Logical and emotional behavior in men v women

[discojoe]

Do you think that - regardless of type - being female kind of detracts from the effect logical behavior has on people, and being male detracts from the effect that feelery behavior has on people? Like you're more likely to be taken seriously when making a logical argument if you're a man, and more likely to be taken seriously as a woman when raising some kind of ethical objection?

Now as regards Socionics, if you think the answer to the question posed above is yes, then do you think that, in order to be taken more seriously, females of a logical type are likely to try to act more feelery, and that males of an ethical type would want to appear more logical, even if it means behaving in a way that doesn't come naturally to either?

[redbaron]

Yes. I've seen it with a male ISFp I know who, either knowingly or unknowingly, often tries to act more logical and "manly" and comes across ISTp. But he is ISFp without a doubt. I know that my ESFj husband tries to come across more logical when he's at work. I have some female alpha NT friends who seem more emotional when they're with other females. Almost as if they're acting the way they think they're "supposed" to act with other women or something--it's the way they were taught to relate because they're female. I don't think they're doing it consciously for the most part. It's almost like a switch that gets turned on and off when they're in certain situations or around certain people. I think that stereotypically, it's easiest, as a female, to be NF and as a male, to be ST.

[Wynch]

Yes. I've seen it with a male ISFp I know who, either knowingly or unknowingly, often tries to act more logical and "manly" and comes across ISTp. But he is ISFp without a doubt. I know that my ESFj husband tries to come across more logical when he's at work. I have some female alpha NT friends who seem more emotional when they're with other females. Almost as if they're acting the way they think they're "supposed" to act with other women or something--it's the way they were taught to relate because they're female. I don't think they're doing it consciously for the most part. It's almost like a switch that gets turned on and off when they're in certain situations or around certain people. I think that stereotypically, it's easiest, as a female, to be NF and as a male, to be ST.

This is more or less spot on.

[Park]

Yes to both questions. And what ifmd95 said.

[Gilly]

Do you think that - regardless of type - being female kind of detracts from the effect logical behavior has on people, and being male detracts from the effect that feelery behavior has on people? Like you're more likely to be taken seriously when making a logical argument if you're a man, and more likely to be taken seriously as a woman when raising some kind of ethical objection?

Now as regards Socionics, if you think the answer to the question posed above is yes, then do you think that, in order to be taken more seriously, females of a logical type are likely to try to act more feelery, and that males of an ethical type would want to appear more logical, even if it means behaving in a way that doesn't come naturally to either?

I think mostly it depends on the individual. I make efforts to appear both logical and "feelery" as the situation requires.

For example, you have someone like Vero: female, ILE, but quite obviously makes no effort to "appear" more feminine than she is; in fact if anything it at least seems as though she makes an effort to be more logical.

However I think that, regardless of type, women do at least tend to be more moody and emotional, and men tend to be a bit more emotionally aloof/"logical" simply because of body chemistry.


So my short answer to your question is "no;" it is more of a natural tendency rather than a "trying to" one, and although there are definitely some instances in which this is definitely the case, in general I think the trend is natural and genuine.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yes, your observations about human interactions are generally true. People tend to listen to women more when they raise ethical objections, and with men it's pretty much "Dude, don't be an emo ******- go out and hunt something." But this is a gender issue and kind of a 'human rights issue' and not really anything to do with socionics. It depends on the area in question too, of course.

It's also why the (ew)nited states of dumberica is one of the developing countries that still have a problem with gay men, and why there is still a whole bunch of unnecessary restrictions on homosexuality.

Most of the men I've known that tried to raise ethical quandaries in real-life were quickly socially ostracized as 'gay' (meaning weak, helpless, effeminate) so naturally they quit talking about it. =/ However, if they really cared about the plight of sea turtles (or whatever), they usually got a job as a male professor, where their rants about people being treated unfairly were much more respected, since they were now in a position of authority. So if a male really cares about ethics, a teacher or priest role for him is his best bet. Since we still have to have to tag that 'power' card when it comes to men somehow. Maybe it's evolutionary advantageous. Maybe it's an annoying prejudice that will kill us all in the end. (Probably somewhere in between in reality.)

But look at the social (and sexual) revolutions so far in the country. I mean women's equal rights are still a relatively new thing since 80-something years or whatever; in the grand scheme of things that's not a long time at all.

Now of course the battle is with us gays, and once we have our revolution and we all band together and riot (Because let's be honest, that's the ONLY way this nonsense will go away, the blacks had to do it and what makes us any different?) -- that will be a non-issue as well. Until the next human prejudice comes along and whatnot.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

However I think that, regardless of type, women do at least tend to be more moody and emotional, and men tend to be a bit more emotionally aloof/"logical" simply because of body chemistry.

If it's some sort of natural difference I have no problem with that, however it shouldn't be socially encouraged for the people who aren't naturally that way.

However, I am a 'feelery male' and was always naturally slow at math.

Oh btw, as for the reverse scenerio, women not being taken logically as men, well that isn't so much a human rights issue to me as more of a umm well a professional/industry issue. Obviously science and technology wouldn't develop fast as it could if you had too many stereotypes of women and math. But science and technology and everything that requires a lot of hard, cold logic develops at a faster rate then human rights' issues innyway - so I think focusing on making men being more comfortable with their Lifetime tv sides is more important than making women more comfortable with their macho manly sides. I'm not saying that to be biased, but it just seems to be true objectively.

I mean men are still beaten up/killed for being 'girly' which to me is a lot worse than a female hitting a 'glass ceiling' in her career because she's not perceived as logically-advanced as the men are. Realistically speaking it's better to be a bit poorer and still be alive than to be dead because some insecure males still have so much hatred for men that want to act faggy. Or just are faggy.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Sorry for the triple post, but:

Okay basically it's like this.

I've always wanted to cook/clean and play housewife to a man that was more uh 'type a personality' than me. It's really what I'm good at, I get that from my own father. I love cooking, making people feel relaxed/at home and pleasuring men sexually. I'm a caregiver at heart, and have lots of love. While growing up I always enjoyed those cooking 'house play sets' I remember, I was crazy about them. My parents tried to get me involved in manly man sports but I refused. And like most gay boys I played with dolls and barbies and stuff. =)

Now is that as socially acceptable, in this country, as a woman who has a 'type a personality' and is more assertive/go-gettery. Like Chris Crocker said, it's okay for a woman to wear pants but it's still not okay for a man to wear a dress. That's what it's about, in a nutshell.

I'm just saying everybody, the 'gender equality' thing works both ways.

Now of course it's ALSO true that you shouldn't try to fag up men who are naturally macho and you shouldn't bulldyke-up women who are naturally feminine, either. But they shouldn't pressure the people that are gender/variants, and are third genders like a lot of us. Just treat other people how you want to be treated already and stop telling other people what to do unless they ask you.

It's really about not being so power-obsessed.

[Gilly]

Actually, with regards to men being taken seriously when it comes to emotions, and women being taken less seriously when it comes to logic, I agree. I think it was actually here on the forum that I recently saw an article about a transexual scientist who found a very distinct difference in the way he was treated within the scientific community after becoming male: his ideas were taken more seriously, he was not offhandedly accused of taking credit for other people's work, etc. And also I know from experience that many guys take me "less seriously" when I try to talk about my own emotions, or give other guys emotional advice when they don't directly seek it from me, whereas women are much more receptive in this sense.

[Gilly]

What's the Lawrence Summers argument?

[Gilly]

Interesting.

[Wynch]

Actually, with regards to men being taken seriously when it comes to emotions, and women being taken less seriously when it comes to logic, I agree. I think it was actually here on the forum that I recently saw an article about a transexual scientist who found a very distinct difference in the way he was treated within the scientific community after becoming male: his ideas were taken more seriously, he was not offhandedly accused of taking credit for other people's work, etc. And also I know from experience that many guys take me "less seriously" when I try to talk about my own emotions, or give other guys emotional advice when they don't directly seek it from me, whereas women are much more receptive in this sense.

I think it may have something to do with value place by sig others. Women will value sensitivity in men and can appreciate a certain "metro" quality that comes along with it. On the other hand, logical women who tend towards tomboy are seen as butch and therefore unattractive (in the heterosexual context).

[Wynch]

have you visited the Beta forum recently?

I would say the beta forum is the exception more than the rule. Because beta NF males all want some woman to dominate them anyways, lol.

[JuJu]

this dynamic will manifest a bit differently in Gamma NT than how one might picture it for Beta NF. where in the later case, matters of spatial relations and logical correctness are powerplayed, in the early case the matter is of course more ethical.

Could you link me to where you've gone into this in more detail, if you have, that is?

It's interesting, you know, because I've noticed it in myself... in my last relationship, etc. It's observable, and you've hit it on the head.

Good job.

[Gilly]

I want a woman who WILL dominate me, at times, but generally I like to be dominant...what I want more than anything is someone who will not mind if I sort of "worship" her sexually.

[redbaron]

I want a woman who WILL dominate me, at times, but generally I like to be dominant...what I want more than anything is someone who will not mind if I sort of "worship" her sexually.

I can't imagine this being a problem for any woman.

[Gilly]

I can't imagine this being a problem for any woman.

Well the problem is whether she can ACTUALLY dominate me, mentally and physically.

And, I think you'd be surprised...some women are uncomfortable with the kind of treatment I give sexually; a few of them have just kind of laid there awkwardly while I caress every inch of their body, plant pointed little kisses in sensitive spots...like I'm just doing it to do them some kind of favor, and they think it's overboard. I LOVE doing that kind of shit, but when a girl just lays there, or acts like its her RIGHT...I have a problem with that, and it makes me feel kind of pathetic.

Plus a lot of them don't seem to really appreciate it, or show any signs of reciprocity...they just like that I give them a lot of attention, so it goes to their head and they don't really seem think to much about their part in the whole relationship. Plus I can be kind of clingy, so I need someone who is straightforward about needing their own space/time/whatever.

[Gilly]

Delta is the quadra of moderation in many ways.

Agreed for the win.

[Gilly]

PRECISELY

[Mattie]

Delta is the quadra of moderation in many ways.

Do you mind expanding on this thought? I'm curious


As for my own observations, what has already been said, I agree with mostly. I noticed this particularly with a male SeFi I knew who, I felt, tried to over-compensate for the more feminine aspects of his personality. My NeTi best friend has a lot of "traditionally" male qualities when it comes to relationships, competition, and feelings, to put it crudely. I always take sex & gender into account whenever thinking about someone's type, because sometimes when the society around a person disapproves of innate behaviors, they tend to react a certain way that might be misleading to their actual type.

[FDG]

Yeah, good one on Abrahamovic being peak Ni/Se EJ.

[Gilly]

the latter part of this discussion has been moved to a separate thread:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...or-thread.html

[Ezra]

Do you think that - regardless of type - being female kind of detracts from the effect logical behavior has on people, and being male detracts from the effect that feelery behavior has on people? Like you're more likely to be taken seriously when making a logical argument if you're a man, and more likely to be taken seriously as a woman when raising some kind of ethical objection?

Put it this way: I've never encountered a female who convinced me of something via logic, nor a male who convinced me of something via feeling (however, it must be said that my brother has come close).

Now as regards Socionics, if you think the answer to the question posed above is yes, then do you think that, in order to be taken more seriously, females of a logical type are likely to try to act more feelery, and that males of an ethical type would want to appear more logical, even if it means behaving in a way that doesn't come naturally to either?

I think this is definitely possible. I certainly don't do it, but I think it would be a natural psychological reaction to one's environment to try to act in a way which would mean they gained more credit from their peers.

[discojoe]

In my experience, I tend to feel insecure about simply mouthing off emotionally at something without giving logical reasons, so I tend to detach and try to not let anything get to me, but then when I try to be "logical" or what have you, I end up fumbling for words, speaking slowly, and appearing to lack confidence. That's why Te is so important, as it justifies to me these internal Fi states that I otherwise feel like I need to defend using Euclidean logic.

[calenwen]

Do you think that - regardless of type - being female kind of detracts from the effect logical behavior has on people, and being male detracts from the effect that feelery behavior has on people? Like you're more likely to be taken seriously when making a logical argument if you're a man, and more likely to be taken seriously as a woman when raising some kind of ethical objection?

In college I often found myself trying to convince a lot of people of things -let me take this class even though I didn't take the prerequisite, give me this loan even though my parents won't cosign, get me on this apartment list even though it's past the deadline - and I found that being firm while smiling and giving a few appropriate compliments got me a lot further than logical explanations, arguments and conclusions ever did.
Btw, bending the rules in college is way too easy.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[calenwen]

Hmm. I never did anything like that. I just asked for what I wanted, and if they weren't able to help me, I'd ask who could. Usually this would prompt a person to come up with a solution that would work, or direct me to the person that could make it happen.

It's not uncommon for someone to without me even asking, make arrangements that will work to my advantage. And, I think it's because most people actually do want to be helpful (particularly if it's their job), and are happy when they have been.

I would like to think this! A lot of the people that I was dealing with were used to hearing countless students ask for the the same favors, so I think this probably made it a little different? I'm not sure.

[Ezra]

EZZIE! How could you SAY such things? This is so discriminative. An outrage! You horrible, horrible, big meanie! :frown: Ooooh, Ezzie! I'm so sad!!!!! Can't you look deep inside of yourself to change your views? Think about how what you said makes women feel. HAVE YOU NO HEART!? :frown: :frown:

Or soul.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Wynch]

Put it this way: I've never encountered a female who convinced me of something via logic, nor a male who convinced me of something via feeling (however, it must be said that my brother has come close).

lol, for my brother and I, the opposite is true. He thought that because he's bigger than me now that he can get his way when I'm over at my dad's place, but he forgot that my dad appreciates a good ol' rational argument. Unfortunately for him, I'm far better at constructing a logical appeal than he is.

[Ezra]

lol, for my brother and I, the opposite is true. He thought that because he's bigger than me now that he can get his way when I'm over at my dad's place, but he forgot that my dad appreciates a good ol' rational argument. Unfortunately for him, I'm far better at constructing a logical appeal than he is.

Awesome. Actually, my brother is similar to yours. The problem is, my father appreciates it (even though he is, paradoxically, an ethical type - IEI).