Correct understanding asks for two ingredients: sufficient information and logical interpretation. In our case, that might include the current political situation, the cultural and social environment of the suicide bomber as well as his religious point of view. Especially the last issue is of utmost importance, here. If one tries to interpret the act without regarding the relevant passages of the Qur'an, he will be obliged to use a different standard than the suicide bomber for evaluation. And a different standard - no wonder - will deliver a different result. That, in return, will lead to missunderstanding. The Qur'an clearly states that one sure way for a follower of Muhammad to enter paradise will be to die as martyr for Allah. Suicide bombers claim that promise with all their heart for they consider themselves fighting Allah's enemies. Now, what is a limited life on earth compared to the eternal blessings waiting yonder? But if you choose to evaluate the deed by standards of the Western hemisphere (materialism, humanism, Biblical doctrine) you will end up with shrugging your shoulder or shaking your head. Certainly, you will not share his opinion concerning its value. However, even if you will come to a correct understanding that does not imply sympathy or "If I were in his situation, I did the same thing"-reaction. Many people (even journalists) confuse understanding with acceptance. So they leave the path of objectivity as well as that of truth.

I deal with Cognitive Egocentrism almost everyday. I live in a community with a high Hispanic population. As a person who speaks Spanish and has some relationships in the Hispanic community, I am asked questions about 'Why do they..." The reality is that the Hispanic Minority in Georgia has just 'become Americanized'. Many aspects of Hispanic culture are still prevalent. Many people here are surprised or offended when a 15 year old Hispanic girl, 15 being the traditional beginning of adulthood in Hispanic cultures, is allowed to marry or leaves home and moves in with a boyfriend, yet when an American female is 18, most people aren't offended if she does the same. I am more comfortable with the 18 year old doing so because I was encultured into a White, Anglo-Saxon belief system. The reality though is that both 18 and 15 are arbitrary numbers. Some 15 year olds are more ready to make that decision than some 18 year olds, yet most of us would be far less offended by the less mature 18 year old doing so.

I found your website for the first time today -- am enjoying readng through it. I did notice one inaccuracy -- you attribute a quote to "Sherry Blair". The actual name is Cherie Blair. Keep up the good work -- I'll look forawrd to visiting your site again.

I find this brief explanation revelatory. To me, it outlines an appraoch to understanding that should sweep away a great deal of error. At the same time I struggle with the implications of this insight. I am a Californian living in a Southeast Asian nation, and at times I am utterly baffled by the logic of the locals. I try to understand how they reach the conclusions they do, and I have difficulty distinguishing the lies and evasions from honest explanations of the logic employed here. In trying to grasp the alien reasoning, I often find myself trying to consider how I would feel if I were in the other fellow's position. It's almost a desperate act, a last attempt to understand how the conclusion can possibly follow from the argument. Thus do I give in to cognitive egocentrism. The option, it seems, is a simple statement of the argument: begin with the assumptions, to the extent we can know them, list the reasons, and state the conclusion. That the argument remains completely unconvincing and even seems to dance insanely around the facts must be ignored. An objective report is desired. So whether I use cognitive egocentrism or resort to a cold recitation of the facts, I remain puzzled. How can people think this way? Why do they make such elementary mistakes? Values then enter the picture, and that is one of the most complex and arcane subjects in existence. Every culture makes assumptions that are hidden from the foreigner, because they are implicit and never articulated. I wonder sometimes how values are taught, as their explicit formulation is never attempted! Getting at the values of a culture is a slow, frustrating, subjective and very error-prone study. How can one check to see whether one has it right? How do we verify the work of an anthropologist or ethnologist? The heated controversy surrounding the work of Margaret Mead illustrates the difficulty facing scholars who attempt to find and correct errors in the ethnographic/ethnological literature. My conclusion for now is that the struggle to understand how and why is a monumental task. Perhaps it is impossible. Can we actually do more than simply document the fact of suicide bombers, for example? I simply don't know. Is understanding to be found in lists of assertions regarding values ("the villagers' epistemology assumes sympathetic magic; they revere and venerate shamans; they avoid bragging and self-promotion....")? Can anyone, reading such a list, genuinely understand it and its implications, and could any such list possibly be complete? Would all incomplete lists be inaccurate? Is understanding different from familiarity based on long-term exposure?