According to MBTI type indicator, based on Socionics, men are almost 3 times more likely to have a rational personality type than women. Also, if you look at the data, you’ll see that women dominate men in the feeling category.
If you disagree, then why? If you agree, then what ramifications do you believe this has for Feminism’s striving for equality between the sexes? Does this explain why men tend to gravitate towards higher paying STEM jobs, while women tend to prefer lower-paying, nurturing roles, or is culture still more at blame for this?
Placing people on a scale of thinking-feeling doesn’t mean that men are 3x as rational (which granted isn’t what you say) - while I don’t doubt that this might be correct (that the personality type is more thinking than feeling) - there are plenty of things that men do that aren’t very rational.
Granted I have no stats to back this up, but I’m guessing that men are:
More likely to drag race
More likely to gamble away their live savings
More likely to collect human skin
More likely to get into a physical fight
More likely to invest in a pyramid scheme
More likely to be a conspiracy nut
A rational man would decline to answer the question in a public forum, as stereotypically feelings-based females could misconstrue the study as offensive and hurtful.
Yes, I didn’t say it, so I’m wondering why you bothered to mentioned it. According to the theory and data; It is implied that men would be about 3 times more likely to be more rational thinking than women; Not three times more rational than women.
Most of the activities you mention may, or may not be, rational depending on the thought process behind them; Not the desired or end results. There is nothing inherently irrational about wanting to be in a fight, and doing it. Rationalizing is a thought process, not an assessment of activities. Lists like these aren’t very useful.
Considering that MBTI type indicators are themselves not solidly supported, especially any links to rational thinking, the underpinning of the argument may itself be suspect.
Astrology is also “evidence based reasoning”. There’s a difference between reasoning based on evidence and actual science, which often prefers testable hypotheses from which to draw conclusions rather than drawing conclusions from a few correlations.
It does become more difficult to detect the woo when the company who makes money from the tests only submits the iffy papers to one known friendly Journal. (Journal of Psychological Type) which with “Type” in its name should set off the woo alerts.
Science or woo, it has nothing to do with why some types of jobs pay well and others don’t. In a differently-powered society (cannot believe I just typed that), jobs which required compassion and empathy and cared for the weak would be high-ranking, highly compensated jobs, and stuff with machines and numbers would be the kind of thing only people who sadly could not be trusted with important work would do.
If we take for a moment the assertion as true, it does not help us to form an argument about *why *it is true. It only says *that *it is true.
Since the answer to most “why are people like this or that?” questions tends to be *both *nature and nurture, or biology and environment, it is rational to assume the same for this one, until evidence is presented to the contrary.
Certainly I’ve lived 40 years of life in this culture watching little boys praised, encouraged, and taught in rational thought, and little girls praised, encouraged and taught to be nurturers (and, rationality check - since when does nurturing preclude rationality?) and discouraged from pursuing higher education in math, science (with the exception of child development and nursing) and formal logic. So I’m not prepared to let culture off the hook quite yet.
I work in a STEM field. My analytical skills come in handy with my work, but I’m going to admit to something: A lot of what I does comes from the gut. I look at a problem and tackle it with the first idea that feels “right”. If that doesn’t work, I try something else. Only after I’ve had success do I take the time to rationalize my thought processes.
It is frustrating sometimes being unable to verbalize my reasoning. I can tell a person that their analysis is faulty, but I often struggle with explaining why since the “why” isn’t consciously accessible to me.
So I don’t think analytical-mindedness is diametrically opposed to emotional thinking. Knowing that someone is analytical doesn’t predict how empathic or intuitive they are–not any more than knowing how fast a person runs predicts how well they can score a basket in basketball.
That said, I have no problem accepting the possibility that men and women are wired differently. But we need both analytical and emotional thinkers in all arenas. You can be an effective computer programmer and be fully in touch with your emotions. You can be an effective elementary school teacher and be a linear, concrete thinker.
There is no such thing as a scientifically valid psychological test since results are open to binary interpretations (ex. either you’re an introvert or an extrovert). What I want to know is how you would explain the large discrepancy between men and women’s results other than concluding MBTI results are describing a difference between how men and women typically think.
The mechanism Astrology proposes in which stars govern human behavior is not observable or even mentioned, and most predictions demonstrate false. Socionics does propose natural explanations like blood flow to different parts of the brain, and brain waves measured on an ECG. Maybe evidence-based reasoning was a vague description, but I was countering the description that it was “woo”. It seemed appropriate.
That society probably wouldn’t be a free-market society in which the demand of companies sought to meet the supply of workers. STEM jobs require an advanced education just to be able to participate. Nurturing jobs typically don’t require that much of an investment.
Given the differing nature of male/female reproductive realities it behooves men, as a whole, to pursue risky/gambling behavior that can appear irrational and crazy on a personal level. This is why so many men end up in prison, injured in accidents or stunts while showing off (hold my beer), die in war, gangs, etc., or take wild leaps of speculation and hope it pans out, like adventuring/sailing/exploring new lands, trading, etc. But instead of rational/irrational it’s more like risk seeking vs. risk averse.
One thing men are wedded to is protecting their status in front of others with violence. If you go down the street insulting people’s mothers or calling them homosexuals with your favorite colorful slang it’s a given most of the fights will be with men. That’s how you end up with dudes killing each other because one of them stepped on the other guy’s expensive sneakers. On a macro genetic game theory way that might be rational, but it seems kinda nuts to me.
If by more rational you mean better at math, well, that’s probable, at least at the tail end (that’s been discussed enough, I think it’s common knowledge by now). But would you say everyone better at math than you is more rational than you? Do mathematicians lead more rational lives than the rest of us?
I clicked on your link. I see two tables filled with percentages and letters that I don’t recognize as meaning anything. Is there any explanation for what the letters in the tables mean?
Who exactly decided what a “rational personality type” is? (I have a hunch that it was a man, or a group of men.)
I am open to considering the possibility that there are inherent differences in male and female brain structure that explain why women are less likely to pursue careers in tech fields. I consider it disgraceful that Larry Summers was forced out of his job at Harvard merely for suggesting research into this area. But I haven’t actually seen any solid research that establishes this. A vast amount of “scientific” investigation on personality types has turned out to be garbage in the past, so anyone who makes claims like this has a high bar to clear.
