Are Women More Emotional than Men?

[Amrator]

Or is this just a myth? If women are in fact more emotional, then what is the evolutionary reason for this?

Thank you.

 

[Evo]

Or is this just a myth? If women are in fact more emotional, then what is the evolutionary reason for this?

Thank you.

Please post the peer reviewed studies you read this in. What did you read that gave rise to this question?

 

[Amrator]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...inds-women-far-affected-emotional-images.html
I do not have any peer-reviewed sources. In fact, that's actually the point of this question. I want to know if there is evidence that supports this widly held perception. I guess I'm indirectly (I hope I used that word correctly) asking for peer-reviewed sources.

Thank you.

 

[Amrator]

If I did not comply with the PF rules, then I apologize.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Or is this just a myth? If women are in fact more emotional, then what is the evolutionary reason for this?

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).

 

[rootone]

Is there any agreed upon measure of a person's level of emotionality anyway?
There may be, but I've not heard of such.
How would one compare for example the joy experienced by a football fan when their team wins unexpectedly,
to the joy experienced by a grandmother on receiving news that her daughter gave birth to a healthy baby?

 

[Suraj M]

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.

 

[Jarfi]

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.

Emotions are caused by processes in the brain which are constructed by both genetics and the environment, not just upbringing.

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).

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.

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).

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]

Emotions are caused by processes in the brain which are constructed by both genetics and the environment, not just upbringing.

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."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Mod Note: Unless the OP comes back to clarify what they meant by "emotional" and how they think it could be measured there's not much to discuss here. From now on can members please clarify what it is they are discussing (is it cultural attitudes towards displaying emotion? is it emotional intelligence? etc) and provide citations to any claims. If either of these aren't met the thread will be locked.

Why not? how is it better to infer it's an environmental effect, other than being politically correct?

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. I did not argue that an environmental effect could be inferred either, rather that the cause of such a difference (if demonstrated) could not be inferred from that data alone. Thus speculation on an evolutionary cause before even establishing the effect is biological would be illogical.

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.

I get the impression you're tarring anyone who posts in this thread as emotionally biased, but probably wouldn't if they agreed with whatever your position is. That's not a great contribution.

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).

Got any citations for the differences in average EQ scores between men and women? I'm genuinely interested.

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.

Amongst the specific population that study looked at anyway. It wouldn't necessarily give you an idea of the average unless it looked at multiple populations in different areas (not just within cultures but between them).

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."

Curious Phil this just seems to be a semantic argument. Emotions occur in the brain, all thinking does. That's pretty well established. Sure the emotions we feel are triggered by events outside of the brain (i.e. a cup of tea on my desk makes me happy) but I think everyone accepts that and we're on the same page here.