Are Women More "Irrational* Than Men?

[RaptorWizard]

What's so great about reason and rationality in the first place?
I think it would be better if we all went with our own inner passions to drive us on towards the great and the impossible.
There's nothing that we can't do!

 

[PeaceBaby]

Thanks for this rational response to Marm's thread, Z.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

So far, so good. (You are thinking - always a good sign.) On average, women become more proficient in approaching things emotionally, and men in approaching things rationally.


One could certainly argue this, but one would be wrong. Greater emotional mastery will cause women to approach everything emotionally, whether or not that is the best approach. Conversely, men will tend to approach everything rationally. Each group will tend to overrely on their area of mastery/comfort.

The real question is which group suffers more for the imbalance? Is it worse to approach emotional matters rationally, or rational matters emotionally?

the first would be better, although it can fall short in its attempts. You are stating the memes society has established for men and women, but are these assumptions accurate? That does need to be examined.

One hypothesis I have about women tending towards demonstrating more emotional communication (once again assuming that is the case) is that the tradition of women caring for chi,dren has required them to be able to communicate emotions and ideas more directly in some cases. Children do not have emotional regulation or empathy established and so their primary caretakers must develop communications styles to accommodate this. To care for an infant requires empathy because of their limited communication. If this is the case it does not necessarily mean that women are more emotional, but are more likely to have a communication style in which emotions are more on the surface. What do you think?

 

[Giggly]

What's so great about reason and rationality in the first place?
I think it would be better if we all went with our own inner passions to drive us on towards the great and the impossible.
There's nothing that we can't do!

Exactly.

 

[Elfboy]

On average, less logical and more reasonable.

in other words, men are more rational when left alone to get their work done, but less rational when they need to communicate, cooperate with others or come to mutual agreement?
if that's what you're saying, I agree.

[MENTION=5494]Amargith[/MENTION]

I think that irrational men are more likely to mask their irrationality behind a bogus wall of 'logic speak', due to what society has taught them. And in a way, it incapacitates them even further, as they often buy their own bullshit and aren t aware they even have blindspots.

I've been guilty of this a few times when I was younger
now I just say "my intuition says this. take it or leave it". more "rational" people tend to think I'm full of shit, but eventually they come around after my intuition has been consistently right


I would correlate rationality more with typology
most rational: TJs, *NTPs, 1s, 3s, 5s, 6w5s Sp doms
least rational: FJs, IFPs, 2s, 4s, Sx doms, So/Sx

*NTPs are rational to the point that is makes them less rational (because they end up trying to justify the decisions they've already made rather than actually wanting to make the right one or take action based upon the rational decision)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What's so great about reason and rationality in the first place?
I think it would be better if we all went with our own inner passions to drive us on towards the great and the impossible.

It is so hard for me to not Godwin this right now.

 

[Zarathustra]

A few things:

On what basis do we define gender/sex?
On what basis do we define rationality/irrationality?
Last but not least, is appearing logical the same as being logical in an actual sense?
How do we define and understand logic?

With these questions in mind, I think it is logical to surmise that the OP says more about how he in particular sees the world and the logical biases he operates on when understanding said world, than it does about the reality he's trying to understand.

Your questions are all fair, but your synthesis is crap.

The point of the thread is to discuss these questions, and no particular position was given in the OP - it was merely a question.

I get that you're new here, so you might not get that this is how I do things, but for future reference, don't try the philosophical oneupsmanship on me, especially not when the "oneupsmanship" you're attempting not only was implicit in the OP, but are issues the OP dealt with philosophically 10 years ago.

So...if I wanted to continue the drama on this forum, Id start a thread titled:

'Are women on average more "emotionally balanced" than men?'

God, I don't even know if that's what it ought be called.

Balanced?

I'd call it "more in touch with their emotions".

After all, society encourages women to deal with and express their emotions, whereas men are often told to keep their emotions to themselves, and ignore them instead of dealing with them properly.

And for that matter, could one argue that women therefore have more of a shot of being actually rational, since their emotional mastery will prevent their emotions from actually interfering with the use of rationality?

Meanwhile, men are encouraged to be more rational, one could argue that as their emotional baggage is more likely to actually affect their reasoning capabilities and encourage instead a faux-rational facade.

As Coriolis said, one could make that argument.

But one would be looking at a very specific part of the total picture, a part which comprises no more than ~30% of the whole.

It's a worthwhile part to pay attention to, but don't mistake the forest for some of the trees.

Perhaps this counter-argument is crap?

Perhaps it is; or perhaps it's spot on.

Truth is, I didn't even state the counterargument(s).

I just stated the conclusion.

I am presenting hypothesis not declarations...

Just fyi, your posts almost never read this way.

And that's not just a subjective opinion/read on things, it's an objective analysis of the way you use language to present your arguments.

It's also one of the primary reasons I can't stand your posts.

...and I'm willing to admit any flaws in my position if presented with reasons that it is incorrect...

Do you really not recognize how utterly futile arguing about fundamental axioms (over the internet, no less) tends to be?

...but how you feel about it is irrelevant.

Actually, that's not true at all, and is egregiously false if my feelings about it are based on sound reasoning.

I'm not sure if the irony was intentional (I somewhat doubt it), but if a man were to say such a thing to a woman, you would likely be one of the first to call it gaslighting.

Edit: so maybe you are giving a completely subjective, personal feeling and opinion based response to kid about ego being irrational? Because you are demonstrating what I was talking about by making it look like the opinion of your subjective self is enough to demonstrate truth?

That's one of about three to five things I was going for.

You clearly did not get it in its entirety, tho.

 

[Amargith]

Z, use the Fe-Te translator plz

Keep in mind that she is going to present things in a different format that might just kick your Fe-blindspot and vice versa.

 

[FDG]

I don't fully understand the rationality of this thread, I'm afraid.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

The man's perspective and the womans perspective will never truly understand each other.

One is not better than the other, but I shouldn't be called "sexist" for preferring my perspective and having a love/hate relationship with the feminine perspective. Likewise it's normal for women to have a love/hate relationship with men, I don't think they are "man haters" for it.

It is just natural, the necessarry downside that come with attraction of opposites! But how boring would life be otherwise...!?

 

[PeaceBaby]

... are women more irrational than men?

Women are more rational than men in my opinion because on average they are in greater touch with their emotions and use them as guides to balance their inner and outer lives.

 

[PeaceBaby]

lol [MENTION=5494]Amargith[/MENTION] just repped me that I basically copycatted her position here!

So, I will take another tangent, but have only NOW skimmed the thread, so if I am copying someone else here, rep me and chastise me accordingly.

There is a difference between being irrational and showing strong emotions. Just because you might not understand the reason behind someone else's show of strong emotion, does not mean there isn't a rational reason for that behaviour. I find people mix these two up - having a powerful emotional response or using emotion in an argument is not the same as being irrational.

eta: When [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] gets angry at someone for trolling her, it's a rational response - there's a clear reason and one could say it is perfectly logical.

 

[Amargith]

The greatest form of flattery is imitation

 

[mintleaf]

It could be nature or nurture, but men generally demonstrate more compartmentalism in their cognitive functioning. It has been fascinating to me to see how men can demonstrate certain compartments of clear reasoning, but then also be capable of a level of irrationality that is equally impressive. I have found men also capable of much more single-mindedness and even obsession in their irrationality.

The most accepted forms of male irrationality are associated with power and so are viewed in a different light. Aggression, sports enthusiasm, etc. are clear examples of extreme irrationality, but are seen as different from crying. I have found it is generally far easier to reason with someone who is sad than someone who is angry because anger is deeply connected to feeling entitled and powerful. A person is much more ready to feel empowered when sad than to become reasoned when angry. In this way I find men are capable of far more extreme degrees of irrationality as accepted by society.

yep. ^

I'm in high school right now and even at this age at which girls are said to be most mercurial, I don't see much of a difference between genders. Guys might be less caught up in drama, but they still do incredibly stupid things driven by emotion.

But yeah, if anyone, it seems like guys tend to be more irrational, at least externally. It's more acceptable, while people are quicker to mock and correct irrationality in females.

 

[Zarathustra]

Women are more rational than men in my opinion because on average they are in greater touch with their emotions and use them as guides to balance their inner and outer lives.

Not only did you steal Amar's line of reasoning, you stole my adjustment to her wording!

Shaaaame... SHAME!!!

(I already dispatched with this line of reasoning, btw)

There is a difference between being irrational and showing strong emotions. Just because you might not understand the reason behind someone else's show of strong emotion, does not mean there isn't a rational reason for that behaviour. I find people mix these two up - having a powerful emotional response or using emotion in an argument is not the same as being irrational.

This is absolutely true.

To be irrational is to allow something -- often either emotionality, lack of knowledge, close-mindedness, or lack of reasoning skills -- to cause one to behave in an unreasonable manner (a manner unsuited to the circumstances at hand).

Clearly it's a bit of a slippery linguistic slope, but it's kinda one of those things that, when you see it (granted, you are a discriminating person with a keen intellect and proper knowledge of the situation), you just know what it is.

 

[Robopop]

I find the idea that females are less rational strange, clearly both men and women have different acceptable ways of expressing their various emotions. It's more acceptable for females to voice their discomforts in the interpersonal area while it is more acceptable for men to express their rage and anger so they have a more narrower range of traditionally acceptable emotional expression.

It seems most people unconsciously view women as victims/hypoagents and men as perpetrators and active agents(even feminism seems to have an apparent lack of self-awareness in this regard). Viewing men as victims is counter to the perceived traditional gender roles.

Anyways I think human females have nearly identical reasoning abilities as men although their brains are somewhat structurally different, they have different mating behaviors that I think are partly biological in origin.

 

[Coriolis]

the first would be better, although it can fall short in its attempts. You are stating the memes society has established for men and women, but are these assumptions accurate? That does need to be examined.

It is accurate to say that these are the general stereotypes and expectations in our society. It is also accurate to say that exceptions to these abound, and that they are also changing as social roles evolve with the reality of people's lives. I reject such stereotypes and expectations in favor of seeing each person as an individual above all else, but cannot deny that the overall trend is borne out in the people I meet.

One hypothesis I have about women tending towards demonstrating more emotional communication (once again assuming that is the case) is that the tradition of women caring for chi,dren has required them to be able to communicate emotions and ideas more directly in some cases. Children do not have emotional regulation or empathy established and so their primary caretakers must develop communications styles to accommodate this. To care for an infant requires empathy because of their limited communication. If this is the case it does not necessarily mean that women are more emotional, but are more likely to have a communication style in which emotions are more on the surface. What do you think?

I have seen this mentioned in various places. Do you agree with the evolutionary biology argument that women have evolved this way because of their longstanding childcare responsibilities? Or, do you consider the inherent abilities of men and women to be comparable, with women simply making more use of emotional skills because they traditionally have done this kind of work? Either would account for why women are raised this way, but one points to biological hard-wiring, while the other points to cultural conditioning.

That being said, I don't understand how a mother can successfully raise a child without the ability to make rational decisions on her own and the child's behalf. Similarly, I would suspect an understanding of emotional reactions would help men face various adversaries in their stereotypical roles as defenders and warriors. I don't think it's that simple, and the fact that the development or external assignment of these skill sets is not logical is itself not logical.

The man's perspective and the womans perspective will never truly understand each other.

One is not better than the other, but I shouldn't be called "sexist" for preferring my perspective and having a love/hate relationship with the feminine perspective. Likewise it's normal for women to have a love/hate relationship with men, I don't think they are "man haters" for it.

It is just natural, the necessarry downside that come with attraction of opposites! But how boring would life be otherwise...!?

Well, I find I understand the perspective of most men better than that of most women I encounter, and find their company provides plenty of interest. You may feel you cannot truly understand a woman's perspective, nor she understand yours. This is not sexist, it is just your experience. It is you. Others' mileage may vary.

There is a difference between being irrational and showing strong emotions. Just because you might not understand the reason behind someone else's show of strong emotion, does not mean there isn't a rational reason for that behaviour. I find people mix these two up - having a powerful emotional response or using emotion in an argument is not the same as being irrational.

eta: When [MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION] gets angry at someone for trolling her, it's a rational response - there's a clear reason and one could say it is perfectly logical.

I would not call such a response rational, though it may be understandable, just as it is understandable when ice cubes left on the counter melt. Expressing that anger in ways that add more heat than light to a discussion is not rational, from anyone.

 

[Cellmold]

Actually, you're being kind of irrational.

The way Jung used that term is pretty different than the way it's normally thought of.

There's a reason Keirsey called the NTs the Rationals, and not the NFs.

You mean as in rationalisation, also known as justification?

 

[PeaceBaby]

I would not call such a response rational, though it may be understandable, just as it is understandable when ice cubes left on the counter melt. Expressing that anger in ways that add more heat than light to a discussion is not rational, from anyone.

I suppose it all boils down to what any given individual sees as rational, then.

 

[gromit]

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.