Are Women More "Irrational* Than Men?

[TheStarchDefenders]

I lean towards thinking that the frequency with which males, especially adolescent and young adult males, get themselves and others dead in stupid ways does not indicate a higher level of rationality. There's a reason we use them for soldiers and why they have higher car insurance rates. Not that females can't be nuts, too. They are just less frequently nuts in ways that get themselves taken out of the gene pool.

We(who is we anyway?) don't "use" young men for soldiers here in the states. It is an all volunteer military. They take it upon themselves to serve and protect.

 

[Coriolis]

Of course, the pain-in-the-ass in me wants to point out that choosing the term ‘value’ over ‘emotion’ is a personal preference and isn’t really correcting what I said so much as changing the wording to make it more palatable for yourself- because in the studies I’ve read on this topic, more often than not, the word ‘emotion’ is used to convey ‘the affect which happens before the conscious logic, and which influences that logic’- but the non-pain-in-the-ass part of me that just wants everyone to get along is thinking “Sure, ‘value’ works too I guess.”

Emotions include things like happiness, anger, joy, grief, amusement, etc. They describe how one feels in the moment. Values include things like respect, efficiency, kindness, independence, honesty, etc. They describe things that might be important to someone. There is a big difference. They may be connected in that, for instance, if someone is telling lies about my friend, I might feel anger (emotion) because that violates my value of honesty, and calls on my value of loyalty. I can recognize and set aside the anger, though, to help my friend address the lies in a constructive way.

We(who is we anyway?) don't "use" young men for soldiers here in the states. It is an all volunteer military. They take it upon themselves to serve and protect.

Right. We just rely on economic necessity and lack of other opportunities to pressure enough people to join, pulling disproportionately from the lower economic strata.

 

[cafe]

We(who is we anyway?) don't "use" young men for soldiers here in the states. It is an all volunteer military. They take it upon themselves to serve and protect.

My point exactly. How smart is that?

 

[highlander]

Re poll. I wonder how many men there are on this forum vs. women. Serious question.

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

My point exactly. How smart is that?

Do you find it irrational to want to defend those you care about?

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

Emotions include things like happiness, anger, joy, grief, amusement, etc. They describe how one feels in the moment. Values include things like respect, efficiency, kindness, independence, honesty, etc. They describe things that might be important to someone. There is a big difference. They may be connected in that, for instance, if someone is telling lies about my friend, I might feel anger (emotion) because that violates my value of honesty, and calls on my value of loyalty. I can recognize and set aside the anger, though, to help my friend address the lies in a constructive way.


Right. We just rely on economic necessity and lack of other opportunities to pressure enough people to join, pulling disproportionately from the lower economic strata.

Edit: I don't know of anyone that didn't want to be in the military and joined. I don't think you would get through basic if you didn't want it. Are there less routes if you don't have money? Yeah sure, but there are ways. I didn't apply for a single scholarship and my school was pretty much paid for until I decided it wasn't for me. I then paid my way through massage therapy school working at Mcdonalds. I picked this. So does everyone else I know in the military. If they don't want it they are gone with a few years of service and a boon or two for their troubles. Yeah, seems as terrible as your wording seems to suggest.

 

[cafe]

Do you find it irrational to want to defend those you care about?

Nope. That would be rational. I'm talking about serving in the military.

 

[Lark]

Nah, sorry Lark. Wasn't meant like that at all. I just thought it was a good point, but then I realized women don't really do it as well for me, lol.

We cool?

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

Nope. That would be rational. I'm talking about serving in the military.

I would think an organized defense would work better in that respect. Do you dislike the military? If so why?

 

[cafe]

I would think an organized defense(a military) would work better in that respect. Do you dislike the military? If so why?

I don't have a problem with having a military for defense. I think our military is excessive and it is used for purposes that have virtually nothing to do with defense. And I think it's sucky to throw poor people's kids at rich people's problems, which virtually all wars are. And we take terrible care of a lot of our veterans, which I think is deplorable.

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

I don't have a problem with having a military for defense. I think our military is excessive and it is used for purposes that have virtually nothing to do with defense. And I think it's sucky to throw poor people's kids at rich people's problems, which virtually all wars are. And we take terrible care of a lot of our veterans, which I think is deplorable.

Sounds like we pretty much agree there. Though I don't consider myself or my friends poor people's kids. It is not as if our families didn't love us. We have opportunities. This is the one we selected. I feel like its more of the civilian side of the coin to protest against an unjust/unethical war. During Iraq and Afghanistan we haven't exactly presented the Vietnam face to our government.

Also, who is "we"?

 

[Lark]

I don't have a problem with having a military for defense. I think our military is excessive and it is used for purposes that have virtually nothing to do with defense. And I think it's sucky to throw poor people's kids at rich people's problems, which virtually all wars are. And we take terrible care of a lot of our veterans, which I think is deplorable.

I agree with all this, to be honest I have a personal radical vision of functions like the military, policing, social work, political representation, all that sort of division fo labour one day becoming just the duties of everyday people and perhaps one day not being required at all.

Although I'm relatively pragmatic about it because I know the history of Sparta's warrior class vs. the armed, drilled citizenry of "democratic" states. Ireland and other states have proven that armed struggles of members of the public can only hope for a stalemate and only after a protracted struggle and a lot of sacrifice and suffering when they fight armed forces.

I used to be more skeptical about the critics of US foreign policies, I then thought that all states behave that way and better the US be military hegemon than some of the non-english speaking nations like Russia or China. These days I think the criticism, almost any criticism of the militarism in the US, is fine, so long as it is a criticism of those things are they exist more generally.

 

[cafe]

Sounds like we pretty much agree there. Though I don't consider myself or my friends poor people's kids. It is not as if our families didn't love us. We have opportunities. This is the one we selected. I feel like its more of the civilian side of the coin to protest against an unjust/unethical war. During Iraq and Afghanistan we haven't exactly presented the Vietnam face to our government.

Also, who is "we"?

We 'Mericans.

I don't think it's super rational to have enlisted in the US military if you have other good options knowing that:

• you'll likely serve in an unjust and/or unethical conflict
• you have a higher chance of death or injury than in most civiian jobs
• you'll have a higher rate of suicide compared to those in most civilian jobs
• you have a higher rate of PTSD and other mental illnesses than in most other civilian jobs
• your country isn't going to go too much out of its way to help you out if they screw you up
• you'll be lucky if you get training in something that translates into civilian workplace skills

For most career tracks, it would be more rational to earn scholarships instead.

I think the notoriously bad risk assessment abilities of young men (a type of irrationality) has been making this kind of exploitation possible since at least the crusades.

This is only one example. Young men are more likely to commit suicide, commit homicide, to accidentally crash their cars into things, etc than young women are. I think that indicates a comparatively high level of irrationality in matters impacting basic survival, which is arguably one of the most important things to be rational about.

I agree with all this, to be honest I have a personal radical vision of functions like the military, policing, social work, political representation, all that sort of division fo labour one day becoming just the duties of everyday people and perhaps one day not being required at all.

Although I'm relatively pragmatic about it because I know the history of Sparta's warrior class vs. the armed, drilled citizenry of "democratic" states. Ireland and other states have proven that armed struggles of members of the public can only hope for a stalemate and only after a protracted struggle and a lot of sacrifice and suffering when they fight armed forces.

I used to be more skeptical about the critics of US foreign policies, I then thought that all states behave that way and better the US be military hegemon than some of the non-english speaking nations like Russia or China. These days I think the criticism, almost any criticism of the militarism in the US, is fine, so long as it is a criticism of those things are they exist more generally.

We're just the current 800 pound gorilla of the world. It's not anything new.

Having some kind of standing army is important for defense. I just think what we have is overkill, especially considering we're kind of geographically isolated from most of the countries that might like to take a shot at us.

But we spend *so* much money, we screw with other countries' governments, and we're neglecting important domestic stuff like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. And most folks are too busy waving flags and being paranoid to even know that we spend more on 'defense' than the next ten countries combined. It makes me kind of crazy sometimes.

 

[Lark]

And most folks are too busy waving flags and being paranoid to even know that we spend more on 'defense' than the next ten countries combined. It makes me kind of crazy sometimes.

Well the "alternative" in the main involves attacking spending per se and not simply militarism, I think after adjustments the US isnt the most militarist nation, the Israelis take the prize I think.

Its not a good idea and I'd question its benefit or sustainability over the longer term.

The UK establishment is laughing at how they've managed to "out source" the struggle for hegemony of the english speaking peoples.

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

We 'Mericans.


I don't think it's super rational to have enlisted in the US military if you have other good options knowing that:

• you'll likely serve in an unjust and/or unethical conflict
• you have a higher chance of death or injury than in most civiian jobs
• you'll have a higher rate of suicide compared to those in most civilian jobs
• you have a higher rate of PTSD and other mental illnesses than in most other civilian jobs
• your country isn't going to go too much out of its way to help you out if they screw you up
• you'll be lucky if you get training in something that translates into civilian workplace skills

The country is broke. This will be kept to a minimum.
6,518 died of over 2 million deployed to iraq/afghanistan. Terrible death rate there.
yep
Yep
Yep
Yep
Completely incorrect for my branch.

For most career tracks, it would be more rational to earn scholarships instead.

I think the notoriously bad risk assessment abilities of young men (a type of irrationality) has been making this kind of exploitation possible since at least the crusades.

This is only one example. Young men are more likely to commit suicide, commit homicide, to accidentally crash their cars into things, etc than young women are. I think that indicates a comparatively high level of irrationality in matters impacting basic survival, which is arguably one of the most important things to be rational about.

I am sure you don't intend to make a career of doing a job you don't find interesting/thrilling/fulfilling,
why would you expect the same of a young man? I don't value your alternative.


I was speaking of the military not civilian suicide, homicide, car accidents, etc. While we are at it wiki says
women attempt suicide more often but men use more lethal methods. I don't particularly care
which sex is currently less rational. As a whole as I feel it is more heavily based on training/upbringing/perception
than inborn traits.

I currently hold that is a civilian responsibility to prevent an unjust war or to end one through pressure on elected officals. Soldiers don't decide when and what they will fight for. American soldiers aren't mercenaries.

For you the scales say the military is a poor choice. That is fine. I am sure you don't want it to be every
young American's choice.

 

[Thalassa]

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.

I don't think this is nurture. The corpus collusum in the brain of women is thicker (binds the two hemispheres together) and it allows men to be able compartmentalize their feelings from their need to act or be logical, which has been explained as a trait which evolved so that men are able to "detach" in order to do things like go away to war.

This allows men to be able to do these things, but apparently gives women more strength in seeing things holistically, though we aren't as compartmentalized.

Men are capable of extreme irrationality but apparently it's okay as long as it's anger, amirite?

Things like sports enthusiasm and aggression are no more "rational" than crying, this is true. Sports enthusiasm and aggression are forms of territoriality, it's focusing things like tribalism and nationalism into football and such.

Just as these tribal behaviors once served purpose, but seem to cause more problems than I would deem entirely rational in our modern world, I would agree with you that none of these behaviors are linked to logic, and probably also not to rational cognitive functions; and if tribalism is connected to a rational function, I would guess it's actually one of the ethical Fi or Fe rational functions, not the T functions.

 

[cafe]

The country is broke. This will be kept to a minimum.
6,518 died of over 2 million deployed to iraq/afghanistan. Terrible death rate there.

Compared to other occupations, it's not great. And the rate and severity of on the job injuries would probably not please OSHA if it was a civilian workplace.

yep
Yep
Yep
Yep
Completely incorrect for my branch.

There are a few other branches that aren't so lucky.

I am sure you don't intend to make a career of doing a job you don't find interesting/thrilling/fulfilling,
why would you expect the same of a young man? I don't value your alternative.

I think the whole career being interesting/thrilling/fulfilling is bs self-help authors sell to middle class kids whose parents can afford to support them well into adulthood, to be honest. There are just too many things that society needs to have done that nobody is going to be thrilled about doing. We can't all be special little snowflakes.

I was speaking of the military not civilian suicide, homicide, car accidents, etc. While we are at it wiki says
women attempt suicide more often but men use more lethal methods. I don't particularly care
which sex is currently less rational. As a whole as I feel it is more heavily based on training/upbringing/perception
than inborn traits.

Statistically, you'd have trouble making a case for everything but suicide attempts and I'm trying not to derail the thread. I have a bad habit of doing that.

I currently hold that is a civilian responsibility to prevent an unjust war or to end one through pressure on elected officals. Soldiers don't decide when and what they will fight for. American soldiers aren't mercenaries.

And that'd be mighty close to the Nuremberg defense, especially considering you weren't drafted and you had other options.

For you the scales say the military is a poor choice. That is fine. I am sure you don't want it to be every
young American's choice.

I'd like it to be a choice made by few enough young Americans that we'd be forced to treat you all better and we'd think a little harder about where we send you at and why. Frankly, I hate to see anyone's child thrown away for the financial gain of a small minority.

 

[Thalassa]

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.

What's interesting is that we hear more about the male ego, and numbers of men who are narcissists is higher than women who are diagnosed as narcissists.

However, I think this may be partly due to socialization, as apparently there have been more cases of female narcissism since girls have slowly been granted equal esteem and pressure to perform as their brothers.

Men are still more likely to be narcissists, though. They're also more likely to be sociopaths.

Narcissism is a personality disorder that is largely nurture, due to putting undue pressure on a child to perform externally, being harsh with them and even abusive, causing them to believe they have to achieve externals to be loved. Which is sad. But wait...there's more. The other side to the parental style that creates the narcissist is giving the little narcissist a sense of entitlement that he or she is somehow better than others or exempt in some inexplicable way.

So apparently societies have been traditionally more likely to give boys this sense of inexplicable, irrational entitlement, but there have slowly been more female narcissists since gender roles are changing.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, are a lot more nature than nurture, they are incapable of empathy, and well over 90% are men.

So while I agree men are apparently more likely to lack empathy, either as nurtured narcissists or socipaths, I am not so sure that means they are more "rational." Especially since Ti, Te, Fi and Fe are all rational functions.

I think men and women are probably equally irrational, just in different biological ways.

Also, even if someone attempts to make the argument that women would be more likely to do something crazy out of emotion, does that really make it any better than men are more likely to be cold-blooded killers? I mean killing is killing right? (And men are more likely to kill, in general).

This whole thread pretty much sickens me, but I felt like your posts deserved more acknowledgement than some bratty, emotional dismissal.

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

I think the whole career being interesting/thrilling/fulfilling is bs self-help authors sell to middle class kids whose parents can afford to support them well into adulthood, to be honest. There are just too many things that society needs to have done that nobody is going to be thrilled about doing. We can't all be special little snowflakes.

We sure as hell can try to enjoy our lives.

Statistically, you'd have trouble making a case for everything but suicide attempts and I'm trying not to derail the thread. I have a bad habit of doing that.

You brought that up. It was just something I was correcting.

And that'd be mighty close to the Nuremberg defense, especially considering you weren't drafted and you had other options.

Remember Nam? Seemed to do alright there.

I'd like it to be a choice made by few enough young Americans that we'd be forced to treat you all better and we'd think a little harder about where we send you at and why. Frankly, I hate to see anyone's child thrown away for the financial gain of a small minority.

I think pretty much anyone would agree on this.

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

This whole thread pretty much sickens me, but I felt like your posts deserved more acknowledgement than some bratty, emotional dismissal.

Just remember what train-wreck inspired it.