# Men, women and the ability to see the whole picture



## joshbjoshb

Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).

Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?

Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


----------



## BrockLanders

Uh oh, hope you have your flak jacket on!


----------



## joshbjoshb

Oh yes!

Once I saw women admitting they are more moody during when they get their period, my expectations go so much higher!


----------



## Holland

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


Is this assumption coming from your own life experience? If so you have had a very sheltered life. Might be time to get a broader range of people in your life.

You have also proved your assumption wrong as you have not looked at this premise logically or taking into account the other persons POV.


----------



## ocotillo

Without agreeing with your starting premises, I would say that seeing the other person's point of view is not purely a product of either logic or emotion.

Empathy is a facet of emotion with is certainly important in seeing the other person's perspective.


----------



## joshbjoshb

Holland said:


> You have also proved your assumption wrong as you have not looked at this premise logically or taking into account the other persons POV.


LOL. That was a great response I must say!


----------



## Tall Average Guy

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


Your premise seems to assume that emotion is not part of the entirety of the situation. I don't think that is correct.


----------



## joshbjoshb

Okay, I am glad I stirred some good conversation, even if I am being highly criticized. I can take that 

Just to clarify my question: you guys (and girls) are right. Ability to see the picture in its entirety not always has to do with logical/emotional, BUT and here comes the big but, when someone is highly emotional, it blurred their vision from being able to analyze the situation (rather than "how I feel about it now).

And to you, Catherine, I think we are all so scared of the word "stereotype" that we run away from a very important conversation. Let me be perfect clear: I am big believer in gender equality, which means IMO that genders should be treated the same (men, women, gays etc.), BUT not that they ARE the same. They (men and women) were born very different, and it's silly to think that they are the same.

So yes, your questions at the end of your post, of course men has some natural issues they have to deal with, just like women do. As a man, I can tell you that any man who claims otherwise is just lying.

What boggles my mind is that men are so much more likely to admit their born faults (yes, our mind might be preoccupied with sex, and surely we are more aggressive and can be more violent than women!) but women will have a much harder time to accept that.

I read a thread once about women being more crabby during her cycle, and was shocked to see how many of them said that while it's true, they will never apologize and say "sorry, I got my period so I was crabby", even though deep inside they know that what it was. 

So back to my original question: do most women, being that they are much more emotionally involved than men, are tending to see situations through their own lenses only.

For all of you who suggested I should broaden my social circle, thank you for your kind words. I might have more women in my life than you do.


----------



## MissMe

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, I am glad I stirred some good conversation, even if I am being highly criticized. I can take that
> 
> 
> *For all of you who suggested I should broaden my social circle, thank you for your kind words. I might have more women in my life than you do.*



Yeah and you might have more sexually transmitted diseases, but who really cares?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> There are assumptions inherent in these questions. The way they are framed - true / false; black/white delimits the scope of the discussion and fails to consider the subject in its entirety.


:iagree:

Tell 'em Catherine!

Lol.

Seriously, I like these type of conversations.
But I think it's one of those areas where generalizations won't do.
From a sociological perspective , quite a lot of " gender stereotypes " are disappearing. Things are much more fluid now.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Even if your stereotypes are true of every man and woman, you are implying that those stereotypes result in tunnel vision. I can tell if I'm emotional about a topic while seeing the logic. I'm sure many men can see the logic and understand a subject can be clouded by emotion.

So to address your original commentary, I think men and women ARE able to see the whole picture. It's specific to the person, not the gender, however.


----------



## Wiserforit

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


Translation:

Women are stupid.


----------



## always_alone

joshbjoshb said:


> So back to my original question: do most women, being that they are much more emotionally involved than men, are tending to see situations through their own lenses only.


I would say that both Catherine and Holland have just established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the answer to this is no.


----------



## Cosmos

[quote removed by admin because of copyright request from source]

Are Women Really More Emotional Than Men?


----------



## FalconKing

I think there a lot of things that have to be taken into account. I've heard and thought about this myself. If men are more rational and if women are emotional. I think something that is obvious that we often overlook is life experiences. People tend to be more emotional if they are used to someone else anchoring them or if they are used to someone making decisions for them. 

Let's look at it this way. A lot of people have needs that they put as the highest priority in relationships. You have some men whose highest priority is to be the protector and feel needed. You have some women who's highest priority is a need of security. So I think a lot of men are subconsciously seeking out women who are overly emotional because they want to be able to guide them and be given that sense of purpose in the relationship. These type of women are probably someone who has never truly been alone or experienced some type of independent personal growth. In other words, any person man or woman who is spoiled and sheltered is going to be accustomed to blaming other people for their problems. Very logical women threaten a lot of men because it gives men an insecurity towards their feeling of purpose in the relationship. This may explain the correlation with why so many successful women are single. 

I have a female friend who has a degree in mathematics and works in logistics for a well known company. She has her own house and travels almost every weekend. She is probably one of the most logical human beings on the planet. I have another friend who has been living on her own for about 3 years. She is divorced and spends her time alone reading books at her place and she manages at a restaurant. She is very rational. I don't think it's gender specific. If you have been in a situation where you only had to depend on yourself or people were counting you to make a decision you tend to be able to see the whole picture. Even if you are just reactive by nature you train yourself to be able to asses things differently. I refuse to accept what describe as normal behavior from women because one of my pet peeves is people who can't say they're sorry. I don't associate with those kind of women, or men either. Unless we are related or work together:yawn2:.


----------



## Cosmos

> FalconKing said: I have another friend who has been living on her own for about 3 years. She is divorced and spends her time alone reading books at her place and she manages at a restaurant. She is very rational. I don't think it's gender specific. If you have been in a situation where you only had to depend on yourself or people were counting you to make a decision you tend to be able to see the whole picture.


:iagree:

Having successfully, and single-handedly, reared my son in one of the most violent countries on this planet, then moved us 6087 miles in order for him to complete his education and for us to have a safer life, it took a lot of rational thought and looking at the bigger picture to achieve that!


----------



## tacoma

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


This has been my experience.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


Others have done a very good job of debunking this so I won't do it. Just want want to support those who did a good job of it.


----------



## romantic_guy

My wife and I are opposite to most men and women. I am a Myers-Briggs INFP (feelings based) whereas my wife is ISTJ (logic based). So I have more of a feminine bent to my masculinity and she has a masculine bent to her feminity. I think this has helped us have very few communication issues.

According to the Myers-Briggs more women are feelings based and more men are logic based, but there are obviously exceptions.


----------



## hambone

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


IMO, women might be able to see the whole picture perhaps better than men but they are much more likely to make their decisions based on emotion. 

Women are certainly better at multi tasking than men. 

But, men are better at focusing their attention on one issue. There are advantages to both.


----------



## Caribbean Man

My wife is horrible at multi tasking.
But I am not.

I can joggle multiple tasks and projects efficiently till successful completion. But it's something I learned to do whilst studying Mech. Production Engineering, so its not really natural to me.
Part of my course was project management and job scheduling.

At times my wife can be very logical and calculated which surprises me.
Other times she allows her emotions to dominate.

I think its fun to observe anyway!


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Who says being emotional isn't a rational reaction to what's happening? 

What's rational to one person is not to the next. One person may feel family security comes from having two full time high income earners with lots of money put away and invested., As long as they feel they can still spend adequate time with family. Another may feel that family security comes with some money put away, but lots of emphasis on time spent with family. Another may feel they can live well mostly off the land and grow food etc and spend all their time with family. None of these people are less rational, in fact they all have great points. 

I do believe empathy is of great importance and helps view the bigger picture. My SO is great at being able to do this and so am I. My ex H was also pretty good at this however it often lead to him being so empathetic, he couldn't make a decision and had trouble saying No. There as to be balance and men and women are just as likely to have too little empathy or to have so much it creates other problems. 

Gender stereotyping about men and women seems to be a case of seeing things from a very narrow viewpoint and misses the bigger picture all together.


----------



## hambone

Caribbean Man said:


> My wife is horrible at multi tasking.
> But I am not.
> 
> I can joggle multiple tasks and projects efficiently till successful completion. But it's something I learned to do whilst studying Mech. Production Engineering, so its not really natural to me.
> Part of my course was project management and job scheduling.
> 
> At times my wife can be very logical and calculated which surprises me.
> Other times she allows her emotions to dominate.
> 
> I think its fun to observe anyway!


I read a study a few years ago that tested the ability of men and women to multitask. 

What they did was, they put people in a room and they put a tape player on the right and another on their left. They played two different recordings of books on tape. 

The first run, they asked them to keep up with what was going on on both recordings. Then, they tested their knowledge of the two stories. The women's average was much higher than the men's.

Then, they repeated the experiment. This time, they played two different recordings and asked them to pick one and just focus on it.

The men's average was higher than the women's in this scenario. While the men were focused on one story.. the women were still checking in on the other.

Women generally do better when they are have to cook supper.. watch a couple of pots on the stove... something in the oven... and listen for the baby in the crib and keep up with the toddler in the den etc. I couldn't do all that and do it well. My wife can.


----------



## hambone

Never mind.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

romantic_guy said:


> My wife and I are opposite to most men and women. I am a Myers-Briggs INFP (feelings based) whereas my wife is ISTJ (logic based). So I have more of a feminine bent to my masculinity and she has a masculine bent to her feminity. I think this has helped us have very few communication issues.
> 
> According to the Myers-Briggs more women are feelings based and more men are logic based, but there are obviously exceptions.


I have taken those tests a variety of times, my husband is ALWAYS a FEELER (ISFJ)... and I sway back & forth from being a THINKER to a FEELER in another test, a # of times have gotten *X *...I'm riding the line. 

I, too, feel because of this, it has helped our relating to each other very nicely....he is even more SOFT over me...as much of a SAP at times.....I think a man devoid of the emotions for being "Romantic" would irritate me badly ..for instance. 

I feel much of this is being self aware... having empathy for another, possessing common sense, Looking to REASON, taking the time to weigh an issue/ dilemma before storming off in a huff of emotion...this often creates regrets....a "* what was I thinking?!!*" scenario... then a need to apologize follows.
This is a great write up >> The Rule of Balance--Logical Mind vs. Emotional Heart


----------



## ozymandias

joshbjoshb said:


> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?


If you are talking about the idea that women (in aggregate) tend to be more egocentric and self referential, more likely to see things through the lens of their own experiences and give more weight to anecdotes than data than men (in aggregate) then the concept you are looking for is solipsism. Agreed, that the female gender has it in spades. 

Some good discussion over at HUS - Squaring the Circle on Female Solipsism and at Ian's site - The Tangled Chains On The Swing Set of Solipsism

I like both these discussions because instead of framing female solipsism pejoratively as narcissism, they cast it as an adaptive trait that has co-evolved with men. From theredpillroom...



> Remember, solipsism isn't "selfishness", as many Manospherans mistakenly believe; it's more akin to "self-involvement", and that can be a positive or negative thing. A woman can be completely giving to the people in her life, sacrificing much, and still be utterly solipsistic. By putting nearly every issue in terms of "how does that effect me?" or "how do my actions effect others?", the female solipsistically maintains a frame that has herself at the center of the picture. She might be "self-less"...but she still has the "self" front and center.


All that said, I think attaching the logical/emotional false dichotomy to this idea doesn't make sense. And agreed that like many human traits, the distribution is gaussian. Some people have a little, some people have a lot, most folks are in the middle and there is significant overlap between the genders. Kind of like how there are lots of tall women and short men... but in aggregate men are taller than women. Similarly, despite individual examples, I think women are much, much more solipsistic than men.


----------



## ocotillo

You're a braver man than I am, Gunga Din.


----------



## JCD

Science is very muddled on this issue. Look at the flack the Dean of Princeton got into by implying that maybe there aren't a lot of good female math professors because women don't generally want to be or are good in math.

I thought that was brave and pretty relevant actually. BUT people are terrified to say that men and women have developed different thinking styles based on their much different experiences back as hunter gatherers.

Women needed to multitask (watch the baby, find the tuber, look out for that leopard...or those horny bastards from the next tribe) and get along with the gaggle of gals they hung around with for protection as their men wandered off to hunt. They got to be very good judges of character because more than half the population was much bigger than they were, so knowing who to trust and who needed watching was a survival trait. Women, who based their gathering on communication and warnings, talked a lot and got good with language.

Men are much better at focus, spatial relations, some detail work etc. Talking a lot meant no game. Violent men got the game and got the women. Violent women were ostracized by their peers and got et by leopards.

Men have hierarchies. Women are more egalitarian.

Of course, this is GENDER based and not INDIVIDUAL based. A very tall girl is taller than a short man. SOME women are very good with math...but the aggregate is a bit behind.

That being said, I see the MALE part of the picture. My wife sees the FEMALE part of the picture. So together, we see the WHOLE picture...if we talk about it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Ian Ironwood? Surely not this Ian right? The one who said women will be sorry if they don't learn to put out because men will go for robots made in Japan? :rofl:
> 
> Solipsism
> 
> Women, especially good women and good mothers...I don't think so.
> 
> With emotional intelligence comes the ability to empathize. Solipsism would be an antonym to empathy to kindness to humanitarian.
> 
> After I had my first child it became clear to me that my heart was walking around outside of me.
> 
> You could argue that to be a nurturer can at times make you unreasonable or that some or even many women are not nurturers or even that some men are more kind or more nurturing than some women, but I don't know how you could call women as a gender solipsistic. Well, unless you were illogical and unreasonable.


I don't think that way the term solipsism used on that link is what you_ think_ it is.

It's almost an aberration from the original meaning.
It's actually an interesting twist to the original meaning.

Maybe you should have a read of Susan's article in the link , before dismissing it.

You might be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Rowan

I've been married for 16 years to a man who simply lacks empathy. He knows himself to be a rational and reasonable man, so anyone who disagrees with his viewpoint or has differing feelings than his own is necessarily not rational or reasonable. He does not understand, on a fundamental level, that two people can have differing opinions, even feelings, without one of them being _wrong_. Whether the person who disagrees is simply misguided, or whether they are stubborn or crazy or perhaps just "being difficult" is up for debate. That they are wrong if their experience differs from his own, however, is not in question. Different feelings are crazy. Different opinions are just stupid. Both should rightly be ignored by the rational man that he is.

I, on the other hand, tend to think things through to their conclusion before I act or speak. I can generally make a good guess at determining how things will effect others. And I consider that likely outcome prior to acting or speaking. I tend to see several sides of any argument and am not hostile to the one's I haven't yet seen or don't understand. I am also not averse to genuinely apologizing for my words or actions if I have been wrong or even unintentionally hurtful. 

So, no, I don't think that men are necessarily better at seeing the whole picture or more likely to apologize. That has been the opposite of my personal experience. 

Then again, I also don't necessarily think that my personal experience is always relevant or correlative to all men, women or situations. I think it's entirely possible for narcissistic @sshats to be of either gender.


----------



## ozymandias

Trenton said:


> Solipsism
> 
> Women, especially good women and good mothers...I don't think so.
> With emotional intelligence comes the ability to empathize. Solipsism would be an antonym to empathy to kindness to humanitarian.
> After I had my first child it became clear to me that my heart was walking around outside of me.
> You could argue that to be a nurturer can at times make you unreasonable or that some or even many women are not nurturers or even that some men are more kind or more nurturing than some women, but I don't know how you could call women as a gender solipsistic. Well, unless you were illogical and unreasonable.


I am not convinced that the concept of female solipsism is at odds with being a good mother. From what I've observed, nurturing one's family both justifies and validates many women's existence. Again, the distinction between solipsism (in this context) and narcissism is important. I think if something doesn't involve a narcissist they typically will have no interest. A solipsist finds a way to relate everything back to themselves. From Susan at HUS... 



> Women filter their experiences via their emotions. This is undoubtedly reproductively efficient. If we are nurturers, made to carry, bear, and raise children, the question of how things affect us is inextricably intertwined with how our actions affect others, and this is right and good. In contrast, a man’s tendency to see the world logically and analytically, often seeking actionable solutions to concrete problems, is a natural outgrowth of male provisioning, and this is right and good.





JCD said:


> That being said, I see the MALE part of the picture. My wife sees the FEMALE part of the picture. So together, we see the WHOLE picture...if we talk about it.


This. I love the idea that the co-evolved cognitive differences between men and women *compliment* each other.


----------



## Kobo

Wiserforit said:


> Translation:
> 
> Women are stupid.


Wouldn't have been so blunt....


----------



## Kobo

Caribbean Man said:


> At times my wife can be very logical and calculated which surprises me.
> Other times she allows her emotions to dominate.


Very true statement. Women can be very logical when planning a big family meal and such. Who sits where, Table cloth colors depending on the season etc.


----------



## ocotillo

I think part of the problem is so many of the words that are employed to describe subtle differences between male and female mental perspectives have negative connotations in other contexts. Who wouldn't be offended by that?


----------



## VermisciousKnid

wnycontractor said:


> Im an not suggesting you are living a sheltered life because it's presumptuous and insulting but I am curious if you know female engineers, accountants, CEOs, police officers, soldiers, doctors, school administrators, salespeople or professional athletes or if you know any male democrats LOL


Know personally? Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. 

Male Democrats? 44% of men voted for Obama. Does that count?


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> The irony is killing me.


--Not completely lost on me either


----------



## Caribbean Man

ozymandias said:


> I love the idea that the co-evolved cognitive differences between men and women *compliment* each other.


:iagree:
That's how its supposed to work.
Otherwise husbands and wives would be mismatched and constantly butting heads.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I think what would actually provide a pleasant surprise is having you counter this quote based on it's lack of logic and bias:
> 
> "If you are talking about the idea that women (in aggregate) tend to be more egocentric and self referential, more likely to see things through the lens of their own experiences and give more weight to anecdotes than data than men (in aggregate) then the concept you are looking for is solipsism. Agreed, that the female gender has it in spades."


When taken in the context it was intended, the quote neither lacks logic nor is it biased.

Again, this is an excerpt from the link the poster posted.

"....._Remember, solipsism isn’t “selfishness”, as many Manospherans mistakenly believe; *it’s more akin to “self-involvement”, and that can be a positive or negative thing. A woman can be completely giving to the people in her life, sacrificing much, and still be utterly solipsistic. By putting nearly every issue in terms of ”how does that effect me?”or “how do my actions effect others?”, the female solipsistically maintains a frame that has herself at the center of the picture. She might be “self-less”…but she still has the “self” front and center*_...."

I agree with much of what is written here.
Without much jargon, I will you give a simple, practical example.

A married couple, living together.
Husband can have the desire for sex EVERY ,SINGLE DAY in the month. His wife however,would like to please her husband but for five days in that month she has to deal with mother nature in the form of her menstrual period. Before that time for at least four days she may have to deal with PMS, hormonal stuff and terrible cramping.
Before she can even contemplate pleasing her husband and / or having any desire for sex with her husband during that time, she must first adjust her feelings towards these issues and overcome any emotional barriers as a result of mother nature.
It is a self centred action, because she may be willing to have sex with him every day outside of that period, but for those 8 or 9 days, no matter what he does to woo her,she does not want sex. She may decide not to be in the mood, and that is HER PREROGATIVE, so it cannot be considered selfish or negative.

But he could , and is ready and waiting for sex.
She has to first consider all of theses things because or biology and the emotional stuff attached to it , before she could even feel for that type of intimacy. To go a little further, she might just want to be hugged and cuddled.Yes, she wants her immediate needs fulfilled, which might be at variance with her husband's.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If you accept that things affect women and men differently ,sometimes because of biology, then we can agree that their responses would be different.
That doesn't mean that their response to a given situation is either wrong, right or inferior.
In fact,one of my definitions of a strong woman is one who has learned to master her emotions and is deeply in touch with her intuition.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I didn't really expect you to surprise me!


What's surprising to you , that men and women view , and hence react to things differently?

Or that solipsism used in that context is neither good nor bad ,just like making a decision based only on facts presented is not automatically superior to a decision making processes where emotions and intuition are involved?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree with much of what is written here.
> Without much jargon, I will you give a simple, practical example.


I'm confused: You mean to say that a woman who decides that she doesn't want sex some days because of "her biology" is self-involved and solipsistic, but a man who wants sex every day because of "his biology" is the epitome of objective, logical, big-picture, rational thinking?

Puh-leeze

Every single post on this thread has shown either implicitly or explicitly that the OPs original distinction is false including the posted articles --and even the OP itself -- and yet you still want to cling to that distinction?


----------



## ozymandias

Trenton - do you think there are no cognitive differences between the sexes that can't be explained away with enculturation? Are you of the "gender is a construct" school of thought?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I'm confused: You mean to say that a woman who decides that she doesn't want sex some days because of "her biology" is self-involved and solipsistic, but a man who wants sex every day because of "his biology" is the epitome of objective, logical, big-picture, rational thinking?
> 
> Puh-leeze
> 
> Every single post on this thread has shown either implicitly or explicitly that the OPs original distinction is false including the posted articles --and even the OP itself -- and yet you still want to cling to that distinction?


Have you even read the link provided?
Answer this.
In the scenario I provided, who is affected more by their own biology, the man or the woman?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you even read the link provided?
> Answer this.
> In the scenario I provided, who is affected more by their own biology, the man or the woman?


Forgive me as I am joining this late but what link are you referring to, the Red Pill one?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Forgive me as I am joining this late but what link are you referring to, the Red Pill one?


This link that was posted;

HUS, Politics and Feminism ,Squaring the circle on female solipsism

Earlier by another poster


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you even read the link provided?
> Answer this.
> In the scenario I provided, who is affected more by their own biology, the man or the woman?


Thank you for the link. How do you think biology plays in to it? After reading the article, what I garnered from it is that we are all the product of our experiences and our reality is shaped off of that. I don't see biology in that rather upbringing and our own beliefs.

I don't think any one sex is logical or emotional, individuals are. Without me giving anecdotal evidence, I think to suggest (not you personally just the topic itself) that one sex is either one or the other does a huge disservice to both. 

To the original topic, for me personally, I think the ability to see the whole picture only relates to a handful of people on this planet. Most of us try to be open minded, constructive, rational, learned, compassionate, out of the box thinkers. In order to see the totality of the "whole picture" you have to be all those things and more. The entire picture, both sides, the top and bottom, everything in-between, the medium that was used and the person creating it. Few have that ability. 

Back to logic vs. emotion. Without emotion, there is no logic. Look back on all the pioneers of the day. Aristotle, Galileo, The Great Explorers, Newton, The Wright Brothers. Was any of that based on logic? The belief that there might be something out there, a new way of thinking, pure emotion. Logic is what you can see, emotion is what you think can be seen. What about the founding of the United States? Was it logical? Leave England on several ships, 1/3 die on the way here and the rest starve or get ill, live under severe conditions for 150 years before this country is formed? There is no logic in that. It was pure emotion. The greatest things that have ever happened on this planet have blossomed from emotion. Without it, we would all still be living in caves and the only things that would exist would be natural wonders.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you even read the link provided?
> Answer this.
> In the scenario I provided, who is affected more by their own biology, the man or the woman?


Why yes, I have. And my answer is that neither men nor women are more or less affected by their biology or are more or less likely to filter their understanding through the lens of their personal experience.

Even the the most formal and perfect logic starts from some assumptions


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't think any one sex is logical or emotional, individuals are. Without me giving anecdotal evidence, I think to suggest (not you personally just the topic itself) that one sex is either one or the other does a huge disservice to both.


Thank you for your analysis.

But I think most of the times when topics like this come up, they are framed in such a way to suggest that logic is better than emotion is each and every case.
IMO, nothing is further from the truth.
As another poster [ Cosmos I think ] pointed out earlier both are needed and complement each other.

While I do believe there are difference and strengths I think we neglect the importance of intuition at our own peril.

There is a relationship between logic and intuition.
One is not necessarily " superior" to the other.


----------



## Cosmos

> CM said:- There is a relationship between logic and intuition.
> One is not necessarily " superior" to the other.


:iagree:

I also believe that very few people are prone to being rational or logical _all _of the time... I also don't believe that we can necessarily predict how people will react to any given situation. I have known some apparently 'fragile' and emotional people react with great strength and logic in times of crisis, and I have known some usually strong and logical people fall apart in times of trouble. 

_Gender alone _doesn't give a person 'first dibs' on logic or emotion. There are many other factors at play in this regard.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Thank you for your analysis.
> 
> But I think most of the times when topics like this come up, they are framed in such a way to suggest that logic is better than emotion is each and every case.
> IMO, nothing is further from the truth.
> As another poster [ Cosmos I think ] pointed out earlier both are needed and complement each other.
> 
> While I do believe there are difference and strengths I think we neglect the importance of intuition at our own peril.
> 
> There is a relationship between logic and intuition.
> One is not necessarily " superior" to the other.


I agree with you. For some reason emotion is a dirty word to men, while logic isn't. Logic is manly, logic is rational, logic is what thinkers have. No. Emotion is at the very core of men. Without emotion, what are they? Emotion is what makes logic possible.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I also believe that very few people are prone to being rational or logical _all _of the time... I also don't believe that we can necessarily predict how people will react to any given situation. I have known some apparently 'fragile' and emotional people react with great strength and logic in times of crisis, and I have known some usually strong and logical people fall apart in times of trouble.
> 
> _Gender alone _doesn't give a person 'first dibs' on logic or emotion. There are many other factors at play in this regard.


The majority of humans aren't logical or rational.
It is something that is learnt, and our education system doesn't put much emphasis into it for obvious reasons.


----------



## Cosmos

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The term rational and logical has always puzzled me in a sense of assigning it to a person or worse, an entire gender. There is no way a PERSON is rational or logical. Take someone who reacts to a break in by calling the police and insurance company (rational and logical) and put him or her in a hostage situation with their family and then tell me if rational and logic come in to play. It's bull****. We are as rational and logical as our situation deems. That it. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with our person.


:iagree:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I deleted a few things so I would like to talk about what I really think. Frankly, there is no such thing as rational or logical. Men want to ascribe this as some sort of Holy Grail of intelligence but it isn't. Logic and rationale is literally only about whatever situation you are in.....it isn't about intelligence whatsoever. If logic and rationale can change on a dime, how is that more important than emotion? Can they not too change on a dime?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> The majority of humans aren't logical or rational.
> It is something that is learnt, and our education system doesn't put much emphasis into it for obvious reasons.


Wait, men don't have a lock on logic or rationale? I am shocked. Frankly the only men who think they do have never, ever had a family, cared about anybody or been in love. Sociopaths only and that would explain so, so much of the manosphere and many on this site. I grew up with a boy who had a highly successful father. You have never seen a man who was "logical and rational" collapse so far when his children were kidnapped. Men are NOT devoid of emotion. Our ENTIRE society was based on emotion. To the azzholes who think men are not men if they have emotions, feelings, love and everything else......it just says so much more about you than it ever does about any other man.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Wait, men don't have a lock on logic or rationale? I am shocked. Frankly the only men who think they do have never, ever had a family, cared about anybody or been in love. Sociopaths only and that would explain so, so much of the manosphere and many on this site. I grew up with a boy who had a highly successful father. You have never seen a man who was "logical and rational" collapse so far when his children were kidnapped. Men are NOT devoid of emotion. Our ENTIRE society was based on emotion. To the azzholes who think men are not men if they have emotions, feelings, love and everything else......it just says so much more about you than it ever does about any other man.


Well to be fair it flies both ways, both male & female espouse extremist views about each other's gender.There are azzholes on either sides , and yes,
Even here on TAM.
Quite a lot of these movements' " theology " are built on false assumptions about gender, as we have just seen.

As Catherine pointed out in your last thread, a lot of these things are difficult or near impossible to prove so they shall just remain assumptions or stereotypes.
In the meantime, the discussion goes on.

What is certain is that the ability to reason is a human thing, and whether we reason based on strict logic or basic intuition is relative to a number of factors, the faster we realise that both sexes possess different strengths and weaknesses which can be manipulated to bring about positive results, the better for humanity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> So you do not think emotion can factor into reasoning and logic?
> 
> If this is true it is the crux of where we disagree.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Obviously your assumptions about what I'm saying are inaccurate.

Emotional energy acts as a catalyst in the connection between tacit knowledge and the intuitive decision-making processes.
As both Brighteyes and Cosmos said earlier on, [ which I fully agree with] emotions takes precedence in the intuitive decision making process under crisis conditions.

I also said that very few human beings are completely logical and rational , even though we like to think of ourselves that way.

In essence, before there was logic, there *is* emotion.

The problem in this entire discussion is that we are using the wrong framework so we always end up in the " boys vs girls " scenario.
The process of thinking and perceiving is an extremely complex, complicated one. An idea can be based solely on fact and logic or intuition and emotion, or even an amalgam of both, and it would still work effectively.
Therin lies the complexity / power of thinking.
Creativity is not dependent on pure logic ,it involved tapping deeply into our intuition and utilizing parts of our brain in a way that very few people are capable of.
Enter the " Savant Syndrome." how do we explain this?
But that is an entirely different topic.....

Hope I was able to answer your question.


----------



## Cosmos

Both logic _and _emotion are important when it comes to seeing the whole picture...

A few years ago, neuroscientist _Antonio Damasio (http://www.usc.edu/programs/neuroscience/faculty/profile.php?fid=27) _ made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat. Many decisions have pros and cons on both sides—shall I have the chicken or the turkey? With no rational way to decide, these test subjects were unable to arrive at a decision.

So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing.* In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.*


My point^^^exactly.
But there is much that can be derived from those findings , with respect to the topic of discussion on this thread..
_Lol, human beings are fascinating_!


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> My point^^^exactly.
> But there is much that can be derived from those findings , with respect to the topic of discussion on this thread..
> _Lol, human beings are fascinating_!


Indeed we are! 

I had to write an end of module essay recently on "Happiness." Pretty straight forward until you start looking at the complexity of what _actually_ makes people happy!


----------



## ocotillo

Slightly off topic, but a fascinating book that dovetails with this discussion is _The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat _by neurologist Oliver Sacks.

It's a collection of 24 short essays, each one describing a strange and unusual thing that can go wrong with the human brain. 

It describes aphasiacs and agnosiacs who've lost the ability to reconstruct thoughts from a spoken string of words. They learn to rely so strongly on intuitively interpreting facial expressions and vocal inflections alone that they practically become living lie detectors even though they don't really understand what's being said. (Sacks describes how several of them were watching a televised presidential speech and roaring with laughter.) 

On the flip side of the coin, another essay describes a man with prosopagnosia who had completely lost all powers of intuitive recognition. He would mistake parking meters for faces. He could no longer tell where a photograph ended and the desk or wall began. When shown a glove and asked what he thought it was for, this man responded that it might be a device for storing coins. --Arguably a logical guess, but certainly not a correct one. And this was not dementia. He spoke normally and was so sharp that he could play mental chess (--Where the board and pieces are only visualized) and he was great at abstract thought. 

To me, this kinda underscores what Trenton and CM both seem to be saying.


----------



## Lyris

Cosmos said:


> Both logic _and _emotion are important when it comes to seeing the whole picture...
> 
> A few years ago, neuroscientist _Antonio Damasio (USC Neuroscience: Antonio Damasio) _ made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn’t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat. Many decisions have pros and cons on both sides—shall I have the chicken or the turkey? With no rational way to decide, these test subjects were unable to arrive at a decision.
> 
> So at the point of decision, emotions are very important for choosing. In fact even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.


I was going to mention this study too. I heard about it on This American Life, really interesting, totally puts paid to the idea that working purely from logic is desirable.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Yet, I find it strange that you would expect me to be pleasantly surprised by the link posted or even consider that women are solipsistic when that goes entirely in the direction of breaking it down via the boy vs girl mentality.


Have you ever read Descartes?

To an extent all humans are solipsistic. We each live in our own little private worlds,different from those inhabited and experienced by all others.
Your reality is not mine and vice versa.

The link provided was clear,in my opinion about female solipsism.

Is arrogance a bad word?
Is there a possibility that arrogance can actually be good in some instances, and that everyone has to display a healthy dose of it at various times in their existence?

Do you think the possibility exist that the term " female solipsism" used in the context posted in that link is actually an aberration of the original term, purposely done, to redefine and explain what was previously, gravely misunderstood by the men in the manosphere ?

Do you think that men too can be solipsistic?
".._Men are dogs but we love them anyway_..."


----------



## Cosmos

> C M said: Do you think the possibility exist that the term " female solipsism" used in the context posted in that link is actually an aberration of the original term, purposely done, to redefine and explain what was previously, gravely misunderstood by the men in the manosphere ?


I would say it was misunderstood. The philosophical idea of solipsism is NOT gender specific.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I would say it was misunderstood. The philosophical idea of solipsism is NOT gender specific.


That's why I started off saying that to a certain extent, we are all solipsistic.We all first see things from our own perspectives and internalize them.

What the author of the article was saying, or what I got from it is that females may be even more because the issues of life itself affects them differently and more profoundly because of biology and culture.
For eg:
A man can wear almost anything in public , women have a harder time dressing because of biology and social constructs.
A man can wear his shirt open and be called sexy, but if a woman does that , she would be most likely be called another 4- letter word beginning with S. 
It affects her differently, thus she must look at things from her perspective in an almost panoramic view with her at the centre, because in the end she has to bear the burdens / responsibilities .
Before she leaves home she has to look at herself from a how- does- this- make- me- look? perspective.
Another example is sex. Men don't get pregnant, women do. Before she has sex wit any man, eve her husband she first has to consider this basic biological fact," take care of herself " first and _then_ proceed to have sex.
Almost everything a woman does, she internalizes it first, and then do it.
That's why it's so difficult for women , especially married women to just let loose and have fun. They are burdened by all sorts of responsibilities. Societal , family and personal responsibility.
How do I feel about this?
Am I being selfish here?
Why do I feel guilty about this?
What would people think about me?
Am I a good parent to my kids?
Am I being a good wife if feel this way?
I don't feel loved.
What more can I do to make my family happy?
These are all legitimate questions most women ask themselves on a daily basis, and the list goes on indefinitely.

Men on the other hand look at things and the world around them from a more egotistical perspective.
Maybe that's why in it's original incarnation, narcissism used to be considered mostly a male trait.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> That's why I started off saying that to a certain extent, we are all solipsistic.We all first see things from our own perspectives and internalize them.
> 
> What the author of the article was saying, or what I got from it is that females may be even more because the issues of life itself affects them differently and more profoundly because of biology and culture.
> For eg:
> A man can wear almost anything in public , women have a harder time dressing because of biology and social constructs.
> A man can wear his shirt open and be called sexy, but if a woman does that , she would be most likely be called another 4- letter word beginning with S.
> It affects her differently, thus she must look at things from her perspective in an almost panoramic view with her at the centre, because in the end she has to bear the burdens / responsibilities .
> Before she leaves home she has to look at herself from a how- does- this- make- me- look? perspective.
> Another example is sex. Men don't get pregnant, women do. Before she has sex wit any man, eve her husband she first has to consider this basic biological fact," take care of herself " first and _then_ proceed to have sex.
> Almost everything a woman does, she internalizes it first, and then do it.
> That's why it's so difficult for women , especially married women to just let loose and have fun. They are burdened by all sorts of responsibilities. Societal , family and personal responsibility.
> How do I feel about this?
> Am I being selfish here?
> Why do I feel guilty about this?
> What would people think about me?
> Am I a good parent to my kids?
> Am I being a good wife if feel this way?
> I don't feel loved.
> What more can I do to make my family happy?
> These are all legitimate questions most women ask themselves on a daily basis, and the list goes on indefinitely.
> 
> Men on the other hand look at things and the world around them from a more egotistical perspective.
> Maybe that's why in it's original incarnation, narcissism used to be considered mostly a male trait.


:iagree:

There are many factors at play here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> There are many factors at play here.


Cosmos
Glad you're back!
Can I send you a PM?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> There are many factors at play here.


It could make quite an interesting conversation , if we were to plumb the depths of it.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Cosmos
> Glad you're back!
> Can I send you a PM?


Please do. I'm not going to be around much tonight, but I'll look forward to replying later.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Please do. I'm not going to be around much tonight, but I'll look forward to replying later.


Just sent it.

Thank you in advance!


----------



## Davelli0331

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


lolwut? Did you start this thread just to see how many pages it would get up to and how quickly?

It fascinates and depresses me that there are those in this day and age that still cling to the whole "men == rational logic, women == irrational emotion". Seriously?

True genius, the utmost perfection of a trade or craft, comes from the interaction of the emotional and logical sides of one's personality. Leonardo da Vinci embodies this perfectly. One of the most intelligent men of his age, his intellect delved into technical topics that would not come to physical fruition for centuries.

Yet he also painted. The Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, these are works of such artistic beauty that we still revere and study them today.

Think about that, though. The ability to paint a work of such beauty requires a great amount of technical knowledge and skill, involving the mixing of colors, foreshortening and perspective, the rendering of something as subtle as a smile. That's a technical skill, but a technical skill used to invoke an emotional response, an emotional response engendered by some emotion within the artist that he wanted to convey to the audience. The artist joins the emotional and technical sides of his personality to produce something of such perfection that we still revere it centuries later.

"Of course," you say, "But da Vinci was an artist. Artists are 'in touch' with their emotional sides. Real men aren't like that!"

Please. Other examples of such larger than life figures that have left their marks on our lives exist. Look at Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, both software developers whose very tradecraft is logical code. Yet they both created software of such beauty and importance that they have forever changed our lives and how we interact with technology. They did so by harnessing both their logic and passion.

Or, for all you religious folks, think of the beautiful cathedrals around the world, with their decorated columns, flying buttresses, and stained glass windows. Those were designed by architects. Again, people who harness their technical skill and passion to illicit a creativity not often found.

Those are examples of primarily male-dominated fields where logical, very highly skilled men also incorporated their emotions into their creative process. Women are no different. Think of your veterinarian, likely a woman, whose empathy for animals has driven her into a field focusing on helping animals. Her empathy is joined by her vast technical skill and knowledge when you bring Fluffy in for a checkup.

I could go on and on. My point is, neither gender has a monopoly on emotion or logic. The best of us incorporate both into their lives and are all the richer because of it.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> That's why I started off saying that to a certain extent, we are all solipsistic.We all first see things from our own perspectives and internalize them.
> 
> What the author of the article was saying, or what I got from it is that females may be even more because the issues of life itself affects them differently and more profoundly because of biology and culture.
> For eg:
> A man can wear almost anything in public , women have a harder time dressing because of biology and social constructs.
> A man can wear his shirt open and be called sexy, but if a woman does that , she would be most likely be called another 4- letter word beginning with S.
> It affects her differently, thus she must look at things from her perspective in an almost panoramic view with her at the centre, because in the end she has to bear the burdens / responsibilities .
> Before she leaves home she has to look at herself from a how- does- this- make- me- look? perspective.
> Another example is sex. Men don't get pregnant, women do. Before she has sex wit any man, eve her husband she first has to consider this basic biological fact," take care of herself " first and _then_ proceed to have sex.
> Almost everything a woman does, she internalizes it first, and then do it.
> That's why it's so difficult for women , especially married women to just let loose and have fun. They are burdened by all sorts of responsibilities. Societal , family and personal responsibility.
> How do I feel about this?
> Am I being selfish here?
> Why do I feel guilty about this?
> What would people think about me?
> Am I a good parent to my kids?
> Am I being a good wife if feel this way?
> I don't feel loved.
> What more can I do to make my family happy?
> These are all legitimate questions most women ask themselves on a daily basis, and the list goes on indefinitely.
> 
> Men on the other hand look at things and the world around them from a more egotistical perspective.
> Maybe that's why in it's original incarnation, narcissism used to be considered mostly a male trait.


To me, this idea that women are more solipsistic just makes no sense at all --with either the original philosophical definition or the manosphere rewrite. 

Take your examples. Men are no more able to dress as they want without repercussions than women. In some ways women have way more options available. If you don't believe me, try going out dressed in high heels and a ballgown. Or a union suit. Most men I know have a long list of things they wouldn't be caught dead in, and it could be as simple as a pink shirt. After all, what would the guys think?

And while it's true that women have often been the ones left with sole responsibilities for childcare, and this practical reality can influence their decision making about sex, I find it hard to believe that they truly have or take on more responsibilities than men. Do men never worry about whether they are good husbands or fathers? Do they never consider how anyone else feels or how they measure up?

Or are you suggesting that men are utterly freewheeling, willing to have sex with anyone, anywhere, at anytime, and this somehow makes them less self-involved?

What does it even mean to say that men are more egotistical, but women more solipsistic? You say that you don't think it's a boy/girl thing, but you seem to keep turning it into one.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> To me, this idea that women are more solipsistic just makes no sense at all --with either the original philosophical definition or the manosphere rewrite.


Ok, answer me just two simple questions.

1] Generally speaking ,who do you believe, between both sexes are better able to multi-task in any environment ?
And why do you think so?

2] Do you think men are more prone to be narcissistic?
Why?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> lolwut? Did you start this thread just to see how many pages it would get up to and how quickly?
> 
> It fascinates and depresses me that there are those in this day and age that still cling to the whole "men == rational logic, women == irrational emotion". Seriously?
> 
> True genius, the utmost perfection of a trade or craft, comes from the interaction of the emotional and logical sides of one's personality. Leonardo da Vinci embodies this perfectly. One of the most intelligent men of his age, his intellect delved into technical topics that would not come to physical fruition for centuries.
> 
> Yet he also painted. The Mona Lisa, The Last Supper, these are works of such artistic beauty that we still revere and study them today.
> 
> Think about that, though. The ability to paint a work of such beauty requires a great amount of technical knowledge and skill, involving the mixing of colors, foreshortening and perspective, the rendering of something as subtle as a smile. That's a technical skill, but a technical skill used to invoke an emotional response, an emotional response engendered by some emotion within the artist that he wanted to convey to the audience. The artist joins the emotional and technical sides of his personality to produce something of such perfection that we still revere it centuries later.
> 
> "Of course," you say, "But da Vinci was an artist. Artists are 'in touch' with their emotional sides. Real men aren't like that!"
> 
> Please. Other examples of such larger than life figures that have left their marks on our lives exist. Look at Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, both software developers whose very tradecraft is logical code. Yet they both created software of such beauty and importance that they have forever changed our lives and how we interact with technology. They did so by harnessing both their logic and passion.
> 
> Or, for all you religious folks, think of the beautiful cathedrals around the world, with their decorated columns, flying buttresses, and stained glass windows. Those were designed by architects. Again, people who harness their technical skill and passion to illicit a creativity not often found.
> 
> Those are examples of primarily male-dominated fields where logical, very highly skilled men also incorporated their emotions into their creative process. Women are no different. Think of your veterinarian, likely a woman, whose empathy for animals has driven her into a field focusing on helping animals. Her empathy is joined by her vast technical skill and knowledge when you bring Fluffy in for a checkup.
> 
> I could go on and on. My point is, neither gender has a monopoly on emotion or logic. The best of us incorporate both into their lives and are all the richer because of it.


I agree with the sentiments of your post.
But I found it interesting that while you gave the examples of extraordinary men whose work has permanently affected the way we live,and who beyond the shadow of a doubt were both logical thinkers and very intuitive , there are no female examples, of equal status in history, in your post to prove your point, except a tangential reference to a female veterinarian.

So I'll give you just a few.

1] Hatshepsut. King / Pharoah of Egypt. 1479 - 1458 BC.
The only woman to lead the most powerful civilization on earth at that time.Egypt was at its zenith and she oversaw its complex economy, and extensive construction projects, including the temple of Deir el-Bahri in Western Thebes.
Under her reign , Egypt was able to greatly expand its territory through its military power and trade.
And yes, she demanded that she be addressed as a man .
King Hatshepsut.

2] Catherine II [ aka Catherine the Great] 1762 AD, Empress of Russia.
She ruled Russia for 34 years until her death.
Much of what is modern day Russia today is as a result of her astute leadership in war and peacetime. She was able to expand Russia's territory to what it is today.

3] Eva Peron.[ Evita.]1919 - 1952 AD
First lady of Argentina,wife of Juan Peron and a larger than life figure in Argentina's politics.She became very powerful in Aregentina's male dominated trade union movement.
On August 21, 1951, the trade unions held a mass rally of
2 000 000 people called the " _Cabildo Abierto_ " and begged her to consider running for vice president.
It was the largest display of public support in history,,for a political figure. She didn't want to upstage her husband, even though she was way more popular than him.
She died of cancer the following year.

This one is my favourite 
4] Margaret Thatcher, aka " _The Iron Lady_."
Longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century. Very controversial political figure because of her policies and her iron will. But she succeeded where all her predecessors failed. She made Britain a major player in world economics.
This woman even survived an attempt on her life.
Need I say more?

There you go.


----------



## Davelli0331

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree with the sentiments of your post.
> But I found it interesting that while you gave the examples of extraordinary men whose work has permanently affected the way we live,and who beyond the shadow of a doubt were both logical thinkers and very intuitive , there are no female examples, of equal status in history, in your post to prove your point, except a tangential reference to a female veterinarian.
> 
> So I'll give you just a few.
> 
> 1] Hatshepsut. King / Pharoah of Egypt. 1479 - 1458 BC.
> The only woman to lead the most powerful civilization on earth at that time.Egypt was at its zenith and she oversaw its complex economy, and extensive construction projects, including the temple of Deir el-Bahri in Western Thebes.
> Under her reign , Egypt was able to greatly expand its territory through its military power and trade.
> And yes, she demanded that she be addressed as a man .
> King Hatshepsut.
> 
> 2] Catherine II [ aka Catherine the Great] 1762 AD, Empress of Russia.
> She ruled Russia for 34 years until her death.
> Much of what is modern day Russia today is as a result of her astute leadership in war and peacetime. She was able to expand Russia's territory to what it is today.
> 
> 3] Eva Peron.[ Evita.]1919 - 1952 AD
> First lady of Argentina,wife of Juan Peron and a larger than life figure in Argentina's politics.She became very powerful in Aregentina's male dominated trade union movement.
> On August 21, 1951, the trade unions held a mass rally of
> 2 000 000 people called the " _Cabildo Abierto_ " and begged her to consider running for vice president.
> It was the largest display of public support in history,,for a political figure. She didn't want to upstage her husband, even though she was way more popular than him.
> She died of cancer the following year.
> 
> This one is my favourite
> 4] Margaret Thatcher, aka " _The Iron Lady_."
> Longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century. Very controversial political figure because of her policies and her iron will. But she succeeded where all her predecessors failed. She made Britain a major player in world economics.
> This woman even survived an attempt on her life.
> Need I say more?
> 
> There you go.


It was late and I was somewhat drunk, so I stuck with those figures whom I have studied in detail over the course of my life. My hope, which I had not spelled out explicitly in my post, was that another poster would show some examples of analogous female figures.

Good on you for showing some great examples of just such women.


----------



## ocotillo

Davelli0331 said:


> Look at Steve Jobs.....


Jobs was the executive and managerial talent. He was never the creative and technical talent. He simply took credit for it.

Great post though.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok, answer me just two simple questions.
> 
> 1] Generally speaking ,who do you believe, between both sexes are better able to multi-task in any environment ?
> And why do you think so?
> 
> 2] Do you think men are more prone to be narcissistic?
> Why?


1. There are lots of things to say about multi-tasking. One is that much research these days is suggesting that none of us are as good at it as we like to think. Apparently we just can't watch a movie, finish our math homework, chat to our friends and eat a hamburger without missing key information or making lots of mistakes.

Ability to multitask is also very much dependent on the nature of the task itself. Activities normally held up as examples of women's wonderful multitasking skills are typically cooking, laundry, childcare, and for the most part, these are low-level tasks that don't require a great deal of focus or attention. Indeed, I've seen many men here posting about how they don't understand why it is so hard for their wives to juggle all of these, as they can do it with no problem. 

Overall, research on the subject does not allow us to conclude one way or the other whether men or women are better at multitasking.


2. There are also lots of things that could be said about narcissism. 

It's true that pathological forms of narcissism are more often diagnosed in men than in women, but at the same time, the roots of these disorders are also considered to be the same as others that are more likely to afflict women. 

Of pathological narcissists, some 25% to 50% are women, which suggests that the differences here are may not be that substantial, especially if you factor in a tendency towards diagnostic bias. Not to mention that many psychologists are arguing that narcissism is a trait that can be found across genders, cultures, and personality types, and is not really best understood as a "type" on its own.

But, for the sake of argument, suppose I agree that men are more narcissistic than women. Wouldn't we conclude from this that it is men, not women, that are more egocentric, self-involved and solipsistic?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone

How would you explain what seem to be obvious differences between men and women on TAM? (And I'm asking because I value your opinion, not because I think I know the answer.)

To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM say, "I want sex once a month - why should I have it more often?" and then defend that view against all comers for 28 pages. 

To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM attempt to redefine the word, "Need" as "Absolute necessity" in an attempt to claim that human psychological needs (Including conversation, friendship, affection and sexual fulfillment) are not real and legitimate.

To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM attempt to deny the ethical corollary to the vow of sexual exclusivity in marriage.

Please don't misunderstand; I'm not saying that men don't have their faults in spades. They do. I'm also not saying that there aren't men out there that might even agree with one or even all of the three examples above. But there's a hulluva difference between holding that viewpoint and publicly defending it as normative in the face of reasoned responses.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> always_alone
> 
> How would you explain what seem to be obvious differences between men and women on TAM? (And I'm asking because I value your opinion, not because I think I know the answer.)
> 
> To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM say, "I want sex once a month - why should I have it more often?" and then defend that view against all comers for 28 pages.
> 
> To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM attempt to redefine the word, "Need" as "Absolute necessity" in an attempt to claim that human psychological needs (Including conversation, friendship, affection and sexual fulfillment) are not real and legitimate.
> 
> To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM attempt to deny the ethical corollary to the vow of sexual exclusivity in marriage.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand; I'm not saying that men don't have their faults in spades. They do. I'm also not saying that there aren't men out there that might even agree with one or even all of the three examples above. But there's a hulluva difference between holding that viewpoint and publicly defending it as normative in the face of reasoned responses.


My first reaction would be to look at the sample of people who post here. You virtually never see men who are withholding sex, just their wives. 

Why is that? Well, I suspect that any man who did so would be laughed at, and maybe even have his man-card taken away. Even asking the question would be setting himself up for almost certain humiliation. Who would do that to themselves?

But suppose they did come here. What do you think they would say when they were told they should want to have sex more often and that they have an obligation to fill their wives needs? Would they just listen to the reasons and evidence and say, "yes, what a fool I've been! I didn't realize my wife needed sex, or how important it is to her, and I will henceforth do everything in my power to honour my obligations to sexual exclusivity and meet my wife's legitimate and important needs."?

It would actually be great if they would because it would mean we could easily cure a whole bunch of people's marital problems just by persuading those men to come here. But I suspect that instead they would put up their own defenses and explanations for why they make the choices they do ("she doesn't really need sex, or want it, she's just trying to control me; or she's exaggerating, it's not that bad, what I do is normal and healthy; or she doesn't meet my needs, appreciate me for what I do, understand me; or I'm trying to change, but sex with her isn't satisfying me, etc."

IMHO, both men and women seem to be equally capable of twisting facts and logic around to help them achieve the conclusions they most desire. No matter how damaging those conclusions are in the long run.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> But, for the sake of argument, suppose I agree that men are more narcissistic than women. *Wouldn't we conclude from this that it is men, not women, that are more egocentric, self-involved and *solipsistic?


I think you are mixing up the terms.
Solipsism does not necessarily equate narcissism / egotism.
And also in the context used, is an aberration of the original.
Furthermore, the gender ratio for narcissism is more around 50 : 50 % , with the female stats experiencing a steady increase.
Traditionally, the male stats have been higher, but its now breaking even.
But even in that disorder , these are stark differences in the manifestations of narcissistic behaviours between men and women. The psychodynamics remains the same between the sexes, but the behaviour are different, and somewhat defined by their gender roles.[Social constructs]

So here's the thing.
Both genders are different. They are not the same.
Each has their strengths and weaknesses.
Like the Chinese Yin & Yang concept.
IMO, when we look at both genders as the same, the inferiority /superiority complexes inevitably will remain. 
For example if you have two knives, both being the same , but one razor sharp and the other one blunt, the sharp one can be considered superior because it can do more than the blunt one even though they are the same.
But if you have a spoon and fork, both are cutlery designed for eating, each having its own advantages and disadvantages, then you get a better picture. 
A spoon would be clumsy to eat French fries.
Just as a fork would be clumsy to eat a bowl of soup.
None is superior to the other because of their state,the issue of superiority cannot even arise in relation to specific functions, because they were both designed for different functions.

Hence, men can never be superior to women and vice versa because they were designed to fulfil different basic , functions. There are advantages and disadvantages between the genders on many different levels. However ,some of these advantages/ disadvantages are inextricably linked to culture, so at any given time along the continuum the gap may either widen or close as a result of enlightenment and synergy, but it would never disappear.

So yes.
In the context used, solipsism would also apply to male and it could very well be that in reality men has it in spades.
However the only way we can discover that is if it can be discussed openly , truthfully and logically.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you are mixing up the terms.


I think I understand the terms perfectly well. And you don't have to convince me that logic is not superior to emotion and vice versa. I get that. 

But I disagree that the genders are as different as you think they are in the ways that you think.

If solipsism were really true, then we'd all be in the same boat. No more arguments because you don't really exist. Or if you do, I still can't trust anything that you say, or even that you're saying it.

But solipsism is not true. Descartes found his way out, as has everyone else, except perhaps the most stubborn and dysfunctional philosophers.

The rewritten pseudo-solipsism is basically just a way to pretend that certain differences we witness in everyday behaviours are because of some fundamental law of gender.

I think it is mostly a steaming pile of stereotypes. IMHO, we'd get much further ahead if we spent more time building bridges by recognizing our very similar humanity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> So that was my point and I had to think on it to express it with any amount of articulation that would appear as more than an exasperated woman who is sick of reading more often about the divide between men and women than the possible happy union between them.


IMO, exploring the real and the not so real / perceived differences between the genders in a mature , honest , fact based discussion can only lead to better understanding.
If we only look at our similarities and neglect our differences, they would not simply disappear , because they are part of us.
It's what makes us unique as gender.
Having differences does not make one inferior or superior.

Differences is a neutral word, neither bad or good in itself.

Acknowledging differences, even in a relationship helps to ensure that pitfalls , ie; confusion are avoided and needs are met.
Everyone wants to be understood.
Part of that process of understanding is exploring differences and making compromises.

Being married to a woman of a different ethnic background, if we had pretended that there were no differences between us, then our marriage would not have lasted.
I'll give you an example.
She of Indian origin ,very family oriented and in love with her Indian culture. There are some practices that I abhor because culturally, I was taught that these things were not " good ", but talking about it , has made me realize some of my beliefs were actually just cultural biases.
When they have some of their religious functions, rich and poor alike are expected to be seated at the table and eat with their hands out of a sohari leaf. A leaf shaped like a banana leaf.
This is done out of respect for their ancestors who came here dirt poor from India.
I was always taught that I should not eat with my hands because of germs.I have a germ phobia.
Because we spoke about it before, I understood its significance , and we arrived at a compromise.
That's one way I think, differences can be handled.

We celebrate our similarities , but if we were similar in every , single way, that would be boring. So sometimes we make fun of our differences , sometimes we argue about it ,sometimes we explore it, sometimes we are fascinated by it, but it always draws us closer together when we try our best to understand each other.

These possibilities can only exist , when we open our hearts and minds. I don't think that there is only one right way to go about these discussions. But what I'm sure about is that if you and I and anyone else open our minds,
The possibilities are endless......


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> But suppose they did come here. What do you think they would say when they were told they should want to have sex more often and that they have an obligation to fill their wives needs?...


Thank you. I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as those three examples are concerned.



always_alone said:


> But I suspect that instead they would put up their own defenses and explanations for why they make the choices they do ("she doesn't really need sex, or want it, she's just trying to control me; or she's exaggerating, it's not that bad, what I do is normal and healthy; or she doesn't meet my needs, appreciate me for what I do, understand me; or I'm trying to change, but sex with her isn't satisfying me, etc."



Yes. In many ways, that type of response reminds me of what I've heard come out of the mouths of people who have fallen under the influence of high-control religious groups. 

The theory is that the human brain has anchor points in reality that keep us sane. Disruption of one of those anchor points provokes an irrational, defensive state called, "cognitive dissonance." This typically happens when any belief directly related to self perception is challenged. 

I disagree with the OP. (I hope I've been clear on that.) I don't think men are inherently more rational than women. (Or vice versa.) I do wonder though if men and women have exactly the same tipping points.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Differences is a neutral word, neither bad or good in itself.
> 
> Acknowledging differences, even in a relationship helps to ensure that pitfalls , ie; confusion are avoided and needs are met.
> Everyone wants to be understood.
> Part of that process of understanding is exploring differences and making compromises.


FWIW, I agree with you on this. It's just that I think most of these discussions are really about differences between individuals, not genders. We learn a ton by sharing our differences, but we easily fall into traps when we attempt to generalize from our immediate experience or engage in pop theorizing.

For example, I have also learned a ton by discussing my differences with other women.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I disagree with the OP. (I hope I've been clear on that.) I don't think men are inherently more rational than women. (Or vice versa.) I do wonder though if men and women have exactly the same tipping points.


Well, we do often do what we're expected to. And women have been (or at least were; hopefully this is changing) taught that there is something wrong with them if they derive too much pleasure from sex. Conversely, men have been taught that there must be something wrong with them if they don't. So no wonder we see the statistical aggregates that we do.

My fear, and why I can't keep my mouth shut in these threads, is that if we cling to these aggregates as indicative of fundamental differences between the genders, then it will be just that much harder to escape the ties that bind us.

None of this is to say that there are no differences between the sexes. Just that we ought not be too hasty in deciding we know what they are.


----------



## Catherine602

ocotillo said:


> always_alone
> 
> How would you explain what seem to be obvious differences between men and women on TAM? (And I'm asking because I value your opinion, not because I think I know the answer.)
> 
> To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM say, "I want sex once a month - why should I have it more often?" and then defend that view against all comers for 28 pages.
> 
> To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM attempt to redefine the word, "Need" as "Absolute necessity" in an attempt to claim that human psychological needs (Including conversation, friendship, affection and sexual fulfillment) are not real and legitimate.
> 
> To my knowledge, we've never seen a man on TAM attempt to deny the ethical corollary to the vow of sexual exclusivity in marriage.
> 
> Please don't misunderstand; I'm not saying that men don't have their faults in spades. They do. I'm also not saying that there aren't men out there that might even agree with one or even all of the three examples above. But there's a hulluva difference between holding that viewpoint and publicly defending it as normative in the face of reasoned responses.


I am sure that there are as many men whose thoughts about sexual frequency is similar to LD women who post on this site. But do you think these men would post those thoughts?? 

It would not be socially acceptable, anonymous or no. The imposition of culture makes it acceptable for woman to express less enthusiasm for sex but censors men if the do the same.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> It would not be socially acceptable, anonymous or no. The imposition of culture makes it acceptable for woman to express less enthusiasm for sex but censors men if the do the same.


You're absolutely right Catherine. --No disagreement.

In the context of this thread, (i.e. Ability to see the whole picture) those examples spoke more to the _manner_ in which an LD person integrates that fact into the reality of married life than the lack of enthusiasm in and of itself. 

All three are examples of how people, by exclusion shrink objective reality to conform to their own perceptions. 

I don't think people do this consciously. Most people believe they are "good" and usually have a great deal of self esteem tied to that belief. When something happens to call that belief into question, the human mind won't tolerate the contradiction for very long. Either their behavior will change or their perception of reality will change.


----------



## Toshiba2020

In general i would say men are more rational and grounded, while women are more emotional. Both have their pros and cos, women can be emotional in a bad way or in a positive and enthusiastic way. Men while being more rational, often miss the lighter things in life.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> My first reaction would be to look at the sample of people who post here. You virtually never see men who are withholding sex, just their wives.
> 
> Why is that? Well, I suspect that any man who did so would be laughed at, and maybe even have his man-card taken away. Even asking the question would be setting himself up for almost certain humiliation. Who would do that to themselves?
> 
> But suppose they did come here. What do you think they would say when they were told they should want to have sex more often and that they have an obligation to fill their wives needs? Would they just listen to the reasons and evidence and say, "yes, what a fool I've been! I didn't realize my wife needed sex, or how important it is to her, and I will henceforth do everything in my power to honour my obligations to sexual exclusivity and meet my wife's legitimate and important needs."?
> 
> It would actually be great if they would because it would mean we could easily cure a whole bunch of people's marital problems just by persuading those men to come here. But I suspect that instead they would put up their own defenses and explanations for why they make the choices they do ("she doesn't really need sex, or want it, she's just trying to control me; or she's exaggerating, it's not that bad, what I do is normal and healthy; or she doesn't meet my needs, appreciate me for what I do, understand me; or I'm trying to change, but sex with her isn't satisfying me, etc."
> 
> IMHO, both men and women seem to be equally capable of twisting facts and logic around to help them achieve the conclusions they most desire. No matter how damaging those conclusions are in the long run.


Your final paragraph was really one point, because the rest of the post is a great example of a gender spinning facts and logic around to help them achieve the conclusions they most desire.

Most of the post could be pointed at women just as easily as it was men.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Catherine602 said:


> I have never read of a men or women advising the poster to get her needs met elsewhere or to divorce. Quite the opposite. She is advised to help him and to assume a caretaker role, even if he is recalcitrant.
> 
> There is no hostility or name calling directed towards the man. If I remember correctly, no one tallied all that she does for him and thereby his obligation to meet her needs.
> 
> It is almost as if his wife's needs are overlooked. Her role as preserver of his feelings of worth as a man is far more important.
> 
> This seems consistent with the handmaiden role expected of women in sexual relationships throughout their lives.


Uhm... the exact same thing works the other way around. When a man's wife doesn't want sex, he's encouraged to jump through all her emotional hoops and hold her hand till she feels better.

Does every one of these gender threads have to go down the "poor oppressed woman" sob story road?


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> None of this is to say that there are no differences between the sexes. Just that we ought not be too hasty in deciding we know what they are.


:iagree:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

There's so much desire for men and women to be the same. Its sad imo. What an incredibly dull androgynous world. The differences keep things interesting.

No one will ever convince me that men are just as emotional as women or that women are as narcissistic as men... among a host of other different qualities.

Accepting that any individual may not fall within a stereotype does not invalidate the stereotype. Go into any movie theater playing a sad movie and the majority of tears are shed by women. Daily life experience validates many of these stereotypes repeatedly. That's why these notions exist, and contrary to the opinions of the stereotype allergic, this stereotyping is very often useful in making quick evaluations and decisions based on prediction.

What isn't observed by many people is this notion that women aren't very different from men. A great example is the ED issue. Men generally want to work problems out on their own without suffering through feelings of humiliation. Men generally don't go "talk about it", even if they should. Protecting the ego *is* important. Talking is not usually our way of dealing with our problems - especially if WE are the problem. Women on the other hand have no issues telling other women that they've lost bladder control as a result of their last pregnancy - and somehow telling it makes them feel better. Most men don't generally think that telling someone our problems is going to make them go away or make us feel any better about them. Its ours and ours alone to deal with. The difference in how we view the world and approach our lives, not to mention interact with each other is night and day. The ED example is at least a physical problem - a lack of function. What are the reasons women often give for withholding? "I don't feel like you're really there", "my emotional needs aren't being met" <-- what does that even mean? Always these weird amorphous feely things. 

Men and women are so similar that many a best selling book has been written to just help us *communicate* with each other - venus and mars anyone?

What is up with this desire to pretend we're the same?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Men generally want to work problems out on their own without suffering through feelings of humiliation. Men generally don't go "talk about it", even if they should. Protecting the ego *is* important. Talking is not usually our way of dealing with our problems - especially if WE are the problem.


Hmmmmm. Okay. So what's with all the men here on TAM posting about their problems and talking about them with others?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Either their behavior will change or their perception of reality will change.


Or they will decide that it's someone else's fault for not conforming to their vision of reality.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your final paragraph was really one point, because the rest of the post is a great example of a gender spinning facts and logic around to help them achieve the conclusions they most desire.
> 
> Most of the post could be pointed at women just as easily as it was men.


My post, at least, was in response to one that already attributed said reasoning to women. I was mere suggesting that men also responded in similar ways.

Yours, on the other hand, are entirely about sticking to your foregone conclusions, no matter what.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Catherine said: "I have never read of a men or women advising the poster to get her needs met elsewhere or to divorce." in regard to women who come here with LD or ED husbands.

I just wanted to say...I myself have advised that these women divorce.

So yeah, there are some posts where that happen. I've also read it on many, many other message boards, ones where more women are asking about their sexless marriages than this particular forum. Almost always, the advice is to divorce because this isn't going to change *if* sex is that important to the wife.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Or they will decide that it's someone else's fault for not conforming to their vision of reality.


I would guess that's just another facet of redefining it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Hmmmmm. Okay. So what's with all the men here on TAM posting about their problems and talking about them with others?


They ran out of options. Men usually only seek advice in solving their problems when their attempts to resolve them themselves fail. Even then, you will rarely see a guy go ask for help with an embarrassing problem.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> Catherine said: "I have never read of a men or women advising the poster to get her needs met elsewhere or to divorce." in regard to women who come here with LD or ED husbands.
> 
> I just wanted to say...I myself have advised that these women divorce.
> 
> So yeah, there are some posts where that happen. I've also read it on many, many other message boards, ones where more women are asking about their sexless marriages than this particular forum. Almost always, the advice is to divorce because this isn't going to change *if* sex is that important to the wife.


A valid threat of taking away the marriage(ie: by showing divorce papers) is a powerful motivator of change. Nuking the relationship if you haven't been forceful enough in making your needs clear... not so much. Not saying that every one of these men and women will turn around, but it is an infinitely more powerful strategy than shuffling about and whining until you feel nothing but anger against your spouse.

And for the "I shouldn't be needing to make that kind of moves" lobby: Change comes only when the advantages of changing are more than the consequences of not changing.

Edit: What the hell, I'm posting what MMSL has to say about this:

How To Fair Warning a Husband That Doesn’t Listen (Before Things Are Too Late To Fix)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yours, on the other hand, are entirely about sticking to your foregone conclusions, no matter what.


Pot meet kettle. At least we've found one area men and women are alike.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Catherine said: "I have never read of a men or women advising the poster to get her needs met elsewhere or to divorce." in regard to women who come here with LD or ED husbands.
> 
> I just wanted to say...I myself have advised that these women divorce.
> 
> So yeah, there are some posts where that happen. I've also read it on many, many other message boards, ones where more women are asking about their sexless marriages than this particular forum. Almost always, the advice is to divorce because this isn't going to change *if* sex is that important to the wife.


If I may make another gender based observation... I notice that there's a lot more suggestions that these women divorce; while most of the men in similar circumstances get told to "man up" or work on "meeting her emotional needs". 

I have yet to see a woman in a sexless marriage advised to "meet his emotional needs", and then he'll have sex with her. :rofl:


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> They ran out of options. Men usually only seek advice in solving their problems when their attempts to resolve them themselves fail. Even then, you will rarely see a guy go ask for help with an embarrassing problem.


And they won't ask for directions when they are lost either. Is this the fundamental nature of manliness that you wish to cling to?

As for who is more emotional, I ask you, who is more likely to start a fight, get involved in a road rage incident or become an adrenaline junkie? How rational and logical and big picture is this?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

joshbjoshb said:


> Okay, let's generalize here (why not?).
> 
> Do men are more able to be logical, and see a situation in its entirety, understanding the other person's point of view, while women in general tend to be emotional, and that limits their ablity to see anything else but their own point of view?
> 
> Of course, as in every generalization, there are some exceptions.


I struggle to take the logical route on some things but do just fine on other things.
It depends on how close to home it hits me and if it involves an issue I haven't resolved within myself.

SO tends to show a mix of both things.He's a logical thinker but I've seen him lose sight of the whole picture and react solely on his emotions.

It could be an environmental thing too,maybe how someone was raised?I know a few ladies who are dead set in stone cold logic and their whole lives are about the big picture.I've known a few emotional men as well.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

ScarletBegonias said:


> It could be an environmental thing too,maybe how someone was raised?I know a few ladies who are dead set in stone cold logic and their whole lives are about the big picture.I've known a few emotional men as well.


Think of it as a bell curve. The male bell curve slanting towards the logic side and female bell curve slanting towards emotion side.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> And they won't ask for directions when they are lost either. Is this the fundamental nature of manliness that you wish to cling to?
> 
> *Um, it is vastly better to be an explorer and a self-sufficient person rather than being someone who cries for help at the smallest hint of unknown territory.
> 
> Although I get what you are saying. Like in the instances of the not getting any help and shutting down in embarassment in ED situation, there is clearly a lack of investment in self and an investment in what others(especially female) think. But rest assured, this is not the "manliness we wish to cling to". Game and the manosphere is the stepping stones of the new masculinity that is being born.*


Second question has been better answered by Dvlsadvklmnopr.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And they won't ask for directions when they are lost either. Is this the fundamental nature of manliness that you wish to cling to?
> 
> As for who is more emotional, I ask you, who is more likely to start a fight, get involved in a road rage incident or become an adrenaline junkie? How rational and logical and big picture is this?


Yep. Men take care of their own sh*t and that feeling wandering around like a lost fool is the incentive to make sure we do. One of the worst feelings for a man is the one that comes when he doesn't know what he's doing.

Very rational, logical and big picture. You see, your premise on road rage and violence is highly misleading to begin with, as a majority of such aggressive incidents are produced by a minority of men - and note that these men are considered to have anger management issues. By that standard, practically every woman I've known has "crying management issues". If a man shouts at his wife, its frowned upon. A woman cries and its accepted. Men generally have to keep themselves in control and many men even consider their emotional control as a matter of personal pride - control of himself is what it means to him to be a "real" man.

When a man is emotional, we say he "wears his emotions on his sleeve". Its said to point out the exception. When a woman is emotional we don't say the same... she's a woman. Saying she wears her emotions on her sleeve would be redundant because most women do.

This is only one of MANY, largely accurate stereotypes. Men also tend to have better spatial skills than women, while women have better interpersonal and facial recognition skills - once upon a time these were stereotypes - but recent research has proven these stereotypes. Even young boys find their way through a maze more quickly than young girls because the girls rely more on landmarks (though they have greater ability to remember those landmarks) while the boys rely more on direction and sense of distance. Girls are far better than the boys recognizing and accurately reading people's faces and remembering details (if you want the best description of who robbed the store, ask a woman; much nuance is lost on men). There's simply differences in how we think and relate to the world. Its largely thought that these differences evolved as a result of differences in our gender roles.

These things are all okay. Why would we want to be the same and have the same proficiencies? 

Another interesting tidbit, gay men naturally employ the same less effective navigation strategies that women naturally do. This argues for a difference in the brain. Should we really be surprised? All boys start their existence as girls until a switch is flipped during development. In the case of gay men, one line of thought is that that switch didn't get flipped all the way.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep. Men take care of their own sh*t and that feeling wandering around like a lost fool is the incentive to make sure we do. One of the worst feelings for a man is the one that comes when he doesn't know what he's doing.


Owning your own sh*t to me is saying 'I don't actually know where I am, I need directions', that sounds more the logical root asking for directions.
Someone hating the feeling they don't don't know what they're doing so don't do anything that will admit they don't know what they're doing (i.e asking for directions) seems like letting emotions rule to me.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Very rational, logical and big picture. You see, you're premise on road rage and violence is highly misleading,


Road rage and stupid fights *are* everyday occurrences, as are men's choices for recreation.

But okay, here's another example: Men like sex, so I'm told. I suppose the rush from that is also logical, rational, and big picture? (but of course, purely emotional for women?)

Oh, and the spatial skill stuff? Debunked.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Oh, and the spatial skill stuff? Debunked.


Without disagreeing with you, I'd be interested in hearing more. I've participated in Introduce A Girl To Engineering Day for years and that's certainly something we've been told that first hand observation seems to confirm.

Our maybe we're just conflating it with lack of interest? :scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Owning your own sh*t to me is saying 'I don't actually know where I am, I need directions', that sounds more the logical root asking for directions.
> Someone hating the feeling they don't don't know what they're doing so don't do anything that will admit they don't know what they're doing (i.e asking for directions) seems like letting emotions rule to me.


That may be so, but to most men, its an acknowledgement that he's gotten lost - that he's failed in his task. Its an admission of defeat.

Now, there comes a point where a man will admit he's an idiot and has no idea where he is... but its going to be reluctant and its not based in emotion but rather self-reliance.

If we broke something, we fix it. We don't go asking someone else to fix it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That may be so, but to most men, its an acknowledgement that he's gotten lost - that he's failed in his task. Its an admission of defeat.


Right, pride makes someone reluctant to admit defeat.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Road rage and stupid fights *are* everyday occurrences, as are men's choices for recreation.
> 
> But okay, here's another example: Men like sex, so I'm told. I suppose the rush from that is also logical, rational, and big picture? (but of course, purely emotional for women?)
> 
> Oh, and the spatial skill stuff? Debunked.


Wrong. 

The majority of the research shows a distinct advantage toward males in spatial skills with only a couple studies showing no difference. I happened to proof read my brother's graduate paper on this very subject. 

Here's his works cited page; knock yourself out:


Baron-Cohen, Simon
2002 The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism. Trends in Cognitive Science 
6(6):248-254
2. Bimler, David L. and John Kirkland and Kimberly A Jameson
2004 Quantifying Variation in Personal Color Spaces: Are There Sex Differences 
in Color Vision? Color Research and Application 9(2):128-134 
3. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation
2007 Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science. Paris: Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
4. Changizi, Mark A. and Qiong Zhang and Shinsuke Shimojo
2006 Bare Skin, Blood, and the Evolution of Primate Color Vision. The Royal Society 
2(2):217-221 
5. Cohen-Bendahan, Celina C. C., Jan K. Buitelaar, Stephanie H. M. van Goozen
and Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis
2004 Prenatal Exposure to Testosterone and Functional Cerebral Lateralization: a Study 
in Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Twin Girls. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29:911-916 
6. Eliot, Lise
1999 What’s Going On In There?: How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five 
Years of Life. New York: Bantam Books 

7. Hassett, Janice M. and Erin R. Siebert and Kim Wallen
In Press Sex Differencesin Rhesus Monkey Toy Preference Parallels Those of Children. 
Hormones and Behavior 
8. Hines, Melissa and Gerianne M Alexander
In Press Commentary: Monkeys, Girls, Boys and Toys: A Confirmation. Hormones 
and Behavior 
9. Hines, Melissa and Gerianne M Alexander
2002 Sex Differences in Response to Children’s Toys in Nonhuman Primates. Evolution 
and Human Behavior 23:467-479 
10. Hurlbert, Anya C. and Yazhu Ling
2007 Biological Components of Sex Differences in Color Preference. Current Biology 
17: R623-R625 
11. Kommer, David
2006 Boys and Girls Together: A Case for Creating Gender-Friendly Middle School 
Classrooms. The Clearing House 79(6):247-251 
12. Lewald, Joerg
2004 Gender-Specific Hemispheric Asymmetry in Auditory Space Perception. Cognitive 
Brain Research 19:92-99 
13. Marano, Hara Estroff
2003 The New Sex Scorecard. Psychology Today, Jul/Aug:[page unknown] 
14. Regan, B. C., C. Julliot, B.Simmen, F. Vienot, P. Charles-Dominique, and J. D. Mollon 
2001 Fruits, Foliage, and the Evolution of Primate Color Vision. Philosophical 
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 356(14):229-283 
15. Rilea, Stacy L. 
In Press A Lateralization of Function Approach to Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A 
Reexamination. Brain and Cognition 
16. Sherry, David F. And Elizabeth Hampson
1997 Evolution and the Hormonal Control of Sexually-Dimorphic Spatial Abilities in 
Humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1(2):50-56 
17. Sunderland, Margot
2006 The Science of Parenting. New York: DK Publishing Inc 
18.Today @ UCI
2005 Online Press Release: Intelligence in Men and Women is a Gray and White Matter.
University of California at Riverside
News :: UC Irvine TODAY
19. Williams, Christina L. and Kristen E. Pleil
In Press Commentary: Toy Story: Why Do Monkey and Human Males Prefer Trucks? 
Comment on “Sex Differences in Rhesus Monkey Toy Preferences Parallel Those of 
Children” by Hassett, Siebert and Wallen. Hormones and Behavior 


From the paper (which contained a survey of the literature on the subject his group was testing): 



> Men do perform better on certain spatial tasks; for example, mentally rotating objects in space and reading maps/locating landmarks. Women, researchers have found, are better at remembering the location of objects in a large array. (Eliot 1999: 221; Understanding the Brain 2007:103; Sherry 1997:50)
> 
> According to researchers, male and female brains are wired differently with respect to language and verbal ability. Two key regions of the brain used for language -- Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas – are proportionally larger in the female brain. A closer examination of Wernicke’s area in females reveals that the neurons there are more densely packed and the dendrites in this region longer than in males. (Eliot 1999:381)
> 
> The really significant difference, however, shows up in where language is processed in the male and female brains. The left and right hemispheres of women process language almost equally; while in men, language is processed almost exclusively by the left hemisphere. This symmetrical processing by the female brain is not limited to language applications, and is probably a result of a corpus callosum that is 20% larger in females than in males. (Eliot 1999:380-81,432; Kommer 2006: 248) (Remember it is the carpus callosum which allows communication between hemispheres.)





As for sex, did I say men are without emotion? I don't think I did. I'm pretty sure I said women are more emotional.


----------



## anotherguy

(Your citation of someone elses miscellaneous citations is intellectually lazy. If you have a specific argument to make, make it is what I would say. "Fruits, Foliage, and the Evolution of Primate Color Vision." isnt helping your cause. _argumentum ad auctoritatem_)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Right, pride makes someone reluctant to admit defeat.


I think you're misusing pride here. I don't keep struggling with something that's giving me fits because I'm too proud. I keep struggling because I know I can do it myself - and in persevering, I generally learn a thing or two about it.

I built a pergola once and I have no woodworking skills. I messed up, repeatedly, eventually having to tear the whole thing down. Was I too prideful to call someone who knew what they were doing to do it for me? How is that gonna help me when I need to build a deck? Or should I just always rely on others who have such specialties?

No. I'm going to keep at it until I get it right. I think this mentality is built in, and subsequently encouraged, in most men. You don't ask someone else to do what you are capable of doing yourself... even if it means some pain to get there.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I think you are missing her point. Asking for help does not mean having someone do it for you, it means having someone to steer you in the right direction. What is illogical about that? 
Take any hunting tribe in the world and do they send the boys out on their own? No. The elders go out with them to show how it is done. Once the understand how to do it, they are better for the tribe. That's logical. Pride has nothing to do with it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

anotherguy said:


> (Your citation of someone elses miscellaneous citations is intellectually lazy. If you have a specific argument to make, make it is what I would say. "Fruits, Foliage, and the Evolution of Primate Color Vision." isnt helping your cause. _argumentum ad auctoritatem_)


Uhm, this is a recreational forum activity, not some academic venue - damn right I'm going to be lazy. I provided an excerpt of a paper on the subject that surveyed the existing literature, along with that paper's sources. If that's not good enough tough. lol

Always alone said the superiority of male spatial skills was debunked. The paper is direct evidence to the contrary unless she has more recent information.

The issue is not a matter of making an argument - it is point of fact; a matter of proof. Surveying the issue shows biological differences in the male and female brain; that male and female brains process information differently and as a result of those differences, males end up with superior spatial skills - by overwhelming preponderance of the experimental evidence on the issue.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think you are missing her point. Asking for help does not mean having someone do it for you, it means having someone to steer you in the right direction. What is illogical about that?
> Take any hunting tribe in the world and do they send the boys out on their own? No. The elders go out with them to show how it is done. Once the understand how to do it, they are better for the tribe. That's logical. Pride has nothing to do with it.


I get her point. Its all the same mentality and its not emotionally driven: I've taken on this task and will see it through... I am capable and don't need to involve someone else in problems I can handle. Follow? It is not until a man has exhausted all possible solutions he can imagine that he seeks outside help. That is how most men operate. We don't want to use other's time dealing with problems we can take care of ourselves but for added inconvenience or difficulty. We suck it up and prepare better next time - learning through doing and failing rather than learning through teaching. 

Not asking for directions isn't really a matter of pride... by the time its necessary everyone knows we're lost! Pride is already lost.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> Owning your own sh*t to me is saying 'I don't actually know where I am, I need directions', that sounds more the logical root asking for directions.
> Someone hating the feeling they don't don't know what they're doing so don't do anything that will admit they don't know what they're doing (i.e asking for directions) seems like letting emotions rule to me.


Yet another example of how & why men and women are different.

Asking for directions when lost may seem to be the immediate logical step.
Another similarly logical step could also be to take some time, figure out where I made the wrong turn in the first place. If I can figure out that , then I KNOW where I went wrong and I can find my own way.

I used to own a factory.
Once I purchased a heavy piece of machinery and it was delivered on the weekend.[ Sunday ]
Monday being a workday , employees coming in, I decided that I could not wait until Monday for the servicemen to install it. I decided that with my engineering background, I could do it myself.
So I set it up and made the electrical connections etc.
Threw on the switch and it started, but the machine feed was running backwards.
I tried to tinker with the connections , but to no avail.
It took me almost 5 hours to " fix " the problem.
I went into the electrical panel and the feed motors wrote down every single combination of wiring connections in an attempt to reverse the polarity of the motors , recalibrate the machine and change the timing and feed .

My wife told me to give up, just call the servicemen ,wait till Monday , pay all the employees for the day and stop worrying, then she went to bed.That was the logical thing to do , _according to how she felt about the situation._

But in my mind, I saw this as a challenge to my intelligence and training, 
_So I just had to figure it out_ ,
AND I DID!

Yes it was a combination of logic and emotions, but I harnessed my emotions towards a logical path to achieve a _better _result.
Absolutely nothing was wrong with my wife's suggestion , but harnessing my emotions and skills, I saved a ton of money and reinforced my belief in myself.
Nothing is wrong with emotional energy.
It is how we_ harness it_.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I get her point. Its all the same mentality however: I've taken on this task and will see it through... I am capable and don't need to involve someone else in problems I can handle. Follow?



Isn't that most people?
I don't really see how that relates to what I was saying though.
I was saying someone who refuses to stop ask for direction until they have past the same house 5 times (it's happened many times) is not them being logical.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> Yet another example of how & why men and women are different.
> 
> Asking for directions when lost may seem to be the immediate logical step.
> Another similarly logical step could also be to take some time, figure out where I made the wrong turn in the first place. If I can figure out that , then I KNOW where I went wrong and I can find my own way.
> 
> I used to own a factory.
> Once I purchased a heavy piece of machinery and it was delivered on the weekend.[ Sunday ]
> Monday being a workday , employees coming in, I decided that I could not wait until Monday for the servicemen to install it. I decided that with my engineering background, I could do it myself.
> So I set it up and made the electrical connections etc.
> Threw on the switch and it started, but the machine feed was running backwards.
> I tried to tinker with the connections , but to no avail.
> It took me almost 5 hours to " fix " the problem.
> I went into the electrical panel and the feed motors wrote down every single combination of wiring connections in an attempt to reverse the polarity of the motors , recalibrate the machine and change the timing and feed .
> 
> My wife told me to give up, just call the servicemen , pay all the workers for the day and stop worrying, then she went to bed.That was teh logical thing to do.
> 
> But in my mind, I saw this as a challenge to my intelligence and training, so I just had to figure it out ,
> AND I DID!
> 
> Yes it was a combination of logic and emotions, but I allowed my emotions to lead me towards a logical path to achieve a _better _result.
> Absolutely nothing was wrong with my wife's suggestion , but harnessing my emotions and skills, I saved a ton of money and reinforced my belief in myself.
> Nothing is wrong with emotional energy.
> It is how we_ harness it_.


That's why I think emotions and logic are pretty much equal in genders (different emotions maybe, but i'm still not sure how much I think that comes down to nature or nurture), pride got me a long way (it also had it's drawbacks in other area's, I hate asking for directions lol).
Emotions are what helps people strive to achieve beyond necessity, logic is what can make the achievement happen.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Isn't that most people?
> I don't really see how that relates to what I was saying though.
> I was saying someone who refuses to stop ask for direction until they have past the same house 5 times (it's happened many times) is not them being logical.


Mind you, I'm not making a judgment on the efficacy of the approach in the specific circumstance. I think most people poke around when lost for at least a little while. At what point do you quit and require the involvement of someone else though?

THIS is the difference between men and women on this subject. Once flustered, I think women tend to stop and seek assistance sooner. The male mentality is, "I don't want to involve someone else in fixing my mistake unless absolutely necessary."

To the male mind, two wrongs have been commited: first, he got lost; second, he had to waste someone else's time fixing his mistake.

Its about self-reliance, not pride. In the short-run, it might be inefficient. In the long run, men tend to develop a pretty wide skill set and somewhat fearless attitude when it comes to taking on new problems. In my experience most women will not take on the task of getting into a major appliance to fix it, while most men will. These men know diddly squat about the appliance and in trying to fix it they might break something else. It would be more efficient to call someone who knows what they're doing to fix it. But trust me on this one, what you learn doing something on your own is far superior to having it done for your or even being shown - and that "I can do it on my own" mentality extends to every facet of a man's life without his even thinking about it - its internalized.

The average woman's threshold for calling in help is shorter I think. And she might even get the appliance fixed faster... but if it happened again, I'd put my money on the guy who fumbled around, took forever to figure it out and maybe even had to fix something else he broke along the way as getting it done more quickly.

Involving someone else usually results in a lesser value-added as compared to going it alone, muffing it all up and having to fix it all.

Short-run logic. Long-run logic.

Anecdotally, before the advent of iphone google maps, I got lost all the time when my ex and I moved to a new place. I didn't stop for directions. I drove around. I'm certain it took me longer to find my destination sometimes than it would take her to get directions and find it. But you know what? Within a short span of time, I had built up a map of the relative positions of everything and could never get lost, while she still needed directions and couldn't get there if she had to "imagine" an alternate route.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the ways men and women think.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I get her point. Its all the same mentality and its not emotionally driven: I've taken on this task and will see it through... I am capable and don't need to involve someone else in problems I can handle. Follow? It is not until a man has exhausted all possible solutions he can imagine that he seeks outside help. That is how most men operate. We don't want to use other's time dealing with problems we can take care of ourselves but for added inconvenience or difficulty. We suck it up and prepare better next time - learning through doing and failing rather than learning through teaching.
> 
> Not asking for directions isn't really a matter of pride... by the time its necessary everyone knows we're lost! Pride is already lost.


So bizarre. Logic to me would be seeking out the assistance of somebody who has done it before. A guide, if you will. It will save you time, money and a lot of heachaches!


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Short-run logic. Long-run logic.
> 
> Anecdotally, before the advent of iphone google maps, I got lost all the time when my ex and I moved to a new place. I didn't stop for directions. I drove around. I'm certain it took me longer to find my destination sometimes than it would take her to get directions and find it.* But you know what? Within a short span of time, I had built up a map of the relative positions of everything and could never get lost, while she still needed directions and couldn't get there if she had to "imagine" an alternate route.*
> 
> There are advantages and disadvantages to the ways men and women think.


Same here with me.
After a while I no longer had to wait on servicemen to maintain my machines.
I simply did it myself .
After a while I was able to even customize my equipment to perform functions in addition to their basic function.
I was able to customize and increase output / productivity of the equipment, without having to wait on " servicemen."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So bizarre. Logic to me would be seeking out the assistance of somebody who has done it before. A guide, if you will. It will save you time, money and a lot of heachaches!


I wish I could say that were true. It saves you time, money and headache the first time... in all probability, you'll have to call on them the next time too. Great deal for you. Pretty sh*tty deal for them.

Unless of course you're paying them, in which case, there goes the money savings... and probably the lesson. So you're basically always going to be paying the next time.

The time, money and headache of tackling it yourself is worth the knowledge. However, usually you go into something thinking you got it down and understand what has to be done. The guy who gets lost, thinks he knows the way. Its not until later you discover yourself incorrect. At that point, you've already invested time, money and headache... might as well get the full lesson rather than waste someone else's time bailing you out.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> Same here with me.
> After a while I no longer had to wait on servicemen to maintain my machines.
> I simply did it myself .
> After a while I was able to even customize my equipment to perform functions in addition to their basic function.
> I was able to customize and increase output / productivity of the equipment, without having to wait on " servicemen."


THATS what I'm talking about. Its not about the efficiency of one immediate task.


----------



## Caribbean Man

michzz said:


> I reached a cost/benefit point with the tearing apart of major appliances. it's a waste of my time to do that compared to going out and earning more money than I can pay the appliance guy.
> 
> Same with replacing brakes on the car, etc.
> 
> *I can do it, but why?*


Because some people derive pleasure from working with their hands.
Using logic to achieve a goal brings them personal , emotional satisfaction.

Its like choosing to go hunting or fishing sometimes, instead going to Burger King.


----------



## Caribbean Man

LOL,
_You guys do know that Einstein did his own thing.._
Right?
By age 14 he was had mastered differential calculus.
By age 15 he mastered Geometry and had come up with his own theory to explain Pythagoras theorem.

He definitely wasn't asking for direction , and he was way deep in uncharted waters when he came up with his theory of relativity....


----------



## Caribbean Man

michzz said:


> On the one hand, you might say a typical man can navigate unfamiliar territory more easily than a woman can. On the other hand, the typical woman lives about 8 -10 years longer than the typical man.
> 
> Which of the two skills illustrates the big picture?


I don't think I agree with the assumptions of your question.
I don't think that men inherently are better than women at navigating unfamiliar territory.
And longevity is not necessary a skill , neither do women have a franchise on it.
People live long based on their lifestyle.
It is not a skill that they have because of biology / gender.


----------



## Caribbean Man

michzz said:


> You do know he earned his PhD in Physics at the University of Zurich?
> 
> He didn't come up with his theories out of thin air, but he sure could describe thin air better than I ever could.


Well actually, his theory was in direct conflict with Maxwell's theories, which were widely accepted back then.
So he literally " _pulled it out of thin air_.."

This is how Einstein, in his own words, came up with his 
" theory of relativity."

Writing a half century later in 1946 in his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein recounted a thought experiment conducted while he was a 16 year old student in 1896 that marked his first steps towards special relativity.

"..._a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen:

If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating.

*There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations.*

From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?

One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."_


----------



## hambone

Caribbean Man said:


> Because some people derive pleasure from working with their hands.
> Using logic to achieve a goal brings them personal , emotional satisfaction.
> 
> Its like choosing to go hunting or fishing sometimes, instead going to Burger King.


I enjoy working with my hands...

It is the problem solving I enjoy.. 

I love creating and building stuff...


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Without disagreeing with you, I'd be interested in hearing more. I've participated in Introduce A Girl To Engineering Day for years and that's certainly something we've been told that first hand observation seems to confirm.
> 
> Our maybe we're just conflating it with lack of interest? :scratchhead:


There's a bunch of recent research that suggests that girls who play "boy" games or who are actually taught spatial skills will score as highly as boys typically do. 

So not so much interest, necessarily, but previous training. Or a combination thereof.

Plus on the neuroscience side, I believe they've found as much within gender variation as difference between the gender.

I will try and look up something more specific later, when I have a bit of time.


----------



## Caribbean Man

hambone said:


> I enjoy working with my hands...
> 
> It is the problem solving I enjoy..
> 
> I love creating and building stuff...


That's the point!
_Doing it yourself._


----------



## always_alone

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So bizarre. Logic to me would be seeking out the assistance of somebody who has done it before. A guide, if you will. It will save you time, money and a lot of heachaches!


I totally get the value of working out a problem on your own. But I don't believe that men are necessarily more likely to do so than women. Or that it always makes the most sense.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I totally get the value of working out a problem on your own. But I don't believe that men are necessarily more likely to do so than women. Or that it always makes the most sense.


Exactly^^^
We have different ways of approaching the exact , same problem.
Whether its a better method or not can be relative to the outcome, but is really a moot point.


----------



## hambone

Caribbean Man said:


> That's the point!
> _Doing it yourself._


One time when I was at work. We had a machine that was throwing out a printing plate.

They flew a qualified technician from Miami to Shreveport to fix it. He started at 9am. The guy unplugged it... took the covers off and "worked" on it all morning. Then... he left for lunch. I go snooping around on it. What I found out was that there was a lot of dried up ink between the plate and the magnet that held it in place. Well... having had 3 semesters of physics... I knew that gravity was a week force over long distances.... and magnetism is a strong force over short distances. I took a Q-tip soaked in alcohol and proceeded to remove the dried ink... Once I got it off the magnet... and the plate could seat properly against the magnet... Voila' problem solved.

I'll tell you what I REALLY enjoyed. Was working on Mardi Gras floats... Where you be creative... do what ever it takes.. adapt materials etc.. use dryer lint to look like the fuzz on an elephant. or a huge light fixture to look like the business end of the Batmobile... red light inside.. fan blowing air over strips of cellophane to look like fire. Do what ever it takes to get something to do or look like you want.. Tons of fun... Draw me a picture and tell me what you want it to do and I'll build it.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Well actually, his theory was in direct conflict with Maxwell's theories, which were widely accepted back then.
> So he literally " _pulled it out of thin air_.."


It's a Newton quote, but is applicable here:

"If I can see farther than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."


----------



## always_alone

michzz said:


> On the one hand, you might say a typical man can navigate unfamiliar territory more easily than a woman can. On the other hand, the typical woman lives about 8 -10 years longer than the typical man.
> 
> Which of the two skills illustrates the big picture?





Caribbean Man said:


> I don't think I agree with the assumptions of your question.
> I don't think that men inherently are better than women at navigating unfamiliar territory.
> And longevity is not necessary a skill , neither do women have a franchise on it.
> People live long based on their lifestyle.
> It is not a skill that they have because of biology / gender.


Why not? Women do statistically live longer than men. These are the same statistics that are being used to say that men are more rational and women more emotional, or that men are better spatially and women are better verbally.

What's the difference?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I wish I could say that were true. It saves you time, money and headache the first time... in all probability, you'll have to call on them the next time too. Great deal for you. Pretty sh*tty deal for them.
> 
> Unless of course you're paying them, in which case, there goes the money savings... and probably the lesson. So you're basically always going to be paying the next time.
> 
> The time, money and headache of tackling it yourself is worth the knowledge. However, usually you go into something thinking you got it down and understand what has to be done. The guy who gets lost, thinks he knows the way. Its not until later you discover yourself incorrect. At that point, you've already invested time, money and headache... might as well get the full lesson rather than waste someone else's time bailing you out.


If the person showed you how to do it, chances are you could do it again when needed, right? Instructions and online tutorials exist for a reason, to teach someone. They aren't doing it for you, they are guiding you with their experiences as to the best way to do something. Same with a person in real life. 

Stupid analogy but I had a friend show me how to crochet. She in an expert at it and I couldn't find my ass from my head in my numerous attempts on my own. She spent a few hours with me, showed me the ropes and now I can crochet really well. Isn't that logical? Or would it have been better for me to struggle for more hours/days and probably not get it right? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its about self-reliance, not pride.


Ah, so it has nothing at all to do with being _embarrassed_ that you don't know what you are doing, _afraid_ of looking like an idiot by asking someone for help, _determined_ to make things right no matter what, or _proud_ of one's ability to stick with it and _satisfied_ with the accomplishment?


----------



## always_alone

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If the person showed you how to do it, chances are you could do it again when needed, right? Instructions and online tutorials exist for a reason, to teach someone.


Oh, but online tutorials are okay because no one knows that you actually had to ask for help.

<ducking and running>


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> And longevity is not necessary a skill , neither do women have a franchise on it.
> People live long based on their lifestyle.
> It is not a skill that they have because of biology / gender.


Not so sure about that. Studies have shown that women live longer because they routinely get medical check ups where as men do not at the same rate. Men tend to think they can handle whatever on their own. In other words, women ask for directions and are rewarded with a longer life span. Logic.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> Ah, so it has nothing at all to do with being _embarrassed_ that you don't know what you are doing, _afraid_ of looking like an idiot by asking someone for help, _determined_ to make things right no matter what, or *proud of one's ability to stick with it and satisfied with the accomplishment*?


That's how I see it (not a negative thing).


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

always_alone said:


> Oh, but online tutorials are okay because no one knows that you actually had to ask for help.
> 
> <ducking and running>


I just shot out a laugh. That was damn funny. :rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Funny me but I never ask for directions, read them or want to see them. I'm definitely of the type that prefers to sort through it on my own and I don't care if the first wine rack I assembled turned out backwards. I enjoy the process, the foul up's, the fixes and the experience. I think I would have struggled with the crochet rather than get instructions. The first thrills me and the later bores the crap out of me. Dunno why
> 
> It drives my instruction following husband nuts though.


Ha, ha. Well we are all different. I was trying (and failing) to say that logically, following directions or asking for them really IS more logical than winging it. Hey, we all have our own ways of doing things though. 

P.S. The only directions/instructions I don't follow are ones from Ikea because well, need I say more?!


----------



## ocotillo

Smart phones and other GPS devices have almost eliminated the need to ask for directions. We can all go home happy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> 1]*Not so sure about that. Studies have shown that women live longer because they routinely get medical check ups where as men do not at the same rate. *
> 2]Men tend to think they can handle whatever on their own.
> 
> 3]In other words, women ask for directions and are rewarded with a longer life span. Logic.


1]"..._Not so sure about that. Studies have shown that women live longer because they routinely get medical check ups where as men do not at the same rate_..."
That's why I said longevity is not a skill but a lifestyle choice.


2]"..._Men tend to think they can handle whatever on their own_..."
That is how civilizations were built. That's how the West was won. Inevitable the buck must stop somewhere and somebody needs to take charge / responsibility. Historically & culturally , men have been the ones to do so.


"._..In other words, women ask for directions and are rewarded with a longer life span. Logic. ._."
3]That is purely speculative . One can also say that its emotional. Are women more prone psychosomatic illnesses than men? Who knows?
That women are more liable to visit the Dr. than men is a fact. However rather than just hard logic, it could very be due to social constructivism. Many women are still in the role of nurturers to their entire family, including their husbands.If mother is sick, then the entire house shuts down. Instinctively ,married / family women tend take care of themselves in order to take care of their family.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> Smart phones and other GPS devices have almost eliminated the need to ask for directions. We can all go home happy.


:iagree:

Gives new meaning to " social constructs."


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

ocotillo said:


> Smart phones and other GPS devices have almost eliminated the need to ask for directions. We can all go home happy.


Ahem, those are STILL directions. Few of us can look for the North Star and navigate Wise Men style.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> 1]"..._Not so sure about that. Studies have shown that women live longer because they routinely get medical check ups where as men do not at the same rate_..."
> That's why I said longevity is not a skill but a lifestyle choice.
> 
> 
> 2]"..._Men tend to think they can handle whatever on their own_..."
> That is how civilizations were built. That's how the West was won. Inevitable the buck must stop somewhere and somebody needs to take charge / responsibility. Historically & culturally , men have been the ones to do so.
> 
> 
> "._..In other words, women ask for directions and are rewarded with a longer life span. Logic. ._."
> 3]That is purely speculative . One can also say that its emotional. Are women more prone psychosomatic illnesses than men? Who knows?
> That women are more liable to visit the Dr. than men is a fact. However rather than just hard logic, it could very be due to social constructivism. Many women are still in the role of nurturers to their entire family, including their husbands.If mother is sick, then the entire house shuts down. Instinctively ,married / family women tend take care of themselves in order to take care of their family.


I think I am being grossly misunderstood. My first point was trying to be humorous but to the second, why is asking for guidance a bad thing? Does that mean the buck fails to stop at his feet? I mentioned in an earlier post that all hunting tribes have elders who teach the young boys to hunt. They don't just hand them a bow and arrow and point them due West. They go out with them, show them the ropes and tricks of the trade. In doing so, these boys learn the correct way of doing this. What's illogical about that and how would that be any different then say a man asking his father to show him how to build a deck if the Dad had built one before? :scratchhead:


----------



## ocotillo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ahem, those are STILL directions. Few of us can look for the North Star and navigate Wise Men style.


I guess we could even argue that stars and other heavenly bodies are still external sources of information and still constitute directions. 

..But my Garmin doesn't think less of me if I get lost and have to consult it. Another man probably will. --Silly, but still true.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Few of us can look for the North Star and navigate Wise Men style.


If you can tell me where the dipper is ,I'll show you the North star.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think I am being grossly misunderstood. My first point was trying to be humorous but to the second, why is asking for guidance a bad thing? Does that mean the buck fails to stop at his feet? I mentioned in an earlier post that all hunting tribes have elders who teach the young boys to hunt. They don't just hand them a bow and arrow and point them due West. They go out with them, show them the ropes and tricks of the trade. In doing so, these boys learn the correct way of doing this. What's illogical about that and how would that be any different then say a man asking his father to show him how to build a deck if the Dad had built one before? :scratchhead:



No.
I understand what you're saying, and I think we are on the same wavelength.
That's why I said "..._That's how civilizations were built_..."
Men have been traditionally taught by other men to go out and conquer, whether it was food or new territory.The survival of the tribe depended on it. 
They were given the basics of survival and expected to do the rest themselves.
Each civilization built on the shoulders of their ancestors. They were expected to reach further.
It is how most men have been cultured and still is up to today.

Not saying its the right or wrong , good or bad. Its just how it has happened, and maybe that's why men choose to figure out things themselves , instead of asking for direction.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> If you can tell me where the dipper is ,I'll show you the North star.


Why did I read this in some raspy sexual Barry White way?! God I'm weird. :rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Why did I read this in some raspy sexual Barry White way?! God I'm weird. :rofl:


Maybe it's that glass of zin?:rofl:
That's it folks..
Its waaaay past my bedtime.
_Bonne nuit!_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Maybe it of the glass of zin.
> That's it folks..
> Its waaaay past my bedtime.:rofl:
> _Bonne nuit!_


Nope, it's Dr. Pepper. 

I understand the points you made. It's always interesting to hear many aspects of the gender behaviors so I appreciate that. Have a good night.


----------



## Catherine602

Fact: men and women perceive and interact with their environment differently. Fact: the male and female brain is structurally and functionally distinct. Fact: Both men and women have strengths that are as finely tuned to adapt to challenges of life in the present and the future. Fact: men and woman have weaknesses that will themselves present challenges to their adaptation to change. Fact: Male and female preceptive powers and brains are a matched set. They were never meant to stand alone. If one is inferior, they both are. 

There is a common misconception expressed by some men. At lest I get that impression. The male brain functions like a fine machine and is the archetype of the human brain. 

I'm even convinced that male and female humans have been placed on their own branches on the evolutionary tree with the female subordinate to the male of course. I'm afraid to google it though. 

I am not a victim, I'm a survivor. It amazes me that there are people who can talk their way around any subject and come to one predictable treatise. 

For all the blustering, evidence of thought, due consideration of information, creativity and the influence of the exchange of idea is woefully lacking. 

What is it like to have to deal with such a person every day. Just imagine a woman unlucky enough to have such a manager. ;=/

Me, after about a month, I'd beg them to stop talking and just shot me. Pleeeeease.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Nope, it's
> * Dr. Pepper. *


Oooooookaaay....:scratchhead:

BTW, _your bf still @ 9%_ ?

>> no need to respond if it's the one in the white can <<


----------



## hambone

Catherine602 said:


> Fact: men and women perceive and interact with their environment differently. Fact: the male and female brain is structurally and functionally distinct. Fact: Both men and women have strengths that are as finely tuned to adapt to challenges of life in the present and the future. Fact: men and woman have weaknesses that will themselves present challenges to their adaptation to change. Fact: Male and female preceptive powers and brains are a matched set. They were never meant to stand alone. If one is inferior, they both are.
> 
> There is a common misconception expressed by some men. At lest I get that impression. The male brain functions like a fine machine and is the archetype of the human brain.
> 
> I'm even convinced that male and female humans have been placed on their own branches on the evolutionary tree with the female subordinate to the male of course. I'm afraid to google it though.
> 
> I am not a victim, I'm a survivor. It amazes me that there are people who can talk their way around any subject and come to one predictable treatise.
> 
> For all the blustering, evidence of thought, due consideration of information, creativity and the influence of the exchange of idea is woefully lacking.
> 
> What is it like to have to deal with such a person every day. Just imagine a woman unlucky enough to have such a manager. ;=/
> 
> Me, after about a month, I'd beg them to stop talking and just shot me. Pleeeeease.


I agree with the vast majority of what you posted. Between me and my wife... we've got all the bases covered. I recognize her strengths and am not threatened by them. Her strengths are an asset....

Where we get into trouble is not recognizing that the skills women bring to the table are just as valuable, and necessary as what males bring. In fact, I'd argue that what women bring is more important when it comes t maintaining the fabric of society.

Earlier, I said what you said... though not as elegant and detailed as you said it... and got absolutely pounded for making such broad generalizations. I understand that there are exceptions to the rule... but, that does not invalidate the rule.


----------



## Caribbean Man

hambone said:


> Where we get into trouble is not recognizing that the skills women bring to the table are just as valuable, and necessary as what males bring. In fact, I'd argue that what women bring is more important when it comes t maintaining the fabric of society.
> QUOTE]
> 
> :iagree:
> 
> I think I agree with this.
> 
> I also agree with the bulk of what Catherine said.
> And yes,
> If we are really honest with ourselves, there is this old stereotype where women are not given equal recognition as their male contemporaries , for the exact same achievements.
> 
> Please note that I'm not sayind that generally women are not paid equally as their male counterparts in the workpklace. That is an entirely , different discussion.
> 
> What I'm saying is that historically, there were extraordinary women who did great things, but somehow they names are not on the A- list of movers and shapers of our modern society.
> 
> That's why I responded to that poster some pages aback with the actual names of women who achieved greatness comparable to the likes of Michaelango and many others.
> Truth be told, the average man or woman cannot name a female contemporary to Einstein, they would have to dig and search.
> The answere is simple , Marie Curie.
> She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, and it was for her groundbreaking , pioneering work in Radioactivity.
> Her achievements included a theory of radioactivity, techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and the discovery of two elements, polonium and radium. Under her direction, the world's first studies were conducted into the treatment of neoplasms, using radioactive isotopes. She founded the Curie Institutes in Paris and in Warsaw, which remain major centres of medical research today.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> The male brain functions like a fine machine and is the archetype of the human brain.


Any man who thinks that has never sat through a course in classical Greek.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I think I agree with this.
> 
> I also agree with the bulk of what Catherine said.
> And yes,
> If we are really honest with ourselves, there is this old stereotype where women are not given equal recognition as their male contemporaries , for the exact same achievements.
> 
> Please note that I'm not sayind that generally women are not paid equally as their male counterparts in the workpklace. That is an entirely , different discussion.
> 
> What I'm saying is that historically, there were extraordinary women who did great things, but somehow they names are not on the A- list of movers and shapers of our modern society.
> 
> That's why I responded to that poster some pages aback with the actual names of women who achieved greatness comparable to the likes of Michaelango and many others.
> Truth be told, the average man or woman cannot name a female contemporary to Einstein, they would have to dig and search.
> The answere is simple , Marie Curie.
> She was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, and it was for her groundbreaking , pioneering work in Radioactivity.
> Her achievements included a theory of radioactivity, techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and the discovery of two elements, polonium and radium. Under her direction, the world's first studies were conducted into the treatment of neoplasms, using radioactive isotopes. She founded the Curie Institutes in Paris and in Warsaw, which remain major centres of medical research today.


Excellent points. Yes, it does perpetuate this myth that women are less logical than men when the achievements of women in science and math aren't recognized historically or at least slow to be recognized. 

The good news is that more and more women are going in to these fields now. It used to be that universities here in the States were almost 100% male in Physics, Chemistry, Applied Math and Engineering majors. Women majored in English, Fine Arts and the Social Sciences. 

Both genders have more options now and I think that is fantastic. No longer is it frowned upon for a woman to become a Mechanical Engineer or a man to become a Teacher. We all have choices now. 

Back to logic and emotion. I've been thinking a lot about this and I've come to the conclusion that both are subjective. What I might think is logical, somebody else doesn't. What you might think is emotional, others wouldn't. A good example of this was a discussion earlier about asking for directions. Many here said a man won't because he wants to figure it out for himself. To me, if you don't know the area and asking somebody who does can shorten your drive and confusion, it IS logical to ask for assistance. To not is a waste of time and thus, not logical. Some agreed with me, while others didn't, of both sexes. Emotion? That's subjective as well. Some see emotion as a smile while others see it as a full blown cry fest. If this is subjective, how then can we ascribe these traits to one gender or the other? It's based on perception only and through the eyes of the individual perceiving. Nietzsche should have said "I think therefore you are". You are emotional because I think you are but I am logical because I think I am.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Ah, so it has nothing at all to do with being _embarrassed_ that you don't know what you are doing, _afraid_ of looking like an idiot by asking someone for help, _determined_ to make things right no matter what, or _proud_ of one's ability to stick with it and _satisfied_ with the accomplishment?


No one is an idiot for asking for help. I certainly don't feel like an idiot when I need to. Its about handling your own problems. I don't ask for help when I can take care of it myself - it may take me longer, but in the long run I'll put money down that I end up with more complete knowledge of the issue/problem having found the solution myself than someone does when they seek help.

Its not emotionally driven, its independence driven.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> There's a bunch of recent research that suggests that girls who play "boy" games or who are actually taught spatial skills will score as highly as boys typically do.
> 
> So not so much interest, necessarily, but previous training. Or a combination thereof.
> 
> Plus on the neuroscience side, I believe they've found as much within gender variation as difference between the gender.
> 
> I will try and look up something more specific later, when I have a bit of time.


You're absolutely right, but missed the point. Girls can be taught the spatial skills and navigation strategies the boys use, but the boys didn't have to learn them - they're present much earlier in development - suggesting that it is a matter of how boy's brains process spatial information as opposed to how girl's do.

The point is that there are natural differences. Not that those differences can't be overcome by nurture or that a girl can't develop spatial skills equal to a boy's.


----------



## ocotillo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Back to logic and emotion. I've been thinking a lot about this and I've come to the conclusion that both are subjective.


I guess it depends on what we mean by logic. If logic = what makes the most sense; is the most expedient, etc., then I'd agree that this is entirely subjective. 

If we're talking about formal logic as it's applied to mathematics and semantics, then we're talking about a discipline that exists to eliminate subjectivity.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It's based on perception only and through the eyes of the individual perceiving. Nietzsche should have said "I think therefore you are". You are emotional because I say you are but I am logical because I think I am.


:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Nietzsche should have said "I think therefore you are". You are emotional because I say you are but I am logical because I think I am.


I _think_ you meant Descartes?
Actually, he coined that infamous Latin phrase
"..._cogito ergo sum_..."
Translation;
".._I think , therefore I am_.."

Anyway , point well taken...


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I guess it depends on what we mean by logic. If logic = what makes the most sense; is the most expedient, etc., then I'd agree that this is entirely subjective.
> 
> If we're talking about formal logic as it's applied to mathematics and semantics, then we're talking about a discipline that exists to eliminate subjectivity.


I think she's referring to everyday logic or maybe a bit of reasoning
& informal logic.

In any event most ordinary people / couples hardly ever during their lifetime, go into the deeper end of logic, like philosophical logic ,Syllogistic logic ,Mathematical , Modal and Predicate [ first order, many sorted , infinitary] and so forth.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Catherine602 said:


> There is a common misconception expressed by some men. At lest I get that impression. The male brain functions like a fine machine and is the archetype of the human brain.


If you got that impression from me it is mistaken. My point is only that there are clear and distinct differences in our natural thought processes that lend themselves to certain skills to the detriment of others - not the superiority of one brain or the other.

To put things very generally, the male brain processes information more locally, while the female brain tends to process information more widely. Females have significantly more gray matter than males, while males possess more white matter. Gray matter consists of neuron cell bodies and dendrites, and is where information is processed in the brain. White matter consists of myelinated axons and is like a network of insulated wires between neurons. Myelin helps prevent electrical currents from straying into other regions of the brain. The implication is that white matter facilitates a certain single-mindedness or isolated processing. 

The performance of tasks like the mental manipulation and spatial orientation of objects is strongly correlated with localized processing, and its thought that the greater brain activity in females is actually distracting from the task. Females who perform as well as men in these tasks are shown to have developed the ability to similarly process this information locally. In effect, training their brain to process this information in a "male-brain" way.

In female brains, the corpus callosum is actually more extensive, promoting communication between hemispheres and aiding tasks where global processing is advantageous. In a manner of speaking, women use more of their brain for many tasks, while males tend to have more localized, unilateral processing.

Testosterone is also known to inhibit the growth of the left cerebral hemisphere while accelerating growth of the right. Female twins of male/female twin pairs who are exposed to elevated testosterone levels in utero have also been shown to have increased brain lateralization upon birth and in in follow up study demonstrate greater spatial ability than same sex female twins.

The structure is different; we think differently; we perform differently.

I generally regard females as the default or archetype human specification - and males as a specialization or subclass.


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Females have significantly more gray matter than males, while males possess more white matter. Gray matter consists of neuron cell bodies and dendrites, and is where information is processed in the brain. White matter consists of myelinated axons and is like a network of insulated wires between neurons. Myelin helps prevent electrical currents from straying into other regions of the brain. The implication is that white matter facilitates a certain single-mindedness or isolated processing.


Females do _not _have more grey matter than males. Males have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. 

This said, studies indicate that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.

Our brains are the same. We just use them differently.


----------



## joshbjoshb

I wasn't here for a while, and I am shocked to see how much conversation it has generated... I want to read through and comment, but right now I am dealing with another crisis in my own marriage (is that because my wife is more emotional? just kidding!)


----------



## Catherine602

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Back to logic and emotion. I've been thinking a lot about this and I've come to the conclusion that both are subjective. What I might think is logical, somebody else doesn't. What you might think is emotional, others wouldn't. A good example of this was a discussion earlier about asking for directions. Many here said a man won't because he wants to figure it out for himself. To me, if you don't know the area and asking somebody who does can shorten your drive and confusion, it IS logical to ask for assistance. To not is a waste of time and thus, not logical. Some agreed with me, while others didn't, of both sexes. Emotion? That's subjective as well. Some see emotion as a smile while others see it as a full blown cry fest. If this is subjective, how then can we ascribe these traits to one gender or the other? It's based on perception only and through the eyes of the individual perceiving. Nietzsche should have said "I think therefore you are". You are emotional because I say you are but I am logical because I think I am.


Wish I could give this more than one puny like. 

Thoughts aren't powerful enough to change the truth but they are powerful enough to infect the thoughts and actions of the masses. That is the evil of gender bias. The sadest aspect is the damage it creates in relationships between men and women. 

It is not hard to understand why a wife would say "all you think about is sex" to her husband. Women have a right to refuse to be used for pleasure by a man who cant control himself, right. Wrong men are capable of deep love and affection. 

Sex is sometimes just getting off but it is also a need for emotional connection and confirmation of love. That's one thing I learned from posts by men. There is no way that I would know that, social custom inhibits many men expressing this face to face. 

Or a husband who thinks that whenever his wife's gets emotional, It's "female hormones". Men don't have to deal with female problems, she"ll need to get over it. Wrong. Woman are emotional for many reason. 

Men are too but, they are not allowed by social convention to show it. Some look down their noses at women but that's because they reject the emotional part of themselves.

Negative judgements and hostile attirudes towards gender diffences hurts both men and women. That's illogical to me and both men and women do it. 

There is no pride in a refusal to seek help when it is readily available. Think it's a sign of gender superiority? Wasting time and effort wondering in the wilderness is irrational and thinking that it is has anything to do with maleness is delusional. 

I don't see maleness as irrational and delusional. Maybe I can't see the truth though.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't ask for help when I can take care of it myself - it may take me longer, but in the long run I'll put money down that I end up with more complete knowledge of the issue/problem having found the solution myself than someone does when they seek help.
> 
> Its not emotionally driven, its independence driven.


Ah. So you like the feelings of freedom and autonomy ...

Since you seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at (which was not about how you personally feel about certain things), let me rephrase. 

Of men and women, who is more likely to
- laugh at a joke
-grow frustrated with petty obstacles
-grieve the loss of a loved one
-rejoice in the successes of friends
-become tongue-tied around a new love interest
-marvel at the incredible beauty that can be found in this world
-feel embarrassed after saying something incredibly stupid
-express outrage at injustice
-feel jittery before speaking in public
-be exhausted after a hard day's work
-be exhilarated after sky-diving
-worry when the children aren't home on time
-grow angry with an incompetent or awful boss
-feel utterly content after a round of passionate sex
-stress about deadlines and demands
-fall in love
and a zillion other everyday examples of emotions that people feel all the time?
-


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're absolutely right, but missed the point. Girls can be taught the spatial skills and navigation strategies the boys use, but the boys didn't have to learn them - they're present much earlier in development - suggesting that it is a matter of how boy's brains process spatial information as opposed to how girl's do.
> 
> The point is that there are natural differences. Not that those differences can't be overcome by nurture or that a girl can't develop spatial skills equal to a boy's.


Part of the point was that boys learn these skills because of the way they are taught, the games they are given, and how they are encouraged. 

No doubt there are observable differences between boys and girls. But we need to be careful what meanings we attribute to this.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Without disagreeing with you, I'd be interested in hearing more. I've participated in Introduce A Girl To Engineering Day for years and that's certainly something we've been told that first hand observation seems to confirm.


Turns out that some of this research dates back much further than I recalled. 

Daniel Voyer, Susan Voyer, M.P. Bryden (1995) Magnitude of Sex Differences in Spatial Abilities: A Meta-Analysis and Consideration of Critical Variables, _Psychological Bulletin_ , 117 (2), pg. 250-270 
A meta-study that finds sex differences favouring males on some spatial tests, but not others, and variations in results depending on age group and testing conditions.

David Ben-Chaim (1988) The Effect of Instruction on Spatial Visualization Skills of Middle School Boys and Girls. _American Educational Research Journal_, 25(1): 
doi: 10.3102/00028312025001051
Finds that there are sex differences in spatial skills in middle school aged children (on pre-test with no interventions), but concludes that these skills can be taught.

Kaveri Subrahmanyam, Patricia M. Greenfield, Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys, _Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology_, 15(1), 1994, 13-32, 
Finds that video games practice improves spatial skill performance, especially for those with poor spatial skills.

On the neuroscience side, check out Cordelia Fine, Delusions of Gender. Here's a link to a book review: PLOS Biology: Neuro Nonsense


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> Ikea...it's like they leave out the last screw you need just to screw you.


Funny. When I read Brighteyes' comment, my first thought was that the only thing Ikea instructions are good for is to count which parts you're missing so you can pick them up next time you go by the store.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> I _think_ you meant Descartes?
> Actually, he coined that infamous Latin phrase
> "..._cogito ergo sum_..."
> Translation;
> ".._I think , therefore I am_.."
> 
> Anyway , point well taken...


Yeah, yeah. It was Descartes. I barely passed my Philosophy class and was lucky if I showed up to the 7:00 am class without a microwaved burrito in my hair. 

Smarty pants.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Part of the point was that boys learn these skills because of the way they are taught, the games they are given, and how they are encouraged.
> 
> No doubt there are observable differences between boys and girls. But we need to be careful what meanings we attribute to this.


That's why I said nurture. I'm aware of the role it plays. But boys don't have these skills because they are taught them or learned them in play. It is a function of the WAY the boys think - processing certain spatial information exclusively locally, in an area of the right hemisphere; Hence my providing the male/female twins example that has been studied; in the presence of high testosterone in utero, the female of male/female twins also gains this brain function at the cost of the more global function of other females and have been shown to perform equally with males in spatial tasks. Their brains function in a more "male" way. They're still girls and they still did "girl" things. They didn't get some special encouragement to play with boy toys or do "boy" things; its that their brain processes this information like a boy's brain does that they have proficiency in spatial tasks equal to that of the boys. My point was that fundamental differences in the ways that male and female brains process information as a result of differences in physiology - nature - do result in differentiation of skill sets. The difference in global vs local processing of information to accomplish certain tasks is pretty well studied and the nurture problem has been tackled many times (as in the study of twins); the advantage of local processing in certain spatial tasks is also well established.

The meaning I attribute to this is that boys and girls are born with brains that process information differently and those differences mean they start with different skill sets. Some of those skills can be developed, some can not. The male brain for example, is never going to have the capabilities nor limitations associated with the degree of global processing and bilateral communication that females have. It is a physiological fact that females have a more extensive corpus callosum.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Since you seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at (which was not about how you personally feel about certain things), let me rephrase.
> 
> Of men and women, who is more likely to
> 
> - laugh at a joke
> -grow frustrated with petty obstacles
> -grieve the loss of a loved one - *women*
> -rejoice in the successes of friends
> -become tongue-tied around a new love interest
> -marvel at the incredible beauty that can be found in this world
> -feel embarrassed after saying something incredibly stupid
> -express outrage at injustice
> -feel jittery before speaking in public
> -be exhausted after a hard day's work
> -be exhilarated after sky-diving
> -worry when the children aren't home on time *women*
> -grow angry with an incompetent or awful boss
> -feel utterly content after a round of passionate sex
> -stress about deadlines and demands
> -fall in love
> and a zillion other everyday examples of emotions that people feel all the time?
> -


Of those, there are only two I personally associate more with one gender than the other.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It is a physiological fact that females have a more extensive corpus callosum.


Many of these "facts" do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and do not have the claimed effects on behaviour. For example, see the link I posted earlier.


----------



## whitehawk

Holland said:


> Is this assumption coming from your own life experience? If so you have had a very sheltered life. Might be time to get a broader range of people in your life.
> 
> You have also proved your assumption wrong as you have not looked at this premise logically or taking into account the other persons POV.



Even so , I reckon men see the big picture far far better. And I ain't had a sheltered life !


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yeah, yeah. It was Descartes. I barely passed my Philosophy class* and was lucky if I showed up to the 7:00 am class without a microwaved burrito in my hair.
> *
> Smarty pants.


:lol:
Sometimes you just need to "..._Take a break,_ _have a ....._"


----------



## ocotillo

Caribbean Man said:


> In any event most ordinary people / couples hardly ever during their lifetime, go into the deeper end of logic....


I agree. But people who in everyday speech and written composition regularly equivocate, generalize, hypostatize, invoke false dilemmas, incorporate circularities and false causes, inductively use deductive arguments, reason through analogy, etc., are going to be perceived as less than logical. 

On forums where more concrete things than marriage and human relations are discussed, there's always a handful of individuals who can't seem to express themselves without committing an error in formal logic.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

ocotillo said:


> reason through analogy, etc., are going to be perceived as less than logical.


I tend to use analogies many times on this board because oftentimes I feel the person I am responding to is having difficulty understanding my point. Would that make me illogical or would it make the person who can't understand anything but an analogy illogical? :scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I agree. But people who in everyday speech and written composition regularly equivocate, generalize, hypostatize, invoke false dilemmas, incorporate circularities and false causes, inductively use deductive arguments, reason through analogy, etc., are going to be perceived as less than logical.
> 
> On forums where more concrete things than marriage and human relations are discussed, *there's always a handful of individuals who can't seem to express themselves without committing an error in formal logic.*


:iagree:

Lol,
My brother, you got me!
But what you said is true.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I tend to use analogies many times on this board because oftentimes I feel the person I am responding to is having difficulty understanding my point. Would that make me illogical or would it make the person who can't understand anything but an analogy illogical? :scratchhead:


I think its called an " analogical argument ."
The person is presenting the argument presupposes that two objects or situations are similar , although they may have differences. The similarities being the main focus of the arguments.

Whether or not your point is being understood depends mainly on,
1] How clearly you present the argument. [ _truth , number , relevance , diversity and disanalogy_.]
2]The capacity of the person the argument is being presented to to grasp the type of logic you are using.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Whether or not your point is being understood depends mainly on,
> 1] How clearly you present the argument. [ _truth , number , relevance , diversity and disanalogy_.]


I had a feeling you would mention this. I see your point. For me, after going about it in what I perceive is a logical way and the other person still doesn't get it, that's when I bust out an analogy. Then they usually have an "a-ha" moment, provided they were trying to understand me at all.


----------



## ocotillo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I tend to use analogies many times on this board because oftentimes I feel the person I am responding to is having difficulty understanding my point. Would that make me illogical or would it make the person who can't understand anything but an analogy illogical? :scratchhead:


Not at all. Sorry if I gave that impression. Analogies are a useful illustrative tool and people who are gifted with words tend to use them a lot.

The logical fallacy occurs when the analogy becomes part of a deductive argument. The person takes the analogy and reasons backwards, saying that such and such a thing must be true of the real thing _because_ it is true of the analogy.

This isn't applicable to TAM and the discussions we have here so much as it's applicable to discussion related to the sciences.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> For me, after going about it in what I perceive is a logical way and the other person still doesn't get it, that's when I bust out an analogy. Then they usually have an "a-ha" moment, provided they were trying to understand me at all.


Sometimes its the same with me....
It happens with my wife & I sometimes too.
But I think Octillo's point is relevant here.
Sometimes what we may perceive as a logical argument, cannot stand evaluation so it's not really logical.
An argument like that may be based on emotion, rather than pure logic.
But , like we all agreed to some pages ago, everything in life need not be based on hard , cold , logic.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

ocotillo said:


> Not at all. Sorry if I gave that impression. Analogies are a useful illustrative tool and people who are gifted with words tend to use them a lot.
> 
> The logical fallacy occurs when the analogy becomes part of a deductive argument. The person takes the analogy and reasons backwards, saying that such and such a thing must be true of the real thing _because_ it is true of the analogy.
> 
> This isn't applicable to TAM and the discussions we have here so much as it's applicable to discussion related to the sciences.


Okay, well that makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Many of these "facts" do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and do not have the claimed effects on behaviour. For example, see the link I posted earlier.


Please... with the hyperbole. Criticisms of methodology do not constitute not standing up to scientific scrutiny. Refining the manner in which a question is asked, does not make the answer to original question invalid. At best your only giving cause for doubt. A point I'll return to later.

It is not refutation, and such criticisms exist to some degree across the majority of peer reviewed work. Researcher opinion, thoroughness, and resources all come into play.

Knowing this is a weak argument, you'll note the author is quick to back peddle, just in case corrections in a subsequent study have the same results: 

"Even if his measurements were correct, it is not clear that differences observed in newborns are relevant to adult behavior. Lastly, the differences observed were not particularly large, a problem that, Fine points out, applies to many other reported cognitive differences as well. Such differences are often small enough that social experiences can often easily remove them. For instance, the small gender differences observed in spatial abilities can largely be obliterated by practicing mechanical tasks."

The last sentence is entirely consistent with the prevailing scientific opinion on the matter - the difference in spatial ability can be largely eliminated with practice, which basically trains the brain to process this information in the way the male brain does naturally... locally. However, the brain is more elastic in some ways and less elastic in others. Knowing this, its not wild to hypothesize that some of these differences remain in spite of conditioning - though very difficult to prove definitively.

I have no illusion that women can't be as good engineers as men, or as good at a wide array of tasks; nor vice versa. But in order to do so, girls must learn to process spatial information in the manner that boys are born doing - locally. This isn't even a debate - its readily visible in scans of brain activity (more on Fine's objection in a second). My point is that we are born processing information differently and experimental data strongly suggests this different processing has a influence on the performance of certain tasks. If a woman didn't have some kind of practice where she develops the ability to locally process spatial information, she is very likely to be less proficient than a boy at the same task - even if he received no such practice either.

The same phenomenon exists across other skill sets. Toddler girls are better able to recognize faces and emotions - a task that requires greater bilateral communication in the brain. Fine basically attacks a large body of research rather wildly without presenting findings - its just a chorus of "they're all flawed!! Everything is wrong! Its not this way, its a conspiracy!"

Rather than the author going out of her way to dismiss a wide array of research, absent any data, she - an experimental psychologist - should put her money where her mouth is and actually experiment. Some of the arguments she's presenting are nothing more than desperate reaches. Faulty imaging as a result of plasticity? non-reporting of neutral data? Abuse of statistical analysis? Yes, and the government has secret knowledge of the existence of aliens too. This smacks of someone selling a story - not science.

It is someone desperately searching for something to hang their hat on to affirm their belief that there are no natural differences in the cognitive abilities of men and women. It presents no evidence of its own. Its almost as bad as getting global warming knowledge from Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

A quick search reveals Barron-Cohen responded to Fine accusing her of "fusing science with politics," writing, "Her barely veiled agenda, in this long, scholarly book, is to show that any sex difference found in humans can be made to vanish!" Dianne Halperm, also criticized by Fine, claims she cherry picked flaws to make her arguments and failed to address the wide range of "differences that are supported by a body of carefully conducted and well-replicated research."

Other studies have shown that testosterone influences spatial ability. Women with high testosterone levels performed better than women with lower testosterone levels, and again the women with higher testosterone were shown to have less global processing - seemingly affirming that testosterone is responsible for changes in brain development that benefit spatial skills. At what point do Fine's objections just show themselves as being nothing more than politically motivated??

Plenty of cherry picked objections and no data. That's not scientific scrutiny. That's a hack imo.

We're born with brains that process information differently and that difference in processing lends itself to certain tasks. Regardless, these differences can be overcome... but its not a stretch to imagine that those born with a skill may be more likely to pursue endeavors and careers that utilize that skill. Science aside, its rather common sense to anyone who has spent significant time around children. They tend to pursue the things that they're naturally good at more than the things they aren't.

It doesn't make men better than women, or spatial skills more valuable than any other skill... nor does it dictate that women can't be as proficient as men or vice versa.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Please... with the hyperbole. Criticisms of methodology do not constitute not standing up to scientific scrutiny. Refining the manner in which a question is asked, does not make the answer to original question invalid. At best your only giving cause for doubt. A point I'll return to later.


Criticisms of methodology mean that we must remain skeptical of the conclusions drawn from the suspect research.

So you don't like Fine, and prefer Halpern? 

Here's a quote from Halpern's 1996 article Changing Data, Changing Minds: What the cognitive sex differences tell us and what we hear, Learning and Individual Differences, 8(1):



> Despite common misconceptions, a biological basis for a trait or an ability does not mean that the trait or ability is immutable, nor does it mean that the environment is of relatively little importance. These are important points.


And later in the conclusion:


> This leads to a very practical question: "What is the message to the general public who is not concerned with the esoteric implications of research conducted with girls who receive high levels of prenatal androgen or rats who are ovarectomized at birth?" In other words, "What is the take home message for those of us who deal with a wide range of males and females in various capacities every day?"
> 
> *First and foremost, the range of abilities within groups of males and females and the overlapping distributions between females and males on cognitive tasks makes sex a poor predictor of performance.* The research pertaining to sex differences and similarities represent average findings, and no single individual is average.
> 
> Second, everyone (except the profoundly retarded) will benefit from education.


Even with flawless methodology, we must be careful about the inferences we draw from this research.

Have I sown enough doubt yet? 

If not, let me know what you think of the meta-study I posted that finds that results on spatial skills scoring depends on the test, the age of the subject, and the testing conditions.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Criticisms of methodology mean that we must remain skeptical of the conclusions drawn from the suspect research.


Not when such criticism is a scattershot cherry picking of every conceivable weakness in a wide array of studies whilst one ignores a host of others without such weaknesses that have shown consistent results in repeat experiments... which is what I quoted Halpern saying of Fine. I think this does more to discredit Fine than it does to discredit the research.



always_alone said:


> So you don't like Fine, and prefer Halpern?
> 
> Here's a quote from Halpern's 1996 article Changing Data, Changing Minds: What the cognitive sex differences tell us and what we hear, Learning and Individual Differences, 8(1):


What in that quote contradicts what I've been saying? I myself have made those points. 



always_alone said:


> And later in the conclusion:


No disagreement with me there either.



always_alone said:


> Even with flawless methodology, we must be careful about the inferences we draw from this research.
> 
> Have I sown enough doubt yet?
> 
> If not, let me know what you think of the meta-study I posted that finds that results on spatial skills scoring depends on the test, the age of the subject, and the testing conditions.


I'm afraid not. Your argument seems misaimed - as if you're arguing against me thinking I'm interested in picking male engineers over female engineers because male engineers had a spatial advantage at birth. I don't believe that on an individual basis sex is necessarily the best predictor of performance - education and experience rank much higher if I'm looking at engineers. I don't believe the research on our cognitive differences supports having such bias, quite to the contrary - it only says that we are born with brains that process information differently and that processing results in advantages for some tasks and disadvantages for others - naturally. That doesn't mean those advantages hold up against or exceed acquired experience.

But we are born different and we think different. We can learn and adapt. I'd assume by the time a woman becomes an engineer, she's likely developed the ability to process spatial information locally, just as men do naturally - and I believe the education and factors specific to an individual such as intelligence, education, drive and work ethic far exceed the advantage a male may have had naturally merely by having a brain already wired for local processing. By the time her experience is factored in, he has no spatial advantage... she's doing the same thing he is.

But its still true that the female had to do something that the male didn't as a result of our biological differences - learn to process spatial information locally. If she doesn't do that, any given male is likely to perform better at spatial tasks. It doesn't mean that she CANT... although I do believe there are likely some instances that are more difficult to overcome, given that, as I said, the brain is more elastic in some areas and less elastic in others.

I'm not sure your argument is really toward me, but rather an extended assumption of my position. If we're not talking about people educated specifically in the spatial task we're evaluating however, I do think if you randomly pick a man and woman off the street, odds are the man is going to perform better at spatial skills - for a variety of reasons - nurture, but yes, also nature. The women who've developed the local processing ability are a subset of all women; meanwhile all the men have it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *But we are born different and we think different. We can learn and adapt. I'd assume by the time a woman becomes an engineer, she's likely developed the ability to process spatial information locally, just as men do naturally - and I believe the education and factors specific to an individual such as intelligence, education, drive and work ethic far exceed the advantage a male may have had naturally merely by having a brain already wired for local processing. By the time her experience is factored in, he has no spatial advantage... she's doing the same thing he is.*


:iagree:

Especially the part underlined.
In our engineering class there were two women in a set of almost twenty+ men.
The first year was really rough for them , because all of our lecturers were also male, with the exception of one.
I remember especially with subjects like advanced Eng. Drawing , it was difficult for them to grasp certain concepts.
I remember constantly helping, trying to explain the concepts to one of them.
What was interesting though, was that she was very strong in analytical side pure math. As a trade off , she helped me in areas like Algebraic functions, Complex Analysis , Complex Numbers and so forth

But by mid year two , they were right on par with us in the adv. engineering drawing concepts, applied mechanics, and thermodynamics.

I know my " evidence " may be anecdotal , but it's was just my observation.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> But we are born different and we think different. We can learn and adapt. I'd assume by the time a woman becomes an engineer, she's likely developed the ability to process spatial information locally, just as men do naturally - and I believe the education and factors specific to an individual such as intelligence, education, drive and work ethic far exceed the advantage a male may have had naturally merely by having a brain already wired for local processing. By the time her experience is factored in, he has no spatial advantage... she's doing the same thing he is.
> 
> But its still true that the female had to do something that the male didn't as a result of our biological differences - learn to process spatial information locally. If she doesn't do that, any given male is likely to perform better at spatial tasks. It doesn't mean that she CANT... although I do believe there are likely some instances that are more difficult to overcome, given that, as I said, the brain is more elastic in some areas and less elastic in others.
> 
> I'm not sure your argument is really toward me, but rather an extended assumption of my position. If we're not talking about people educated specifically in the spatial task we're evaluating however, I do think if you randomly pick a man and woman off the street, odds are the man is going to perform better at spatial skills - for a variety of reasons - nurture, but yes, also nature. The women who've developed the local processing ability are a subset of all women; meanwhile all the men have it.



On some points, we are not arguing at all. However, I see three real points of contention.

1. Your blanket statements of what men and women are naturally good at are contradicted by variability within genders and the overlap between them. On average differences are meaningless when evaluating an individual's skill, whether natural or learned.

2. Your insistence that anything that one is "born with" is somehow more natural or better than something one develops later in life. Where Halpern's point contradicts yours is that she is explicitly saying that we need to rethink our understanding of both biology and the environment, and stop imagining that these biological differences are prior to or somehow determine cognitive skill, and that environment is just a fluffy add-on that helps others "catch up". *Learning new skills changes the brain.* This is what they mean by neuroplasticity, and it works both ways. What one is born with can be lost, and what one didn't have can be gained.

3. Your blanket refusal to even consider that many of our most persistent stereotypes are extracting a consensus from the literature that doesn't really exist. I get that you believe you're right without taking anything that I've said seriously. But if you had actually read Halpern instead of just the Wikipedia article you quoted, you'd know that she also said:



> Cleverly written with engaging prose, Delusions of Gender and Brain Storm contain enough citations and end notes to signal that they are also serious academic books. Fine and Jordan-Young ferret out exaggerated, unreplicated claims and other silliness regarding research on sex differences.


Her criticism is not that Fine isn't correct in her evaluations. Indeed, she explicitly agrees that a lot of sex difference research is junk science. Instead, her complaint is that Fine doesn't then get into detail about studies that are solid: 



> Most of these [studies] are ignored by Fine. This may, in part, reflect the fact that whereas sex differences are reliably found in several areas of research, none of the differences support essentialist claims that girls and boys need separate educations based on their brain types, that one sex is better suited to become engineers, or that one sex is inherently more intelligent—to name just a few of the ideas being promoted under the guise of “science.” For example, in a recent set of studies that collected data from over 200,000 men and women via a BBC Web site, a test of estimating the orientation of lines and other visuospatial tasks found medium to large sex differences favoring males across 53 countries (5). On the other hand, training studies have found that everyone can improve on visuospatial tasks (6), so any explanation must consider the various ways in which biological and psychosocial factors affect one another.


----------



## Catherine602

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The women who've developed the local processing ability are a subset of all women;meanwhile all the men have it.


Here we have it. 

I challenge anyone to come up with a more elegant demonstration of bias cloaked in an authoritative presentation of purported facts. Shockley himself could not have done better and he was a Nobel laureate. 

You don't have a clear enough understanding of the basic fundamental tenets of data collection and analysis to make any of the authoritative posts that you share so freely. All of your arguments have the appearance of sturdy houses but, since they are built on sand, failure is inevitable. You are an engineer so you understand. 

I believe there is ample creditable evidence of gender differences in both brain morphology and native information processing. There is equaly compelling evidence that individual gender differences are not informed by these data. 

All of the studies on gender and the brain start with population studies. The data are condensed and described in terms of mean, median, mode, range and SD. 
The distribution of the data informs the appropiate statistics that can or should be used for the analysis of the variables, in this case brain morphology and cognition. 

The assumption is that population-generated male and female neuronal data have a normative distribution with statistically significant differences in means etc. 

Additional and more sophisticated studies are informed by these crude population studies. Gender can be associated with many cognitive traits but no correlations have been established. That is why your statement has no basis in fact. Science fiction maybe but, not in this reality. 

The best you can do with these data is to be aware of the proportion of risk that gender imparts. Then employ methods of evaluation of the individual that removes your preconceptions and biases. 

It is not possible to hold the thought outlined in red in your head and at the same time, claim to comprehend the science of data collection, analysis and the pitfalls therein. 

I should say, it is not possible for anyone with a well integrated and cross referenced neuronal network.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> 1. Your blanket statements of what men and women are naturally good at are contradicted by variability within genders and the overlap between them. On average differences are meaningless when evaluating an individual's skill, whether natural or learned.


I'm not contradicted at all by variability within gender - both are normal distributions with males showing the higher average. I agree that differences on average are meaningless in *evaluating* individuals... but given a normal distribution of skill within both groups, the average IS predictive in random sampling. Do you recognize the difference?

If I choose a male over a female based on this predictive quality, there are going to be many times where I've missed out on a superior performing female - this is the overlap and variance in gender; the cases where the someone in the top of the female curve goes against someone in the bottom of the male curve. If we're talking about males and females who have both received additional experience in applying spatial skills - such that they both process spatial information locally. I'm going to miss the better performing candidate a whopping 50% of the time. It becomes completely non-predictive.

The average is not meaningless however. I hope you're not a gambler. If we took bets on the spatial performance of toddlers, putting the same amount of money down on each matchup with you betting on the girl and my betting on the boy, I'm going to lose some of those matchups, but I'm going to be walking away from the game with a lot of your money.

If we performed the same test with adults, I'm probably still going to take some of your money, albeit less, because the males ALL have this local processing advantage at birth, while the females had to develop it and not all will. Assuming training/experience developing spatial skills completely eliminated the difference between males and females and a girl at any given part of the female curve prior to training placed on the equivalent part of the male curve, we'd get the same results from this test as we would replacing the females in your test group with randomly selected males. You're STILL going to lose a little money to me on the remaining females.

We can do the exact same thing with male and female height and perhaps you'll be more amenable to my point. The distribution of height in both populations is normal. The average male is taller than the average female. Some females will be taller than some males. If you closed your eyes and were presented with a man and a woman and asked which is taller, you'd obviously predict the male right?

Its only more obvious to you because height is more strongly predicted by gender than spatial skill is... but spatial skill is still predictive by gender... declining into adulthood. If women could take a pill that magically gives them their "male height" equivalent (as in practicing spatial skills), you'd still be right more often than not in guessing that a male is taller than a female unless ALL females took the magic pill.




always_alone said:


> 2. Your insistence that anything that one is "born with" is somehow more natural or better than something one develops later in life.
> Where Halpern's point contradicts yours is that she is explicitly saying that we need to rethink our understanding of both biology and the environment, and stop imagining that these biological differences are prior to or somehow determine cognitive skill, and that environment is just a fluffy add-on that helps others "catch up". *Learning new skills changes the brain.* This is what they mean by neuroplasticity, and it works both ways. What one is born with can be lost, and what one didn't have can be gained.


This criticism is entirely off-base. I've never made such an insistence or judgment that what you're born with is more natural or better than what is learned.

You also just introduced a new fact unsupported by evidence. A boy will always process spatial information locally unless experience develops a more effective approach to the task. The brain is like a tool box matching process (tool) to task. Research shows that it does not downgrade. ie a male who improves his facial recognition ability by developing greater global processing, does not lose his ability to process spatial information locally. Research on patients with loss of function due to brain injury also shows that while the brain is capable of rerouting some processes, it is incapable of rerouting others. So no, what one lacks cannot always be gained. Some things are elastic, others are inelastic. Spatial skill is one of those highly elastic functions in a healthy brain. Certain social skills and aspects of language, if not developed during childhood will never be developed. 




always_alone said:


> 3. Your blanket refusal to even consider that many of our most persistent stereotypes are extracting a consensus from the literature that doesn't really exist. I get that you believe you're right without taking anything that I've said seriously. But if you had actually read Halpern instead of just the Wikipedia article you quoted, you'd know that she also said:
> 
> Her criticism is not that Fine isn't correct in her evaluations. Indeed, she explicitly agrees that a lot of sex difference research is junk science. Instead, her complaint is that Fine doesn't then get into detail about studies that are solid:


Actually, my Halpern quote came from a blog review of Fine's book and opinion on the bickering. I wasn't interested in Halpern. I just took a guess that you'd take a woman's criticism of Fine more seriously; that you chose to mitigating her comments while not bothering with the criticisms of Baron-Cohen provides me some confirmation. Do you just dismiss Baron-Cohen's response to Fine? Here you have multiple scientists critical of Fine, and you choose the rosiest scenario for her. Is that rational? Seems to me its going to battle for "your guy"... the one who says good things about your issue, in contrast to a whole lot of other work. Even while Fine actually presents none of her own experimental data. 

I agree with you there's plenty of poor science to go around in any discipline. However, throwing out "junk science" accusations at a wide range of scientists with fine standing tends to be a red flag that someone is trying to make a name for themselves by attacking others, or has an agenda they're trying to sell. Controversy and conflict draws attention. If Fine is cherry picking as Halpern and others (Baron-Cohen, Haller, Kaiser) suggests, how reliable can her conclusions be? Why does someone cherry pick? -to tell the story they WANT to tell rather than the story that the preponderance of evidence tells.

Have I sown enough doubt yet?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Catherine602 said:


> You don't have a clear enough understanding of the basic fundamental tenets of data collection and analysis to make any of the authoritative posts that you share so freely.


I was a freaking computer science major. Do you have any idea how many computer statistics courses I've taken? Yes, I have pretty good understanding of data collection and analysis.



Catherine602 said:


> I believe there is ample creditable evidence of gender differences in both brain morphology and native information processing. There is equaly compelling evidence that individual gender differences are not informed by these data.


I'd argue with your characterization of "equally compelling".




Catherine602 said:


> All of the studies on gender and the brain start with population studies. The data are condensed and described in terms of mean, median, mode, range and SD.
> The distribution of the data informs the appropiate statistics that can or should be used for the analysis of the variables, in this case brain morphology and cognition.
> 
> The assumption is that male and female neuronal data have a normative distribution. The statistical analysis assumes a that the data has a mean, median. range and SD that conforms to a normal distribution .
> 
> Gender can be associated with many cognitive traits but no correlations have been established. That is why your statement has no basis in fact. Science fiction maybe but, not in this reality.


This is outright false. High performance in spatial tasks in both men AND women is very closely associated with unilateral processing... dedicated, local brain activity. It has been shown over and over again.

Testosterone - specifically its strong correlation to insulating compounds in the brain, is linked to localized brain activity. More insulation, more restricted, localized brain activity and less global activity - something that is documented even among high testosterone women, and female male/female twins exposed to higher testosterone levels in utero. There is a clear link here.

I provided this information already. Many correlations have been established.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I think this thread's purpose was to make men feel they are more capable of seeing the big picture than women.
> 
> It failed because everyone is looking at a different picture.



And who determines what the big picture is?

See?

Put two men or women from different backgrounds to determine in any abstract case what is the big picture and they would argue over it for hours. Indeed, men have argued and even gone to war because one or both partners were able to even agree on what consists the " big picture."

Each person determines for themselves, what matters to them apart from external stimuli and considerations.[ which is a type of solipsism ].
In marriage this function is made significantly harder by inducing gender stereotypes and framing it in the " _battle of the sexes_ " context.


----------



## Catherine602

Trenton said:


> I think this thread's purpose was to make men feel they are more capable of seeing the big picture than women.
> 
> It failed because everyone is looking at a different picture.


They are all big so, it's all good.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

I have no idea what the big picture is. I took the OP to be a question of who is better and fairer at seeing the other person's point of view.

I think all of us (men and women) fail pretty miserably at times but most of us here on TAM (at least) have a genuine interest in trying.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Right.
> 
> This is why I don't think it's such a crazy thing to suggest that having emotional intelligence and empathy is one of the only tools we have to step within other pictures/perceptions.
> 
> This leaves me wondering, why is it so under valued and misunderstood? Is it because it is relatively limited and hard to measure? Is it because it is a feminine associated quality? Is it because with it, quests for power become less important than connections to one another? Unsure...
> 
> If you don't have a high emotional intelligence, it is impossible for you to understand what it is. Just as one who isn't adept at spatial reasoning will struggle to understand projects or tasks that rely heavily on this type of intelligence. Can it be taught and nurtured like other types of intelligence? I do think so.


The study of the subset of social intelligence called emotional intelligence is a relatively new field. 
I don't think that in corporate , management environments it is undervalued. Success in both large and medium scale organizations depend heavily on it. I have read a few management books that has made mention of it. [ I cannot recall the Titles or Authors right now. " _Lateral Thinking_ " , by Edward De Bono was one, I think.]

However , in interpersonal , intimate , relationships, human beings are generally selfish by nature. Most human beings are not self actualized and are not even on the path to self realization and actualization.
Doesn't matter if they have high emotional intelligence or the ability to reason logically.

They simply refuse to compromise their view , and without compromise, it's impossible to see the big picture.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> because the males ALL have this local processing advantage at birth, while the females had to develop it and not all will.


Variations within and between genders is not simply comparing the top woman with the bottom man, or vice versa. It allows that not ALL men will have said advantage and not ALL women will lack it.

Add to that, height is a singular measurement; cognitive skills are not. Not even spatial skills are a singular measurement, and the fact is that women outperform men on some spatial measurements (eg. Landmark recognition). 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This criticism is entirely off-base. I've never made such an insistence or judgment that what you're born with is more natural or better than what is learned.


See above. You just did it again.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I just took a guess that you'd take a woman's criticism of Fine more seriously; that you chose to mitigating her comments while not bothering with the criticisms of Baron-Cohen provides me some confirmation. Do you just dismiss Baron-Cohen's response to Fine?


Baron-Cohen propounds a "theory of mind" explanation of autism, which is utter bunk to start with, and then jumps from there to use stereotypes about genders to hypothesize that autism is an "extreme male" brain. So yes, I dismiss what he has to say. The others you mention I don't know.

And I'll leave you with one last thought: Throughout this discussion you've been saying that women process globally while men process locally. This is yet another massive generalization that is not supported in the literature.


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> This leaves me wondering, why is it so under valued and misunderstood? Is it because it is relatively limited and hard to measure? Is it because it is a feminine associated quality? Is it because with it, quests for power become less important than connections to one another? Unsure...


My guess? Yes, yes, and yes.

At least part of it occurred with the rise of science and the establishment of the randomized controlled trial as the "gold standard" of knowledge. Since then, virtually all other forms of knowledge gathering, no matter how rigorous, have been under steady attack. (Except formal logic, of course, which is always unassailable as long as you're willing to accept all the assumptions going in, and leave all meaning at the door.)

Just prior to this was arguably one of the worst periods in history, in terms of persecution of women and "women's knowledge", with the burning of witches and wars against paganism.

Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think the big picture is the one that has the potential to affect/ benefit the person / couple/ group more , either positively or negatively.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Since then, virtually all other forms of knowledge gathering, no matter how rigorous, have been under steady attack. (Except formal logic, of course, which is always unassailable as long as you're willing to accept all the assumptions going in, and leave all meaning at the door.)


Maybe I'm wrong, but I think of formal logic more as a tool to arrive at valid conclusions from existing data than to collect raw data itself. Formal logic exists in just about every branch of academia I can think of, including ones where women seem to have an advantage. 

In esoteric language studies, especially dead languages like ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic, women not only outnumber the men; they dominate the right hand side of the bell curve. 

Formal logic is still important. For example, the argument from silence is an important tool in the hands of source critics as long as it's only used inductively and not deductively. (Using it deductively is a logical fallacy) Used properly, it helps to prevent the translator from inadvertently introducing anachronisms into the text.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think of formal logic more as a tool to arrive at valid conclusions from existing data than to collect raw data itself. Formal logic exists in just about every branch of academia I can think of, including ones where women seem to have an advantage.
> 
> In esoteric language studies, especially dead languages like ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic, women not only outnumber the men; they dominate the right hand side of the bell curve.
> 
> Formal logic is still important. For example, the argument from silence is an important tool in the hands of source critics as long as it's only used inductively and not deductively. (Using it deductively is a logical fallacy) Used properly, it helps to prevent the translator from inadvertently introducing anachronisms into the text.


 You are right, of course. Logic is a method, but it doesn't provide data. When I made that caveat, I was simply thinking of knowledge production generally --evidence gathering plus analysis. 

What I was trying to say is that there is a strong bias towards the randomized controlled trial and formal logic as the preferred (read objective) methods of knowledge making. RCT is literally called the "gold standard". Anything less, or even different, is suspect or disparaged. This is a very real problem in many disciplines in the arts and humanities, and even the social sciences, which are often under assault, losing political, financial, and social support.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that these disciplines do lack rigour. Quite the contrary. Just that there are lots of biases in our notions of objectivity.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Variations within and between genders is not simply comparing the top woman with the bottom man, or vice versa. It allows that not ALL men will have said advantage and not ALL women will lack it.


 You just defined the top and bottom of those respective curves.



always_alone said:


> Add to that, height is a singular measurement; cognitive skills are not. Not even spatial skills are a singular measurement, and the fact is that women outperform men on some spatial measurements (eg. Landmark recognition).


I said as much. This isn't some "men are better" argument I'm making. Its that the differences in how we process information from birth, lend themselves to advantages and disadvantages for specific tasks. I even mentioned that women are better at landmark recognition and spatial memory while men are better at the mental manipulation of objects. Split hairs all you want, these are still different tasks.



always_alone said:


> dvlsadvc8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> because the males ALL have this local processing advantage at birth, while the females had to develop it and not all will.
> 
> I've never made such an insistence or judgment that what you're born with is more natural or better than what is learned.
> 
> 
> 
> See above. You just did it again.
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense. How does the above in ANY way say that an individual possessing processing advantage for one skill at birth is better than another individual learning that same processing advantage? Even if a woman doesn't learn the trait, the two are still equal given that a man is just as likely to learn or not learn any given trait that provides an advantage to females in some other task.

It's like you're criticizing me for saying a Ferrari is better than a minivan because I say the Ferrari is faster - when I've only said it's faster - not better. Try grocery shopping or taking the kids to soccer practice in the Ferrari. Their differences lend themselves to advantages in specific tasks.



always_alone said:


> Baron-Cohen propounds a "theory of mind" explanation of autism, which is utter bunk to start with, and then jumps from there to use stereotypes about genders to hypothesize that autism is an "extreme male" brain. So yes, I dismiss what he has to say. The others you mention I don't know.


Baron-Cohen didn't conceive of ToM, nor is it specifically an explanation of autism. He was just the first to prove lack of development of ToM capabilities in autistic children; something that has been repeated by other researchers. Not sure why you're hostile here.

Baron-Cohen is not the only one, or even the first one to be a proponent of the "extreme male" brain theory of autism. He and others have repeatedly shown testosterone to be an inhibiting factor in the development of a variety of (usually) more social skills, like language and empathy - skills strongly correlated with females even in early childhood. Autism in males outnumbers autism in females something like 5 to 1. The idea is that autism may be caused in the same manner that exposure to testosterone in utero tends to result in the structure, thought pattern and skill proficiency in the brain common to males (much of which is already strongly correlated with testosterone) - ie less gray matter, more white matter, and less bilateral communication (left and right hemisphere tend to communicate less than in women). Its not that testosterone *causes* autism, but rather that some individuals may be genetically predisposed to being hypersensitive to testosterone during early brain development, and Baron-Cohen, and many others, see great commonality between autistic traits and the preponderance of evidence showing cognitive differences in males versus females in general. This points to autism-spectrum disorders as possibly being a masculine extreme.

He's currently engaged in a long-term study to see if this is the case.



always_alone said:


> And I'll leave you with one last thought: Throughout this discussion you've been saying that women process globally while men process locally. This is yet another massive generalization that is not supported in the literature.


Yes, a massive generalization to simplify the point - both local and global processing do occur in both our brains - but that more of the brain is active in a wider variety of tasks in females than in males has been shown again and again. I pointed out from the beginning that we manage some things the same - that isn't my point of focus. We manage others differently, and you seemingly object to this - why would I point out the things that are the same in order to make my case that we process some things differently? The generalization serves the purpose of avoiding excessive nuance and confusion in making the point about the distinct differences.

This is why I keep coming back to mental object rotation - a specific task in which males tend to out perform females, and local processing of information is clearly shown in high performers, with males near universally showing that feature. On top of this, we have the physical evidence that testosterone is linked to greater white matter and insulation which inhibits the passing of signals in the brain AND less inter-hemispheric communication, females having greater corpus callosum (which fosters inter-hemispheric communication), and females exposed to higher testosterone also show more local processing in this specific task whereas the rest don't.

It all comes together, across a variety of different studies, to make a pretty compelling case for testosterone altering the brain in specific ways that result in cognitive differences that lend themselves to advantages in one skill and disadvantages in others.

Most of these counter-arguments aren't science at all. They're just typical cultural noise and excuse seeking. Believing in something so fiercely as to hunt and seek every possible minute anomaly or weakness in every study with results one objects to. I actually welcome the noise and hope it results in more thorough science, but without data of their own, they're still just noise; upon confirmation, people like this just look for another excuse to throw out the results. The rabid nature of the criticism of so many leaders in this field as being stereotypical and pro-masculine in spite of the relative dearth of contrarian data is the biggest clue. Its terrible imo to place such social/cultural agendas (as well meaning as they may be) above actual observation merely because some nitwit might misuse or misinterpret the data to mean that men are all better than women in a field like engineering; which I'm guessing is the ultimate reason for the degree of hostility to so many of these scientists.


----------

