Women's Talk and Men's Talk

[Firebird 8118]

I'm not sure that is feminism.

I never said it was. I support feminism, but only to a certain extent.

 

[Mole]

Mole, I have to ask... Do you talk the way you type? With big pauses between sentences, even if they are part of the same thought?

As you read we are caught in our minds between the printed page and electronic text.

The printed page is printed on a printing press invented in 1440.

And electronic text, invented in 1840, is made by moving electrons.

The printed page is linear and sequential, while electronic text is closer to speech or verse.

So I use the spacing on the screen to highlight and isolate.

I quite understand that as a highly literate individual nourished on print, you find my electronic text (etext) strange.

 

[Firebird 8118]

As you read we are caught in our minds between the printed page and electronic text.

The printed page is printed on a printing press invented in 1440.

And electronic text, invented in 1840, is made by moving electrons.

The printed page is linear and sequential, while electronic text is closer to speech or verse.

So I use the spacing on the screen to highlight and isolate.

I quite understand that as a highly literate individual nourished on print, you find my electronic text (etext) strange.

Your thought process is interesting. I like that.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

By and large women enjoy talking with each other. This is because women talk to make each other feel better.

And by and large men talk about reality.

And this explains why, by and large, women don't like talking to men so much. And this is because women want talk to make them feel better not to relate to reality.

I'm curious, what type of conversing style are you guy's proposing men have? What do you guy's mean by "more firmly rooted in reality"? Is it being suggested that women live in a trifle fantasy world?

 

[Mole]

I'm curious, what type of conversing style are you guy's proposing men have? What do you guy's mean by "more firmly rooted in reality"? Is it being suggested that women live in a trifle fantasy world?

By and large, women are in touch with the electronic world we are increasingly inhabiting with conversation, and not only conversation, but international conversation.

Women are superbly equiped, as women have superior verbal ability, better social skills, do the emotional work in relationships, and have been practising their relationship skills since kindergarten.

While men are dominated by their visual sense at the expense of their aural sense.

Men are emotionally stunted by working in a specialised job rather than having a role.

Men are simply unable to enjoy conversation and this puts them at a disadvantage in our electric world.

 

[grey_beard]

Question for you Jennifer as a n00b.
On other forums one is allowed to "thank" another user's posting,
but I do not see any such function here.

IS there a way to do this which I haven't found yet?
Or is one required merely to 'Reply' and enter something inane such as "+1" in response?

...thanks for your help!

 

[grey_beard]

I am talking about men and women in the large, and you are giving me anecdotal evidence about yourself.

Why would you think anecdotal evidence is anything but anecdotal?

The rest of the world knows that anecdotal evidence is not valid evidence. So why do you think anecdotal evidence is valid?

The answer is simple and stares us in the face.

Anecdotal evidence is called Personal Testimony in Protestantism. And Personal Testimony is a religious practice in Protestantism.

And when we live in a Protestant country, we take Personal Testimony for granted. And it has all the validity of a religious practice.

However almost all of the 7,000 million alive today, only a tiny number are Protestant and do not practise Personal Testimony.

On top of that all scientists know anecdotal evidence, and so Personal Testimony, has no validity.

And yet your world minority culture is determined to force anecdotal evidence down our throats and calls a religious practice, valid.

Disagree about anecdotal or personal testimony having no validity. You're overreaching.
There are degrees of certainty, degrees of confidence, types of evidence.
Logical syllogism from truthful and accurate and significant premises is best.
Then results of valid, well-constructed experiment.
Then theory based on experiment.
Then various forms of testimony -- eyewitness, memory, and the like.
Then 2nd-hand testimony.
Then rumor and conjecture.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that one cannot generate reliable and reproducible error bars for it;
and it is harder to "falsify" under certain conditions, making it harder to eliminate false positives.
But that does not mean it is necessarily false, or necessarily "dis-reliable".

 

[Mole]

Disagree about anecdotal or personal testimony having no validity. You're overreaching.
There are degrees of certainty, degrees of confidence, types of evidence.
Logical syllogism from truthful and accurate and significant premises is best.
Then results of valid, well-constructed experiment.
Then theory based on experiment.
Then various forms of testimony -- eyewitness, memory, and the like.
Then 2nd-hand testimony.
Then rumor and conjecture.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that one cannot generate reliable and reproducible error bars for it;
and it is harder to "falsify" under certain conditions, making it harder to eliminate false positives.
But that does not mean it is necessarily false, or necessarily "dis-reliable".

I quite agree with you.

I am though drawing attention to the fact that Personal Testimony is a religious practice of Protestantism.

And so Personal Testimony has been elevated to the sacrosanct.

This is germane to mbti which is based on Personal Testimony.

And unfortunately Personal Testimony is taken for granted and regarded as sacrosact and immune from critique.

So mbti takes on a quasi religious character.

 

[Mole]

So mbti takes on a quasi religious character.

Just as the Old Testament is to Judaism, and the New Testament is to Orthodox Christianity, so Personal Testimony is to Protestantism.

And Personal Testimony forms the very basis of mbti.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Given no information other than my writings, people often seem to take me for a female.

I guess I do womens' talk.

 

[Coriolis]

Question for you Jennifer as a n00b.
On other forums one is allowed to "thank" another user's posting,
but I do not see any such function here.

IS there a way to do this which I haven't found yet?
Or is one required merely to 'Reply' and enter something inane such as "+1" in response?

No "thank function" here. To thank someone publicly, just make a post: "+1", or other brief acknowledgment. To thank someone privately, send a rep (small 6-pointed star-like symbol in the post footer).

 

[highlander]

One difference I see is this. Men tend to poke at and make fun of each other. Women don't seem to appreciate this as much. This is in general of course and not common to all people.

 

[grey_beard]

No "thank function" here. To thank someone publicly, just make a post: "+1", or other brief acknowledgment. To thank someone privately, send a rep (small 6-pointed star-like symbol in the post footer).

(changes subject) -- who is the *character* in your avatar? Is it a female Vulcan of some sort (which would make sense for a female INTJ...)?

Much obliged.

 

[Coriolis]

(changes subject) -- who is the *character* in your avatar? Is it a female Vulcan of some sort (which would make sense for a female INTJ...)?

Much obliged.

She is T'Pol, from the Star Trek prequel series "Enterprise". Yes, good female avatars are hard to come by.

 

[Octavarium]

OP, I think what you're getting at is a T/F difference rather than a gender difference. Most of what people say about the psychological differences between men and women are essentially T/F differences, and most men test T and most women test F, so what you're saying may be accurate (if oversimplified) in most cases. However, a female T would be more likely to relate to what you classify as "men's talk" and the same with the male F and "women's talk".

 

[LadyLazarus]

That's a bit of generalization isn't it?

For example,my ISTJ sister absolutely detests all the "fluff" her ESFJ friend spouts,she says it turns her off the conversation almost immediately.

She seems to greatly prefer debating and talking about subjects like history and science.

In contrast to my ENFP sister,her debate style is very emotionally un-involved.

She's not the type who tries to comfort others at all,so the pretense here really does not apply in her case.

So,I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to limit women in such a way.Or men for that matter.

I also do not think it is a T/F thing as I have met an ESFJ who enjoyed steering the conversation towards criticism of whoever she happened to be talking to,any time she could.

I believe everyone has the capacity for both emotional and intellectual depth within them,regardless of gender or preference for taking in information.

 

[Coriolis]

OP, I think what you're getting at is a T/F difference rather than a gender difference. Most of what people say about the psychological differences between men and women are essentially T/F differences, and most men test T and most women test F, so what you're saying may be accurate (if oversimplified) in most cases. However, a female T would be more likely to relate to what you classify as "men's talk" and the same with the male F and "women's talk".

This has been my own experience.

That's a bit of generalization isn't it?

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean it is invalid, it's just not absolute. Your example below supports it, in fact.

For example,my ISTJ sister absolutely detests all the "fluff" her ESFJ friend spouts,she says it turns her off the conversation almost immediately.

She seems to greatly prefer debating and talking about subjects like history and science.

In contrast to my ENFP sister,her debate style is very emotionally un-involved.

She's not the type who tries to comfort others at all,so the pretense here really does not apply in her case.

So,I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to limit women in such a way.Or men for that matter.

This is not limiting, as we are not telling anyone what or how to be. It is simply observing trends in how people behave and communicate.

I also do not think it is a T/F thing as I have met an ESFJ who enjoyed steering the conversation towards criticism of whoever she happened to be talking to,any time she could.

I believe everyone has the capacity for both emotional and intellectual depth within them,regardless of gender or preference for taking in information.

This is certainly true. T and F preference, however, lead to different emphases and different manners of expressing emotional, logical, intellectual, and other meaning. Other functions play a role as well. Also, T has no monopoly on criticism. F, especially Fe, can generate as much criticism as any T, though the bases for that criticism and the forms it takes will tend to be different.

 

[WhoCares]

Not sure how many stereotypes I counted in the OP, but it's like a party for 1950's thinking. This reminds me of why I never want to live in Canberra.

 

[Mole]

Not sure how many stereotypes I counted in the OP, but it's like a party for 1950's thinking. This reminds me of why I never want to live in Canberra.

Of course if you live in country devoted to Personal Testimony by compulsive narcissists, Canberra may well remind you of the 1950's.

Canberra, though, is a designed city which we built from scratch. We built a beautiful city that is a delight to live in. We attract people from all over the world in large numbers to study and work in Canberra.

And how strange you should be so meretricious as to diss stereotypes on a site devoted to archetypes.

But if you don't care, you don't care.

So are you careless or carefree?