• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Are Women More "Irrational* Than Men?

Are women more irrational than men?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 26.8%
  • No

    Votes: 25 61.0%
  • Kinda-sorta

    Votes: 5 12.2%

  • Total voters
    41

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I seriously doubt about inherited causes for psychological differences between men and women.

I believe that the degree of difference between the average of all men and the average of all women is smaller than the average degree of difference between any two individuals. Or on other words, your gender makes up a negligibly small part of your personality.

And I think the areas where men and women manifest the widest differences are in moments of social awareness when they conform, and thus these widest differences are also the most superficial and ephemeral.

Within those terms, I find it hard to believe that one sex is more rational than the other.
 

Faceless Beauty

Transient
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
177
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
9w8
If we are referring to rationality in terms of reasoning ability or ability to use reason and accept things generated by reason, then no, women are not any less rational than men on average. However, if we are referring to whether or not women tend to use emotion-based reasoning more than logical reasoning, then by Western society's standards, women use more emotional reasoning on average compared to me (or they should anyway for reasons commonly cited). Even though using emotions over logic and facts is not the same thing as being irrational, I brought up that point because people often confuse the two.
 

Nicodemus

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
9,756
I think my Marm-reaction thread is artistically superior to this one. And more relevant... to things.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I suppose it all boils down to what any given individual sees as rational, then.
For me, a significant aspect of rationality is the degree to which one's actions support one's goals. A classic example is getting upset at your boss because you think he is being unfair. He may really be unfair, and your anger may thus be justified, but expressing your anger emotionally will not get you closer to a satisfactory resolution, however good it might make you feel in the moment.

I seriously doubt about inherited causes for psychological differences between men and women.

I believe that the degree of difference between the average of all men and the average of all women is smaller than the average degree of difference between any two individuals. Or on other words, your gender makes up a negligibly small part of your personality.

And I think the areas where men and women manifest the widest differences are in moments of social awareness when they conform, and thus these widest differences are also the most superficial and ephemeral.
I agree, though I am no expert in biology and cannot provide a thorough basis for discounting the evolutionary aspect. I especially agree with the highlighted, and have found this to be the case both for myself, and for most people I come to know well. The well-known differences that contribute to the stereotypes are then the product of social and cultural influences with which we are all brought up. Women and men may start out with the same inherent ability for both rational thought and emotional understanding, but the two groups are raised to value and develop one over the other. Going along with this is development of the inclination to use one over the other.

Bottom line: women have the same inherent ability for rational thought as men, but on average have developed it less and are less inclined to use it.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
Has the answer "no" been established yet?


I thought men were stereotypically portrayed as being bullheadedly irrational to begin with anyways.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

I voted yes. I read this though and then thought it about it agin.

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

Now I definitely agree with her.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Yep. So much trolling.

Oh, "trolling": you most misused word on the internet.

Southern Kross said:
Guess that sexism isn't so "secret" after all. :laugh:

Yes, the misandry on this forum is quite blatant.

I voted yes. I read this though and then thought it about it agin.

Now I definitely agree with her.

As I told Marm recently: tell someone who gives a shit.

No offense, Highlander, but the meaning of things has never quite appeared to you unless it hit you square between the eyes.

Fyi, I broke up with Silly over a year ago.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.

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?

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?

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.]
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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?
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
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

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).

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. [sup]TM[/sup]
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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.

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.

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.
 

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
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. :shrug:

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.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.

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 a moderator:

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Reminder to keep the thread on the general topic of rationality/irrationality of the sexes, not on the personal lives of members.
 
Top