# Are Men Generally More Rational than Women? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623 "2014-12-08T01:02:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/21 "2014-12-08T04:55:58Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Do mathematicians lead more rational lives than the rest of us? Yes, but only one day at a time. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/22 "2014-12-08T04:57:47Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > 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). This is false in 2 ways. First, there are many well-validated psychological measures. Secondly, many (most?) generate other than dichotomous results. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/23 "2014-12-08T05:14:44Z")
So many more men than women have won the Darwin Award they have [a page discussing it.](http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules.testosterone.html) ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/24 "2014-12-08T05:35:47Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > 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. Well, a different thinking process, according to Socionics, would only allow for one primary explanation; Nature. According to Socionists; Personality is largely inborn and genetically determined. Early development couldn’t entirely be ruled out, though. This still wouldn’t assume a static potential difference between men and women. Sexual selection could determine that certain types would be more prevalent in the sexes because they happen to be more favored due to cultural values (i.e a feeling woman may be more attractive due to our culture valuing nurturing women). Personality traits could more often be passed down by gender. Obviously this all just speculation. > [@](#): > > 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. What would you explain is the reason for men scoring 10-25 percent higher in the thinking, opposed to feeling, category across 30 different countries with several different cultures after taking the MBTI? [http://www.myersbriggs.org/more-about-personality-type/international-use/multicultural-use-of-the-mbti.htm](http://www.myersbriggs.org/more-about-personality-type/international-use/multicultural-use-of-the-mbti.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/25 "2014-12-08T05:37:07Z")
The OP links to what appears to be the results of a Myers Briggs Personality test. The Master [has covered this](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2922/does-the-myers-briggs-personality-assessment-really-tell-you-anything). > [@John\_Mace](#): > > First, convince me that this stuff is actual science, and not woo. It’s not quite woo, but I wouldn’t call it science either. We can translate the OP as, “Why do men and women answer differently in this linked questionnaire?” Except there was no questionnaire that was linked to, only a summary measure without a methodological description. Wiki seems to think that there are better psychological metrics: [Myers–Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator) A reporter at Vox writes [this sour article](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5881947/myers-briggs-personality-test-meaningless): “Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless”. This breakdown by gender, suggests that male and female samples differ most along the “Feeling” scale. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/](http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/) The test is a series of yes or no questions. [Assuming it’s something like this](http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp), I’ll rephrase things this way: why do men and women often answer the following questions differently (assuming they do)? You trust reason rather than feelings YES NO You easily empathize with the concerns of other people YES NO You are strongly touched by stories about people’s troubles YES NO ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/26 "2014-12-08T06:09:10Z")
The Briggs Myers chart has several personality types, from which you get several permutations based on Extrovert/ Introvert, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, Judging/Perceiving. None of which are defined as rational or irrational. Perhaps you would like to present some information/citations/hell anything to justify the correlation between a ISTJ an ISFH ( your cite which shows men having a larger ISTJ % and women falling into the ISFH category) and any commonly accepted definition of rational (bad attempts at math jokes not withstanding) . The Myers Briggs website doesn’t seam to refer to any one type of personality being rational or irrational so could you tell us which buckets of ISTJ,ISNT ,FCKT,WTHISIDK groups fall into rational and irrational, and why? Just to help you out , from your Mriggs Byers citation the difference between the men and women largest population is in the T/F ie thinking/feeling area. In case you were equating feeling vs thinking with irrational/rational you might like to read your own source material and see here > **[The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Thinking or Feeling](https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.htm)** > > The Myers & Briggs Foundation - - Thinking or Feeling Then check with a definition of rational “having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense:” And thus you will see that having a feeling approach to something can also be entity rational, as the words mean different things. So it can’t be the T/F thing, equating thinking vs feeling = not thinking, therefore not thinking = irrational would be silly, and not logical, based on the source citations you provided, so what is it? Do you have some personal opinions about a group of people , that you wish to justify through some sketchy pseudoscience , that you would like to share with us? Group me with the people who think the TMIB thing is more of a gage of how someone views themselves, at the time they took the test. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/27 "2014-12-08T06:14:17Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > 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. There is actually a rational thought function in Socionics that describes this behavior. According to Socionics; Some rational thinkers prefer using intuition. Intuition is a form of thinking that unconsciously relies on an internal model of past experiences to solve a problem. It “knows” without knowing why, and people relying primarily on this thinking function struggle to explain their reasoning, and why their solutions are correct. > [@](#): > > 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. Socionics wouldn’t say it’s diametrically opposed either. > [@](#): > > 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. I agree in general. A programmer in touch with his emotions is a well-balanced individual who will probably be able to relate to his co-workers, and work better in a team, but it’s most important that he be able to perform the primary function of his job, and that requires rational thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/28 "2014-12-08T06:19:16Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > 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 wouldn’t say everyone better at math is more rational than me. Personalities attempt to describe preferences; Not ability. Someone who doesn’t primarily rely on rational thinking functions may still be really good at using them; They just prefer not to. ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/29 "2014-12-08T06:27:30Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > What is “socionics”? I could direct you to the Wikipedia page , however the first line is “This article has multiple issues.” so it may not be worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/30 "2014-12-08T06:36:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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? Basically, any type that has an NT in it is considered a rational thinker. N stands for intuition, as opposed to sensing, and T stands for thinking, as opposed to feeling. Here’s an explanation from Wikipedia: Sensation – all perceptions by means of the sense organs Intuition – perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious events Thinking (in socionics, logic) – interpretation of information based on whether it is correct or incorrect Feeling (in socionics, ethics) – interpretation of information based on its ethical aspects > **[Socionics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics)** > > In psychology and sociology, socionics is a pseudoscientific theory of information processing and personality types. It incorporates Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.\[citation needed\] > In contrast to the generally accepted views in personality psychology on age-related variability of the human psyche, socionics distinguishes 16 psychophysiological types (sociotypes) which it claims go unchanged throughout a person's life. The existe... > [@](#): > > Who exactly decided what a “rational personality type” is? (I have a hunch that it was a man, or a group of men.) Nope, MBTI was developed by a woman named Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers. Regardless, even if men did decide what the type is; None of them ever forced a women to achieve a certain result on the test. > [@](#): > > 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. Well, you probably wont ever see much research into it because of incidents like the one you mentioned. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/31 "2014-12-08T06:55:31Z")
Is this even a rational question? ---
**Author:** ![Precambrianmollusc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/precambrianmollusc/32/63_2.png) [@Precambrianmollusc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Precambrianmollusc)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/33 "2014-12-08T07:07:48Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Basically, any type that has an NT in it is considered a rational thinker. N stands for intuition, as opposed to sensing, and T stands for thinking, as opposed to feeling. > > Here’s an explanation from Wikipedia: > > Sensation – all perceptions by means of the sense organs > Intuition – perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious events > Thinking (in socionics, logic) – interpretation of information based on whether it is correct or incorrect > Feeling (in socionics, ethics) – interpretation of information based on its ethical aspects > > [Socionics - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics) Who said any type with an NT in it is rational? I think you are confusing your Jungian Thinking/Feeling with the Briggs Myers Thinking vs Feeling Jung had the four types as intuition, sensation, feeling, and thinking. The Feeling and thinking are both given as rational or deciding functions, the intuition and sensation as irrational or perceiving. MBTI uses thinking / feeling in a different way, neither of which can be considered rational or irrational. The wiki on scionics seam to indicate they take the Jungian point of view , so why are you using MBTI data which uses rational/irrational in a different way to what a more colloquial useage might be to prove a Jungian point? MBTI does not reference rational/irrational. Given you pointed us to MBTI data, can you please point to which buckets of ITSF etc fall into the rational/irrational types, maybe with some meaningful definition of rational or irrational that we can tie the MBTI definitions of ISTJEtc etc to. Once we have that we could look at the conclusion you draw from the assertion that ISBlah bla = irrational Another point of caution is that Jung used his types in dealing with people with significant mental health issues ( considered at the time). MBTI is mostly helpful in determining who will be best at (can be suckered into) organizing the leaving card/new baby flowers and who will absolutely insist on which crap restaurant to go to for lunch and will be unhappy with any other choice and therefore is best avoided at lunchtime food discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/34 "2014-12-08T08:10:44Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Do mathematicians lead more rational lives than the rest of us? More complex and transcendent too, I imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Contemporary\_Logic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b38774/32.png) [@Contemporary\_Logic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contemporary_Logic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/35 "2014-12-08T10:56:12Z")
> [@Precambrianmollusc](#): > > Who said any type with an NT in it is rational? > > I think you are confusing your Jungian Thinking/Feeling with the Briggs Myers Thinking vs Feeling. Jung had the four types as intuition, sensation, feeling, and thinking. The Feeling and thinking are both given as rational or deciding functions, the intuition and sensation as irrational or perceiving. No, I’m not confusing them. The Thinking/Feeling and Intuition/Sensing have the same meaning as they do in MBTI code. You’re confusing the functions with the code. Socionics uses the 4 functions you mentioned (8 actually since they can all be introverted or extroverted functions) and forms a 4 letter code. MBTI uses this exact same code. > [@](#): > > MBTI uses thinking / feeling in a different way, neither of which can be considered rational or irrational. No it doesn’t; It uses it in the exact same way. Functions like emotions are, by definition, irrational and how much the personality has a preference for rational thinking will depend on the dominance of a given function. > [@](#): > > The wiki on scionics seam to indicate they take the Jungian point of view , so why are you using MBTI data which uses rational/irrational in a different way to what a more colloquial useage might be to prove a Jungian point? MBTI does not reference rational/irrational. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here ☹ I was explaining what the NT codes meant in a type to a poster; I was not making an argument. MBTI most certainly references 4 personality types as being primarily rational thinkers. > **[Keirsey Temperament Sorter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_temperament)** > > The Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS) is a self-assessed personality questionnaire. It was first introduced in the book Please Understand Me. The KTS is closely associated with the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI); however, there are significant practical and theoretical differences between the two personality questionnaires and their associated different descriptions. > David Keirsey became familiar with the work of Ernst Kretschmer and William Sheldon after WWII in the late 1940s. Keirsey deve... > [@](#): > > Given you pointed us to MBTI data, can you please point to which buckets of ITSF etc fall into the rational/irrational types, maybe with some meaningful definition of rational or irrational that we can tie the MBTI definitions of ISTJEtc etc to. > Once we have that we could look at the conclusion you draw from the assertion that ISBlah bla = irrational INTP ENTP INTJ ENTJ > [@](#): > > Another point of caution is that Jung used his types in dealing with people with significant mental health issues ( considered at the time). MBTI is mostly helpful in determining who will be best at (can be suckered into) organizing the leaving card/new baby flowers and who will absolutely insist on which crap restaurant to go to for lunch and will be unhappy with any other choice and therefore is best avoided at lunchtime food discussions. More people than Jung have contributed to the theory, and his version of it takes nothing away from the current theory in the same way that Darwin’s ideas should not be discussed when talking about the modern Theory of Evolution. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/36 "2014-12-08T15:56:15Z")
I think men and women can both be extremely irrational, just about different subjects. And each gender sees how irrational the other gender is on those subjects, while failing to see the proverbial planks in their own eyes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/37 "2014-12-08T16:03:54Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > It’s not quite woo, but I wouldn’t call it science either. I actually meant that to NOT be so explicitly binary, so my bad. What I should have said was: On the woo \<—\> science scale of 0 \<—\> 10, where does this lie? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/38 "2014-12-08T16:16:23Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > Well, a different thinking process, according to Socionics, would only allow for one primary explanation; Nature. According to Socionists; Personality is largely inborn and genetically determined. Then they are simply incorrect, according to what we know from other scientific research. Personality is present at birth, I agree. But I don’t agree that “rationality”, as commonly defined (the quality of making conclusions based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings), is part of innate personality. That’s taught. > [@](#): > > Early development couldn’t entirely be ruled out, though. Exactly. Nurture alters brain development, as well as altering epigenetic expression of inherited traits. Until we have a significant sample size from cultures which treat their boys and girls in exactly the same way - and we don’t, because they don’t exist - then we cannot know how much of an influence cultural factors are having on them. You say not much. I say quite a bit. We simply don’t have objective data enough to resolve this disagreement in a rational way. ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/39 "2014-12-08T16:27:09Z")
> [@Contemporary\_Logic](#): > > 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. Yep, it wouldn’t be a free-market society, I agree there. Indeed, being the deeply pessimistic person that I am, I don’t believe it is possible at all, given the nature of humans, especially but not only male humans. I don’t believe that a society in which compassion, empathy, and nurturing are high values is within the human repertoire. But hey, it’s a cloudy morning and I haven’t had my caffeine yet. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/40 "2014-12-10T05:40:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I actually meant that to NOT be so explicitly binary, so my bad. What I should have said was: On the woo \<—\> science scale of 0 \<—\> 10, where does this lie? You can get a good sense of MB from the Cecil column. I’d call it 1950s psychology. It has no real empirical grounding and is based on outdated theories (ie/eg Karl Jung). It’s a diverting parlor game though. Where would you place [surrealist automatism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealist_automatism) or lawn darts on your scale? I see from wiki that Socionics is a thing in countries of the former Soviet Union. I can sort of understand how they might want to use personality surveys for career placement. I don’t know the quality of their empirical work though. I will observe that without market wage data, measuring career outcomes in Soviet times may have proven challenging. I am unaware of any peer reviewed literature in Socionics that is available in English, though this is unsurprising as I first learned of the term in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623/41 "2014-12-10T17:18:51Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > This breakdown by gender, suggests that male and female samples differ most along the “Feeling” scale. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/](http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/) The test is a series of yes or no questions. [Assuming it’s something like this](http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp), I’ll rephrase things this way: why do men and women often answer the following questions differently (assuming they do)? > > You trust reason rather than feelings > YES NO > > You easily empathize with the concerns of other people > YES NO > > You are strongly touched by stories about people’s troubles > YES NO Right, in the link, people are categorized as more rational or feeling based on the Myers Briggs test. It’d be one thing if it was based on brain scans and seeing if the parts of the brains associated with logic or emotions lit up more in men or women. Or if simulations were done where the subjects had to work together or solve problems and the researchers could see that men were more likely to solve the problem this way using more rational approaches, and women were more likely to do it this other way based on emotional approaches. But when you’re answering questions about yourself, it’s much more subjective. Men know that they are supposed to be more rational and less emotional, so they answer that Yes they trust reason more than feelings. Women are raised to be more emotional and nurturing to others, so they answer No to trusting reason more, but Yes to being touched by other people’s troubles. WhyNot’s post goes into this as well. I’d like to see also people better defining what they mean by acting rational. I’m sure I can find instances of men being praised as rational thinkers, and women doing the exact same things and being called emotional. You can’t separate culture and biology. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-men-generally-more-rational-than-women/706623.md?page=3)