Women and Emotional Thinking: Examining a Common Gender Stereotype

[Dembadon]

Here we see 300072507. Notice the position shark 30256 (Moonbear) has taken.

 

[DanP]

http://www12.picfront.org/token/73G0/2010/03/14/1785779.jpg

 

[rhody]

If you really are serious in wanting to know how women think, I recommend, "The Female Brain", by Louann Brizendine, published 2006, after 5 years or so of research. The Reference section is over 150 pages long ! Yes, folks she did her homework on this one and then some.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/books/review/Henig.t.html"

This thread has a little schizo feel to it, from silly to serious, so anyone who wishes can turn it back to silly. Just thought I would add my two cents. I found the book interesting, and honest, anyone else out there read it too ? Opinions ?

Rhody...

 

[GeorginaS]

If you really are serious in wanting to know how women think, I recommend, "The Female Brain", by Louann Brizendine, published 2006, after 5 years or so of research. The Reference section is over 150 pages long ! Yes, folks she did her homework on this one and then some.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/books/review/Henig.t.html"

This thread has a little schizo feel to it, from silly to serious, so anyone who wishes can turn it back to silly. Just thought I would add my two cents. I found the book interesting, and honest, anyone else out there read it too ? Opinions ?

Rhody...

That New York Times review is hardly a strong recommendation for taking the time to read that book, Rhody.

 

[Math Is Hard]

.. Politicians can occasionally win elections because they are very attractive and good with kids. I would attribute this kind of effect to the female vote. Now, I'm not saying that men don't make stupid decisions, but they don't usually base their vote on how cool they think their candidate is..

I'm sure there's a wealth of research out there on this topic. You might want to peruse some before making up your mind. (Unless, of course, you prefer "going with your gut" over taking the analytical approach.)

I came across this abstract of a study on facial appearances of presidential candidates. I thought it was intriguing:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974841

Male and female voters judged a series of male and female political candidates on how competent, dominant, attractive and approachable they seemed based on their facial appearance. Then they saw a series of pairs of political candidates and decided which politician they would vote for in a hypothetical election for President of the United States. Results indicate that both gender of voter and candidate affect the kinds of facial impressions that predict voting behavior. All voters are likely to vote for candidates who appear more competent. However, male candidates that appear more approachable and female candidates who appear more attractive are more likely to win votes. In particular, men are more likely to vote for attractive female candidates whereas women are more likely to vote for approachable male candidates.

I'd like to read the entire paper, because the abstract doesn't appear to reveal what the top choice was for the male and female voting groups. For instance, did the men prefer attractive females over all the available male and female candidate choices (of equal competence)? Or were attractive females only the top choice when choosing only among the competent female candidates? I'll have to dig this paper up when I get back to work and can access journal articles.

Happily, it does seem to suggest that the appearance of competence is the most influential attribute for voters of either sex.

I think this could be a very interesting thread if there is any hope of keeping it at a somewhat mature level and discussing actual research data. Otherwise, it's just "One young man's opinion on how women think" followed by a bunch of lame pot shots. I know this is General Discussion, but let's not sink to the level of AOL chat.

 

[D H]

Of course, that all flies out the window when men get married. Then it gets very hard to compare decision making between the sexes, because as we all know, men don't get to make the decisions once they are married.

Hey! I resent that remark -- I think. Just to make sure, let me double-check with my better half.

 

[DanP]

Hey! I resent that remark -- I think. Just to make sure, let me double-check with my better half.

Like she will ever tell you the truth, hahaha.

 

[barbara22203]

Live and learn, young man.

 

[rhody]

That New York Times review is hardly a strong recommendation for taking the time to read that book, Rhody.

GeorginaS,

Funny you say that, I never even saw the NY Times review before I bought the book. I never buy or read that paper. When posting I used the first review that came up. In any event, I don't need the Times to endorse or not endorse a book to make up my own opinion about what the author has to say. If you have read it and want to discuss, that is fine by me, if not, that's fine as well. I stand by my opinion though.

Rhody...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

GeorginaS,

Funny you say that, I never even saw the NY Times review before I bought the book. I never buy or read that paper. When posting I used the first review that came up. In any event, I don't need the Times to endorse or not endorse a book to make up my own opinion about what the author has to say. If you have read it and want to discuss, that is fine by me, if not, that's fine as well. I stand by my opinion though.

Rhody...

I have to agree with Georgina, that article does not make the book sound very good at all. Something on par with a pop selfhelp/relationships book.

The author of the article quotes the author of the book...

Instead, she offers breezy generalizations. “The female brain,” she writes, “has tremendous unique aptitudes — outstanding verbal agility, the ability to connect deeply in friendship, a nearly psychic capacity to read faces and tone of voice for emotions and states of mind, and the ability to defuse conflict.” She says that “all of this is hard-wired into the brains of women” — a process she works to document, but whose broader implications she never quite makes clear.

Note my emphasis above; do you remember if she perhaps supported this by most women being possessed of extra red cones in the eye which are connected to the area of the visual cortex responsible for facial recognition? And whether or not she actually qualifies this interpretation of its utility in anyway?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yesterday I got into a discussion with a girl from school about how women are generally more emotional thinkers than men. What mean is that they base their decisions more heavily on how they feel 'in their heart' rather than possibly looking at the big picture. It's more of a personal (dare I say selfish?) kind of thing. She agreed with me, until I put the example of how women vote.

I would like to know how many women here would agree that women make decisions 'with their heart', up to the point we mention voting. (For some reason that particular example was the bone of contention.) Here, in real life, it's not at all uncommon for women I know to assert they trust their heart over logic, and to criticize men for looking at certain issues too intellectually, systematically, logically, at the expense of their emotions.

 

[rhody]

I have to agree with Georgina, that article does not make the book sound very good at all. Something on par with a pop selfhelp/relationships book.

The author of the article quotes the author of the book...

Note my emphasis above; do you remember if she perhaps supported this by most women being possessed of extra red cones in the eye which are connected to the area of the visual cortex responsible for facial recognition? And whether or not she actually qualifies this interpretation of its utility in anyway?

Well, as far as being a pop/self help book, I beg to differ. A sample of what a woman (Sylvia in this case) experiences after menopause from page, 136, Brizendine states:

If we took our MRI scanner into Sylvia's brain, we'd see a landscape quite different from a few years before. A constancy in the flow of impulses through her brain circuits has replaced the surges and plunges of estrogen and progesterone caused by the menstrual cycle. Her brain is now a more certain and steady machine. We do not see the hair-trigger circuits in the amygdala that rapidly altered her reality right before her period, sometimes pushing her to see bleakness that wasn't there or to hear an insult that wasn't intended. We would see that the brain circuits between the amygdala (the emotional processor), and prefrontal cortex (the emotion assessment and judgement area) are fully functional and consistent.

If you haven't read the book you will just have to trust me, I would never have finished it in the first place because I like scientific detail when I read about subjects like this. I would have put the book down and never finished it.

I realize it was a total mistake to include to review from the NY Times, and for that I apologize.

Ought ohhh, she has a new book coming out in a week, you guessed it, http://www.louannbrizendine.com/"

Rhody...

P.S. Here is a link to what I would call a http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23968.The_Female_Brain" had to say about it, seems to be all over the map, but a rated a bit above average overall.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Well, as far as being a pop/self help book, I beg to differ. A sample of what a woman (Sylvia in this case) experiences after menopause from page, 136, Brizendine states:

If you haven't read the book you will just have to trust me, I would never have finished it in the first place because I like scientific detail when I read about subjects like this. I would have put the book down and never finished it.

I realize it was a total mistake to include to review from the NY Times, and for that I apologize.

Ought ohhh, she has a new book coming out in a week, you guessed it, http://www.louannbrizendine.com/"

Rhody...

P.S. Here is a link to what I would call a http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23968.The_Female_Brain" had to say about it, seems to be all over the map, but a rated a bit above average overall.

Sorry but even with the text you quote it still seems a gloss. If I were a woman, let alone an intelligent educated woman, I might well be incensed but such a generalized interpretation of womens behavior. As a less than well educated male I still do not find the scientific gloss very informative.

I have not read it, true, but at least I have peered at more than the cover. ;-)

 

[MotoH]

We all know Oprah is the only credible book reviewer.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If I were a woman, let alone an intelligent educated woman, I might well be incensed but such a generalized interpretation of womens behavior.

It's like you don't know any women.

“The female brain,” she writes, “has tremendous unique aptitudes — outstanding verbal agility, the ability to connect deeply in friendship, a nearly psychic capacity to read faces and tone of voice for emotions and states of mind, and the ability to defuse conflict.” She says that “all of this is hard-wired into the brains of women”

Women don't care how scientifically documented a string of compliments like that might be.

Not that a man would either, but the notion women would be outraged by positive generalizations is not borne out by my experience. People only balk at negative generalizations.

As you and I are both men, I know you will consider this post with an astute intellect, finely honed sense of fair play, an eye for the big picture, and deep concern for the underprivelidged.

 

[Evo]

Women don't care how scientifically documented a string of compliments like that might be.

Not that a man would either, but the notion women would be outraged by positive generalizations is not borne out by my experience. People only balk at negative generalizations.

I find the quote

The female brain,” she writes, “has tremendous unique aptitudes — outstanding verbal agility, the ability to connect deeply in friendship, a nearly psychic capacity to read faces and tone of voice for emotions and states of mind, and the ability to defuse conflict.” She says that “all of this is hard-wired into the brains of women”

An offensive and inaccurate generalization. This puts women clearly in the "mothering role". Where is the "ability to lead, to think quickly, to make clear unemotional (rational) decisions?

 

[rewebster]

I know women don't like being pigeonholed, or told that 'they' are a 'certain way'. I know they would rather think they are independent thinkers, even if they do agree with some things some times. I know most women would rather not argue, because it usually doesn't lead anywhere. And I think most like feeling that they are appreciated, and are in a 'secure' place.

I've been around some that take it nicely, and others that haven't.

 

[DanP]

I know women don't like being pigeonholes, or told that 'they' are a 'certain way'.

Man doesn't like to told they are a certain way as well. This is really sexless :P How would you feel if your gf tells you "this is the shortest one I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them", even if its true ?

 

[rewebster]

Man doesn't like to told they are a certain way as well. This is really sexless :P How would you feel if your gf tells you "this is the shortest one I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them", even if its true ?

some people live by their 'smallest' worry

 

[DanP]

some people live by their 'smallest' worry

True, but how would you feel ?

 

[rewebster]

True, but how would you feel ?

Sorry, I can't relate to the question----but, I'd say you were with the wrong woman.


"I know women don't like being pigeonholed, or told that 'they' are a 'certain way'."

Men tolerate it a little more than every woman I've known.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I find the quoteAn offensive and inaccurate generalization. This puts women clearly in the "mothering role". Where is the "ability to lead, to think quickly, to make clear unemotional (rational) decisions?

Yes, my having asserted people only balk at negative generalizations requires you to balk at this positive one, because the meta-generalization that contains the positive one is negative.

 

[DanP]

Sorry, I can't relate to the question----but, I'd say you were with the wrong woman.

Why would she be the wrong one ? Because she told you the truth ? Or because she was inconsiderate and hurt something ? What makes her "wrong women" ? After all, maybe she tells the truth :P

Men tolerate it a little more than every woman I've known.

And how did you assessed this ? Through a scientific experiment, or through your own biased cognition ?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Man doesn't like to told they are a certain way as well. This is really sexless :P

People really only balk at negative generalizations. Walk up to a tall man and suggest that tall men make natural leaders, and he won't go searching for scientific papers to prove you wrong. But, if you point out that 57% of all serial killers are over 6 feet 2 inches in height, he'll certainly take offense.

 

[rewebster]

Why would she be the wrong one ? Because she told you the truth ? Or because she was inconsiderate and hurt something ? What makes her "wrong women" ? After all, maybe she tells the truth :P




And how did you assessed this ? Through a scientific experiment, or through your own biased cognition ?

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes or yesX6

 

[DanP]

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes or yesX6

So I take it you have no scientific proof of your generalization ?

 

[rewebster]

So I take it you have no scientific proof of your generalization ?

I didn't generalize anything, so no poof

poof!

 

[DanP]

I didn't generalize anything, so no poof

poof!

Really ?

Men tolerate it a little more than every woman I've known.

"Men" is a generalization. It means "a male human". Plural form. So the "male human" tolerates more than every female you know ?

 

[rewebster]

Men tolerate it a little more than every woman I've known.

 

[DanP]

Men tolerate it a little more than every woman I've known.

Sure thing. The generalization is MEN , not every women you have known :P