User Tag List

View Poll Results: Are women more irrational than men?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 27.27%
  • No

    27 61.36%
  • Kinda-sorta

    5 11.36%
First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 191

  1. #71
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    Exactly.

    I think one easily recognizable irrational trait of 'rational' people is aggression. Is there any way to view aggression of any kind as anything but fundamentally irrational? Is there any reason for aggression outside of a person having some subjective investment (or a feeling of entitlement) in a particular outcome?
    There is nothing inherently irrational about aggression.

    And, frankly, holding such a belief is likely an indicator of misandry.

    I do not think either ‘emotional matters’ or ‘rational matters’ can be resolved without some appropriate marriage of both emotional awareness and rationality.
    This is generally true, but there are certainly, at the least, rational matters that require no emotional awareness to be resolved.

    Emotional mastery leads to a person being able to account for how their emotions are affecting their rational judgment. Studies have shown that emotional reactions to stimuli happen faster than the logical processing of that stimuli, and play a rather big role in influencing the direction we take shaping that logic (the amygdala responds first); this is not something that NTs/’rational’ people are exempt from. Even the most ‘rational’ of matters in the most ‘rational’ of people will likely have some subjective attachment- and someone more emotionally aware will be able to discern how their own attachments are affecting their judgment. Someone lacking the emotional mastery to understand how their own subjectivity affects their ‘logical’ judgment is more likely to believe their ideas are more objective/rational than they actually are. [It's no coincidence that those who systematically believe their ideas are more objective/rational than they actually are are the first ones to get aggressive in discussion when others do not agree with them.]
    There is no inherent relationship between being aggressive and not being objective.

    Objectivity and aggressiveness can go together perfectly, hand in hand.

    The relationship you have posited is a false construction.

    It exists only in your mind, not in reality.

  2. #72
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Has the answer "no" been established yet?
    I thought men were stereotypically portrayed as being bullheadedly irrational to begin with anyways.
    Of course not, it is much more interesting to write 20+ pages on the cause of this conception than to write 5 on our actual consensus on it.

    Gawwd John don't you know anything about this place?

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    bad
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post

    4 irrational women have voted in the poll.
    ...........................................You are the neutral Good ?
    I am the chaotic evil.
    It's 15 now.

  4. #74
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    There is nothing inherently irrational about aggression.

    And, frankly, holding such a belief is likely an indicator of misandry.



    This is generally true, but there are certainly, at the least, rational matters that require no emotional awareness to be resolved.



    There is no inherent relationship between being aggressive and not being objective.

    Objectivity and aggressiveness can go together perfectly, hand in hand.

    The relationship you have posited is a false construction.

    It exists only in your mind, not in reality.

    So not only is aggression a rational response, but suggesting that it isn’t makes me an misandrist? Well if nothing else Zarathrustra, I can appreciate your consistency.

    In fairness, I can see a valid argument in saying the urge to be aggressive is a rational reaction- but actually compulsively getting aggressive when things don’t go your way is not a rational response, it’s the product of having little or no tolerance for the negative affect that arises when things don’t go the way you want them to go. People who cultivate patience with/for their negative feelings don’t become puppets to that negative affect when it surfaces, they maintain objectivity and their ability to calmly reason in spite of it. That’s the inherent relationship.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

  5. #75
    Vulnerability Eilonwy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4 sp/so
    Posts
    6,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This is generally true, but there are certainly, at the least, rational matters that require no emotional awareness to be resolved.
    At least one neurologist and one neuroscientist might disagree with that statement.
    No Reason Without Emotion?
    Johari / Nohari

    “That we are capable only of being what we are remains our unforgivable sin.” ― Gene Wolfe

    reminder to self: "That YOU that you are so proud of is a story woven together by your interpreter module to account for as much of your behavior as it can incorporate, and it denies or rationalizes the rest." "Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga

  6. #76
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yes, the misandry on this forum is quite blatant.
    Well, this is the thread that keeps on giving, eh?

    "Woman has opinion, is man-hater". Sheesh. I see what you're doing, but WHY?????????

    Fyi, I broke up with Silly over a year ago.
    And I still say you should have married that girl. So there.

    lovee.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I do not think either ‘emotional matters’ or ‘rational matters’ can be resolved without some appropriate marriage of both emotional awareness and rationality.
    And to take it a step further, I like to think that inherent in those emotions IS rationality. When I try to placate or push mine away, they always come back to kick me in the ass because they're smarter than I am. There are some problems you can't just think your way out of. Got to feel the way out.

    Greater emotional mastery leads to a person being able to account for how their emotions are affecting their rational judgment.
    Exactly, yes. Being able to discern and ascertain the degree to which your emotions are pointing you in one direction or another is pivotal.

    I like thinking myself a steward of my emotions though. Not a master. It defies their wisdom to think of them as less than rational, because even when big and ugly, they are here to help me learn and grow. Annnnd they like to remind me of that from time to time.

    Studies have shown that emotional reactions to stimuli happen faster than the logical processing of that stimuli, and play a rather big role in influencing the direction we take shaping that logic (the amygdala responds first); this is not something that NTs/’rational’ people are exempt from. Even the most ‘rational’ of matters in the most ‘rational’ of people will likely have some subjective attachment- and someone more emotionally aware will be able to discern how their own attachments are affecting their judgment. Someone lacking the emotional mastery to understand how their own subjectivity affects their ‘logical’ judgment is more likely to believe their ideas are more objective/rational than they actually are. [It's no coincidence that those who systematically believe their ideas are more objective/rational than they actually are are the first ones to get aggressive in discussion when others do not agree with them.]
    I agree - I think J's in general have a harder time with this (with believing they are more baked-in rational, varying from J-type to J-type of course - won't derail further though).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And, frankly, holding such a belief is likely an indicator of misandry.
    Tsk tsk, you be misandry-ing Z Buck now too? Oy vey.

    This is generally true, but there are certainly, at the least, rational matters that require no emotional awareness to be resolved.
    With the caveat of course that you wouldn't even be able to choose what to wear for work or your breakfast cereal without emotions* as per Z Buck's wonderful para above. Your 'awareness' or lack thereof does not belie their existence or impact. *research can be provided.

    Oykemaka. TM
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  7. #77
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    So not only is aggression a rational response, but suggesting that it isn’t makes me an misandrist? Well if nothing else Zarathrustra, I can appreciate your consistency.
    No, both of these are overstatements -- one of them severe -- is this an INFJ/(tertiary) Ti problem?

    Aggression is not always a rational response; it can be a rational response.

    And suggesting it always is irrational does not mean you are a necessarily misandrist.

    It's just an indicator that you very well may be one -- that belief has a latent misandristic undertone.

    In fairness, I can see a valid argument in saying the urge to be aggressive is a rational reaction- but actually compulsively getting aggressive when things don’t go your way is not a rational response, it’s the product of having little or no tolerance for the negative affect that arises when things don’t go the way you want them to go. People who cultivate patience with/for their negative feelings don’t become puppets to that negative affect when it surfaces, they maintain objectivity and their ability to calmly reason in spite of it. That’s the inherent relationship.
    I think there's actually some truth to this (more aptly stated) position.

    But the truth lies in the compulsivity and lack of control, not necessarily in the aggression.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    I suppose it all boils down to what any given individual sees as rational, then.
    See, first I was gunna respond, "Unfortunately, this is is largely true."

    Apparently I've become a strong enough proponent of the potential for objectivity in certain situations that "being Zarathustra" is an understandable term for the action, but, when it comes to the use of "rational/irrational", as it used to bother me greatly when I was working through these issues in college, these terms, when used, often signify nothing more than "I disagree with this person's perspective". I felt they were possibly the most misused words in our common language, and when I would read them or hear them, and could clearly see/hear that they signified nothing more, it would drive me a bit bonkers. Its been 5+ yrs since this has really been the case, but I remember tjis specific issue significantly bothering me for at least a solid year or two.

    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    Personally, I would use "irrational" to describe any of the following:

    • failure to follow a coherent line of reasoning that others can understand
    • extreme/inappropriate emotional outbursts or reactiveness
    • behavior that demonstrates a disregard of known consequences/priorities


    It's difficult for me to generalize group traits, so I cannot say whether men or women do any of the above with greater frequency.

    One thing I have observed, as others have noted: in general, women do tend to be more expressive in terms of emotions (such as affection, crying, talking about hurt feelings, etc), whereas men tend to be more reserved about showing emotion (with the possible exception of anger/aggression). However, not all emotional expressions of sadness, anger, etc. are extreme or inappropriate, eg, I wouldn't consider crying due to experiencing a major loss to be irrational.
    But then I read this, immediately after PeaceBaby's post, and thought it was brilliant.

    They're still not perfectly objective criteria, but they are more specific, and provide a bit more of an objective basis for making the judgment call. There are still some normative judgments that need be made, which are not perfectly objective, but we're getting somewhere.

    Anyway, I found these two posts relevant to yours because your take on aggression was a specific (kinda normative) judgment, and, at least as it was originally presented, was patently false. It would fall somewhere under criteria 2 and 3 in gromit's construction, and the place where it gets murky is whether or not the aggression is "extreme", "inappropriate", or demonstrates a disrgard of known consequences/priorities".

    Unfortunately, this is where a high dose of subjectivity almost necessarily (but perhaps not entirely necessarily) slips in. Because what you might consider "extreme", "inappropriate", or demonstrating a disregard for known consequences/priorities, with either greater powers of discrimination, a keener intellect, better knowledge of the situation, or different values, another might perceive (and, in some cases accurately) as within reasonable bounds.

    Examples can be provided.

  8. #78
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    when it comes to the use of "rational/irrational", as it used to bother me greatly when I was working through these issues in college, these terms, when used, often signify nothing more than "I disagree with this person's perspective".
    Agreed. Saying something is irrational is often a simplistic reaction.

    But then I read this, immediately after PeaceBaby's post, and thought it was brilliant.
    I like gromit's post too, but if you were looking for a definition or 'objective' criteria for defining what's irrational, why not just make this thread about that?

    Or go to wikipedia and look at the entry for 'irrational' there.

    It's still not perfectly objective criteria, but they are more specific, and provide a bit more of an objective basis for making the judgment call.
    Read them again. Feel the lines get blurry ... basically what it boils down to is 'in the eyes of others' (with a little bit of editing for reading clarity):

    • 'in the eyes of others' ... fails to construct or follow a coherent line of reasoning
    • 'in the eyes of others' ... shows extreme/inappropriate emotional outbursts or reactiveness
    • 'in the eyes of others' ... engages in behavior that demonstrates a disregard of known consequences/priorities


    There are still some normative judgments that need be made, which are not perfectly objective, but we're getting somewhere.
    So, we have a kind of 'group think' now on the topic. Perhaps we start to walk to the realms of Te and Fe? idk, don't want to get bogged down in definitional issues.

    But, to say we're getting somewhere? How so? This is well-trod ground online. It would be more fun to start from those referenced points.

    Unfortunately, this is where a high dose of subjectivity almost necessarily (but perhaps not entirely necessarily) slips in. Because what you might consider "extreme", "inappropriate", or demonstrating a disregard for known consequences/priorities, with either greater powers of discrimination, a keener intellect, better knowledge of the situation, or different values, another might perceive (and, in some cases accurately) as within reasonable bounds.
    Exactly, and there's the rub.
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  9. #79
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate View Post
    I do not think either ‘emotional matters’ or ‘rational matters’ can be resolved without some appropriate marriage of both emotional awareness and rationality.

    Greater emotional mastery leads to a person being able to account for how their emotions are affecting their rational judgment. Studies have shown that emotional reactions to stimuli happen faster than the logical processing of that stimuli, and play a rather big role in influencing the direction we take shaping that logic (the amygdala responds first); this is not something that NTs/’rational’ people are exempt from. Even the most ‘rational’ of matters in the most ‘rational’ of people will likely have some subjective attachment- and someone more emotionally aware will be able to discern how their own attachments are affecting their judgment. Someone lacking the emotional mastery to understand how their own subjectivity affects their ‘logical’ judgment is more likely to believe their ideas are more objective/rational than they actually are. [It's no coincidence that those who systematically believe their ideas are more objective/rational than they actually are are the first ones to get aggressive in discussion when others do not agree with them.]
    You are confusing emotions and values. These are the "subjective attachments" at the root of rational matters: our ideas of what is important and why. It is quite easy to recognize and set aside emotional input to the logical process, especially if one is more comfortable and skilled with assessing the objective data. This is similar to disregarding references written in a foreign language. Yes, you might miss some useful information, but careful analysis of the papers you can actually read should suffice for a practical decision. Attempting to decipher the papers in the other language might result in errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeaceBaby View Post
    With the caveat of course that you wouldn't even be able to choose what to wear for work or your breakfast cereal without emotions* as per Z Buck's wonderful para above. Your 'awareness' or lack thereof does not belie their existence or impact. *research can be provided.
    One cannot make choices without values. This is not the same as emotions. It is the difference between feeling as emotion, and feeling as the JCF of subjective judgment.
    Last edited by highlander; 05-03-2013 at 11:50 AM. Reason: edited quote to deleted post
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #80
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Reminder to keep the thread on the general topic of rationality/irrationality of the sexes, not on the personal lives of members.

Similar Threads

  1. Are looks more important to men or women?
    By BadOctopus in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-28-2015, 09:09 PM
  2. Are women more reflective than men?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 05-04-2012, 10:02 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Are ISFPs more N-ish than INFPs?
    By Elfboy in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-05-2011, 09:33 PM
  4. [MBTItm] Are NTJs more like NFPs than NTPs?
    By Elfboy in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 06-05-2011, 12:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO