Are women more reflective than men?

[entropie]

I didn't mean the gender difference and historical picture that I generalized is true. Just an observation. Of course I missed plenty of other factors, but the majority of women in psychology come from the western world, so yeah, it is a bit americanized.

Haha, I didnt mean americanized, I said you described it american idealized thats a difference. Besides that the Western World isnt only America .

...and which history are you referencing? I'm curious.

Also, the op mentioned browsing through amazon books and bookstores that pop psychology(psychology is still very young, thus mentioning women's role in partaking) and philosophy (I'm thinking self help references) written by female authors are generally for female audiences. I see where the op is coming from, and I'm simply suggesting that the roles of feeling vs thinking could possibly have been stereotyped to the gender from larger generalizations. Correlation? yes, if you see it so. Causation? No. or maybe. depends. I don't know.

What I basically mean is that you are referencing the op's question in a huge historical framework and that most often is dangerous science. The best science is the one that is easy and foolproof. I am not saying that you are wrong but I for example am not so rooted in my history. I am trieing to look at it detached from all historical influences and try to view myself as an indidiviual. Therefore self-reflection isnt for me a comparism between the now and the past, self-reflection means for me to see how I fit in and how I am in the now and there only. I need no reference from the past for that, I basically invent my personality in the here and now.

I am not saying that you need to do so as well, I am just sceptical if a history of men being whatever and woman being whatever does directly affect the reason why woman may be more self-reflective in the here and now. There of course may be a connection, but if I'ld rely on that, I'ld describe myself as a product of my past effectively ripping myself of individuality. Cause eff the past, I can be what I want in the here and now, at least I can believe in it.

Another thing that I may add to the ops question: woman generally like to communicate more than men. That doesnt necessarily tho mean that all they communicate is always quality work. So maybe a lot of the reason why pop psychology is written by woman is due to them liking to communicate more.

 

[onemoretime]

Cultural norms dictate that when a woman is unhappy or distressed, this is indicative of a problem, and it is her responsibility to rectify the situation. That is because these norms assume that women are responsible for their own emotional well-being, and that of the people around them. Since this is a big responsibility, and there is no way anyone could know all the answers, this creates a demand for these kinds of books among women in particular.

The same norms dictate that when a man is unhappy or distressed, he is merely being distracted from his responsibilities, and should suppress the unpleasant emotions. That is because these norms assume that emotions in men are hindrances to be overcome, rather than a vital part of who they are as human beings. Since suppression is the goal, instead of buying these kinds of books, men are encouraged to engage in some physical activity to "clear one's head," or go drink alcohol to numb the feelings. Thus, less of a demand for more masculine-oriented books in these genres.

 

[Southern Kross]

Cultural norms dictate that when a woman is unhappy or distressed, this is indicative of a problem, and it is her responsibility to rectify the situation. That is because these norms assume that women are responsible for their own emotional well-being, and that of the people around them. Since this is a big responsibility, and there is no way anyone could know all the answers, this creates a demand for these kinds of books among women in particular.

The same norms dictate that when a man is unhappy or distressed, he is merely being distracted from his responsibilities, and should suppress the unpleasant emotions. That is because these norms assume that emotions in men are hindrances to be overcome, rather than a vital part of who they are as human beings. Since suppression is the goal, instead of buying these kinds of books, men are encouraged to engage in some physical activity to "clear one's head," or go drink alcohol to numb the feelings. Thus, less of a demand for more masculine-oriented books in these genres.

Yes, exactly.

My national culture is very macho and what you described happens far too much. We have a very high suicide rate among young men (it used to highest in the world) and it is believed to be connected, in part, to the social pressure to repress negative feelings and just "harden up". Such things as reflection or seeking help was for a long time not considered socially appropriate. A few years ago a famous Rugby player (now a successful coach) came out with ads on TV talking about how he had struggled with depression, and giving advice to others that suffer from it. This made a huge impact, encouraging men to admit they had a problem and asking for help the needed.

 

[Space Socks]

Haha, I didnt mean americanized, I said you described it american idealized thats a difference. Besides that the Western World isnt only America .

Right, well I guess I did target america more, and perhaps my faulty was assumed that the south western countries followed, but to an extent.

What I basically mean is that you are referencing the op's question in a huge historical framework and that most often is dangerous science. The best science is the one that is easy and foolproof. I am not saying that you are wrong but I for example am not so rooted in my history. I am trieing to look at it detached from all historical influences and try to view myself as an indidiviual.

I read the op's observation as a generalized view, so I felt compelled to give a generalized answer (more opinion than anything else) Otherwise I wouldn't throw in something so specific as my experience, history or observation is this or that. I take into account that these discussions are going to be picked apart as everyone sees his/hers experiences as a detail not mentioned.

In part I see it healthy for the discussion to introduce flawed ideas, so that deduction can take place.

I noticed you reference the point from a personal view(not that you have much choice) but I'm picky about subjects being claimed to a single individual or certain groups experience.
This also why I generalized it so much. It's the pattern I'm inclined to see that I point out.

The contrast of I how I grew up understanding self reflection is different from the original one I mentioned, and it's more about the contrast and strange idea of it that got me to mention it so.

Therefore self-reflection isnt for me a comparism between the now and the past, self-reflection means for me to see how I fit in and how I am in the now and there only. I need no reference from the past for that, I basically invent my personality in the here and now.

How do you see yourself fitting in and responding to it without recognizing the past? I understand self reflection can be reserved for in the moment situations, but when they reoccur so often, how can you not reflect and base actions on past experiences? Improvisation may work for some, but I find the quality of the learned part just becomes a smaller hurdle than just knowing what can be changed/avoided later.

Unlike yourself, I can't just "invent" my personality to fit each situation, thus I dig into my library of references and find the best match and create a new reference.

I am not saying that you need to do so as well, I am just sceptical if a history of men being whatever and woman being whatever does directly affect the reason why woman may be more self-reflective in the here and now. There of course may be a connection, but if I'ld rely on that, I'ld describe myself as a product of my past effectively ripping myself of individuality. Cause eff the past, I can be what I want in the here and now, at least I can believe in it.

I wouldn't rely on it either.
What's wrong with being a product of your past? I'm not saying one should follow through the with the patterns that suit the chain, but attempting to pursue individuality is just.... tiresome.

Of course as a communications artist I have to seek novelty in order to survive. But I reserve my energy for that and less so in avoiding a individualistic lifestyle.

You can be what you want, but I live as I please with a bit of caution, because my mind at ease leaves me room to be.

 

[Moocow]

I don't think that it's necessary to speculate about cultural gender differences for this.

Pop psychology tends to belong in the same bin as spirituality as one of many routes of self help that does not require the rigor of more scientific kinds of psychology or the hard-edge debates of philosophy which in their honest and plain form, may not provide self help at all.
If there is a higher frequency of female authors and readers of these kinds of pop psych books it may be because pop psychology is, practically by definition, targeted towards comforting or entertaining a casual audience, and subsequently centered around social interactions and feelings.

Now, I would have to join you in speculating a difference, that women are more inclined towards social cognition and consideration of feelings than men, but I don't think it would be making too many grand presumptions to say it is true.

It's plain to see that the female body is equipped for creating and nurturing children. I see no reason why the brain, responsible for directing the safety of that body and the children it bears, should not also be especially equipped. Social and emotional considerations would appear to be, evolutionarily, more important to the survival of mother and child.

Meanwhile, men are expendable. It takes just one of us to impregnate thousands of women should there be the need for it. With this expendability comes a greater opportunity to explore higher risks.

Empirical science, and any exploration of uncharted nature, is risky. It's not inherently comforting, helpful, or safe, and therefore would not be of natural interest to this typified, evolutionary model of female biology (with exceptions, eg. Marie Curie.) while pop psychology and spirituality would be.

Cultural changes would have an effect on the general adherence to that trend though. As the population increases and it becomes less desirable or necessary to have children, women may be inadvertently selected out for their contributions to the sciences or other, previously "masculine" fields of expertise.

So I'm not saying that women are exclusively inclined towards spirituality and pop psych, but that those would benefit their purposes more, with variation attributed to culture, technology, globalization, and so on.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7604277
This could be evidence for what I'm suggesting. Men populate the extremes of IQ both high and low compared to women, which probably evolved to settle around an IQ range indicative of the intelligence to raise children properly but not sabotage their process with excessive risks or eccentricity.

 

[entropie]

How do you see yourself fitting in and responding to it without recognizing the past? I understand self reflection can be reserved for in the moment situations, but when they reoccur so often, how can you not reflect and base actions on past experiences? Improvisation may work for some, but I find the quality of the learned part just becomes a smaller hurdle than just knowing what can be changed/avoided later.

Unlike yourself, I can't just "invent" my personality to fit each situation, thus I dig into my library of references and find the best match and create a new reference.

Of course you have to go by learnt experienced, I just meant the way long ago past. When I look back at my past, as in german history, all I find is shit therefore it aint such a good guideline.

What I mean with self-reflection in the present is people trieing to see themselves and their actions thru the other persons eyes. Since I am from SJ-central I can tell that SJs lack that faculty the most. Most of them refer to traditions or a communally "learnt experience" and do never question themselves nor try to look at themselves thru another persons eye. That makes them calculable to me but I have yet to meet one, who tried to for example come down to my very abstract level of thought and speech. they most often force me to come to their level and to be reasonable otherwise they wont talk to me.

Thats why I am picking a fight when someone puts things in a huge historical content or a traditional line of logic that led to today. That of course is not wrong, by all means no, but I am a fighter for individuality and I like to be free from my past.

 

[The Ü™]

Yes, I do believe it's been studied that women do, in fact, tend to look in the mirror more than men.

 

[Salomé]

Women are shiny.

 

[mujigay]

I have met more women willing to wear reflective spandex jumpsuits.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Cultural norms dictate that when a woman is unhappy or distressed, this is indicative of a problem, and it is her responsibility to rectify the situation. That is because these norms assume that women are responsible for their own emotional well-being, and that of the people around them. Since this is a big responsibility, and there is no way anyone could know all the answers, this creates a demand for these kinds of books among women in particular.

The same norms dictate that when a man is unhappy or distressed, he is merely being distracted from his responsibilities, and should suppress the unpleasant emotions. That is because these norms assume that emotions in men are hindrances to be overcome, rather than a vital part of who they are as human beings. Since suppression is the goal, instead of buying these kinds of books, men are encouraged to engage in some physical activity to "clear one's head," or go drink alcohol to numb the feelings. Thus, less of a demand for more masculine-oriented books in these genres.

My thoughts were similar.

 

[Space Socks]

Of course you have to go by learnt experienced, I just meant the way long ago past. When I look back at my past, as in german history, all I find is shit therefore it aint such a good guideline.

What I mean with self-reflection in the present is people trieing to see themselves and their actions thru the other persons eyes. Since I am from SJ-central I can tell that SJs lack that faculty the most. Most of them refer to traditions or a communally "learnt experience" and do never question themselves nor try to look at themselves thru another persons eye. That makes them calculable to me but I have yet to meet one, who tried to for example come down to my very abstract level of thought and speech. they most often force me to come to their level and to be reasonable otherwise they wont talk to me.

Saying "never" is a bit concrete, no?

Perhaps you are right in your own experience, but if SJs were so unable to understand or see what another person "sees" in them then they would never mature. True we can grow out of our own experiences based on our own conclusions disregarding anyone else's advice, but it's the experience involving someone else that gets us to reflect and take some kind of action. Even if we don't prove to someone that we've considered the information given, the information is still there, it's just stashed away. That's why we can become so stressed out sometimes because we can reflect and over analyze what we are given.

Perhaps coming down to your "very abstract level of thought and speech" is a bit too abstract and not constructive enough for the discussion. There must be some middle ground, otherwise someone must be lying if all is agreed without opposing factors considered.

I would like to add that broad thinking isn't necessarily more abstract than specific ideas.

Wouldn't it be hypocritical to consider someone's inability to reason with you on your terms just as much as trying to with theirs? I say this based on your "specific experience" oriented descriptions.

I agree it is annoying when one stops trying to listen because of strict views that become confronted, but I think with SJs you generally have to budge a bit, get inside their head and present your ideas from the inside. The ideas must get collected first before you pick them apart. One by one.

With self reflection, SJs sympathize with others quite a bit because the experience we hold is just as vivid to us when some else experiences the same thing. Even if we can't relate to someone's perspective, we try look for some analogy or even different references to come up with what logically makes the most sense.

SJs aren't incapable of perceiving themselves through others, but it's a very difficult point to get to and sometimes it has to stress us out enough to break through that wall.

Thats why I am picking a fight when someone puts things in a huge historical content or a traditional line of logic that led to today. That of course is not wrong, by all means no, but I am a fighter for individuality and I like to be free from my past.

If someone states it so, then you have your right of say to knock it down.
But picking a fight (which I don't even consider this being) and then admitting you understand the opinion part of it is a bit strange to me.

I didn't know I was treading on personal views, I was merely throwing out an idea.

I'm glad you have something you believe strongly for, but I think individuality occurs in a single person with sequentially unique, separate experiences and not one that needs be fought for.


Reflecting on my op, and this discussion, I believe there's much irony in the way nature works, and I think I just sought out a few of those contingencies.

 

[INTP]

women are generally more inward turned with their emotions than men are(this isnt about the orientation of F), which makes them usually more reflective over their emotions than men

 

[entropie]

Saying "never" is a bit concrete, no?

Perhaps you are right in your own experience, but if SJs were so unable to understand or see what another person "sees" in them then they would never mature. True we can grow out of our own experiences based on our own conclusions disregarding anyone else's advice, but it's the experience involving someone else that gets us to reflect and take some kind of action. Even if we don't prove to someone that we've considered the information given, the information is still there, it's just stashed away. That's why we can become so stressed out sometimes because we can reflect and over analyze what we are given.

Perhaps coming down to your "very abstract level of thought and speech" is a bit too abstract and not constructive enough for the discussion. There must be some middle ground, otherwise someone must be lying if all is agreed without opposing factors considered.

I would like to add that broad thinking isn't necessarily more abstract than specific ideas.

Wouldn't it be hypocritical to consider someone's inability to reason with you on your terms just as much as trying to with theirs? I say this based on your "specific experience" oriented descriptions.

I agree it is annoying when one stops trying to listen because of strict views that become confronted, but I think with SJs you generally have to budge a bit, get inside their head and present your ideas from the inside. The ideas must get collected first before you pick them apart. One by one.

With self reflection, SJs sympathize with others quite a bit because the experience we hold is just as vivid to us when some else experiences the same thing. Even if we can't relate to someone's perspective, we try look for some analogy or even different references to come up with what logically makes the most sense.

SJs aren't incapable of perceiving themselves through others, but it's a very difficult point to get to and sometimes it has to stress us out enough to break through that wall.



If someone states it so, then you have your right of say to knock it down.
But picking a fight (which I don't even consider this being) and then admitting you understand the opinion part of it is a bit strange to me.

I didn't know I was treading on personal views, I was merely throwing out an idea.

I'm glad you have something you believe strongly for, but I think individuality occurs in a single person with sequentially unique, separate experiences and not one that needs be fought for.


Reflecting on my op, and this discussion, I believe there's much irony in the way nature works, and I think I just sought out a few of those contingencies.

I wanted to talk about how and why people self-reflect and then on a later stage find out if its either a woman or a man thing. you just did that and it was way better than putting it into an a history book like framework.

I know I need to pick SJs to do that, but you did and I promise I'll read your post again sincerly when I have the time and comment.

 

[redacted]

I generally find it easier to relate to females, partially because they tend to think about the sorts of things I think about more often than males on average. It's a bit hard to judge the answer to this question, though, since most girls and most guys are less reflective than I am, and my metric for reflectiveness is based around the things I reflect about.