The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 70 (1992) > Issues > Issue 20 > Correspondence on A New Paradigm for Structural Engineering by Dr. D.M. Brohn
Name of File 5599-70-20.pdf cached at 13/12/2017 18:48:10 - with 1 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\19\198e6dc6-01f8-41bc-881f-3697d6503e0c.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\198e6dc6-01f8-41bc-881f-3697d6503e0c_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 198e6dc6-01f8-41bc-881f-3697d6503e0c_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

Correspondence on A New Paradigm for Structural Engineering by Dr. D.M. Brohn

Mr D. J. Sharpe (F) Like Dr Brohn I worked in Hong Kong - in my case, for 10 years on the Mass Transit Railway works - and therefore was also exposed to aspects of Chinese thinking. It never occurred to me that differences between ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ thinking could be driven, or affected, by the use of a particular or predominant hemisphere of the brain. What I became aware of, however, was the basic differences between ‘western’ and Chinese thinking in a number of areas - e.g. the management style of privately-owned Hong Kong Chinese companies compared with that of countries within the Judaeo/Christian heritage. In the main, the Chinese have not been that influenced by the western mode of thinking; western Christian civilisation’s way of thinking (the ‘how’) was determined initially by the ancient Greeks, whereas ‘what’ we think was determined by Jesus Christ. As yet the opposite influence (east to west) is in its infancy.