” sharing differences.
As long as we adopt a “Sample-Based Mindset” — treating this content merely as an exclamation of surprise from a blind man touching an elephant, rather than reading it as a zoological report — it holds value. After all, “The Other” is a mirror of the Self. When looking at someone’s evaluation of another country, we often see not the country itself, but the values and cultural coordinates of the commentator. Ultimately, these comparisons help us understand: “So, through their cultural lens, this is how reality is interpreted.”
自媒体上经常会看到一些个人视频博主对于不同国家民族的对比评论，这样的比较真的有意义吗？
仔细想来，一个人的侧面都有几十上百，而一个国家作为一个政治、经济、历史、文化、地理等等的集合体，其侧面甚至达到百万级别。我们大多都只是“盲人摸象”，仅仅通过“旅游”、“短期居住”或者“阅读资料”这几个极窄的切面去观察。试图用“我在便利店遇到的服务员态度”来推导“这个民族的国民性”，这种“个体经验”与“宏大叙事”之间的巨大鸿沟，使得所谓的对比在统计学上往往是完全不成立的。
然而，这种现象之所以泛滥，是因为人类的认知结构决定了我们必须依赖“模式识别”来生存。 为了快速理解世界，我们的大脑渴望将复杂事物标签化（比如：A国人严谨，B国人浪漫）。自媒体为了迎合这种“认知省力”的需求，往往通过制造对立和刻板印象来收割流量。这类对比，本质上往往不是在探究真理，而是在寻找论据来支撑既有的偏见，反而加深了误解与隔阂。
那么，我们该如何自处？
关键在于定位。作为一个人类，我们没有能力做“裁判”去判定国家间的优劣；但我们拥有做“记录者”去分享差异的权利。
只要我们建立一种“样本思维”，把这些内容仅仅当做“盲人摸象”中的那一声惊叹，而不是当做严肃的动物学报告，它就有意义。毕竟，他者是自我的一面镜子。看别人对他国的评价，有时候看到的不是那个国家，而是评论者自身的价值观。这种对比最终能帮我们理解的是：“原来在他们的文化视角里，这件事是这样被解读的。”
