Are men and women naturally different psychologically?

[kora]

My last thread got slightly de-railed (which is good, I like a good de-railing) and made me wonder about this. Many people seem to view the opposite sex as inherently different to their own, the whole "men are from mars, women are from venus thing" is a notion that seems to have permeated society, and leads to people having to force themselves to use "techniques" in order to attract women or men, something which I would have thought (according to evolution and passing on the genes and whatnot) to happen far more naturally and easily than they make it out to be.

Do you think that these differences are inherent or that they have been built by our assignation of gender roles? I read a study somewhere that if someone was told they were holding a baby girl, they would talk to it and hold it differently than if they thought they were holding a baby boy. My question is: if we were to strip down all of societal rules and upbringings, how different would men and women actually be in their ways of thinking?

List factors you think could influence inherent psychological differences such as hormones. Include studies if you think they are relevant.

Oh, and just a couple of rules: Let's try and keep this cool-headed as my experience of this kind of debate is that it can very quickly degenerate into "crazed feminists vs macho morons" and then I lose interest. Oh, and try and limit the sexist jokes, I don't find them offensive, just not that funny (unless it's a really good one you HAVE to write.)

 

[Jennywocky]

There's a lot that could be said about it.

My general opinion (since this is a topic of interest for me personally) is that gender differences are loosely rooted in biology but also involve the interplay of social mores and environmental needs coupled with natural tendencies.

First and foremost, men and women are both human beings, we're remarkably similar obviously being human, and we're even built off the same template. Any differences start occurring (physically) most overtly about five weeks into gestation, when the natural "female" template in males is hit by androgens and males begin to differentiate on a physical basis. But we share many structures at conception that, when the hormone washes occur, either differentiate in non-similar directions OR are absorbed back into the body. The brain also, while starting the same in both sexes, is primed with whatever hormonal makeup is most useful to the biological role of that sex. It's probably not politically correct to say that, but it's a reality in any species -- while both sexes can share parenting duties, females are in a unique position to give birth / lay eggs / feed and mother the young, the males typically are designed to perform other things while the female is doing that. There is no "better than," it just is what it is.

But there are many ways that process can vary and to what degree, and there is also a wide variety of expression among male and females. We all know some women who are more "masculine" (by social standards) than some men; and vice versa. There is overlap. And the society has MANY factors that play into it that end up impacting gender expression, gender roles and expectations in the culture, etc. So both biology and society are interacting, and actual physical environment nowadays is known to impact how genetics express themselves. There's no easy answer.

I would say, though, that a lot of what society says about gender isn't really helpful. I think it can be helpful to look at people and maybe collect information about how various groups seem to work and what comes naturally for them, but it should not be used as a limitation upon individuals in the culture... which unfortunately is what happens with gender roles. "Men can't <do that>, women can't <do that>." It's more useful to say, "We see a lot of women who <operate like this> or <express a particular need>," so how can that help us figure out a good way to interact with each other?" for example. It should not be used to restrict, it should be used to empower.

EDIT: Here's the list of hormonal differences. I think it can be useful to get a baseline on how hormones impact development. There's been a lot of science study done nowadays on the transsexual population, who typically take hormones as teens or even adults; now imagine the original impact in utero on a baby without any normal baseline it has to fight against. So take this list and then intensify it for non-trans people developing from a neutral/female-style template in utero.

Testosterone and androgens in general are very powerful. If you example Female to Male Transsexuals, for example, you'll see some radical changes even in adults who go on T, within a fairly short period of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy_(female-to-male)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy_(male-to-female)

 

[addictedartist]

Yes;Chromosomes
answers in the jeans.

 

[Ink]

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

As a male INTP I relate very much to the brain use described as male and very little to the brain use described as female.

 

[Lot]

There's a lot that could be said about it.

My general opinion (since this is a topic of interest for me personally) is that gender differences are loosely rooted in biology but also involve the interplay of social mores and environmental needs coupled with natural tendencies.

First and foremost, men and women are both human beings, we're remarkably similar obviously being human, and we're even built off the same template. Any differences start occurring (physically) most overtly about five weeks into gestation, when the natural "female" template in males is hit by androgens and males begin to differentiate on a physical basis. But we share many structures at conception that, when the hormone washes occur, either differentiate in non-similar directions OR are absorbed back into the body. The brain also, while starting the same in both sexes, is primed with whatever hormonal makeup is most useful to the biological role of that sex. It's probably not politically correct to say that, but it's a reality in any species -- while both sexes can share parenting duties, females are in a unique position to give birth / lay eggs / feed and mother the young, the males typically are designed to perform other things while the female is doing that. There is no "better than," it just is what it is.

But there are many ways that process can vary and to what degree, and there is also a wide variety of expression among male and females. We all know some women who are more "masculine" (by social standards) than some men; and vice versa. There is overlap. And the society has MANY factors that play into it that end up impacting gender expression, gender roles and expectations in the culture, etc. So both biology and society are interacting, and actual physical environment nowadays is known to impact how genetics express themselves. There's no easy answer.

I would say, though, that a lot of what society says about gender isn't really helpful. I think it can be helpful to look at people and maybe collect information about how various groups seem to work and what comes naturally for them, but it should not be used as a limitation upon individuals in the culture... which unfortunately is what happens with gender roles. "Men can't <do that>, women can't <do that>." It's more useful to say, "We see a lot of women who <operate like this> or <express a particular need>," so how can that help us figure out a good way to interact with each other?" for example. It should not be used to restrict, it should be used to empower.

I would like to echo this.

Some aspects of gender have been really confused, because of personality difference. Also the personality difference idealized by each culture. There is truth in all the gender stereotypes. I think for females with a strong T function, they often struggle with the question of whether there are really any differences between them and men. For them, I would assume that, they have trouble relating with the strong F females and the less T dominant females that enjoy or have accepted their role in society. Men with a strong F have had similar problems in the past, not so much in the last 2 decades, at least in America.

On the other side I've seen women go from one cultural extreme to the other. They may have some "boy" like characteristics (according to cultural standards) and get picked on or people make a joke about them to them (not meaning to hurt them). Then these girls as they get older, get more rebellious, and over time, start acting like a "boy"; and let me tell you, they fit the cultural stereotype better than most men. They often become very militant about it too. Personally it offends me, but what ever it's their life. I've seen them also be either straight or gay. These people aren't really the happiest people, which lends me to think that they aren't happy because they've gone beyond their natural equilibrium of who they are. They've become some sick joke or caricature of cultural norms.

 

[BigApplePi]

Do you think that these differences are inherent or that they have been built by our assignation of gender roles?

After we consider the hormonal and other physical differences, what about the cultural? Here is a personal story. I am male and when I was in my twenties I was very shy but interested in women. I wanted to connect up with a female and had a difficult time in New York City. I was lonely and inevitably met a gay guy. It was clear to me he was gay so, being hetero, I had no sexual interest. I was lonely and he showed me a bit of New York. Secretly and naively I hoped he would pick up on my interest in females and find one for to meet if he was so fond of me. It was a no go. He never even remotely offered me a connection. I was forced to drop him and his friendship and felt badly about it.

Why did I tell this story? Well there are cultural differences between gay males and non gay males. If this made such a big difference in my case, you can imagine what the divide between hetero males and hetero females must be. Regardless of physical differences, there are going to develop common cultural samenesses for females and also for males. The female outlook; the male outlook. This will separate them. Separate but equal? Well even if they were to start out culturally equal, slight initial differences are going to develop simply because of the separation.

higs a further example. Didn't I see a thread of yours today where you were talking about being hit on? That's a further example. I assume you were talking about a class of men. There you go. These men belonged to a group separate from your group (other women who are uncomfortable on being hit on). That makes them different and a cultural piece will develop.

 

[Cognisant]

Jennywocky nailed it.

So why was the question asked in the first place?

If we're concerned about the psychological differences between men and women in terms of them attracting one another, well in that respect they're definitely different, we wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise, and when I (a male) have tried to see things from the perspective of a female, most things make sense, but there are a few things that baffle me.

I'm probably asking the wrong women here (on a internet forum for introverts) but why are women so concerned about social status? I mean what's the appeal of gossip magazines, can anyone explain that to me, I see intelligent level headed women reading them and I just can't understand it, the contents are so inane, heck there's more photos of celebrities in bikinis in a gossip mag then a men's magazine, what's with that?

Likewise I'll try to answer any questions about the oddities of male behaviour as best I can.

 

[kvothe27]

This is just speculation, but wouldn't women be more concerned with social status because the status of their mate in their tribe could be beneficial or detrimental to their offspring? Generally speaking, a man with higher social status is in a better position to provide for his mate and offspring. Concern over the social status of other women in the tribe and competition among women for higher social status males would then make sense.

If this is the case, then the interest in gossip magazines could be considered a byproduct of this adaptation.

Actually, wouldn't gossip magazines be considered the female equivalent of pornography, in some sense? Males look at porn because the females displayed are perceived as being fit. Gossip magazines would then be females sizing up the competition and determining what males are high status. Both activities are apparently byproducts of sexual selection.

 

[~~~]

Perhaps specialisation v diversification has a role too. There is a theory in economics (dare I say it) called the theory of specialisation. The theory says that two (or more) entities benefit more collectively by each specialising at what they are good at rather than not specialising. (I'm sure there will be people that will argue with it but as a broad generalisation if you look in society you will notice that people who specialise to a greater degree tend to be rewarded - eg really good football players.) Diversification is not necessarily rewarded per se but is a risk mitigation factor. So there can be a trade off between specialisation and diversification. One could apply the theory to the discussion too on different levels too.

 

[Tony3d]

My last thread got slightly de-railed (which is good, I like a good de-railing) and made me wonder about this.

I am probably to blame for that...

Many people seem to view the opposite sex as inherently different to their own, the whole "men are from mars, women are from venus thing" is a notion that seems to have permeated society, and leads to people having to force themselves to use "techniques" in order to attract women or men...

When it comes to relationships, men and women naturally want to feel different things, so if you don't fullfill what your gender role must do to make your partner feel complete, then they will feel like they must take on that role.

So in the case of a guy going after a girl, if a guy doesn't take control and make the first move and make logical decisions for the relationship, the girl will have to fill that role, and then she will not feel feminene as a result.

And in general, a guy that doesn't feel masculine won't be happy, and a girl that doesn't feel feminene won't be happy. But this is a generalization and not true 100% of the time.

In general, from what I have observed anyways, a guy needs to be emotionally strong and make his decisions based off of logical, so that a girl can feel safe being emotional, knowing she has that logical safety net to catch her.

I could see this being 10x harder on an INTP girl, since INTPs by nature don't want to feel. But I would theorize that if an INTP girl found a guy she could feel safe letting her Ti gaurd down and just start using Fe, I think that would be love.

As an INTP guy, I would imagine that if I could find a girl that would use her own feelings to draw out that Fe side of me, that I would be in love.


But like I said, this is just a theory of mine. I look foward to any sort of feedback and criticism of it.

...something which I would have thought (according to evolution and passing on the genes and whatnot) to happen far more naturally and easily than they make it out to be.

If personalities were passed on through evolution and the passing of genes, then us INTPs would be extinct by now... Because the only thing more socially akward and less likely to pass on their genes than an INTP male is an INTP female...

INTP males don't like to approach and INTP females don't like to be approached, and both will shy away as soon as any sort of emotions are introduced.

I don't think the problem lies in the overall evolution of the human race, but our very small minority of the population is very messed up by nature, so in order for us to find a suitable partner we must either wait around and rely on a whole lot of luck for something to happen (which is usually going to be less than you diserve, but you will settle because you don't know how to find something better) or we can learn to act against our natural tendancies and imploy the techniques of more socially acceptable types.

 

[snafupants]

Some men are more feminine than most women.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I think the differences in men and women are both inherent and learned behaviors, but more inherent than learned. I mean, we have significant sexual dimorphism. We look different, we have a different combination of hormones on different cycles, and there are physical differences in our brains... to presume we're all really the same deep down ignores that fact that, no, we're not. I certainly prefer being a man, but I'd say there's a good chance it's because I am one and I like me. Neither is objectively better or worse, we're simply different.

 

[BigApplePi]

I certainly prefer being a man, but I'd say there's a good chance it's because I am one and I like me.

That sounds biased and sexist. If you were born a woman, would you prefer being one?

 

[SpaceYeti]

That sounds biased and sexist. If you were born a woman, would you prefer being one?

Maybe. Assuming I retain personality, I'd have probably had a slutty phase, gotten hurt, and then waited for guys to prove themselves before giving them a chance. I'd also probably have hung out with the same people, since I get along with them better as things are. Unfortunately, I'd have probably dated some of my current friends, and that would add to the complexity of the currently simple friendships.

 

[snafupants]

You really can't generalize too much - some women should rightfully be deemed men and vice versa.

To some degree, gender is culturally constructed.

 

[crippli]

Some information here

It seems though, that there are differences due to hormones, and it's associated genome, that is a dosage instruction. Doesn't say the affect from environment, when the brain forms.

Controlling the dosage isn't so easy. But when your brain is feminized, or masculinized. The environment in this brain forming process(start of puberty) is perhaps rather deterministic on who you will become.

*One note I find somewhat interesting is that autistic females tend to have some masculine characteristics compared to a control group. While male autistics seems to have some feminine traits compared to the control group. So these seems to be more balanced, perhaps their brains are less permeated by sex hormones, and hence why they often see things more clearly.

Anyway. It's important to note that we just talk about drug dosage. All hormones are the same in any human. Not sure about the effects of synthesized hormones, if these are of the same quality. We do get a lot of these in our body by everyday products. For sure, these will also change us.

 

[Lot]

to presume we're all really the same deep down ignores that fact that, no, we're not.

That just might be the best way that anyone has ever put it. I'm so glad you're posting regularly again.

 

[snafupants]

to presume we're all really the same deep down ignores that fact that, no, we're not.

From what perspective are people not the same deep down?!

Physiological? From the framing that would be my guess. That's not really deep down.

What does "deep down" mean to you? I personally feel you're wrong.

 

[crippli]

I think it's the same 'deep down'. But I feel it's safe to say you will be affected differently if you use amphetamine to alcohol in small and large quantities.

That is I think all there is to it. The rest are results.

 

[snafupants]

I think it's the same 'deep down'. But I feel it's safe to say you will be affected differently if you use amphetamine to alcohol in small and large quantities.

That is I think all there is to it. The rest are results.

Well, once one stable definition of "deep down" prevails, that concept can be analyzed.

Until then, people are going to move those proverbial goalposts and call themselves correct.

 

[SpaceYeti]

From what perspective are people not the same deep down?!

Physiological? From the framing that would be my guess. That's not really deep down.

What does "deep down" mean to you? I personally feel you're wrong.

Deep down would be our basic functionality framework. I can not and will not claim we're essentially a different species, but men tend to have more in common than they have in common with women, and women tend to have more in common with other women than with men. Women talk more, they can multitask better, etc, whereas men focus more on one task at a time, and use less words. I haven't really looked into this stuff in a long time, but try some googling action to verify it.

 

[koan]

One of the most enlightening moments I've had regards to male/female approaches to the world was in watching the film "Raise The Red Lantern"

There is more than one way.

Those born women know better than to assign a nature to our gender.

 

[Tony3d]

One of the most enlightening moments I've had regards to male/female approaches to the world was in watching the film "Raise The Red Lantern"

There is more than one way.

Those born women know better than to assign a nature to our gender.

That was just vague enough to spark my interest...

 

[SpaceYeti]

It was vague enough for me to not care. I don't know anything about whatever she's on about, but even if it has merit, and it points out that women are not a certain way by necessity, that there are exceptions to the tendencies, then duh. The Sexes being different is not a hard rule, but much more tendency. It's about as hard a line as gender itself is. Granting we have transsexuals, homosexuals, and all this other stuff, of course differences based on sex aren't a given in any particular individual.

 

[Tony3d]

It was vague enough for me to not care. I don't know anything about whatever she's on about, but even if it has merit, and it points out that women are not a certain way by necessity, that there are exceptions to the tendencies, then duh. The Sexes being different is not a hard rule, but much more tendency. It's about as hard a line as gender itself is. Granting we have transsexuals, homosexuals, and all this other stuff, of course differences based on sex aren't a given in any particular individual.

Vague things make me curious.

Though I beleive that a large enough percentage of the female population follows certain geneder roles for it to be a viable strategy to approach all as such. If I do run into one that doesn't fit those rules, then I would have to adapt accordingly.

Any girl that doesn't follow the female gender role probably wouldn't be interested in a guy like me, so I would probably just become friends with them. They are probably awesome people, but we wouldn't have any chemistry if I tried to persue on an intimate level.


But like I said, I am just waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

 

[BigApplePi]

I'd have probably dated some of my current friends, and that would add to the complexity of the currently simple friendships.

I know advice is cheap, but I'd advise you not to tell your male friends you imagined being a woman and dating them. Your call, but that was a fair reply.

 

[Minuend]

Some studies show that men talk more, others that women do. Multi-tasking is not something humans are good at. They think they are concentrating on two things at once, but in reality they are just jumping from one task to the other, reducing the focus on both tasks. Though, interestingly enough, it turns out multi-tasking gives humans more satisfaction from working, even though they do a worse job. I guess the feeling of mastery is more important than actual mastery.

/random

 

[BigApplePi]

Well, once one stable definition of "deep down" prevails, that concept can be analyzed.

Until then, people are going to move those proverbial goalposts and call themselves correct.

Here's a try for "deepdown." Men and women have a common interest in family, meals, friendships, offspring, community happenings. These things may not be looked at the same way, but they are common interests which are deep enough to be shared.

 

[kora]

Here's a try for "deepdown." Men and women have a common interest in family, meals, friendships, offspring, community happenings. These things may not be looked at the same way, but they are common interests which are deep enough to be shared.

I would knock it down to two things: An inclination to pass on genes/leave a mark, and an awareness of one's eventual death. That's actually quite alot in common if you think about it

 

[Tony3d]

No one want to prove me wrong?

That makes Tony a sad robot...

 

[kora]

@Tony3d

Prove you wrong with what? With the idea that you need a set of rules to interact with the people of the opposite gender?

 

[Niclmaki]

Yes;Chromosomes
answers in the jeans.

lol, I like this.

 

[Tony3d]

@Tony3d

Prove you wrong with what? With the idea that you need a set of rules to interact with the people of the opposite gender?

Well, if I were an ENTP, I would be argueing a point because I want you to beleive what I have come to beleive as true.

But I am not an ENTP, I am an INTP, and the only reason that I would bother to argue a point is because I feel the need to test my theory, a need to sharpen my logic against the logic of others to give me a more complete understanding of the theory that I have presented, but am still not 100% sure about.

I think an INTP is always more likely to argue for the sake of proving or confirming a point to oneself as oppsed to ever really careing if they convince anyone else of anything.



But anyways, I thought that my generalization of the female gender role would have at least got a bit of an argument from the INTP ladies on here, since I think it is quite contradictory to the INTP thought process.

I must admit, I have almost zero understanding of INTP females, because most of my assumptions are based on the fact that most women are emotional.

 

[kora]

Well, if I were an ENTP, I would be argueing a point because I want you to beleive what I have come to beleive as true.

But I am not an ENTP, I am an INTP, and the only reason that I would bother to argue a point is because I feel the need to test my theory, a need to sharpen my logic against the logic of others to give me a more complete understanding of the theory that I have presented, but am still not 100% sure about.

I think an INTP is always more likely to argue for the sake of proving or confirming a point to oneself as oppsed to ever really careing if they convince anyone else of anything.



But anyways, I thought that my generalization of the female gender role would have at least got a bit of an argument from the INTP ladies on here, since I think it is quite contradictory to the INTP thought process.

I must admit, I have almost zero understanding of INTP females, because most of my assumptions are based on the fact that most women are emotional.

The female INTP's here can't really argue back to you about this or "prove you wrong", because we know that we are a rarer type (apparently) and don't conform so much to the generalizations in question. I am unsure to what extent generalizations are true. I don't like them personally because I know many of them do not apply to me, but I don't know what it's like to be anybody else. I can't give you anything but a biased view.
What Jennywocky stated rang very true:


"I would say, though, that a lot of what society says about gender isn't really helpful. I think it can be helpful to look at people and maybe collect information about how various groups seem to work and what comes naturally for them, but it should not be used as a limitation upon individuals in the culture... "

The trouble is, as soon as loads of people make a generalization, it does lead to individuals being limited, I also think it leads to more people conforming to the generalizations in order to fit in with society better. Hence my wish that people just acted how they wanted to act without categorizing themselves or others. I realize that this is idealistic however, and that the easiest road is just to apply them and work within them, it simplifies people and simplifies the process of interaction. You know yourself (apparently) that if you do certain things it gets certain reactions within a large percent of the female population. I also know that if I do certain things it gets a certain reactions within a large percent of the male population. I'm just not interested in doing them because it's boring and I know (more or less) what's going to happen.

It's difficult to argue on such personal matters

 

[Minuend]

No one want to prove me wrong?

That makes Tony a sad robot...

It's probably because your perspective is so fundamentally flawed and black/ white that it will take ages to go into it. And even if someone makes one concise, good point, you'll just keep argumenting for what you believe. It's useless, you are human.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I know advice is cheap, but I'd advise you not to tell your male friends you imagined being a woman and dating them. Your call, but that was a fair reply.

Why? I might get a date if they know.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Some studies show that men talk more, others that women do. Multi-tasking is not something humans are good at. They think they are concentrating on two things at once, but in reality they are just jumping from one task to the other, reducing the focus on both tasks. Though, interestingly enough, it turns out multi-tasking gives humans more satisfaction from working, even though they do a worse job. I guess the feeling of mastery is more important than actual mastery.

/random

All I can find are studies showing women talk more, and studies showing there's no significant difference. None I can find say men talk more.

And being master multi-taskers is not the claim, merely being better at it. Women, that is.

 

[Tony3d]

It's probably because your perspective is so fundamentally flawed and black/ white that it will take ages to go into it. And even if someone makes one concise, good point, you'll just keep argumenting for what you believe. It's useless, you are human.

How can a perspective be wrong?

Just because you say it is so and no other reason?

 

[SpaceYeti]

How can a perspective be wrong?

Just because you say it is so and no other reason?

A perspective which does not accurately represent reality, when it's a perspective with the purpose of representing reality, is wrong. If you perceived that the moon were a giant ball of garlic, for example, your perception would be wrong.

 

[Jennywocky]

I am probably to blame for that...
When it comes to relationships, men and women naturally want to feel different things, so if you don't fullfill what your gender role must do to make your partner feel complete, then they will feel like they must take on that role.

So in the case of a guy going after a girl, if a guy doesn't take control and make the first move and make logical decisions for the relationship, the girl will have to fill that role, and then she will not feel feminene as a result.

And in general, a guy that doesn't feel masculine won't be happy, and a girl that doesn't feel feminene won't be happy. But this is a generalization and not true 100% of the time.

　
I agree it is a generalization. I think it applies to the GENERAL population of men and women, but there is some variance and also some minority segments (like INTP women) where it is not nearly as strong.
　
I say this as an INTP female who finds it difficult to find guys who I can please because I don't bolster their egos in the way that non-INTP women do. Ironically, the best relationship I have had (where I actually felt happy) was with an INFP guy where we could trade off a bit; there were some situations where I very much wanted a male presence that I could respond to, but at the same time sometimes he would initiate the emotional aspects of the relationship where I could play the more rational side of the relationship and keep things grounded.
　
Note that I also do not identify as a "man" even if culturally I have aspects to my personality that have been labeled as masculine. Maybe that is where people get confused about some kinds of non-traditionally feminine women. I actually LIKE to be treated as a woman -- not talked down with my intelligence, and not treated like I can't take care of myself or am not competent, but I actually DO like guys who look out for me and care for me and take the initiative with the relationship from their end rather than expecting me to supply all the relational and emotional aspects.

(The INFP was really good about this, he was really sweet; he was one of the few people I didn't have to be so STRONG around all the time, I could let myself explore how I was feeling because I was safe with him and knew he'd look out for me.)

In return, I feel good about actually affirming a guy's masculinity and will give him space to be all those masculine things, and give myself in ways to support what he wants to do and feel good about that. I'm just not big on guys who feel the need to diminish or restrict my competence or independence in order to make themselves more masculine; there's an understanding that I can definitely take care of myself and shine in my own way but that I am investing in him out of love. The reality, also, is that sometimes it feels lonely to be so self-sufficient, and I like it when someone cares and looks out for me even if I won't ask for it.

I could see this being 10x harder on an INTP girl, since INTPs by nature don't want to feel. But I would theorize that if an INTP girl found a guy she could feel safe letting her Ti gaurd down and just start using Fe, I think that would be love.

I dismissed feeling more when I was younger and before I had much life experience. But life itself has a way to showing you what you need to be happy. I can relate to making a progression from a totally "rational" approach to one that integrates emotions and desire and love into how I relate. I can even be giddy and sappy and crazy in the right moments; and since my ego is not wrapped up in my intellect anymore more per se, I can even afford to let a guy take more lead there, as I can be fulfilled in various ways... as long as he realizes how smart I am and doesn't need to talk down to me.

If personalities were passed on through evolution and the passing of genes, then us INTPs would be extinct by now... Because the only thing more socially akward and less likely to pass on their genes than an INTP male is an INTP female...

Meh. You mistake "ideal mating" with the raw ability to have sex. In the past, love was not a part of much of the picture of birthing children. You ended up with someone for either pragmatic or social reasons regardless of personality, and to reproduce offspring, all you needed to do was have sex. Personality doesn't mean you never will have sex, and sex is all you need to have in order to pass on your genes. Even idiots can have a baby... unfortunately.

INTP males don't like to approach and INTP females don't like to be approached, and both will shy away as soon as any sort of emotions are introduced.

I think that's an extreme comment and only applies to very young INTPs or INTPs who are stuck and not growing psychologically. I would hope people become more expansive and diverse as they age, rather than remaining obsessively locked within one narrow framework of how to approach life. I think once people get experience about what works and what doesn't work, they either abandon relationships or they change in ways to find the kind of relationship they really want. And when you have thrown in your lot with someone and even "love" them, you also find yourself willing to change on things that in the past might have been beyond you.

To address "don't like to be approached," I would say I don't like to be approached by morons. That's about as blunt as I can make it.

Conventional pickup lines mean little to me. Don't use a formula. If you want to approach me, be relevant, be self-depricating, be amusing, be imaginative, and be thoughtful. (I don't mean that in an extreme way, but I will go for guys who do all those kinds of things instinctively.) Also seem interested in me as something more than a snack. I'm really real and down to earth and laid-back, but I respond best to well-rounded guys who have nothing to prove.

I don't think the problem lies in the overall evolution of the human race, but our very small minority of the population is very messed up by nature, so in order for us to find a suitable partner we must either wait around and rely on a whole lot of luck for something to happen (which is usually going to be less than you diserve, but you will settle because you don't know how to find something better) or we can learn to act against our natural tendancies and imploy the techniques of more socially acceptable types.

Well, "actually changing" is another option. Just because there are natural tendencies that get in the way doesn't preclude one actually changing, over time, after practicing some not-so-natural tendencies. Life will change you if you let it.

No one want to prove me wrong?

That makes Tony a sad robot...

Hope that helps.


And don't be such a robot, I don't want to carry around the damn oil can for every time you rust down...

 

[Fukyo]

The biggest problem is the uncertainty between correlation and causation. The anecdotal observation of female vs. male behavior is based purely on correlation.

Once we acknowledge the differences on the physiological level, we have to ask

1)which psychological manifestations are caused by which physiological difference, do they even influence the commonly observed differences?
2)to what degree
3)what are the other compounding causes (it's unlikely the cause is single and uniform)
4)what are other factors that could lead to false attribution

...etc, etc.

We might observe that men do x, but does being a male cause the individual to to exhibit the behavior or tendency?

There's not a solid answer to these questions from a scientific point as far as I know, and indeed many studies are based on animals or self-report and correlation, not to mention that research on humans that would actually be elucidating is probably unethical. Psychological tendencies, I'd say, in general arise from multiple factors. While I'd say that there's a good chance that sexual hormones can set the stage and predispose toward certain behaviors I still think that social conditioning is also likely to be a very significant factor which contributes to observation of many stereotypical behaviors.

I've read that young brain is susceptible to structural and hormonal changes due to plasticity. Granted, these studies were about a predisposition to depression and anxiety, but I'd be interesting if social conditioning in respect to gender has any similar effect. Incidentally, I read something related to this on a different forum, but don't have a reference at hand.

The hormonal effect is due to the sexual relationship dynamic. Certain aspects (voice pitch, muscle tone, bone density, fat disposition, adrenal responses) would change with a shifted hormonal state. Those are irrespective of social context. So the physiological (especially their look) is down to the physiological adaptation effects in relationships. Hormone levels change and adapt in people that form a romantic relationship. Over time, they adapt to each other, and it's not just the sex hormones either. The entire slate of stress and other assorted ones (plenty of which we don't even know exist yet; they've found a new one about once a year for the past few decades, though it's rendered the meaning kind of vague as a result) will adapt along compatibility and subconscious mental suppression lines.

As one member of a romantic relationship takes on a further dominant role, their Testosterone levels will rise and their Estrogen levels suppress. The inverse happens to the submissive in a relationship. Though the effects are much greater after it becomes sexual in nature. This is all going to be out of the context of any society. (In a few societies, this actually leads to the situation where the dominant male isn't considered gay, though that leads to a whole separate Old World issue about prepubescent males being the best sexual partners)

So the physical effects would still be the same (dependent upon nutrition), but some of the displays would definitely only happen inside certain social contexts. The hormones are associational, not determinative. The submissive male would take on the feminine aspects of the society from which he came and that were effective on the dominant male, in the isolated case. (You can't ever remove social origin from people) If you put them on an island, the relationship would likely have different sets of displays than any other major society, but you could still tell the dominant one in the relationship.

Here are some links for @higs

http://www.cracked.com/article_18760_6-things-everyone-knows-about-women-that-arent-true.html

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/09/men-women-and-spatial-intelligence.html

 

[Jennywocky]

I'm probably asking the wrong women here (on a internet forum for introverts) but why are women so concerned about social status? I mean what's the appeal of gossip magazines, can anyone explain that to me, I see intelligent level headed women reading them and I just can't understand it, the contents are so inane, heck there's more photos of celebrities in bikinis in a gossip mag then a men's magazine, what's with that?

Hmmm... I do read the covers of those, and can sometimes explore the online gossip rags -- I'm marginally interested in who is with who and whatever else -- but it's more about information to me, just as much as knowing what new Android phone OS has been released or how the USA did on Day #5 of the Olympics (for example). And I know a bunch of geek stuff too, to the same degree. A programmer here at work said his daughter was down in Puerto Rico at Arecibo (she's doing a thesis project), and I said, "Oh, that's the dish that was in Contact," and then he said, "yes, and a James Bond movie," and I said, "GoldenEye, I think." Even though I've never seen GoldenEye. So we had this great convo about it, and he said almost no one knows that when he brings it up; I just said, "well, i'm kind of a geek," and laughed.

There's a degree of personalization that many women seem to have. Go to a family gathering, and we (maybe not me, per se, but many women) like natter on about who is doing what and where. My mother is one of the least intrusive people I know, and yet when I talk to her, our conversation invariably revolves around people and what they are doing and who they are with, blah blah blah. For women who are less introverted, I could see it easily expanding to the social gossip.

I actually enojy reading Glamour though. *blush* I mean, maybe that's my "detached" form of it. I like seeing what accessories and makeup and shoes and outfits are in style even if I don't wear them, just to get a sense of the trends; and some of the snippets of info in the articles interest me. I just don't much care to gossip about individuals, even if I know their business from the news. But with other women, sometimes it gets a little crazy when they start talking about so-and-so, and what they're doing with their life, and whether that's good or bad or screwed up, etc. Many women focus on the details of a person's life (rather than more detached or esoteric subjects), as well as the impact on their relationships. Whether this is all from bio or simply from cultural upbringing (since women often handle more of the day-to-day of the kids and HAVE to pay attention/become sensitive to such things) remains to be seen.

That sounds biased and sexist. If you were born a woman, would you prefer being one?

I prefer being a woman, but that doesn't mean that I prefer some of the social limitations of being one. I think one is happiest in their own identity, even if there are limitations imposed by the environment because of it; but I know some people are more flexible.

All I can find are studies showing women talk more, and studies showing there's no significant difference. None I can find say men talk more.

That matches with what I've seen. I think the topic also might impact on the talking level. But I haven't seen any consistent claims that MEN talk more; the argument is typically whether women talk more, or whether the genders talk about the same overall.

And being master multi-taskers is not the claim, merely being better at it. Women, that is.

It's difficult to evaluate such things neutrally, and I think in today's culture women are required to multitask more often. The only support off-hand I can find to support that is that women's brains have a thicker connection between the hemispheres, and our processing centers tend to be more equally distributed so that a stroke might not hit us as hard as it will hit a man (who is more localized in his particular brain functions).

 

[InvisibleJim]

Yes

 

[Tony3d]

　
I agree it is a generalization. I think it applies to the GENERAL population of men and women, but there is some variance and also some minority segments (like INTP women) where it is not nearly as strong.

Of course it doesn't, nor should it, apply to every individual. I am just making broad assumptions based on patterns I see.
　

I say this as an INTP female who finds it difficult to find guys who I can please because I don't bolster their egos in the way that non-INTP women do. Ironically, the best relationship I have had (where I actually felt happy) was with an INFP guy where we could trade off a bit; there were some situations where I very much wanted a male presence that I could respond to, but at the same time sometimes he would initiate the emotional aspects of the relationship where I could play the more rational side of the relationship and keep things grounded.

I think I have a base understanding of this. I get what you are saying, but as a highly logical male, I don't think I could ever fully understand the dynamic of how an emotional man and a rational woman would work.

Note that I also do not identify as a "man" even if culturally I have aspects to my personality that have been labeled as masculine. Maybe that is where people get confused about some kinds of non-traditionally feminine women. I actually LIKE to be treated as a woman -- not talked down with my intelligence, and not treated like I can't take care of myself or am not competent, but I actually DO like guys who look out for me and care for me and take the initiative with the relationship from their end rather than expecting me to supply all the relational and emotional aspects.

In a lot of ways it is a total swap of gender roles (or at least my idea of what gender roles are), but in a lot of ways it seems to be exactly the same as with a rational man and emotional woman.


I must make further observations and do some more thinking to further developing my knowledge.

(The INFP was really good about this, he was really sweet; he was one of the few people I didn't have to be so STRONG around all the time, I could let myself explore how I was feeling because I was safe with him and knew he'd look out for me.)

This is exactly what I look for from a woman...

So back to the original topic, we really arn't so different in that regards.

In return, I feel good about actually affirming a guy's masculinity and will give him space to be all those masculine things, and give myself in ways to support what he wants to do and feel good about that. I'm just not big on guys who feel the need to diminish or restrict my competence or independence in order to make themselves more masculine; there's an understanding that I can definitely take care of myself and shine in my own way but that I am investing in him out of love. The reality, also, is that sometimes it feels lonely to be so self-sufficient, and I like it when someone cares and looks out for me even if I won't ask for it.

Only an insecure person would feel the need to diminish someone else to feel good about themselves.

Coming from the perspective of a guy that has almost exclusively gone after feeling dominant women, I look at it more as me being a rational/logical safety net to have her back as she goes and explores whatever lofty emotional ideas she may have.

I see it kindof like what I do at work. I am not a programmer or an artist, but something in between. But I work with a lot of artist, and when I do I find it to be best if I let them go off on whatever crazy lofty ideas they may have, while I simply back them up by providing the core system that allows their stuff to work and keeping them aware of when their ideas have strayed too far and are in danger of creating problems for the overall project.

I am more than willing to let them take the lead because I very much value that they have an understanding of things that I don't. I am happiest when I can just watch have their back and use my logic to turn their lofty ideas into reality.

I think that's an extreme comment and only applies to very young INTPs or INTPs who are stuck and not growing psychologically. I would hope people become more expansive and diverse as they age, rather than remaining obsessively locked within one narrow framework of how to approach life.

Well, "actually changing" is another option. Just because there are natural tendencies that get in the way doesn't preclude one actually changing, over time, after practicing some not-so-natural tendencies. Life will change you if you let it.

I have spent years trying to work toward a much better version of myself, but in the end have only created an even greater seperation between my TiNe self and my FeSi self...

I have lived as a false extrovert, I have forsaken my logic and taken on the form of an ESFJ, and now I am trying to solve things by going back to what I am best with, using pure logic.

My Fe has been so hurt from my past mistakes of trying to bring it out that now I feel like I must protect it with layers of logical walls I set up.

The more I change the more confused I get. But I guess that is just a side effect of my journey to someday be good enough.

Hope that helps.


And don't be such a robot, I don't want to carry around the damn oil can for every time you rust down...

That does help, it gives me a lot more to think about and some clarification on some things I was not really sure about.

Thanks



Sad robots don't cry, because robots that cry always rust.

 

[kora]

Yes

Could you expand on that?

 

[crippli]

I think perhaps the answer to this question lies within one self. There are a lot of attempts at objectivity in this thread. But I get the impression that objectivity would be too far away to reach. So it comes down to what yourself consider to be differences and how important they are.

As a self monitoring test. If you have a child, say 5 years old. Dress him or her(the sex would be irrelevant) up on a warm day in real slutty clothes. High heels, bad make up, ripped stockings etc. Now, monitor yourself and your environment for reactions. The only rational consideration would be against weather. That is really the only reason rationally to use clothes. So these clothes would be okay, on a warm day, rationally. But people are not rational. One can think rationally, but actually be rational? I don't think there are many people who can do that. Perhaps one can find some at the home for the batshit crazies.

And because there are all these "meanings" we wouldn't do this to our 5 year old. Because irrationality and it's effects are very much real.

What I'm trying to say is that actual differences are irrelevant, they drown completely in social irrationality.

 

[Jennywocky]

Of course it doesn't, nor should it, apply to every individual. I am just making broad assumptions based on patterns I see.

We're on the same page there. I just like to clarify up front, so people understand I'm not refuting their broad ideas necessarily, I'm just clarifying some points.
　

I think I have a base understanding of this. I get what you are saying, but as a highly logical male, I don't think I could ever fully understand the dynamic of how an emotional man and a rational woman would work.

That's okay. There are many things each of us might not understand (like what it means growing up black in South Africa or as an Asian girl stuck in the slave trade), but we are still able to somewhat understand by comparing experiences. I don't really understand how men in general work, even if I have some patterns in my thinking that occur more often with men.

But I think you captured it with your next comment:

In a lot of ways it is a total swap of gender roles (or at least my idea of what gender roles are), but in a lot of ways it seems to be exactly the same as with a rational man and emotional woman.

Yes, some of the patterns are very similar, just with the externals changed. Yet at the core of it, there are still desires I have as a woman that women seem to express in general but that men are less likely to express. it's kind of a weird overlay, I don't think I'll totally ever get my brain around it.

My INFP guy and I only fought a few times before the breakup, but one was because he felt I was cold/indifferent to him when he lost his job and didn't say "the right words" to him to help him know that it mattered to me. (We weren't living together, we just saw each other every other weekend and talked a lot online/text.) This seems to be more something you'd expect from a woman complaining about her boyfriend.

For my part, I did care, but he wasn't giving me cues that told me that he was badly hurting about it -- he was smothering his feelings about it, so I just went with what he was and wasn't doing and respect the distance I thought HE was projecting -- but I was expected to read his mind.

Yet in how we engaged each other, he was really good at reading my feelings when we were around, and I loved it when he took charge (not in an overbearing way) and gave me something to respond to. Maybe "initiative" is a better word; I would do little things for him, but I was looking for emotional affirmation from him. It was like watching one of those silly Disney romances for teens, it was so cliche at times (I had a lot of "foot popping" experiences with him, right out of the Princess Diaries). My thinking side came out more in that I did not hold it against him if I never told him I felt bad about something, because I was being "fair" -- but often he just knew. Very much the kind of dynamic you see in the average man and woman as teens, where the boy initiates and the girl responds intensely to that initiation and also does what she can to give and support the boy.

Dynamics are so complicated.

I must make further observations and do some more thinking to further developing my knowledge.

I'm still learning. Maybe that's why I'm so fascinated by it. When I figure something out completely, it gets boring. But this kind of thing is complicated enough based on context that it will always provide more opportunity to learn.

This is exactly what I look for from a woman...
So back to the original topic, we really arn't so different in that regards.

Not in some ways, no. I mean, we've got men and women hanging out here on the INTP forum (and over at PersCafe too, there are more female INTPs there). We hang out because we feel understood to some degree in how we think and frame things. But there's still some differences. It's just harder to predict; I think in the general population, there's a larger gap between "typical male vs female" behavior.

Only an insecure person would feel the need to diminish someone else to feel good about themselves.

Agreed. That is why I would withdraw from a man who I sensed had that pattern of interaction; I don't want to deal with his insecurity. And I try hard to not let my own insecurities impact how I would relate to a guy.

Coming from the perspective of a guy that has almost exclusively gone after feeling dominant women, I look at it more as me being a rational/logical safety net to have her back as she goes and explores whatever lofty emotional ideas she may have.

And there I think you have settled on one of the potential problems for strongly T women. What i notice is that T women often seem to end up with F guys; if she is with a T guy, she needs to develop more F because he is rather expecting her to bring that to the table and it's far less likely he'll choose to do it. Really T guys seem to go for really F girls; I could be wrong, but that's what I think I have seen.

Since I can't handle all the pressures of being really F just to support a mate, I typically find a better balance with F guys; we better fill each other's mutual needs. I'm relational, but I can't seem to do what many of my female F peers seem to do in terms of extroverting it and taking responsibility for the entire relationship emotionally; it would feel unfair to me.

I see it kind of like what I do at work. I am not a programmer or an artist, but something in between. But I work with a lot of artist, and when I do I find it to be best if I let them go off on whatever crazy lofty ideas they may have, while I simply back them up by providing the core system that allows their stuff to work and keeping them aware of when their ideas have strayed too far and are in danger of creating problems for the overall project.

Good example. And that's a wonderful way to approach it, that's great management.

I am more than willing to let them take the lead because I very much value that they have an understanding of things that I don't. I am happiest when I can just watch have their back and use my logic to turn their lofty ideas into reality.

I like that. Honestly, that's a great way to approach it.

I have spent years trying to work toward a much better version of myself, but in the end have only created an even greater seperation between my TiNe self and my FeSi self...

I have lived as a false extrovert, I have forsaken my logic and taken on the form of an ESFJ, and now I am trying to solve things by going back to what I am best with, using pure logic.

My Fe has been so hurt from my past mistakes of trying to bring it out that now I feel like I must protect it with layers of logical walls I set up.

The more I change the more confused I get. But I guess that is just a side effect of my journey to someday be good enough.

I've been there too, doing the Fe thing, to the point where I used to be in positions of responsibility to mediate/monitor things. But I had to quit doing that recently and rediscover myself. I was losing sense of who I was. I think people don't read me as such a "nice" person as I used to be read, but I feel happier and more honest in how I engage now; I can be very polite and understanding when it suits my purposes (and I do actually care broadly about other people, and even have affection for some that I am closer to), but I can also be blunt and not just play social games in order to keep everything calm. Sometimes people just need to hear what I think and deal with it, either way... just as I need to hear what they think.

So I feel like I have less friends in some ways, but I'm happier with myself. Any aspect of personality taken to an extreme can become a "false self" in some ways; I think adaptation is a useful quality, but not when it is a betrayal of oneself. It took me years to learn that -- that I didn't really know who I was, because I never let myself just act naturally so as to figure out who I was naturally.

ANyway, it can be a confusing journey. One thing I found is that, because I was trying to do something different (e.g., just let myself respond "naturally" to something), it actually felt wrong for awhile. I had no idea of what I was doing, I was just feeling it out. So... don't give up, give yourself some leeway to make mistakes and try something new.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Could you expand on that?

I think I can.

A persons psychology is influenced by physiological conditions. There are hormonal differences between men and women. These are not 'bad or good' hormones, merely different hormones which leads to alternative behaviours and learnings which impact an individuals psychology.

This idea assumes a bimodal model of sexuality.

It's a little bit pointless trying to round MBTI on this paradigm. MBTI stipulates 16 archetypal types none of which consider the true psychology of individuals merely the 'averaged' attributes. In addition people fit into 16 categories as a best fit; not an identical fit.

This doesn't stop us drawing useful conclusions from this level of subdivision; infact the most useful conclusions are often drawn through the smallest number of divisions and the alternate ways of mapping these divisions.

 

[PhoenixRising]

There really aren't any intrinsic differences between males and females. Differences in psychology are rooted in type, the question is what is your specific brain structure, not what gender you are.

For every male, there is at least one female with an identical psychology, and the same for every female. There is no such thing as being truly unique. For the more common psychological types, there are likely many exact copies of each individual, with the same general appearance, likes and dislikes, communication style, thoughts and thought processes, emotional reactions, etc. The only thing that would differentiate these individuals would be their specific genetics and memories.

I did see a study that found that males tend to have more grey matter in their brains, while females have more white matter. This would indicate that males tend to think in a more compartmentalized fashion, while females are better with abstract thinking. This is a very general analysis, however. Some test subjects showed inverted results, males with relatively more white matter and females with more grey. Psychological type was not taken into consideration in this study.

 

[Tony3d]

I'm still learning. Maybe that's why I'm so fascinated by it. When I figure something out completely, it gets boring. But this kind of thing is complicated enough based on context that it will always provide more opportunity to learn.

That is the same thing that drew me to art. It was far more of a challenge to understand than more concrete subjects, and even if I had a thousand years to study it, I would probably still never fully understand. But trying to break down the logic behind it brings me much joy.

I feel the same about people, I will never really be able to understand other people, but studying how they work truly amazes me.

Contrary to most INTPs I have met, deep down in my Fe there is a very strong love for all of mankind. Though, it is only from a distance.

And there I think you have settled on one of the potential problems for strongly T women. What i notice is that T women often seem to end up with F guys; if she is with a T guy, she needs to develop more F because he is rather expecting her to bring that to the table and it's far less likely he'll choose to do it. Really T guys seem to go for really F girls; I could be wrong, but that's what I think I have seen.

Since I can't handle all the pressures of being really F just to support a mate, I typically find a better balance with F guys; we better fill each other's mutual needs. I'm relational, but I can't seem to do what many of my female F peers seem to do in terms of extroverting it and taking responsibility for the entire relationship emotionally; it would feel unfair to me.

It only seems natural to me that a Thinking type would want to be in a relationship with a Feeling type. I would feel incomplete in a relationship with two Thinking types.



What I look for is a girl that can take initiative when it comes to emotional things, and through her emotions allow me to feel safe expressing my own emotions. Basically giving me the opportunity to let down those walls around my Fe.

It is my job to take care of the logistical things such as approaching her, initiate topics in conversation, set up dates, and basically take care of that end of things so she is free to just feel good and have fun.

I am by no means saying that I take control of things to the point where she has no say. It is just more of a responsibility that is on my shoulder, to make sure this stuff gets taken care of. In my eyes it has nothing to do with control.

In return I want her to share that ability to feel by opening up feelings inside of me, that I am not nearly mature enough in my emotions to initiate.



I don't know how many other Thinking types feel this way, but I would think it is a good amount of them. Then again, maybe it has a lot to do with the fact that I have a strong but very immature Fe side that I don't feel like I can let out.

I guess a more mature INTP who has a better grasp on his Fe probably wouldn't view things in such a way, and could probably have a very successfull relationship with another Thinking type.

In the future I truly hope that I am not so reliant on someone else to help me bring out my own emotions, but I guess untill I mature a bit more I will always be drawn to women that are very feeling by nature.



I don't see why it would be much different for a female INTP or any Thinking type with a guy that is a very Feeling type. I know a lot of guys that get stressed out dealing with the logistics of relationships and just want to be able to feel. A guy like that seems like a good match for an INTP or other serious thinking girl, because he could initiate things emotionally for her while she does what she does best and takes care of logistics.

I still think to make a girl feel like a girl, the guy should allways make the first move though.



I theorize that in the end we could all overcome these things by being more intouch with our own weaker traits. I do however think that we need others around us, others that contrast us, to help us grow into that more mature person we can be.

Good example. And that's a wonderful way to approach it, that's great management.

I like that. Honestly, that's a great way to approach it.

I am just curious, which side of that coin do you more relate to?