- #1
Amrator
- 246
- 83
Or is this just a myth? If women are in fact more emotional, then what is the evolutionary reason for this?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Please post the peer reviewed studies you read this in. What did you read that gave rise to this question?Amrator said:Or is this just a myth? If women are in fact more emotional, then what is the evolutionary reason for this?
Thank you.
Amrator said:Or is this just a myth? If women are in fact more emotional, then what is the evolutionary reason for this?
Emotions are caused by processes in the brain which are constructed by both genetics and the environment, not just upbringing.Suraj M said:Adding to rootone's argument, the level of emotion felt by an individual depends on the way they were raised, also many people don't express their emotions. So how can you compare.
Why not? how is it better to infer it's an environmental effect, other than being politically correct?And at last, to OP. If you ask these questions you can expect biased politically infused answers, just like questions on race. So I recommend you to do your own research rather than asking emotionally biased readers.Ryan_m_b said:This is flawed logic, even if it was demonstrated that women on average had a higher emotional intelligence than men you absolutely could not infer from this alone that the effect was biological in nature. You especially shouldn't jump to evolutionary explanations (that way lies the pseudo-science of evolutionary psychology).
I take issue with your assumption here being stated as fact. I say that emotions are not caused by processes in the brain at all. That explanation seems as incorrect in my view as it would be to say that typing on a keyboard, one's reply to a post here is caused by processes in the brain. It seems more correct and useful to look at it the other way around, that the processes in the brain (and other physiological manifestations) are caused by whatever drives the urge to reply. It seems rather likely to me that it has more to do with things far less pedestrian in their nature than simple "brain processes."Jarfi said:Emotions are caused by processes in the brain which are constructed by both genetics and the environment, not just upbringing.
Jarfi said:Why not? how is it better to infer it's an environmental effect, other than being politically correct?
Jarfi said:And at last, to OP. If you ask these questions you can expect biased politically infused answers, just like questions on race. So I recommend you to do your own research rather than asking emotionally biased readers.
Jarfi said:What you can be fairly certain of is the fact that women and men have different biological brain structures, and I'm not sure if women have overall much higher EQ(although is suspect it) but men and women have different emotional intelligence, and thus women will on average be stronger in some aspects and percieve the world differently, f.ex they might respond to conflict with more empathy than men(this is an example, not a statement).
Jarfi said:So I implore you to do your own research, there will be many studies saying different things as psychology is not a hard science, but statistics are. So any statistical result that was not cherrypicked would give you an idea of the average.
Curious Phil said:I take issue with your assumption here being stated as fact. I say that emotions are not caused by processes in the brain at all. That explanation seems as incorrect in my view as it would be to say that typing on a keyboard, one's reply to a post here is caused by processes in the brain. It seems more correct and useful to look at it the other way around, that the processes in the brain (and other physiological manifestations) are caused by whatever drives the urge to reply. It seems rather likely to me that it has more to do with things far less pedestrian in their nature than simple "brain processes."