Are Women More "Irrational* Than Men?

[Giggly]

No worries.

As a thinker, I can agree with you.

There's a proper amount of logic that can be applied to any situation: go over it, or under it, and you start slipping into irrationality (over-rationality on one end, and under-rationality on the other).

There is more to the world than just logic and reason.

Well maybe women are better at being the perfect amount of logical.

I'm kidding. I actually think hardly anyone can do this.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

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.

 

[unnamed]

Wondering why the "No"option with 4 voters.

 

[Amargith]

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.

Well put.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Well, there are definite differences in ways of reasoning between males and females. But one could say both are rational, but under contrasting sets of values. Society has of course elevated the validity of "male rationality" to a higher degree than the "irrational emotionalism" that females supposedly operate with. I'd say rationality is relative and as such is up to the individual.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

The simplest way to define differences in gender-based irrationality (whether culturally instilled or nature) can be summed up in one word: "ego".

"Ego" is by nature the truest form of subjectivity because it values the self over the external world. The ability to comprehend and deal with what happens externally is what objectivity is, while being limited to comprehending only the Self is ego. I don't personally think this is innate to gender, but society accepts and defines the "male ego" while the term the "female ego" is rarely mentioned. There are egotistical women for certain, and just like the case with either gender it does make a person capable of more irrationality. To whatever extent a society accepts the "male ego" (or "female ego") as legitimizing an action, is the same extent it accepts irrationality in that same context.

I am interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I'm pretty sure I know a bunch of stupid people on both ends... and some very smart people as well.

 

[RaptorWizard]

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

You have said in the past you don't like Keirsey's Typology, and here you are referrencing his work... I'm a bit confused.

 

[Habba]

I'll just leave this here...

(Also, I voted yes.)

 

[unnamed]

I'll just leave this here...

(Also, I voted yes.)

You wasted my time.I should not watch it.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well maybe women are better at being the perfect amount of logical.

I'm kidding. I actually think hardly anyone can do this.

It's definitely tricky, and not very common.

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.

You completely had me until here...

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.

...but then your argumentation dissolved into the normal crap that it tends to.

Wondering why the "No"option with 4 voters.

4 irrational women have voted in the poll.

Well, there are definite differences in ways of reasoning between males and females. But one could say both are rational, but under contrasting sets of values. Society has of course elevated the validity of "male rationality" to a higher degree than the "irrational emotionalism" that females supposedly operate with. I'd say rationality is relative and as such is up to the individual.

Lot of truth to this.

I don't like the slide into relativism at the end, but the rest was so tight, I won't even call it flabby.

The simplest way to define differences in gender-based irrationality (whether culturally instilled or nature) can be summed up in one word: "ego".

"Ego" is by nature the truest form of subjectivity because it values the self over the external world. The ability to comprehend and deal with what happens externally is what objectivity is, while being limited to comprehending only the Self is ego. I don't personally think this is innate to gender, but society accepts and defines the "male ego" while the term the "female ego" is rarely mentioned. There are egotistical women for certain, and just like the case with either gender it does make a person capable of more irrationality. To whatever extent a society accepts the "male ego" (or "female ego") as legitimizing an action, is the same extent it accepts irrationality in that same context.

I am interested to hear arguments to the contrary.

I think all your axioms are crap.

You have said in the past you don't like Keirsey's Typology, and here you are referrencing his work... I'm a bit confused.

Why did I know my not prefacing this was going to draw question...

I find much problematic with it, but there are parts that are okay.

 

[Giggly]

I'll just leave this here...

(Also, I voted yes.)

She's could be right. Those standard MPH's may not be accurate.

 

[unnamed]

She's could be right. Those standard MPH's may not be accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

 

[Entropic]

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.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I saw the thread and asked myself "who was the genius who started this one?" Then I saw the OP. Naturally, it was the forum's biggest genius.

I voted no.

 

[Coriolis]

I know highly rational women, and highly irrational men, but, on average, are women more irrational than men?

Yes. Society neither values nor encourages rationality in women as it does in men, resulting in the observed imbalance, with many exceptions as you have encountered.

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?

Add to this the question of how logic is related to rationality - perhaps already implied in the above, but I'm calling it out explicitly.

 

[Amargith]

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?'

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.

 

[Coriolis]

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?'

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

You completely had me until here...

...but then your argumentation dissolved into the normal crap that it tends

I think all your axioms are crap.

Perhaps this counter-argument is crap?

I am presenting hypothesis not declarations, and I'm willing to admit any flaws in my position if presented with reasons that it is incorrect, but how you feel about it is irrelevant.

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?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think men and women are equally capable of irrationality, but the irrationality manifests itself differently in men then in women. I think this is related to the social expectations of gender roles, as it conforms to those quite well.

I think women tend to want to think of themselves as compassionate and caring people more than men. Sometimes, this demonstrates itself in situations where they are uncapable of acknowledging that they aren't matching up with their self-image. Alternatively, this means they may give a response to a question that's "nice" instead of "truthful"[SUP]*[/SUP], even though the truthful response may have been less harmful for the other person (or, hell, themselves) in the long run.

Men tend to want to think of themselves as "tough", and may delude themselves into ignoring their discomfort with something. Alternatively, they may do things that are stupid and harmful to themselves as a way of showing how tough they are.

*I don't mean to suggest that these are mutually exclusive. I'm using "nice" to refer to situations where the truth is concealed or obscured for the sake of supposedly protecting emotional well-being. "truthfullness" does not preclude tact.